U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Will Texas Vote Democrat In Any Of The Next 5 Presidential Elections?
Yes 36 46.15%
No 27 34.62%
No Way To Tell 12 15.38%
Who Cares. 3 3.85%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 08-25-2009, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,308 posts, read 1,992,101 times
Reputation: 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post
So much for the "Blood for Oil" Bush conspiracy of yesteryear eh?
Or better yet, maybe the Bush regime had overestimated our ability to get into Iraq and get out quickly after installing a government favorable to American corporations. As you see, that didn't exactly happen, and well... you can't extract oil cheaply when you have to hire armed guards to monitor the pumps and transportation infrastructure. Mission accomplished, indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 08-25-2009, 07:08 AM
 
26 posts, read 40,272 times
Reputation: 32
With in the imcompetence of the present administration and the damage caused to this great country by the total control of government by the Democratic party, it is my opinion that the words Liberal and Democrat will cause Texans to throw up for 20-25 years. We will look back at this period as the Dark Ages of American politics!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-25-2009, 12:15 PM
 
8,650 posts, read 8,352,152 times
Reputation: 5532
Texas voted for Bob Dole when traditional red states like Arizona and Louisiana voted for Bill Clinton. That's your answer right there. If they couldn't vote for a Southern President from Arkansas who was arguably the most popular President since FDR, there is no way they will vote for a Democrat. And everything is relative. Yeah, Texas is becoming more liberal but relative to its extreme conservative stance that already existed, that means little.

My question is why would you want Texas to become a Democratic state. Texas is leading the country with regard to many policies. They have done many things well. The Texas AMA disagreed with the stance of the national AMA on healthcare. They have no state income tax. They have tort reform. Why in the world would you want Texas to be a Democratic state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-25-2009, 12:26 PM
 
8,650 posts, read 8,352,152 times
Reputation: 5532
Quote:
Originally Posted by theloneranger View Post
Lucky for the world that the GOP is, if anything, more worthless. They don't even TRY to do anything--even if the Dems don't pass their agenda, at least they are actually making a conscious effort to better the country.

If EVERYONE in Congress keeps screwing up, there may be a large anti-incumbent movement, which would help turn Texas blue.

Also, note that Texans under 30 supported Obama in larger numbers than McCain. The Texans who in the next 10-20 years will come to run the state are simply not as conservative as the present generation is.
Oh please, the liberal wing of the Democratic party are threatening to kill any health care plan that didn't include a public option even if it included other reforms. The Republicans are trying to get health care passed but they don't want to socialize it with a public option. The Democrats are willing to resort to shady means by resorting to Reconcilliation, a budgetary movement to avoid having to get a 60-40 fillibuster proof majority knowing they can't get a 60 majority any longer since some Democratic senators will not support it. I guarantee the Democrats will play dirty and force that through but guess what, that's going to kill them in the next election and a lot of Democrats will lose seats as a result; the polls confirm that.

And as Nita well put it, too much is being placed on the last election. There was as much a dissatisfaction with Bush and his policies and McCain was seen as an extension of those policies. A lot of traditional Red states like North Carolina voted for Obama. It doesn't mean they are suddently a Blue state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-25-2009, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
11,717 posts, read 11,444,862 times
Reputation: 4483
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTheKid View Post
Or better yet, maybe the Bush regime had overestimated our ability to get into Iraq and get out quickly after installing a government favorable to American corporations. As you see, that didn't exactly happen, and well... you can't extract oil cheaply when you have to hire armed guards to monitor the pumps and transportation infrastructure. Mission accomplished, indeed.
In the history of the world, I don't think any one country (United States) has completely taken over another country (Iraq) as quickly & swiftly as we did. We ousted a devilish dictator who tortured & murdered his own people, chopped them up in human blenders. We had 39 other countries on our side (minus France of course) who fought side by side our US troops against enemy combatants.

