America needs a Republican Congress

[realmofotalk]

I hope that smilee means you are joking realomofo.

Si.

[DiamondDave]

First of all... what the hell do any of you know about war? I am a veteran, so I think I have some credibility in this.

1) It is NOT a bullsh*t war. In actuality it is not a war any longer at all. The war ended at the toppling of Saddam and his regime. We are now in a 'peacekeeping mission' while Iraq attempts to finish forming and setting up its government and infrasystems. If this is such a bullsh*t war, where were your complaints about Bosnia and Somalia which were in fact complete horsecrap with no actual military objective and during the 'peacekeeping' for those, US soldiers were not allowed all abilities to protect themselves or the ones they were supposed to protect?

2) Who says Republicans are against stem cell research?? Not me. I'm for it. As long as we do not harvest human embryos to gain the stem cells. There are other viable ways to gain the stem cells besides embryo slaughter that is paid for and sponsored by our government.

3) Tearing apart the Patriot act, the immediate withdraw of troops battling the terrorists in Iraq, etc. That is the Liberals' way of being FOR homeland security??? Puh-lease.... it is simply more of their ways of attempted appeasement and negotiation with terror which is proven to be 110% wrong. Terrorists do not want co-existance or meeting 1/2way.

4) Terrorists want people in power in the US who would make it easier to pursue the terrorist agenda. Removal of hurdles such as Git-Mo interrogations, agressively pursuing terror, patriot act, etc makes the terrorist objectives easier to accomplish. So that in combination with the statements themselves do show that the terrorists would rather have the Dems in charge here.

5) Many are please with many of the things the current congress and administration have accomplished. Employment, economy, etc. We, as Republicans do not agree with everything from Bush and this Congress, but we do not slam the accomplishments that have been made (or ignore them completely as liberals do).

6) Not announcing a complete and detail plan to the general public does not mean 'no plan'. Security dictates that even if there has been/is a timeline, that it not be made for public knowledge, for that gives more info to the terrorists we are trying to battle. (If a bully knows that your parents are going to leave tou completely alone at the bus stop on January 15th at 6:30 AM, he'll make sure you are attacked then rather then when your parents are around)... The Dems have continually stated only leaving Iraq immediately, no other alternative plan type at all. Leaving Iraq as it is now (befor government and infrasystems set up and running) WOULD be a complete mitigated disaster.

[HafDawg2003]

My only problem with a Democratic senate is the fact that, since 2000, the Democratic party is back to how it was when Reagan was the President, far left. When the Republicans go right, the Dems go left, and I feel the left is more dangerous for the country, but that when both parties move to the center, a left-center Democratic party is more desirable.

Ex.
Reagan was uber crazy Conservative, Dems were uber crazy Liberal.
Yucky, from both sides.

Clinton was center left. Good things happen for the economy, social issues, and the view of America in the world environment.
Yay!

[DiamondDave]

Uhhh.. Clinton was not Centrist or Moderate, he was a liberal in moderate's clothing (much like his wife who is actually even MORE liberal in her views)..... and the economy was on the fast track to recession with the false boom.... gains in economy were not based on progress or production.... there was never a surplus (the debt grew each and every year under Clinton as it has under every president since 1948)... the economy was more wobbly than a folding card table underneath a 400 pound exotic dancer

Never talk to a vet about Clinton's 'social' issues.... "don't ask don't tell" is hardly social progress.... his humanitarian "efforts" were horrid in the global scheme (Somalia efforts empowered the warloards more, and caused more attrocities without any effort to actually imrove things or remove the corruption within Somalia)... bombing raids to catch the eye of the press right after the Lewinski scandal news.... Clinton and his administration were a complete joke... it was hardly a good Presidency


BUT... I do agree that moderate movement is MUCH better for our country overall......

[HafDawg2003]

I'll disagree with your assessment, but to spare a very heated debate, I'll leave it at that. Theres two sides to every story, for sure.

[DiamondDave]

Hey... never shy away from good debate if you want it... unlike others, I keep insults and all out of it....

It is cool to disagree... that is our right... all I ask is to understand where my views come from, and don't be afraid to ask why or where my facts come from

[love_that_reefer]

1) It is NOT a bullsh*t war. In actuality it is not a war any longer at all. The war ended at the toppling of Saddam and his regime. We are now in a 'peacekeeping mission' while Iraq attempts to finish forming and setting up its government and infrasystems. If this is such a bullsh*t war, where were your complaints about Bosnia and Somalia which were in fact complete horsecrap with no actual military objective and during the 'peacekeeping' for those, US soldiers were not allowed all abilities to protect themselves or the ones they were supposed to protect?

Yes it was a bullshit war and a mistake. If you honestly think the war is over then wow!! Iraq is in the middle of their own civil war.Ask the soldiers who come home if they are still at war. Somalia was somewhat of a disaster but trying to compare that to Iraq is ridiculous.

2) Who says Republicans are against stem cell research?? Not me. I'm for it. As long as we do not harvest human embryos to gain the stem cells. There are other viable ways to gain the stem cells besides embryo slaughter that is paid for and sponsored by our government.

