in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Disgruntled Dems are considering challenge to Lieberman
He’s not anti-war, so he must go:
WASHINGTON — Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be some Republicans’ idea of a good Democrat, but a growing number of fellow party members in his home state couldn’t disagree more.
“It’s at the point where he’s no longer interested in his own party’s opinion, he’s really out of touch with reality,” said Mitchell Fuchs, chairman of the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee in Connecticut. “For me, he’s crossed the line a number of times.”
Passions flared after Lieberman’s recent trip to Iraq. Upon his return, the three-term senator pointed to what he views as progress on the ground there and suggested that Democrats should avoid harsh criticisms of President Bush’s Iraq policy.
In turn, Republicans and administration officials, including Bush, used the senator’s comments to bolster their case for war and underscore Lieberman’s differences with other Democratic leaders on the issue. Republicans have since charged that Democrats lack a coherent, unified message on Iraq.
The series of events has sparked petitions and protests outside of Lieberman’s district office in Hartford and prompted a potential challenge from a former and formidable political foe.
In an interview with FOXNews.com, former U.S. senator and Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker said he will challenge Lieberman in 2006 if no credible anti-war Democrat or independent jumps into the race first.
“I’m not going to let [Lieberman] get a free pass on this. And that’s what’s going to happen if no one steps up to bat,” said Weicker, who as a Republican lost his Senate seat to Lieberman in 1988. In 1990, Weicker went on to become governor, elected as an independent.
Weicker, 74, said he would run for Senate against Lieberman as an independent, not a Democrat. He said he has been against the war in Iraq “from the onset,” and doesn’t take lightly the notion of coming out of retirement to challenge the incumbent.
I can see see the chant now: “Joe, Joe, he must go, now that he’s become a foe!”
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Another stunning example of just why the Democratic party is the party of diversity and inclusion.
Hey, we have to put with idiot RINOs, can’t the Dems tolerate a DINO or two? Obviously not.
Ol’Joe has PO’d the petty and vindictive wing of his party, so he’s got to go. Can’t have someone who bases their opinions on facts messing up the party defeatist line.
My first hand observation of CT Democrats having lived in CT for 6 years.
The Democrats are Socialistic, if not Marxist. They want to live like the rich Democrats like Kennedy, Paul Newman, and the monied snobs in Greenwich and, oops brain fart. Can’t remember the name of the town Newman and other stars live in along the “Gold Coast” of CT.
These Democrats don’t believe that laws apply to them.
In short, they are spoiled brats with rich families. Those that aren’t from rich families think they should get everything they want from the government.
The Democratic Party is evolving into the party for Peace. They will allow the Republicans to be the War Party. Mr. Lieberman is a warmonger and his place is in the Republican Party. Welcome to him. Peace
steve, are you really this foolish in real life?
It’s not just that he’s pro-war, it’s that he slams the Democrats every chance he gets and sucks up to the Bush administration. Of course, you only believe that Republicans should have party loyalty, that Democrats should sell out their party every chance they get. You like Lieberman so much, you can have him. He’s no Democrat.
Joe Lieberman, like all elected officials, must represent the people of his district to their liking or risk getting voted out of office. If his war views don’t mesh with those of his constituency, then he needs to move on to national job, such as a Bush cabinet position.
Zen and Adam,
Joe Lieberman is a Democrat party man, if not a bag man. He kept former Gov. Bill “Gov. Who?” O’Neill from going to jail for vote fraud in the late 80′s. In reward for his service of being a Democrat first and the CT Atty. General second, the Democrats got him his US Senate seat.
Steve, all kidding aside, are you on drugs? Seriously.
I ask you AGAIN Steve, if you are anti-war, do you believe the U.S. involvement in WW I, WW II, Korea, and for that matter the U.S. Revolutionary war was wrong? Since war is never the answer, how do you deal with the Hitlers of the world. The Chamberlin way? Is that your answer? Appeasement?
How do you deal with the Afghanistans of the world? Do you think we were correct in invading Afghanistan after they attacked us? Please, Steve, enlighten us.
Steve yo dude I truly despise the G.O.P. but you can’t be serious bro. The old cliche ” A picture is worth a thousand words” couldn’t be illustrated better then the smiles on the faces of the Iraqi people when they went to vote. It is simply the truth.
