George (Slick) Allen

[Bart]

The story about George Allen is getting more ridiculous by the day. He calls an opponent's minority campaign worker a macaca ( monkey ) and in a trick slicker than any Houdini ever performed, is coming out of the situation as a victim and new champion for tolerance. He has been heralded as the next presidential candidate for the GOP. He should do very well. He has the resume and new found pedigree which should catapult him to the top. What a slippery character. And I thought Clinton was Slick?!


"And I've been a leader for fighting against anti-Semitism and intolerance, but now it's personal," he told CNN

Edited by: Bart

 

[Triad]

I saw him interview with Russert few Sundays ago. He came off as a weasel. His democratic opponent looked to be more conservative.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

His democratic opponent looked to be more conservative.

In today's political climate, I don't doubt that for a second.

 

[sport historian]

His opponent is James Webb, former Navy Secretary under Reagan,noted author, and Navy Cross holder. Webb decided to run as a Democrat because of Bush's war policies. His most recent book is a non-fiction work on the Scotch-Irish. Webb is indeed probably more conservative than Allen, who is similar to George W. Bush.

 

[cslewis1]

I live in Virginia, and have for many years except for a 5 year excursion to Arizona.
When I got out of the Amry in 92 I campaigned very hard for Pat Buchanan in his battle against Pres. Bush #1. I truly believed in what he said at the Republican convention about a cultural war and i still do. Buchanan has been the only one with the guts to stand against unchecked immigration for a long time now.

But that was all for nothing, as Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote and then set into place incredible affirmative action programs, wanted to regulate, European style, the ownership of firearms, put in judges that are way, way left wing. Watched as his henchman murdered all those innocent children in Waco. I believe George the First was in power when the murders at Ruby Ridge happened, but Clinton did nothing to prosecute those perps either.


I wish I could support Jim Webb because I truly believe he's got the balls to stand up for ethnic whites in ways no Republican dares too-due to the media onslaught they'd face. But here's the problem with Webb, he's still a Democrat. And you can rail on and on about George W and about George Allen and the corporatist GOP, but what are you then going to replace them with? Charlie Rangel of Harlem, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco? The Senate would then be voting with the desires of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. And the list goes on and on and on, and it's quite frightening.

How in the world will those people help our side? The day of the ethnic, Southern Democrat are long, long gone. THey want MORE illegals because they know it's a huge untapped voting block. The Dems will enact more welfare, more gun control, more affirmative action, more taxation. A lot of them even want repriations for slavery!!!

Finally, I will say, the cultural conservatives in the GOP are getting their voices heard. Notice the recent vote in favor of the wall on our Southern Border. Would the Dems even bring that up to vote without some amendment giving amnesty to the 20 million illegals here? Absolutely not.

The Bush Administration also signed onto language that explicitly endorsed the second amendment guarantee allowing private individuals to own firearms. Just read the language of the previous Adminsistration in regards to the same. You'd be a criminal right now if those guys won.

So as a Virginia voter, that's my take. If Webb were running anywhere else, I'd probably even send him money.

Trust me, the Bush Administration has pissed me off in many, many ways(campaign finance reform???- what the hell was that?)but the facts are, the liberals in the Democratic party who would assume power are even scarier. Be nice to have a Nationalist third party to support. But it won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[Bart]

How can anyone believe George Allen is not slippery? Seriously, does he think his constituents are stupid? I'd have some respect for a pol who said, " Yeah I called thatguy a monkey, but hey I was really ticked off and felt like ripping him."


[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_el_se/virginia_sen ate[/url]


Last month Allen's use of the word "macaca" in referring to a Webb campaign volunteer of Indian descent caused an outcry. The word is considered an ethnic slur in some cultures, but Allen said he did not know that and had simply made up the word.

 

[cslewis1]

Hey Bart, I agree with you there about him being slipperty. Unfortunately his opponent is just as bad but the media hasn't played it up because their cause numero uno is to take out Allen.

 

[White Shogun]

Sometimes its just a case of 'bad' vs 'worst.'

I voted for GW against Kerry, and despite the war in Iraq and everything else, I'd still vote for him over Kerry today, given only those two to choose from. You can vote Libertarian but most of those guys are open border advocates, too. At least GW lowered our taxes instead of raising them and signed a law that supports the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I vote in the Democratic primaries here to try and support the least-liberal candidate, but it usually doesn't do any good.

