| Posted: 08 Mar 2007 23:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 7
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
|
Reagan ( one of our greatesr presidents), passed the largest tax increas in Ca. history and the most liberal abortion law in the country. Not much of a conservative,but a great Republican. It was funny listening to liberals say Kerry was a war hero and should be elected over Busch because of that. But Dole, who was a true war hero, wasn't deserving of the presidency. To me the word democrat is synonymous with hypocrite.
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2007 23:49 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
You must have been listening to Rush today because somebody on there I heard them say something about Reagan raising taxes in California so therefore we should give the new guys a chance. Something to that effect.
__________________
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2007 23:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 7
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
|
Your right, I was listening to Rush. His point was, that no one is perfect, and reagan was not as conservative as people think, and yet one of the greatest Republican presidents. The left will twist anything to their advantage.Their lust for power is unbelievable. They have said to the world that we are a bunch of fat lazy cowards. From the begining of the war, they have said ,"all they had to do was hang on and spill American blood and we would turn tail and run". The Democrats have shown them to be right. I'll leave you with a slogan I wrote 25yrs. ago. I'd like to see it made into a bumper sticker. It goes like this. The democrat party of the United States, is the greatest threat to freedom the world has ever known, and the only thing that stands between them and total world domination, is the Republican party of the United States. I really believe that. I think we are on the same page, and I respect you opinion. Besides anyone who wears a mask and costume , is right up my alley. talk to you latter...MIKE
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2007 07:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
If Republicans are so correct and Democrats so evil then why:
*Was Bush wrong on the WMD's?
*Wrong about the troop levels?
*Wrong about being greeted as liberators?
*Wrong about the last throes of the insurgency?
*Wrong about Rumsfeld's competency?
*And they STILL have not caught OBL!
Are you really better off today than you were 7 years ago? C'mon man, the facts are the facts.
I mean, to hear you talking, you'd think things would be great after 4 years of the republicans getting ANYTHING they wanted and yet:
*The economy has gone haywire.
*The middle class is shrinking.
*Congressional spending was out of control (being reigned in some this session)
*The national debt has gone from a surplus to a deficit. Does this look like intelligent fiscal policy to you?
*We're more beholden to OPEC than ever
*We're in a war even Republicans say we can't win
*The Taliban has reemerged in Afghanistan
*Iran is becoming a Middle Eastern hegemony
And THAT sir, is why W has a consistently 30% approval rating. The American people are not stooges and they just kicked out a VERY corrupt Congress.
Somehow Bush is FINALLY doing what the D's have said he should for months:
*Rice is talking to Iran and Syria
*Bush went right back to Clinton's strategy with N. Korea after antagonizing them for no reason. Magically, he got results.
Mike, FDR was borderline socialist in his policies- VERY economically liberal by today's standards and the guy is a big reason you're not listening to Rush in German. Thanks, but no thanks for "protecting us from the evil liberals". I am VERY proud of most of the Democratic leadership we've had over the past century.
Now we need some leadership in DC from EITHER party that will clean up the hideous mess that resulted after 1 party rule across all three branches of government.
I am not totally anti-republican- I think they are good for curbing the D's when they are out of control, but the GOP has done little good since Ike.
The proof is in the pudding. America is not happy. So stop calling the D's monsters and start advocating some good leadership out of either group. It takes a balance of ideals to keep America on the right track.
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2007 08:10 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
By the way, I don't have a problem with Bob Dole per se, but Clinton was simply a better pick in '96. Why not? Things were great. Operation Deliberate Force had just been successful in Bosnia, Congress and Clinton had worked together to pass welfare reform, and the economy was skyrocketing.
The R's blew it for Dole when they tried to shut down the government and the country said "do your job, you boobs."
As for Kerry, say what you will about his service in Vietnam; he WAS THERE. Whatever his wounds were- being shot at is no small thing.
A guy from my old high school was recently shot in Iraq, but his life was saved by his body armor. You know what? I absolutely loathe the bastard. He's generally a huge jerk and has been since we were kids. But I would NEVER discount his service to our country. He was there and he was shot at. Does he deserve to be honored for that? You bet, no matter what I think of him. I am actually proud of the guy for the job he's doing (also verified by friends in that platoon), so he obviously is more than just what I think of him personally.