Steve wrote, “The Democratic Party is evolving into the party for Peace. They will allow the Republicans to be the War Party. Mr. Lieberman is a warmonger and his place is in the Republican Party.
Seems Steve is more interested in calling names… Republicans/conservatives are more interested in peace Steve and liberals/Democrats are interested in seeing a blood bath (which is what would happen if we pulled out immediately).
Interestingly, when I mentioned to you that Orlando Florida armed and trained 1500 women and publicized it and rape declined 87% the next year for all women in Orlando, I told you that the way to peace is strength. Evil exists and will stand down in the face of strength. I asked if you were for rape or against rape and if you were for those women getting armed or against them getting armed. You’ve talked about the U.S. disamring unilaterally and you just think that the rest of the world will follow by our example.
My contention is this Steve.
You are not looking at the results of policy. You are simply disagreeing with the policy and then labeling people for war or for peace. You have it BACKWARDS. If you were for peace or for no rape or for civilized people living in relative peace you would change WHICH policies you were for or against. I believe that arming and training those women in Orlando and publicizing it was a brilliant move. It led to the result of more peace. I believe removing Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistand were good moves. It led to democracy’s (representative republics like ours). The people living in democracy’s are interested in peace and freedom generally. They aren’t interested in seeing their demise. As Iraq becomes prosperous and not a threat to neighbors, neighboring countries will see what living without a dictator can be like. Are you against peace and freedom spreading or are you for it? I would label you as the person interested in seeing a bloodbath.
Steve is interested in seeing a bloodbath.
Steve is interested in seeing a bloodbath.
Steve is interested in seeing a bloodbath.
If I just keep repeating that (like your tactic of calling people warmongerers) maybe that’ll communicate on the level of your choosing? Because I believe Steve is interested in seeing a bloodbath.
His siding with the credit card companies on the bankruptcy bill is enough for me to toss him.
Tommy wrote, “I truly despise the G.O.P.
Noooo. Tell us how you really feel!
BTW Tommy, The GOP is to the left of center (I’m a centrist/conservative so they are to the left of me). The only thing the GOP is to the right of center on is the fact that they cut taxes for all income tax payers.
Sorry to go off topic. To get back on topic, I’d say that Lieberman has a chance of losing because his state isn’t “red”. It’s not even really “purple”. It’s blue. But hopefully, it’s redder than we know. …
Democrats are the party of peace?
We know that Slick Willie Clinton proved that it was the party where he could get a piece.
Lieberman’s a Democrat? Who knew?
But seriously, I’ll give the guy credit for speaking his mind even though he’s far too cozy with the Bush administration in my opinion and a lot of his positions alienate those of us who are to the left of him on many critical issues.
Steve Democrat Presidents have started or gotten us involved with more of the Wars in the last 100 years than Republican Presidents. If this is evolution it is backwards. Look at the last 15 years. Desert Storm 1 Repub, Somalia Dem, Sudan, Iraq and Afganistan attacked by a Dem, War in Kosovo Dem, Afganistan again Repub, and lastly Iraq Repub. Seems to me for your evolution is long in coming Steve.
Zen-less You obviously have not read the papers lately. Republicans are far from unified. Look at how many Repubs voted against the patriot act against the President’s desire. We will gladly take Lieberman, as we are not afraid of disention in the ranks. – Lorica
Andrew, Why? Are you a professional deadbeat? I just had to take a credit class. Just because you can’t walk away from the debts you run up so easily makes you mad at Lieberman? Where’s your responsibility to pay what you owe in life?
Hi, SisterToldjah:
Hi, steve:
Democrats have a crappy track record when it come to prosecuting wars. For the simple reason that they have no concept what the Military is for and about.
Their one exception is FDR. Who was wise enough to let the Generals run run their operatons in both theaters of WWII.
JFK got us into Vietnam. LBJ ruined any chances for success or victory by ham stringing the Genrals and directing campaigns from the Oval Office.
Nixon got us out with Linebacker II.
Carter was the best President Moscow ever had. Yet was a rank amateur compared to Bill Clinton.
Clinton thinks soldiers are armed social workers and raped their budgets for Pet Projects, Welfare and Set-Asides.
Which might explain why those in uniform despise Bill and his ilk.
Jack.