Great. Too bad you are not in office. I am talking about the majority of Republicans with actual power.

3) Tearing apart the Patriot act, the immediate withdraw of troops battling the terrorists in Iraq, etc. That is the Liberals' way of being FOR homeland security??? Puh-lease.... it is simply more of their ways of attempted appeasement and negotiation with terror which is proven to be 110% wrong. Terrorists do not want co-existance or meeting 1/2way.

The Patriot Act has been shit and really hasn't changed anything since 9/11. And please find me one Democrat that is asking for the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of troops. Homeland security is basically the same as it was before 9/11. Airports, nuclear and chemical plants and our ports are no safer.

4) Terrorists want people in power in the US who would make it easier to pursue the terrorist agenda. Removal of hurdles such as Git-Mo interrogations, agressively pursuing terror, patriot act, etc makes the terrorist objectives easier to accomplish. So that in combination with the statements themselves do show that the terrorists would rather have the Dems in charge here.

The Bush administration has bred new terrorists as apparent by what is going on in Iraq. Bush's incompetence of this war shows weakness in US power. While in Iraq, Iran and North Korea have gotten more dangerous which also helps the terrorist agenda.

5) Many are please with many of the things the current congress and administration have accomplished. Employment, economy, etc. We, as Republicans do not agree with everything from Bush and this Congress, but we do not slam the accomplishments that have been made (or ignore them completely as liberals do).

Yes employment is down and yes the economy is finally back on track but what about the debt? Bush has doubled the debt from $4 trillion to $8 trillion. How are we going to pay for that is he keeps give tax cuts to the rich? I find it hilarious that Repblicans think saying that gas prices are down after record earnings from the oil companies is a good thing. Bush keeps lining the pockets of this independent companies while we have to pay for it and the soldiers get little of this money.

6) Not announcing a complete and detail plan to the general public does not mean 'no plan'. Security dictates that even if there has been/is a timeline, that it not be made for public knowledge, for that gives more info to the terrorists we are trying to battle. (If a bully knows that your parents are going to leave tou completely alone at the bus stop on January 15th at 6:30 AM, he'll make sure you are attacked then rather then when your parents are around)... The Dems have continually stated only leaving Iraq immediately, no other alternative plan type at all. Leaving Iraq as it is now (befor government and infrasystems set up and running) WOULD be a complete mitigated disaster.

I don't need them to give me a detailed plan to see there was no plan in the first place. Its quite clear they didn't think things through. Hell, it took Bush five excuses to tell us why we were in this war in the first place. Talk about the ultimate flip flopper. Not exactly firm.

My only problem with a Democratic senate is the fact that, since 2000, the Democratic party is back to how it was when Reagan was the President, far left. When the Republicans go right, the Dems go left, and I feel the left is more dangerous for the country, but that when both parties move to the center, a left-center Democratic party is more desirable.

Well you can think the "Divider" AKA Bush for that.

I am not for Democrats or Republicans as this system is broken but I am for a change. If its broken fix it. I hate it when people to this day say "Just think if Gore was in office." I tell you one thing. We wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now and more than likely we would be fighting the rel war on terrorism. Maybe he would have taken the 9/11 threats a lot more seriously. There has to be a change or else this country will continue to slide.

[realmofotalk]

bombing raids to catch the eye of the press right after the Lewinski scandal news....

This statement reeks of right wing conspiracy talk. Did Clinton ordered the bombing for that main reason? Probably, but who is 100% certain besides whoever was in his inner circle? I'd be more inclined to take your word for it if the bombing was solely a U.S. military strike instead of a NATO effort. You're assuming that the leaders of the European nations were too stupid to realize that Clinton only wanted to divert attention away from his sex scandal.

[DiamondDave]

The bombings ordered were not against Bosnia, nor Somalia.... but against Iraq.... solely a US effort... and completely arbitrary, as the offenses against the no-fly zone happened almost a full 6 weeks before the bombing strike order...

How do I know the timing on this???... simple... we were put on alert and had communications dutues.... if the strikes were ordered after the incidents, the orders for setting up commo would have come much sooner....

[realmofotalk]

Nevermind, I thought you talking about the Kosovo War.

Still, the 4-day bombing raid at Iraq was a joint U.S. and British campaign.

[DiamondDave]

Yes it was a bullshit war and a mistake. If you honestly think the war is over then wow!! Iraq is in the middle of their own civil war.Ask the soldiers who come home if they are still at war. Somalia was somewhat of a disaster but trying to compare that to Iraq is ridiculous.

The war was not bullshit. Was long overdue in finishing the job considering the defiance and violations of the cease-fire agreement.... Bush I caved in to the pansy UN and did not finish, and Clinton refused to do what was supposed to be done.... The war itself is over. The peacekeeping mission is on, much like it has been after every victorious war the US has fought on foreign soil. Ask a soldier that comes home (even some of my military friends who are still in) and they will say that they are in combat. Much like we said were were in combat or harms way when we were sent to Somalia.

Great. Too bad you are not in office. I am talking about the majority of Republicans with actual power.