Kerry deserves the same respect from you, no matter what you think of him- he WAS in Vietnam. That was not a decision people made lightly and many young men of his generation DID NOT risk their lives going there. The guys on his boat said Kerry served honorably as did the President. That is good enough for you.
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2007 22:28 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok, but you know what here's the deal...
I'm staying out of this one.
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2007 22:33 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Oh wait a minute I do have one thing to say, Go Fred Thompson! Yay!
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2007 23:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Unfortunately I'm really short on time these days, so I can't keep up on the board like I used to. Hopefully, we can just state the facts and agree that we need both parties to be responsible stewards of our great nation.
Who am I kidding? Its never that easy.
|
| Posted: 12 Mar 2007 01:14 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Go Fred.
__________________
|
| Posted: 13 Mar 2007 02:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 7
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
Neither party has some inherited right to exist. I would like to see the democrat party cease to exist, and be replaced with another party, that doesn't have a lust for power,as it's only reason to exist. #1 Was Busch wrong? No, He did what had to be done with the INT. he was given. The same conclusion Clinton came to. Hillary even said she confirmed the need to remove Sadam independantly of Busch.Also, it was not totaly Busch's decision. Clinton intstituded the policy of regime change in Iraq, #2 Troop Levels... No, he missread the ability of the left American to resist the propagandizing of their leadership. The president actyally thought the whole country would pull together to win . He miscalculated how far the democrat leaders would go to regain power. #3 greeted as liberators. You say you suport the soldiers. Well all the soldiers I hear say they are greeted as liberators, they are amazed and disapointed when they see american news reports. I believe the troops.
#4 Last throes of Insurgency...Busch said in his original speech, that this war would take more than a decade and more than one presidency to win. But he thought the American people had the will to win Our enemies thought we didn't ,The democrats are making OBL's dreams come true. #5 Rummy......I don't agreewith your implication.He did a good job and history will agree.#6 OBL.... A lot of people aren't caught yet,even here in the Us. #7 Better off.... HELL YES. I lost my ass under that fake econemy of Clintons If you think the econemy is haywire, your delusional. We have the strongest econemy in our history,and the lowest unemployment ever. Yes the middle class is shrinking, because they are moving to the upper class.... I'll give you congresional spending....The Deficit.... Gore promised to cut the deficit in half in 6yrs. Busch did it in 2...... Only cowardly republicans say we can't win and of course the Taliban OBL and the Democrats. I guess you all just see things the same way. Resurgence of the Taliban... What do you expect with their own cheerleading team in congress now... In FDR's day Democrats weren't spineless. As for Kerry, he sickened during VN. and he still sickens me. Now I've said my piece, and thats it ..MIKE
|
| Posted: 13 Mar 2007 14:55 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I agree economy good, terrorists bad, but I'm still mad at Bush over those poor border agents, and that Deputy Sheriff being prosecuted and left to rot.
I won't forgive him till he pardons them or gives a legitimate reason for them being left in prison for doing their job. I want to see lefty liberals and conservative Republicans forget about their differences and get on this obvious injustice. We need to raise a big enough stink that cannot be ignored. Just think what these men's families are going through. Their own government is punishing them for doing basically what they were supposed to do.
__________________
|
| Posted: 13 Mar 2007 19:43 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 7
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
|
I'm calling the White House about it right now. The # (in case you want it) is 202 456 1111 or 202 456 1414 everybody start calling....MIKE
|
| Posted: 13 Mar 2007 20:15 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Thanks, I signed the petition. http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp?RID=9200895 calling works too probably even better.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2007 07:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
"Neither party has some inherited right to exist. I would like to see the democrat party cease to exist, and be replaced with another party, that doesn't have a lust for power,as it's only reason to exist."
By the way, that's Democratic party. They take that very seriously.
Lust for power? How are they "lusting for power" any more than the Republicans? The Republicans fought like hell to stay in the game, they just weren't invited back in 2006 by a majority of Americans. That isn't lust, its an election.
"#1 Was Busch wrong? No, He did what had to be done with the INT. he was given." First of all, the President of the United States spells his name as Bush. Busch is sort of a last resort beer. I'm not sure if that is supposed to be a joke.