Personal responsibility escapes liberals.
steve: “The Democratic Party is evolving into the party for Peace. They will allow the Republicans to be the War Party. Mr. Lieberman is a warmonger and his place is in the Republican Party. Welcome to him. Peace ”
ST: Translation: “The Democratic party has evolved into the party of no war, no matter what. They will allow the Republicans to be the Defense Party. Mr. Lieberman is pro-defense and his place is in the Republican party.”
zen_less: “It’s not just that he’s pro-war, it’s that he slams the Democrats every chance he gets and sucks up to the Bush administration.”
ST: Oh? And just how many times during his tenure in the Senate has he “slammed the Democrats”? And since when is being pro-war “sucking up to Bush”?
zen_less: “Of course, you only believe that Republicans should have party loyalty, that Democrats should sell out their party every chance they get.”
ST: I do?
zen_less: “You like Lieberman so much, you can have him. He’s no Democrat.”
ST: So just because Lieberman is pro-Iraq war (which apparently means he ‘sucks up to Bush’) you’d kick him out of your party, even though he’s pretty solidly Democrat (or at the very least a moderate) on just about every other issue? Because Lieberman wants to see us win in Iraq, you want him out of your party?
Adam: “Joe Lieberman, like all elected officials, must represent the people of his district to their liking or risk getting voted out of office. If his war views don’t mesh with those of his constituency, then he needs to move on to national job, such as a Bush cabinet position.”
ST: It was my understanding that the people in his district have known since the last Iraq war that Lieberman was hawkish on Iraq. So his support for *this* Iraq war, and being on board with winning it, shouldn’t be new news to his constituency. Am I mistaken?
One difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans are looking for converts to recruit; Democrats are looking for heretics to banish.
Yeah, seems as though the liberal element of the democratic party has become more aware of the COST of the war
(though there are nearly no liberals in the armed forces) but are completely blinded to the Worth of this war..which is pretty obvious…boxing in Iran,
positioning ourselves closer to Syria..
Freeing millions of Iraqis, bringing actual honest to god rights to Kurds..
Seems to me if Lieberman is for this,
then its because he is smarter than most other Democrats.
Eric, you make some good points, but I’m not sure where this one came from:
“though there are nearly no liberals in the armed forces”
Now granted, I know that the majority in the military generally vote Republican, but to say there are ‘nearly no liberals’ in the military is quite a stretch.
“Andrew, Why? Are you a professional deadbeat? I just had to take a credit class. Just because you can’t walk away from the debts you run up so easily makes you mad at Lieberman? Where’s your responsibility to pay what you owe in life?”
I think its bad policy. I had a friend who ran up too much debt. Making bankruptcy harder wouldn’t prevent that. Making bankruptcy easier would prevent the credit card companies from giving him that debt.
It takes two sides to take on debt. Both have responsibility. Both face risks.
I also don’t like the practices of credit card companies with their minimum payments, variable APR’s and various fees that add up to increasing debt loads.
I take it you imagine there ought not to be bankruptcy at all?
Democrats have a crappy track record when it come to prosecuting wars.
I think this is the silliest, most absurd thing I’ve heard all day. And that’s saying a lot! If you think FDR wasn’t intimately involved in the running of America’s efforts in WWII then you are sadly misinformed. I note you didn’t make any mention of Harry Truman who dealt the final blows to the Japanese to bring the War in the Pacific to a close and fought the Chinese to a stalemate in Korea. Or Wilson who, along with the allied countries, was victorious in WWI.
This isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, a partisan issue. War is a messy, highly complicated business and mistakes will always be made; some more egregious than others. Now how and/or why you get yourself INTO a war… that’s a different matter.
Runner up silly thing: The fellow who asserted there are nearly no liberals in the armed forces. Yeah, well tell that to Paul Hackett, Tammy Duckworth (who had her legs blown off in Iraq) or any of the other “Fighting Dems” who are running for Congress. I think you’ll find that there a lot of liberals, along with Republicans and folks who just don’t really give a toss one way or the other in the military.
So, FDR and Truman did it “right” in WWII, what have the Dems done right wrt war lately? Not a terribly convincing argument. And if Truman hadn’t gotten cold feet Korea would have turned out differently. His inability to face down the Chinese led to our almost getting our butts kicked out of Korea, and he then allowed it to turn into the stalemate it is today. Korea is a quagmire of the Democrats making, we still have troops there! And we have a cease fire, not an end to the conflict, to this day.
