You could say the above about either party.G3|Genius wrote:
I think the Dems are power hungry. They rely on emotion, and it is working. Al Gore is scaring us. Hillary is running her propoganda mill...it's all appeal to emotion.
this whole Iraq is a failure thing is another emotional debate. no one really ACTUALLY knows what's going on there. The debate is not actually intellectual.
They are pathetic.
+1 for being republican
Do you realy think more parties can change a lot? You'll have several extreme left, left, centre, right and extreme right parties participating in the elections, but in order to get a government and a majority in both houses several parties will have to negociate and make agreements, so in the end the program of the party you voted for will not be executed...ATG wrote:
As long as we keep a two party system we are defeated.
Personally I don't know if the democrats motivations are pure or not but if i was them and had a possibility of being in power i wouldn't want to:lowing wrote:
Is losing the war on terror especially in Iraq, or the perception of a loss, essential for the democrats to take the white house?
In the other thread I accused democrats of harping negativity and going as far as to ensuring a percieved loss in Iraq and the war on terror to slam dunk the 08 election. If they didn't, they surly would be facing another 4 years with a republican administration. Whatcha think??
Never said anyone finds war enjoyable, I said the democrats are enjoying the chaos, the percieved losing of this war. Are you going to tell me they would rather things be going great over there and progress being reported, and a light at the end of the tunnel?Spearhead wrote:
The fact that you're not a Democrat and you also have no clue what the hell you're talking about half the time you post invalidates your point. No one finds war enjoyable. Republicans would be doing the exact same shit if they were in the Dems position. It's called politics.lowing wrote:
can't find anything to disagree with here, this, in fact, is probably more accurate. However, the fact that democrats are enjoying it is undeniable.oug wrote:
I agree. Only I don't think that anything is expected to happen, as (it may be) insinuated in the OP. The 4 years that have passed are considered to be the defeat itself. So yes, under the circumstances, the war in Iraq seems to be the greatest failure of the current administration, and thus the Democrats' greatest "asset" in the upcoming elections.
Last edited by lowing (2007-03-22 03:25:01)
Good points, but it can't be any worse than it is right now.Pierre wrote:
Do you realy think more parties can change a lot? You'll have several extreme left, left, centre, right and extreme right parties participating in the elections, but in order to get a government and a majority in both houses several parties will have to negociate and make agreements, so in the end the program of the party you voted for will not be executed...ATG wrote:
As long as we keep a two party system we are defeated.
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-03-22 06:40:08)
So the Democrats are guilty of gaining support from the people who are dissillusioned with the Republicans for messing up the war on terror?lowing wrote:
Never said anyone finds war enjoyable, I said the democrats are enjoying the chaos, the percieved losing of this war. Are you going to tell me they would rather things be going great over there and progress being reported, and a light at the end of the tunnel?Spearhead wrote:
The fact that you're not a Democrat and you also have no clue what the hell you're talking about half the time you post invalidates your point. No one finds war enjoyable. Republicans would be doing the exact same shit if they were in the Dems position. It's called politics.lowing wrote:
can't find anything to disagree with here, this, in fact, is probably more accurate. However, the fact that democrats are enjoying it is undeniable.
Also the posts I read that claim that the "republicans would be doing the exact same shit" I will mark down as a yes, the democrats are hoping and needing a loss of this war.
Blame the republicans for what they do, WHEN they do it, not for what you think they might do, until then, it is the democrats that are guilty.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-03-22 07:56:21)
Maybe the Dems didn't consider Iraq a threat, then they are not appeasing the enemy. Criticizing Bush if he is wrong, should not be considered working against the success of their country, au contraire.Stingray24 wrote:
We're talking about what elected Dems are actually doing here to gain that support. They are guilty of consistently attempting to undermine the efforts of our military during a time of war just to get votes later. The Republicans responded to 9/11 and did what was necessary. When it comes to fighting the enemy, elected Dems over the last 40 years have a track record of running and/or appeasing the enemy. I want a party that is willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of bargaining with them and working against the success of their own country in wartime.