 

[White Shogun]

Charles Krauthammer: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Tuesday, Sep. 26, 2006

STRANGE DOINGS in Virginia. George Allen, former governor, one-term senator, son of a famous football coach and in the midst of a heated battle for re-election, has just been outed as a Jew. An odd turn of events, given the fact that his having Jewish origins has nothing to do with anything in the campaign and that Allen himself was oblivious to the fact until his 83-year-old mother revealed to him last month the secret she had kept concealed for 60 years.

Everyone's a Jew til proven otherwise

 

[Don Wassall]

Be nice to have a Nationalist third party to support. But it won't happen in my lifetime.

It won't happen because Americans will continue voting for the "lesser of two evils" until the country is utterly destroyed.


Found this quote the other day from an article that states it well: "Third party candidates who, if elected, might change the course of our nation are shunned because they can't win and they can't win because they are shunned."


If the Democrats had followed the policies of the neo-con Bush regime the past six years -- massive outsourcing of jobs,continued Third World invasion, the open borders police state, torture, wars of aggression, amazing corruption, lying, and just plain incompetencealong withcountless other neo-con plunderings -- "conservative" Republicans would be screaming "treason," "traitor" and every other epithet they could think of. Loyalty to the perpetual two-party system, which is in reality a one-party system with two wings, is the cause of our demise. Even Mexico has more far more political choice than Americans do.


Entire article quoted from above: http://etherzone.com/2006/cron092506.shtml

 

[cslewis1]

Don, basically I agree with you about the hypocrisy. I remember fully a soldier named New who wouldn't serve under the UN and us on the right supported him. Now, we've got 12000 Americans serving under the NATO command and not a peep from my side.

But it hasn't been liberal democrats raise the flag about teh invasion from Mexico, it's been conservative Republicans. We have a voice with what's in there now. If it were Hillary or Kerry or Al Gore, we'd be in the cold, mumbling to ourselves.

And I think you missed the chief source of anger I have with the GOP, I disagree with the corruption argument as that's both sides, and outsourcing too, however the GOP is supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism, yet they are spending MORE than the Dems! IT's insane! And ultimately it will be that issue that breaks me from them.

 

[bigunreal]

Huey Long defined the Democrats and Republicans as Tweedledee and Tweedledum a long time ago. Actually, in those days (1930s), there was a bit more difference between the parties than there is today. There are a few independent minded congressmen (Ron Paul immediately springs to mind), but except for that handful, all congressional representatives agree totally on all issues of real significance. They all subscribe to a "bipartisan" foreign policy. The sheeple hear this phrase repeated ad nausuem by the talking heads on t.v., without a thought as to what it means. It means essentially that there is an agreement between the two "competing" parties not to debate our foreign policy. All national Republicrat figures are against immigration reduction or reform, against tax reform, against "protectionism," against all "conspiracy theories," in favor of every military intervention undertaken by our country during the past century, in favor of affirmative action and other special rules and laws to help black people and in favor of the skewered corporate world which has allowed a tiny portion of Americans to control the vast majority of real wealth in this country. They also are very vocal about their support for police officers, our soldiers, education and "the children." In reality, most campaigns between the two identical parties are built around largely meaningless issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school and prescription drugs for senior citizens. As Don mentioned earlier, there are few if any countries in this world that have fewer electoral choices than we do.

 

[White Shogun]

In reality, most campaigns between the two identical parties are built around largely meaningless issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school...

A majority of Americans don't see those issues as meaningless at all, although I personally see your point, in comparison to issues like border security.

There are a number of Republicans in the House who are against illegal immigration. Cf. recent House votes on the Border Security Bill.

I realize though that I'm probably splitting hairs. I don't think there is much difference between the Dems and 'Pubs, either.

 

[Don Wassall]

In reality, most campaigns between the two identical parties are built around largely meaningless issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school...

A majority of Americans don't see those issues as meaningless at all, although I personally see your point, in comparison to issues like border security.

They're not meaningless, but you'd think that after pretty much 40 years of Republican Party control of the fedgov, it might begin to sink in that the GOP is never going to do more than pay lip service to those issues. The only reason abortion, anti-Christianism and homosexuality are an entrenched part of the system is precisely because the Republicans have never truly stood against them.


And yes there are a few good Republicans opposing the Mexican invasion and our disgusting neo-con foreign policy, but most opposition on these and other vitalissues has been mobilized by patriotic forces, which usually are independent or otherwise not GOP loyalists. The GOP exists to provide a "safety valve" for true conservatives and to otherwise co-opt anti-globalist, patriotic forces.