On the issue of the Dems being out to get Lieberman, say, wasn’t Queen Pelosi just saying the other day that the lack of a unified position on Iraq was a big strong suit of the Dems? Guess this shows just how seriously we should take what she says eh?
Personal responsibility escapes liberals.
I love this one. Is there a Hall of Fame for gross over-generalizations? This one is a sure-fire winner. 49 million Americans have no sense of personal responsibility! Priceless.
“It was my understanding that the people in his district have known since the last Iraq war that Lieberman was hawkish on Iraq. So his support for *this* Iraq war, and being on board with winning it, shouldn’t be new news to his constituency. Am I mistaken?”
This would be true IF people and ideas didn’t change in time, didn’t evolve due to the changing environment. Look at the polls. Early in the war many supported it, now a majority do not. Lieberman isn’t evolving and even appears to be stubbornly repeating the opposition parties talking points in the face of a much changed environment (the same changes that led to a swing in the polls). So, then, he is very likely losing touch with the voters he represents. This is fine, but might well get you voted out and replaced with one who more closely represents the ideas of the constituency.
Andrew, you just want a free ride. You think that bankruptcy is a right when you are irresponsible. I don’t even think you have the slightest idea what was wrong that the legislation fixed.
People like you were runing up their debt with no intention of paying it back and using bankruptcy to escape. Now you have to wait a little longer between bankruptcy declarations, and you can’t run from debts. Also, credit companies now can use bankruptcies against you in denying you loans and credit.
“49 million Americans have no sense of personal responsibility! Priceless.”
Sad isn’t it? How do you think we can help them?
“This would be true IF people and ideas didn’t change in time, didn’t evolve due to the changing environment. Look at the polls. Early in the war many supported it, now a majority do not. Lieberman isn’t evolving and even appears to be stubbornly repeating the opposition parties talking points in the face of a much changed environment (the same changes that led to a swing in the polls). So, then, he is very likely losing touch with the voters he represents. This is fine, but might well get you voted out and replaced with one who more closely represents the ideas of the constituency.”
So what you’re saying is essentially that his constituency now favors a cut and run approach and should accordingly vote for someone who’s more in touch with that same philosophy in their party? Is it his constituency that feels this way or just the “Dems in the know” in the higher ups of the Democratic party?
Adam, why do you think we accept what liberal pundits say the so-called polls mean? The only polls that count are the ballot boxes around the country.
Now, if you like push-polls with slanted question, demographics that are skewed to get the result you want, fine, don’t expect us to accept your bilge.
A majority of Democrats is still a minority in this country. Don’t think we don’t know that when we dismiss you.
Red Tory wrote, “If you think FDR wasn’t intimately involved in the running of America’s efforts in WWII then you are sadly misinformed
Let’s just say then that FDR was intimately involved with the death of over 125 American dead soldiers per day. 22 days of WW2 gave us more dead than a couple of years in Iraq.
Red Tory wrote, “Now how and/or why you get yourself INTO a war
Yes. One of the reasons was due to faulty intelligence by every major intelligence agency in the world (not just the U.S.). But that was one reason. The policy of regime change has brought about a country free of a dictator and was supported by a majority of Senators who VOTED for the war. Do you want to change back time and implant Saddam back into power? Why do you liberals keep arguing about the past? Because faulty intelligence is ALL you’ve got.
Tory quibbles with generalizations (I thought we were over that – as it doesn’t mean all but enough to make the statement).
Personal responsibility escapes liberals.
Yes and here’s some examples:
1) Expecting that able-bodied people are given government daycare for thier kids, able bodied people are given unemployment benefits for who knows how long?
2) Able bodied people are asked to leave New Orleans and when they don’t they are allowed to loot and shoot at rescue workers and then call the government response all sorts of names due to people in a convention center weren’t given supplies – but the American Red Cross under FEMA tried multiple times to give supplies but were denied by the Louisiana Department of Health Services.
3) Able-bodied people writing things in blogs like Tommy, Tory and Steve without any feeling of personal responsibility. If you make an accusation without the factual basis then I’d say yes “no personal responsibility”. Do the due diligence and find out the facts before you assert false things.