The republicans have supported those who later become our enemies (Saddam, Noriega, radical Islamics), supported those brutalize their own people and create anti-American sentiment in their countries(Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah, the Duvaliers), were practically the first to run from fundamentalist Muslim terrorists (Lebanon, after the murder of over 200 US Marines by a suicide truck bomb), cloaked appeasement and bargaining behind a facade of tough talk (Reagan and Iran) and only have use for our soldiers so long as they are functional to fight and not saying anything contrary to the party line. Now I have fuck-all worth of use for the Democratic party as a whole; beyond the local and state level I find them to be pandering little windsocks like Hillary Clinton, who promise us change and then fold like an old wallet when one person points at them and shouts "Anti-American!". But please spare me the whole "They're traitors I tells ya!" routine. Convincing yourself that only one side of the aisle or the other engages in this kind of crap is foolish. The Democrats helped ratify the Patriot Act even while complaining that they hadn't read the damn thing, they allowed this war to go on for four years with nothing more than their pathetic non-binding resolution and they've pretty much caved every time the GOP has looked at them sternly. They're not undermining shit; they're making a lot of noise in public and then cooperating anyway. You're right though, they should be taking the fight to the enemy; the enemy that keeps calling them traitors and terrorist-lovers at every opportunity. They should be shutting them up and shutting them down. Until they grow enough of a spine to say "Fuck you, Jack. It's not treason to disagree with you.", I have no use for them.Stingray24 wrote:
We're talking about what elected Dems are actually doing here to gain that support. They are guilty of consistently attempting to undermine the efforts of our military during a time of war just to get votes later. The Republicans responded to 9/11 and did what was necessary. When it comes to fighting the enemy, elected Dems over the last 40 years have a track record of running and/or appeasing the enemy. I want a party that is willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of bargaining with them and working against the success of their own country in wartime.
Yes it can. You do see a change after the elections, as in 2006 when both houses went to the Democrats, and years before that during the Clinton Administration when the opposite occured.ATG wrote:
Good points, but it can't be any worse than it is right now.Pierre wrote:
Do you realy think more parties can change a lot? You'll have several extreme left, left, centre, right and extreme right parties participating in the elections, but in order to get a government and a majority in both houses several parties will have to negociate and make agreements, so in the end the program of the party you voted for will not be executed...ATG wrote:
As long as we keep a two party system we are defeated.
Have you not seen the videos and quotes of several democrats before we went to Iraq including former president CLinton himself? Politicians are good at making us forget what they've said in the past.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe the Dems didn't consider Iraq a threat, then they are not appeasing the enemy. Criticizing Bush if he is wrong, should not be considered working against the success of their country, au contraire.Stingray24 wrote:
We're talking about what elected Dems are actually doing here to gain that support. They are guilty of consistently attempting to undermine the efforts of our military during a time of war just to get votes later. The Republicans responded to 9/11 and did what was necessary. When it comes to fighting the enemy, elected Dems over the last 40 years have a track record of running and/or appeasing the enemy. I want a party that is willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of bargaining with them and working against the success of their own country in wartime.
Elected Dems did believe Iraq was a threat while Clinton in office, authorized military action during the current administration, and now complain about the very action they voted for . . . to gain votes. Watch the videos of Ms. Clinton detailing how she's watched the situation in Iraq through her husband's administration and fully supports military action. Now she's saying the exact opposite . . . for votes. I don't see the mainstream liberal media showing that clip anywhere.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe the Dems didn't consider Iraq a threat, then they are not appeasing the enemy. Criticizing Bush if he is wrong, should not be considered working against the success of their country, au contraire.Stingray24 wrote:
We're talking about what elected Dems are actually doing here to gain that support. They are guilty of consistently attempting to undermine the efforts of our military during a time of war just to get votes later. The Republicans responded to 9/11 and did what was necessary. When it comes to fighting the enemy, elected Dems over the last 40 years have a track record of running and/or appeasing the enemy. I want a party that is willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of bargaining with them and working against the success of their own country in wartime.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-03-22 10:21:40)
How do you lose the War on "Terror"? How do you win the War on "Terror"? If I remember correctly, there was no concrete evidence that Iraq was involved in helping Al-Qaeda plot or plan the attacks. We went because Saddam was "actively pursuing and in possession of chemical and biological WMDs." Then we stayed there for "freedom and democracy."lowing wrote:
I offered the following question in another thread but it was getting off topic. I think it is worth discussing.
Is losing the war on terror especially in Iraq, or the perception of a loss, essential for the democrats to take the white house?
In the other thread I accused democrats of harping negativity and going as far as to ensuring a percieved loss in Iraq and the war on terror to slam dunk the 08 election. If they didn't, they surly would be facing another 4 years with a republican administration. Whatcha think??