Secondly, he did apparently have the right intelligence, then ruined the careers of people who debunked that intelligence. Scooter Libby was just convicted of lying about his role in that operation.
Colin Powell told Bush not to go into Iraq, so did plenty of people who protested what they knew would become a quagmire. I'm no rocket scientist and I said over an over again that this very thing would happen. So did Barack Obama and various others. It wasn't my lust for power that convinced me Iraq was a horrible idea, it was the repeated lies about how dangerous they were from people that should have known better!!!
You don't need perfect intelligence to know Iraq wasn't a threat, you need International Relations 105, taught in the freshman year of any political science program in the country. Saddam had no capacity for delivery of a bomb. He wasn't a terrorist and had no reason to take up that profession. Iraq wasn't dangerous, as it had obviously sat idle for ten years. Before that, it was controlled completely by US, specifically the Reagan administration.
So I don't buy the "poor innocent W, he didn't know any better" routine. Clearly, someone like Condoleeza Rice- who had a poli sci degree, knew Iraq wasn't dangerous but couldn't or wouldn't convince W of that. She was there with the rest of them, scaring people into a pointless costly FUBAR cluster ^%$@#. Now, we're all going to pay for it as the cost of this war will likely top a trillion dollars (seriously) and it would have been easier to simply mail every Iraqi man, woman an child a check if we wanted their friendship. Also, we wouldn't have lost countless lives on either side and screwed up our position in the Middle East even more. An intelligence question? Bush didn't even realize the history of the Sunnis and Shiites in that country! He wasn't concerned with intelligence.
"The same conclusion Clinton came to. Hillary even said she confirmed the need to remove Sadam independantly of Busch." Hillary Clinton was playing politics on the war. Because of that, I will only vote for her as an alternative to a bigger fool. As for Bill Clinton, he has repeatedly stated that he would have let the weapons inspections continue. He waged 3 successful wars in the 90's with little trouble (operations in Bosnia, Kosavo and Iraq) so W should have asked him how to get it right.
"Also, it was not totaly Busch's decision. Clinton intstituded the policy of regime change in Iraq,"
Incorrect. First of all, the difference between what Bill Clinton does and what Bill Clinton says should be familiar to you. Regime change is one thing. Did he invade and occupy the country? No, he's smarter than that. Secondly, the war plan for Iraq was updated right after 9/11 as requested by Bush. This is found in Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward (originally very complimentary of Bush).
"#2 Troop Levels... No, he missread the ability of the left American to resist the propagandizing of their leadership."
BS. That has nothing to do with it and is an outright lie. Generals have been saying we didn't have enough troops since the beginning of the insurgency. Secondly, he just forced a surge in troops without the approval of the ENTIRE American public. Colin Powell (not exactly a leftist dove) said the army is broken because we don't have enough people to carry out operations fitting the task.
"The president actyally thought the whole country would pull together to win . He miscalculated how far the democrat leaders would go to regain power." How would the country act differently to change the situation in Iraq? We just sent more troops without the will of the people. Apparently what the people think doesn't matter to this President. For another example, check out Tim's border patrol story.
"#3 greeted as liberators. You say you suport the soldiers." Yeah, I do. You'd better not be saying I don't.
"Well all the soldiers I hear say they are greeted as liberators, they are amazed and disapointed when they see american news reports. I believe the troops." Thats funny, I hear that opinion, but I also hear the opinion from plenty of troops who say this is a fool's errand. What NEITHER of us are hearing is the opinion of troops killed by Iraqis. They were not greeted as liberators. Besides, there is this from the Washington Post:
"In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post. Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country." That was in September of last year. I doubt the Iraqis have changed their minds.
"#4 Last throes of Insurgency...Busch said in his original speech, that this war would take more than a decade and more than one presidency to win." Which war? the War on Terror? (Which by the way is ALSO an incredibly bad choice of words). Cheney said we were in the last throes of the insurgency a couple (geez, maybe 3) of years ago. Well?
This war has lasted longer than the American involvement in WWII. Why isn't it working?