This was clearly not a war about oil, but rather a war on terror against a leader who was pro-terror & anti-American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-25-2009, 01:43 PM
 
8,650 posts, read 8,352,152 times
Reputation: 5532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post

This was clearly not a war about oil, but rather a war on terror against a leader who was pro-terror & anti-American.
Why didn't we send a 100,000 troop force to Sudan. There were far more heinous human atrocities committed there versus Iraq. Unlike Iraq, there was national genocide occuring in Sudan in which hundreds of people a day were being slaughtered like cattle by militant groups.

If it was about protecting the United States against a potential terrosits threat, why didn't we invade North Korea when there was clear evidence of nuclear weapons development there. We sat there and let North Korea do as they like. All we did was place sanctions on them.

It was obviously about oil. Let's not kid ourselves. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia. We obviously wanted to take over their oil reserves so that we wouldn't have to rely upon OPEC and the Saudis.

I'm a Republican and not left wing zealot either but let's stop the b.s. and pretend the Iraq war not about oil. Even you know it was about oil. Nonetheless, I'm confident our future Republican President whether that be Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindal will not be stupid enough to engage in unnecessary wars and will instead focus on improving our economy, cut taxes and reduce spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-25-2009, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,308 posts, read 1,992,101 times
Reputation: 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post
This was clearly not a war about oil, but rather a war on terror against a leader who was pro-terror & anti-American.
Er...

Saddam never supported terrorists. Never. And prior to that one little time where we stopped supporting him after he invaded a country that had even more favorable trade status with us, he was staunchly pro-American. Whether the war was initiated just for oil I can't say, but I feel it's more than safe and reasonable to say we didn't go into Iraq for either humanitarian or security reasons. There are plenty of evil despots the world over who harbor terrorists who we don't even flinch at. So don't bring that line of BS.

And for the record, we may have ousted Saddam quickly, but it's hardly the quickest on record in human history, and the jury's still out on the whole "taken over another country" thing. Besides, even if you had bought that "Mission Accomplished" line (and lord help you if you did), it still didn't happen as fast as the Bush administration leaders thought it would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-26-2009, 06:54 AM
 
Location: A Nomadic Texan
3,690 posts, read 1,449,671 times
Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTheKid View Post
Er...

Saddam never supported terrorists. Never. And prior to that one little time where we stopped supporting him after he invaded a country that had even more favorable trade status with us, he was staunchly pro-American. Whether the war was initiated just for oil I can't say, but I feel it's more than safe and reasonable to say we didn't go into Iraq for either humanitarian or security reasons. There are plenty of evil despots the world over who harbor terrorists who we don't even flinch at. So don't bring that line of BS.

And for the record, we may have ousted Saddam quickly, but it's hardly the quickest on record in human history, and the jury's still out on the whole "taken over another country" thing. Besides, even if you had bought that "Mission Accomplished" line (and lord help you if you did), it still didn't happen as fast as the Bush administration leaders thought it would.
Incorrect: Saddam had a well-known program in which he would give $25,000 to each Palestinian family who had a child volunteer for suicide-bombing. This program started in the mid-1990's and lasted until he was dethroned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-26-2009, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,308 posts, read 1,992,101 times
Reputation: 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82 View Post
Incorrect: Saddam had a well-known program in which he would give $25,000 to each Palestinian family who had a child volunteer for suicide-bombing. This program started in the mid-1990's and lasted until he was dethroned.
Let me rephrase to make it clearer then: Saddam never supported anti-American terrorism. He was most assuredly opposed to Israel though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-26-2009, 08:41 AM
 
Location: A Nomadic Texan
3,690 posts, read 1,449,671 times
Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTheKid View Post
Let me rephrase to make it clearer then: Saddam never supported anti-American terrorism. He was most assuredly opposed to Israel though.
Now that is correct. Having been to Kuwait and seen what they think of us & how they treat other people, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have even bothered in the first gulf war. Kuwait didn't deserve the world coming to their aid. But oil/money talks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top