“So what you’re saying is essentially that his constituency now favors a cut and run approach and should accordingly vote for someone who’s more in touch with that same philosophy in their party?”
This is your editorial comments and one that isn’t shared by most Americans at this time. You may feel that way, but the voters he represents may feel very differently. That is Democracy for you. You call it ‘cut and run’ I call it the will of the people.
“Adam, why do you think we accept what liberal pundits say the so-called polls mean…A majority of Democrats is still a minority in this country. Don’t think we don’t know that when we dismiss you.”
Yes, you can dismiss the polls and any differing opinions. Just close your eyes and ears and hum real loud and I bet you won’t hear anything to challenge the way you feel.
ST: “So what you’re saying is essentially that his constituency now favors a cut and run approach and should accordingly vote for someone who’s more in touch with that same philosophy in their party?”
Adam:” This is your editorial comments and one that isn’t shared by most Americans at this time.”
ST: http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?”
57% say keep in Iraq. You were saying again?
“Yes, you can dismiss the polls and any differing opinions. Just close your eyes and ears and hum real loud and I bet you won’t hear anything to challenge the way you feel.”
Adam, you do this so well. Lieberman does have something most Democrat politicians don’t have, character. There are times you have to ignore the loud mouthed miniority who only can scream their brains out and do what is right.
Adam, I really question Liberal Democrats’ ability to distinguish right from wrong. They start with lies as their mantra and demand taht everyone kowtow to it. BULL!
Not one of the liberals attempting to make a coherent point has mentioned that unlike Murtha, Pelosi and company, Lieberman has made three lengthy trips to Iraq. If you listened to his comments, they were based on his actual observations on the ground in that nation. Murtha’s comments were based on an alleged “poll” in Iraq wherein the “pollsters” will release no demographic information. Lieberman goes to Iraq, reports on what he sees, and morons like those on this thread say he is “sucking up” to Bush.
This is the reality of Pelosi’s “diversity of opinion” argument. Dissent in the Dem party and you are out!!!!! What an intellectually lacking political group.
“Adam, I really question Liberal Democrats’ ability to distinguish right from wrong.”
Wow, what a great way to debate. Nothing like just discrediting anything someone might say because differing opinions are too hard.
You were refuted Adam. Have personal responsibility and read the previous words and poll by ST. Your original claim was incorrect.
Severian,
I was merely addressing the assertion being made by another commenter that Democrats have a bad track record of prosecuting wars and pointing out that he was being highly selective in the examples he cited.
Did Truman get “cold feet” in Korea, or did he just come to the pragmatic realization that this was a war that by all conventional odds could not possibly be won and it was best therefore to settle with an uneasy compromise that minimized the loss of life and stopped the conflict from becoming endlessly protracted?
By the way, I never said that FDR and Truman did it “right” — I just said that they participated in the prosecution of those wars. That they came to a good conclusion isn’t necessarily to their credit, but it was a good thing. There were still plenty of mistakes in both conflicts that they were involved with.
Let’s just say then that FDR was intimately involved with the death of over 125 American dead soldiers per day. 22 days of WW2 gave us more dead than a couple of years in Iraq.
And your point? It’s really like comparing apples to oranges. (The premise was ridiculous in the first place and now you are just making it even more so.) You cannot compare WWII with the Iraq War. How long did it take to bowl over Saddam Hussein’s laughably pathetic army? A month… was it even that long? Not exactly like taking on Hitler’s Wehrmacht.
One of the reasons was due to faulty intelligence by every major intelligence agency in the world (not just the U.S.).
This is simply not true. It is now well known (apparently not to YOU) that there were serious disputes about the intelligence behind the scenes. For example, German intelligence warned the CIA that some of their sources such as “Curveball” were highly unreliable. There were also disputes within British intelligence about the veracity of the information that was being provided to the government and how it was being used.
But that was one reason. The policy of regime change has brought about a country free of a dictator and was supported by a majority of Senators who VOTED for the war.
Nice way to conflate two separate issues. No one is going to defend the regime of Saddam Hussein. But regime change and nation-building wasn’t what the Congress voted for.
Do you want to change back time and implant Saddam back into power? Why do you liberals keep arguing about the past? Because faulty intelligence is ALL you’ve got.