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-03-22 10:23:19)
Because win or lose just or not, the most of the EU already hopes for an "arrogant American" defeat.Bubbalo wrote:
Except that if you're right and the Democrats are the reason for the perception of a loss, how come the rest of the world is even more pessimistic?
No not really, the republicans reacted to 911. They got pissed and they demanded action. and rightfully so..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
So the Democrats are guilty of gaining support from the people who are dissillusioned with the Republicans for messing up the war on terror?lowing wrote:
Never said anyone finds war enjoyable, I said the democrats are enjoying the chaos, the percieved losing of this war. Are you going to tell me they would rather things be going great over there and progress being reported, and a light at the end of the tunnel?Spearhead wrote:
The fact that you're not a Democrat and you also have no clue what the hell you're talking about half the time you post invalidates your point. No one finds war enjoyable. Republicans would be doing the exact same shit if they were in the Dems position. It's called politics.
Also the posts I read that claim that the "republicans would be doing the exact same shit" I will mark down as a yes, the democrats are hoping and needing a loss of this war.
Blame the republicans for what they do, WHEN they do it, not for what you think they might do, until then, it is the democrats that are guilty.
By the same rationale you could say the Repiblicans enjoyed the chaos caused by 9/11 as they gained popularity as a result of it.
The difference is they said Iraq was a threat, and Bush invaded Iraq. Both had the same wrong intelligence reports, but Clinton never invaded Iraq with the same info.Stingray24 wrote:
Elected Dems did believe Iraq was a threat while Clinton in office, authorized military action during the current administration, and now complain about the very action they voted for . . . to gain votes. Watch the videos of Ms. Clinton detailing how she's watched the situation in Iraq through her husband's administration and fully supports military action. Now she's saying the exact opposite . . . for votes. I don't see the mainstream liberal media showing that clip anywhere.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe the Dems didn't consider Iraq a threat, then they are not appeasing the enemy. Criticizing Bush if he is wrong, should not be considered working against the success of their country, au contraire.Stingray24 wrote:
We're talking about what elected Dems are actually doing here to gain that support. They are guilty of consistently attempting to undermine the efforts of our military during a time of war just to get votes later. The Republicans responded to 9/11 and did what was necessary. When it comes to fighting the enemy, elected Dems over the last 40 years have a track record of running and/or appeasing the enemy. I want a party that is willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of bargaining with them and working against the success of their own country in wartime.
Criticize all you want, serge. For example, I've made it very clear here that I think Bush sucks on the border issue. For that matter, most of our politicians do. They refuse to do anything to take care of illegal immigration.
Thats a silly question and a moot point. Do democrats have to bash republicans to win? Do republicans have to bash democrats to win? Does a bear shit in the woods?lowing wrote:
I offered the following question in another thread but it was getting off topic. I think it is worth discussing.
Is losing the war on terror especially in Iraq, or the perception of a loss, essential for the democrats to take the white house?
In the other thread I accused democrats of harping negativity and going as far as to ensuring a percieved loss in Iraq and the war on terror to slam dunk the 08 election. If they didn't, they surly would be facing another 4 years with a republican administration. Whatcha think??
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-03-22 18:20:28)
I think you mean disenchanted. No one has taken your right to vote away.fadedsteve wrote:
The Democrats are simply feeding off of what the Republicans give them (and its been a feeding frenzy). . . .
George Bush is a fucking idiot, what more ammo does anyone need . . . .personally as a Republican I have stopped apologizing for him a long time ago!!
The Democrats have been a confused party for a long time, once Slick Willy left, they have been fucked!
As an example of their mass confused state, they put forth these two people (Obama and Hillary) as their possible reps as candidates for President of the United States. . .are you literally kidding me?? is anyone serious over there in liberal land???
side note: Its unbelievable how un-represented we truely are as Americans. . . . the fact that we keep re-electing these people/parasites (career politicians) and think that some how the bullshit in Washington is going to stop. . . .I mean who are WE kidding!! I am so frustrated and disinfranchised by the representation in my home state (California), I wouldnt even know where to start. . . .
Its just business as usual over there back east, and I am fucking done with it!! George Bush can go fuck himself, the Democrats can always go fuck themselves, and anyone using religion as a means to harm other people can drink a bottle of my ball sweat!
me toofadedsteve wrote:
Yes I am disenchanted! thank you!