Besides, the Global War on Terror and War in Iraq are not the same thing. Going into Iraq hasn't helped us stop another 9/11 AT ALL. First of all, since no Iraqis were on those planes or otherwise involved- we need to be elsewhere in the world in greater numbers, specifically Afghanistan. Secondly, other 9/11 style attacks have cost us our allies in Iraq- Spain and the UK- and those attacks weren't deterred by Iraq, they were carried out BECAUSE of Iraq. We are making the problem worse by getting in tangled in the region. Iran was actually helpful, pre-Iraq. Now they're dangerous. Why was our President so STUPID?!!
"But he thought the American people had the will to win Our enemies thought we didn't ,The democrats are making OBL's dreams come true." WHAT? If you mean by voting to give the President the right to wage war in Iraq, then yeah- they did help Bin Laden that way. Have you ever read what Bin Laden says? He's stoked we're in Iraq! He wanted us involved in a war that would rile up every Muslim against us and we gave it to him. Seriously, read what he has said about Iraq, he cannot believe we played into his plans like that.Here is one example.
"#5 Rummy......I don't agreewith your implication.He did a good job and history will agree." Well, right now he looks like a man so incompetent that he was fired and we STILL keep finding out about his terrible management problems. Abu Garib? Walter Reed? What DID this guy do right? Let me know when history agrees.
"#6 OBL.... A lot of people aren't caught yet,even here in the Us. " But NONE of those people are as important to catch as Osama Bin Laden. If we're in Iraq, then we aren't using our full power to look for him.
"#7 Better off.... HELL YES. I lost my ass under that fake econemy of Clintons" Bill Clinton didn't ask you to invest in Pets.com. People have gone broke under the best of presidents or economies. Everyone lost their ass after 9/11 chief, it was a recession with an obvious reason for people to want to conserve and save.
Besides, if you want to talk about a fake economy, start with the man who used to campaign in an Enron jet. Our economy now is a war economy, largely propped up by Halliburton employing a lot of people for Iraq and providing a lot of services the military would otherwise be doing. Unfortunately this noble company has chosen to demonstrate its patriotism by moving to DuBai, where it will no longer pay taxes. It sure enjoyed our tax money while it was here though.
How is the economy not haywire? It was all over the map for the past two weeks. It is totally dependent on oil prices (ie: Iran). I have some friends working in investment counseling and they report a haywire economy.
That is not to say however, that the economy is all bad. I'll say this for Bush, he appointed a pretty good chairman in Ben Bernake. Bernake by the way, disavows supply side economics and seeks to keep interest rates low- which is the antithesis of what Reagan tried.
"Yes the middle class is shrinking, because they are moving to the upper class...." Again, this is incorrect. Look here from the US Census. And here from a conservative paper. From USA today. One more.
"I'll give you congresional spending....The Deficit.... Gore promised to cut the deficit in half in 6yrs. Busch did it in 2......"
You're going to have to supply me with some figures and sources on this. We had a surplus, not a deficit, when Gore was elected President. Furthermore, Bush has blown money like no liberal could ever dream of doing. Please explain to the class what we will get from Iraq when this whole thing is finished, to make it worth our investment of tax payer money and the lives of our sons and daughters.
"Only cowardly republicans say we can't win and of course the Taliban OBL and the Democrats. I guess you all just see things the same way. Resurgence of the Taliban... What do you expect with their own cheerleading team in congress now... In FDR's day Democrats weren't spineless."
How have the Democrats affected ANYTHING in Afghanistan yet? How are the democrats in cahoots with the Taliban and Bin Laden? That's pretty insulting. You guys have been running this war since it started. If it isn't going well, you have only yourselves to blame. The Democrats have had no control over anything for the better part of this decade. If you don't like the results, it is clear who to blame.
"As for Kerry, he sickened during VN. and he still sickens me."
Well, he went to Vietnam and was shot at there for his country. George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam and he certainly could have. Does W sicken you?
As I was writing this reply, new reports are coming in regarding a new scandal over Alberto Gonzales firing any prosecutor he thought might disagree with the Bush administration. You're right, no party has a right to exist. Fortunately though, Americans go back and forth in allegiances between parties for a reason- one can check the other when it gets out of control. Prepare to be checked.