This is just silly. I know it’s an idea that Rush likes to trot out as being the logical extension of opposition to the war, but it’s just ridiculous. You can’t turn the clock back. What’s done is done — whether you agree with it or not. I’m not arguing about the past. The debate now is how best to move forward.
Yes and here’s some examples:
1) Expecting that able-bodied people are given government daycare for thier kids, able bodied people are given unemployment benefits for who knows how long?
I’ll disregard the other two points because they’re nonsensical. Not sure why you harp on this idea of “able bodied people” but I’ll assume you figure that if you lose your job you can simply jump into another position. So, let’s say you work in a small town with a couple of major employers… a chemical plant, for example. And that plant happens to be closed down due to corporate restructuring, reallocation of assets or whatever. Well, then what are you going to do? You and hundreds of other people are suddenly unemployed and there is no market for your skills (which are probably quite specialized). You have paid into employment insurance. You may well have to sell your home and relocate. But according to you… if you claim back this unemployment insurance benefit, you have no sense of personal responsibility? What planet do you live on? Do you work? I suspect not given that you’re unfamiliar with how long the benefit period is.
Regarding government daycare, this are programs supported by President Bush and the First Lady. And how is that an abdication of personal responsibility. Or, for that matter, indicative of being liberal or otherwise politically inclined?
“Andrew, you just want a free ride.”
Actually I want the free ride to end. I told you about my friend who ran up too much debt. I think that will stop with easier, not harder, bankruptcy law.
But it sounds like the arguments are in general against bankruptcy, rather than just the changes made. Do you want there to not be a bankruptcy system at al..
Red wrote, “Not exactly like taking on Hitler’s Wehrmacht
My point. Is that Bush Derangement syndrome has people thinking that Bush should be impeached or we should pull out or whatever they think because of the number of soldiers dead in Iraq.
BTW, it took us 10 years and over 10,000 soldiers AFTER WW2 to rebuild Germany.
Red wrote, “This is simply not true.
Yes it is!
The French, British, German, Russian, and U.S. Intelligence agencies all thought that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD’s. Your irrelevant point is that there was debates within all of those intelligence agencies on the extent or amount of when Iraq would be capable of having nuclear or whatever. The debates having existed doesn’t erase the fact that they presented the CIA presented the same intelligence to the Congress as the White House and Congress voted for the war and the President executed the war. The war plan was drawn up and 100′s of plan are and presented by the pentagon to the president. The president granted the # of soldiers that the generals on the ground wanted who were executing the plan. Disputes within the agencies about “curveball” does not negate the fact that all agencies thought that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD’s and the info presented to the Congress and the President made Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Biden, Bush 43 all believe that Saddam needed to comply with the U.N. resolutions and disarm and PROVE that he disarmed.
So now what. You want to put Saddam back?
Red wrote, “No one is going to defend the regime of Saddam Hussein. But regime change and nation-building wasn’t what the Congress voted for.
I had to rewrite my post a few times because I just can’t believe that you would’ve written that. You can’t remove a power or government then leave. A power vacuum would’ve left unrest, civil war, haven for the terrorists or Baathists to rule, etc. When we removed Japan’s government we spent 7 years getting them back to functioning and it took 10 years for Germany. I am GLAD you aren’t in power and the Democrats in this country are not in power because as much as they accuse the president of not having a vision they can’t see the writing on the wall of what would happen if 1) we pulled out immediately or 2) if we just removed the existing government and left. Conservatives/Republicans DO HAVE compassion as much as you may not believe it and let this whole Iraq thing be a lesson to your hard heartedness towards people of the world (are you reading this Steve?).
Red wrote, “This is just silly. Then stop going back to saying that the President lied or misled or whatever you want to say to get us into war. You INACCURATE ACCUSATIONS is what makes this response.
It SEEMS that you just DISAGREED with going to war. Many Democrats disagreed with going to war. And INSTEAD of SAYING that you DISAGREED with going to war you want to make INACCURATE ACCUSATION after inaccurate accusation.
WE WENT TO WAR RED !!!! And the result was we REMOVED SADDAM !!
THat is why we ask you if you want him implanted back into power!!!
I can’t believe the lack of logic and reading comprehension abound.