 

[Bronk]

God bless you cslewis, I, too was a Buchanan Brigader.

I also remember reading a terrific novel about 25 years ago about the Vietnam War called Fields of Fire written by James Webb.Edited by: Bronk

 

[Realgeorge]

George Allen's dad, the great Redskins' coach, stuck with his white players through hell and high water. Their loyalty was so strong that eight of them left the fancy LA Rams for the losing franchise in Washington. His son is a pale imitation of "Ice Cream", the great George Allen. Virginia is cursed with a cavalcade of Pinkos in both major parties

 

[Triad]

In reality, most campaigns between the two identical parties are built around largely meaningless issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school...

A majority of Americans don't see those issues as meaningless at all, although I personally see your point, in comparison to issues like border security.

I think we see examples every day on this site where the majority of Americans aren't very smart.

Don, I agree with all of your above posts. The party I spent most of my life supporting is worthless. They have a few renegades that make the rounds on the news shows spouting their conservative views on immigration, abortion, etc. but the majority do nothing but support this White House. Does anyone think the past 6 years under Bush were any better for our country racially, or socially, or militarily, or fiscally, or morally than the previous 8 under Clinton?

 

[KG2422]

If most people are not very bright then do most here believe in democracy? It seems that democracy is a bad idea if it relies on the votes of stupid people. I am unsure on the matter. I think New Zealand has the best form of democracy in the world today with proportional representation.

 

[Triad]

The caste system in sports is only possible with the vast majority of not smart sports fans who continue to support the system.

I believe the US was originally designed as a constitutional republic. In order to vote one had to own land, pay taxes, and other productive things. Now you don't really need anything to vote and you certainly don't have to be productive.

Most states don't have voter ID laws because they're considered racist; there are movements to return the voting rights of convicted felons in the works. Illegals, individuals that don't pay taxes and only receive government assistance, and even dead people manage to vote in our elections now.

There are many quotes from historical figures much smarter than I on the dangers and shortcomings of a true democracy. Edited by: Triad

 

[BonnieBlue]

A constitutional republic is based on the rule of law, not the whims of the majority. The question then becomes, who should make the law and what should it be based on? For quite some time the answer was fairly clear; no longer.

 

[sport historian]

Yesterday, I saw where the Rasmussen poll had James Webb ahead of George Allen by 48-46%. When an incumbent falls behind a week before an election, he usually doesn't recover.

Allen has pitched his campaign in recent weeks on attacking Webb's past statements critical of women in combat. I an article in 1979, Webb wrote, "I know the men in US Army and Marine infantry companies, and I have never met a woman who could command them." Webb has been distancing himself from that since he ws Navy Secretary, but (until becoming a candidate) he was still critical of leftist assaults on the military culture.

Allen's attacks on rough passages in Webb's novels make Allen look like a prissy Boston Bluestocking. This seems to be dropping Senator Allen in the polls. It's revealing that the "Conservative Republican" George Allen feels that he has to campaign as a hard-line feminist.

 

[White Shogun]

..look like a prissy Boston Bluestocking.

Count me in. If thinking this kind of stuff is sick, vile, and disgusting makes me a prissy Boston Bluestocking, so be it. I'll wear the label proudly.

 

[sport historian]

The only books by Webb I have read are Fields Of Fire and the non-fiction book Born Fighting. Passages such as above are not to my taste, but Webb was describing the world he has seen. Born Fighting could have been written by Roger McGrath, who gave it a very favorable review in Chronicles.

You should read James Jones's From Here To Eternity and The Thin Red Line. The plot in the first book featured a US Army Company First Sergeant sleeping with his Company Commander's wife. The second had one of the characters find out at book's end that his wife had left him for another man while he was fighting on Guadalcanal.

 

[White Shogun]

So in his novels Webb is describing the world he has seen? He actually saw a man do this? Is placing your son's penis in your mouth the custom in SE Asia? Like bowing in Japan? I hadn't heard that one yet.

Adultery is one thing, but incest and pedophilia are on a whole other level of sick.

Hey, Webb may be a better senator than Allen, who knows? But I don't think I can defend that kind of fiction no matter how stellar a politician he may be.

p.s. Criticizing Webb's novel is not necessarily an endorsement of George Allen.

 

[sport historian]

Just what I was saying. What goes on in real life (where we have enough problems) is more important than a novel.