I would not say that. Some extremists are against the technology, but most are against the moral implications of embryo harvesting and the abortion issue that goes along with that

The Patriot Act has been shit and really hasn't changed anything since 9/11. And please find me one Democrat that is asking for the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of troops. Homeland security is basically the same as it was before 9/11. Airports, nuclear and chemical plants and our ports are no safer.

It ain't perfect, but we do have added security because of it. As for immediate withdraw, try this name... Murtha. As for safer, I'd say ask someone who actually works for DHS. I know quite a few. We have MANY more measures since 9/11

The Bush administration has bred new terrorists as apparent by what is going on in Iraq. Bush's incompetence of this war shows weakness in US power. While in Iraq, Iran and North Korea have gotten more dangerous which also helps the terrorist agenda.

Nothing can be done with Iran and NK because there has been no agression put towards us directly, and there is no violation of any cease-fire agreement that has the hold on hostilities. The cease-fire between the US and NK does not have anything specific against testing. That is only against the powerless non-proliferation treaties. Extremists may come out of the woodwork to battle troops deployed in Iraq, but that does not mean they were not trying to do things against the US before that. See the other terror attacks (Cole, WTC1, etc). These extremists are out for us and our allies regardless. Better for them to want to come out and fight our troops, than planning and acting covertly. And thanks to Patriot act and DHS, we have more means to expose the covert plans that are being worked on.

Yes employment is down and yes the economy is finally back on track but what about the debt? Bush has doubled the debt from $4 trillion to $8 trillion. How are we going to pay for that is he keeps give tax cuts to the rich? I find it hilarious that Repblicans think saying that gas prices are down after record earnings from the oil companies is a good thing. Bush keeps lining the pockets of this independent companies while we have to pay for it and the soldiers get little of this money.

Debt is up from 5.7 Tril to 7.9 Tril (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm). But government and deficit spending, when recovering from a recession and during war time is not inherently a BAD thing. The bad thing is that continued trend as recover goes into full swing. The good thing is the dial backs of the spending are ahead of schedule, and the economy is still chugging along. I only pray the governemnt makes much needed cuts to things like endowments for the arts, corporate and personal welfare, etc. As for Gas prices, that is corporate and OPEC economics, and not because of the govt. Record oil profits are due to more use and production. The oil companies still (like over the past 15 years) make only about 7-8 cents per gallon profit. This is far less than even most local taxes on the gas sold. ANd the tax cuts do not just benefit the "rich". And those tax cuts have actually driven up tax revinues in other areas (namely corporate taxes and voluntary taxes such as tarrifs on goods, sales taxes, etc.

I don't need them to give me a detailed plan to see there was no plan in the first place. Its quite clear they didn't think things through. Hell, it took Bush five excuses to tell us why we were in this war in the first place. Talk about the ultimate flip flopper. Not exactly firm.

The basic plan would have been there. the plan has to change as the environment of the conflict and mission changes. As for why were went to war, the only thing that had to be said (though everyone harped on WoMD (which were found by the way)) was the violation of cease-fire, justifying the war. There was a detailed full list of the complete reasons given to congress. I believe WoMD was clear down at #5 or #6 on that list. The firmness of the act is staying with it til the end result is achieved. That is the setup of Iraq to do things on their own. Everything else will change along the way as things change in the situation.

I am not for Democrats or Republicans as this system is broken but I am for a change. If its broken fix it. I hate it when people to this day say "Just think if Gore was in office." I tell you one thing. We wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now and more than likely we would be fighting the rel war on terrorism. Maybe he would have taken the 9/11 threats a lot more seriously. There has to be a change or else this country will continue to slide.

The system ain't perfect, but it ain't exactly broke either. And it certainly is better than any other system out there.

[love_that_reefer]

The system ain't perfect, but it ain't exactly broke either. And it certainly is better than any other system out there.

I 100% disagree there and the numbers can be found to back me up.

And Bush I knew better than to take Saddam out and that's why he didn't. Even Cheney advised against it. Most free thinkers knew Bush was going to invade Iraq when he threw his name in Presidencial candidacy and 9/11 gave him his window. We are fighting the wrong war as Iraq itself posed no threat to the U.S. (9/11 commission backs that up).

[love_that_reefer]

And to think we are safer has been proven wrong by many, many people including Richard Clark, RFK Jr. and many highly repectable people. 9/11 has changed NOTHING!!!!

[love_that_reefer]

I would not say that. Some extremists are against the technology, but most are against the moral implications of embryo harvesting and the abortion issue that goes along with that

Which goes to show how ignorant some of these people are.

[DiamondDave]

And just as many respectable people say different than Clark and crew....

Knew better than to take Saddam out?? Hardly the case for HW Bush (Plans were already in place for the move into Baghdad and the removal of Saddam, with Schwarzkopf ready to go). It was to appease the UN and other Arab states. The UN wanted a show of power on their supposed authority with the hopes that they would be able to leash Saddam. Those who knew the type of tyrant Saddam was knew he would never fully be leashed. Removal of Saddam was inevitable after the Kuwaiti invasion by him. And I will still contend that whether it was W Bush or anyone else that rightfully finished the job, it would have still be the right course.