A little tid bit: An organism’s greatest strength is also it’s greatest weakness. The process of making Peace is first a state of mind. Rather than thinking up ways to kill more and more people in ever more efficient ways, we need to create ways and plans to Not kill people. Organized warfare has become obsolete. It is time to turn “swords into plowshares”. All the money that has gone into the defense of this country appears to have brought the world no closer to Peace. It’s time to change course. Peace
If the process of making peace with a killer killing your family is a “state of mind”, please tell me why so many have failed when they plead crying to their killers before the killers kill them Steve?
Rather than thinking up more ways to submit to a killer why don’t you read what I write (as you wrote “rather than thinking up ways to kill more and more people). I don’t know WHO you are making that accusation of but it’d be wise when debating to not think of the person you are debating as evil and a person thinking up new ways to kill more and more people. OUR goals are the same. Peace. Your solution to your goals would get more people killed. As I said above. Steve wants a bloodbath. Steve wants a bloodbath. I’ll say it over and over because you speak to what we want so we can speak to what you want. You want a bloodbath. I want peace. You don’t get peace by laying down your weapons unilaterally (as the good person) in front of an evil person. They will use your second of weakness against you.
Steve wrote, “It’s time to change course” This has never been more applicable than to yourself. We all want peace steve. We want Americans to live in peace. We want the people of Iraq, Israel and all countries to live in peace. You seem to have such hatred that you’d rather see a bloodbath. Why? Why do you want to see a bloodbath Steve?
Steve. Son, there really are bad people and evil things in this world. They are not going to go away just because you shut your eyes and hope really hard. Sadly its the peaceniks that are always beheaded first if the bad guys win. Grow up.
Bang
Interesting comment Steve, “process of making Peace is first a state of mind.” When the young Roman empire was at it’s most vibrant and energetic, starting under the rule of the Emperor Augustus, the Romans used brutality, warfare, rapine, looting and slave trading to conquer their empire. After which, Europe “suffered” under the longest and most widespread absence of warfare, for 200 years or so. The longest period of peace Europe has ever had, from prehistory to now, brought to you by the brutal application of the sword. Not to mention the increase in prosperity, the Romans brought order, sanitation, culture, science, etc. to the world. And was the conduit Christianity used to spread from a local cult to a worldwide religion.
So, I’d say Peace is a state of mind, it’s just yours and the Romans were markedly different. And here’s the rub, theirs worked…
Red wrote, “Regarding government daycare, this are programs supported by President Bush and the First Lady
This is why I’ve said over 100 times that this president is to the left of center. WHich puts the Democrats where? Extremely to the left of center.
Centrist/conservatives recognize that a) parents who want to work get daycare for their children. My wife stayed home and we sacrificed with less pay. That was her choice. Should my taxes go to people without PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY who wish to have government funded daycare (taxpayer funded).
I harped on able-bodied because a STRONG safety net should exist. I as a centrist conservative understand that the more you DILUTE the safety net with able-bodied individuals making poor choices and freeloading off of everyone else making good decisions…. the more you DILUTE the safety net for the people who need the safety net like the non-able bodied. I as a centrist conservative could play the liberals game and say, “I don’t think the liberals care about the non-able bodied people” (as liberals talk about how conservatives don’t care) but I don’t. I’m just saying that liberals DO NOT understand that their policies are rewarding people who are lazy and penalizing those who are trying to succeed or are making sacrifices for their or their kids future.
It is a generalization that you might not get but I say it as MY PERSPECTIVE and a LOT of conservatives see it JUST AS CLEARLY as I do. Liberals to not care to have personal responsibility be part of the equation. That makes for a society and civilization that is weak. It’s my view. You can either see the point or say you disagree. But to argue is pointless because I’ve held this view for over a decade. I turned from liberalism in 1991 partly because of leftists wanting to penalize those who are trying to succeed.
“You were refuted Adam. Have personal responsibility and read the previous words and poll by ST. Your original claim was incorrect.”
Okay, I will pretend you ARE that stupid:
Yes, polls show that Americans don’t want to leave Iraq NOW (without a reasonable exit strategy), but polls also show that a majority think the war was a mistake and has been handled incompetently. Refuted? Pah.
For the sake of your mental health let’s just pretend that most people agree with everything the president does, especially with the war. Do you believe it? HEH.