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2007 15:00 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
A lot of stuff there, but just for the sake of argument and to be fair I don't think you mentioned a couple of things that need to be added to the equation of Iraq.
First we have to consider the leadership of the Democrat party has no real ideas on getting out as a whole. There might be stuff in the mix of all their saying you agree with, but there isn't any real leadership from the party as a whole. Just take that news conference the other day when they were supposed to be stating their proposed time tables to leave. They had us leaving in 2 different decades, and 3 or 4 different years, and didn't even know what they were calling their plan.
That made them look like rejects from a 3 stooges short. It was sad and hilarious at the same time. Even the media thought they were on drugs.
Having said that I still cannot say what I think the perfect plan for Iraq would be at this point. Bush makes me mad because of his lack of compassion and justice for the border agents so I don't trust him anymore.
But I still see that the idea of taking out Sodamm Insane was a good idea. I think I might have tried some alternative plans on securing the area at that point, but I'm not there at the white house so I can't say my ideas would be any better.
We need leaders with common sense and decency. That's why I think Fred Thompson would make a great President. He's a tell like it is kind of guy which would be a refreshing change from all these hidden agendas and meanings of most of our leaders speeches today including both the Democrat leadership and Bush at the moment who is afraid to stand up to lefty liberals but has no problem arresting protectors of our border. I'm sick of political correctness and people watering down their views for votes. I know tack is important, but the truth wins out in the end over bull crap anyday.
And that goes for probably 80 percent of everybody else running too on both sides. McCain, Hillary, and the lot of them are full of it. Only Hillary is full of it more in my opinion by about 50 percent.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2007 18:43 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Check this out guys Fred Thompson I learned a lot of interesting things about him. I think he's got a great resume for Prez especially personality wise. He's a common sense kind of guy we need.
Interesting note, I got his autograph back when he was senator. He actually came to our tiny town, but that's not the reason I want him to win as President just in case you were thinking that.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2007 20:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Tim, I respectfully disagree with a lack of ideas on the part of all Democrats. A very good plan was put forth by Joe Biden back in May. Too bad that between born with his foot and his mouth and having some very unfortunate hair plugs, Biden could never be President. He has a lot of good ideas. I'll take Obama as the next best thing.
Concerning the Democrats, you're right- the leadership seems to be spinning its tires. I'm no Pelosi fan either. That doesn't mean however, that they are total morons. They're trying to take on a sphinx like riddle- how do we get SOMETHING good out of the mess that is Iraq? I have studied the Iraq problem extensively and I don't think FDR and Lincoln could make it fly at this point.
But something similar should be tried. My hope is that some of the moderate Democrats with sound ideas and experience in these matters will step forward to work with Republicans who have similar credentials. I would like to see John Warner, Jim Webb, Jack Murtha, John McCain, Joe Biden and Colin Powell leading the charge to get the best answer. Thats as close to Lincoln and FDR as we will get right now.
Personally, I thought the bi-partisan plan put forth by the Baker commission was a good first step, even though I didn't agree with much of it. As it was half D, half R it had the best chance of getting everyone on the same page. Unfortunately it was ignored.
As far as Fred Thompson, I don't know much about the guy. I will try to research a bit.
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2007 20:25 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Check out the link on Fred Thompson for starters. It was informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2007 20:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
i will also add one more point. I did try to move some very heavy furniture with a group made up exclusively of Democrats a few years ago. It was cold, it was raining and we did not have exactly an all star cast of furniture movers.
Instead we had a wide range within the democratic party. There was me, two girls, two skinny nerdy guys, a fat nerdy guy, a flamboyant gay guy and an ex republican know it all. Ethnicities were white, black and Asian.
Now were the folks in this group all overachievers who could expect to break 100K each int their lifetime? Yes, if so they chose. Were they honest, kind people who give back to their communities? Yes, without exception. Did they want to work together to get the furnitre moved before we all froze to death? Absolutely.
But WHY then was this the most nightmarish furniture moving scenario to which I have ever borne witness?
Because thats just the democrats for ya. The furniture was moved with justice and efficiency foremost on everyone's mind, but really- it WAS just about moving furniture. Furthermore- no two people had the same plan.
Now, I'm not saying that the D's are lost forever, but I can tell you what the problem is- we are too diverse to get along and most of them are serious thinkers. In many ways its wonderful, but when it comes to nailing down a task and completing it- it is like herding cats.
Republicans often suffer when they live by Reagan's Law "thall shalt not speak ill of another Republican", however- it does put them on the same page. My traditional prob with the D's is that they need at least a little of that to succeed. We didn't have any big, quiet, no nonsense, get the job done guys to just heave that junk on the truck. That's why the D's have such a hard time.
|
| Posted: 15 Mar 2007 03:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Just found out my buddy the big democrat just said he'd go for Fred Thompson for President.
As far as what's wrong with Democrats party wise, I don't know I only know I disagree with liberalism. I don't care if you call yourself democrat, independent, or republican it's what you believe and what you do that matters in the end.
Thing is we republicans have been dishonest with ourselves claiming Bush as a conservative. He's not and never was. He just has some conservativism weaved into I'd say half of his policies, I guess. The other half make up some of the things that most of us hate the most from liberalism like spending money like it grows on trees for entitlements and putting political correctness above individual liberty.
Now I think republicans and democrats are starting to all dislike Bush only for different reasons. Although I think the republicans aren't going to hate Bush with that crazy killer seething anger some of the libs have shown. I think there should be some respect for the man, but I just wish we picked somebody else to start out with.
If he would just explain to my satifaction what the deal is with the border agents, and do something about it. I'd probably regain some respect for the man, but otherwise I'm not going to just let party politics manipulate me like a mind numbed robot. Right is right and wrong is wrong and that's all there is to it.
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Mar 2007 05:04 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
But the thing is Tim, that wasting money isn't one of the basic tenants of liberalism, it something nobody wants. As AMERICANS we all generally want the same stuff. Nobody wants money wasted, and I don't think any of us mind making a collective investment in something truly worthwhile every so often.
I'm sure we will have our different reasons for disliking Bush. I'll be the first to admit that I never can shut up anyway and W gets me seeing red and screaming curses every time. But I think even if you don't agree with me on why, you might understand where I've been coming from: angry that justice wasn't being served.
And you are right, it is what a person believes and definitely what they do that matters, regardless of the label.
|
| Posted: 22 Mar 2007 15:26 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
So click here http://www.gopusa.com/activist/petitions/petition.php?petition=07 ... and tell good old Fred Thompson to run.
__________________
|
| Posted: 24 Mar 2007 09:00 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
What are his policies, particularly on Iraq?
|
| Posted: 24 Mar 2007 20:28 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'm just assuming here that like most politicians it would be that we can't just up and leave, however based on his character and common sense I would think he could actually handle the situation in a way where fewer lives are lost, and something gets done.
At this point I'm of the mind it's not that being in Iraq is bad, it's just that we need better strategy like allowing our troops to go after people that shoot at them. Common sense goes a long way. Heck if our guys were allowed to do their job a long time ago, we might not be even talking about Iraq except for talking about how well things are going.
__________________
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 01:15 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
How do you mean "do their jobs?"
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 15:32 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I mean is our troops weren't allowed to go all out fighting. It's my understand they were told not to retaliate fire at some points and to only go after certain groups or something like that. It's been a while but this came out a while back after one of Bush's speeches I believe when he was asking for the surge or maybe before that.
__________________
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 16:02 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I've never heard or seen anything about that. I think this is somehow a confusion or comparison between Vietnam and the Iraq War. If anything, our problems in Iraq seem to stem from never knowing who to attack and being forced to patrol until something bad happens. Fighting house to house, however, is hardly holding back.
That is not to say there haven't been some serious missteps in political leadership. Not sending enough troops in the first place got the war off on the wrong foot. We never could secure the borders- which was crucial, especially if you look at where Iraq is on a map.
Since our military has bases to maintain all over the world, we never really could spare everyone for what it takes for nation building- especially in the Middle East where everything is more complicated. A better choice simply would have been to listen to experienced military men like Colin Powell, and keep the pressure on Afghanistan. It is hard to believe that between Powell and Rumsfeld, Bush couldn't tell who was the expert on military matters.
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 23:05 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1826
Join Date: May 2007
|
GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 
|
|
|
