US mid-term elections

[Feanor]

Americans, do yourselves and the world a favor and boot out as many Repubicans as possible on Tuesday (think it is).

It's hardly necessary to dwell on the security failures of the current Washington administration. The world and the US itself are far more dangerous to day than 5 years ago. The war in Iraq (more even than Afganistan) has been:

• Ill-conceived, (WMD? yeah, right)
• Poorly-prosecuted
• Counter-productive.

And Muslims throughout the world have be alienated and the extremism among them fostered so that terrorism is increasing likely everywhere including the US. This was predictable and was predicted by people as lowly-placed as myself.

The real threats to the US, (and various other "first world" nations but none more so), today are:

1. The widening gulf between rich and poor (and the unattainability of the American dream)
2. Gobal warming, polution, and the practical scarcity of natural resources
3. Alienation of the rest of the world as result of the misuse of power, and resulting in terrorism and nuclear arms proliferation.

The Republican Party needs to be view in terms of these issues, especially No.1. The cardinal error of American "middle-class" is that that party represents their interests in any way. Americans accept a very broad definition of "middle class", (basically anyone with a full-time job), and that's fine with me. But I'm specifically not talking (only) about the working poor, rather about the professionals, corporate middle managers, and small to medium entrepreneurs. You folks, get rid of the notion that what happens to the destitute and the working poor isn't your problem, their impoverishment will eventually -- and sooner rather than later -- result in your own. The Repulicans' only true constituency is the gobal corporations and the super-rich who believe they ignore the welfare of the nation to further their own, misanthropic, self-interests.

Social conservatives?? The Republican Party pays lip service to the American Dream and Christian values, but it's only that. Republican leaders serve mammon and they do not serve God. So social conservatives too are deceived by Republicans. Consider yourself "Christian Right"?? Then you are self-deceived as well. The term is an oxymoron: the Christian Right are neither right, (small "r"), nor truly Christians -- rather they are Pharisees.

In short there are really only two kinds of Republican voter:

1. The greed rich, and
2. The stupid.

[trollgirl]

I agree with you entirely. I just have one question: Given the questionable results of the last two national elections, can we expect that the Neocons are going to play by the rules, or cheat any way they can to hold onto power?? Are they going to use Diebold to win, or declare Marital Law if the election goes against them?? Okay, that's two questions...

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich benefit the middle class and poor is a myopic idiot. Check your financial records and you will find that the middle class does better when Democrats run the government.

[bobsticks]

My prediction is that the American electorate in its infinite wisdom will overwhelmingly respond to elect a Democratic Congress and, later, turn tail and elect another Republican as President.Why, you ask? Well, they have a history of doing just that.
The next Republican nominee will go so far as to distance himself from GB that you'll be hard pressed to remember they're in the same party. The conservative nominee's ultimate goal will be to say nothing and ride the middle of the road between te neocons and the religious right (who are these people anyway, and where is the massive population of people that just want to work and keep a bit of their money and be left alone, and why can't anyone harness that constituency?).
The Dems will do what they always do, nominate the most fecklessly meandering twerp imaginable. I swear to God, I have never seen a party so hell-bent on cyclical self-destruction. Mondale-geek, Dukakis-bushy-browed uber wuss, Gore-easily confused greenie wimp, Kerry-vascillating troll...
...and let's not kid ourselves, a Hillary Rodham Clinton nomination would secure a victory for the Republican Party faster than anything imaginable.

Jesus, maybe I should have learned Icelandic when I had the chance...

[jeskibuff]

Americans, do yourselves and the world a favor and boot out as many Repubicans as possible on Tuesday (think it is).

A favor? Democrats CLEARLY DON'T HAVE A CLUE, and yet you think they'll do the world better?? Why?? Because they're SO clueless??

It's hardly necessary to dwell on the security failures of the current Washington administration. The world and the US itself are far more dangerous to day than 5 years ago. The war in Iraq (more even than Afganistan) has been:

• Ill-conceived, (WMD? yeah, right)
• Poorly-prosecuted
• Counter-productive.

And Muslims throughout the world have be alienated and the extremism among them fostered so that terrorism is increasing likely everywhere including the US. This was predictable and was predicted by people as lowly-placed as myself.

Clearly, you have no concept of the enemy we face. You have no clue as to their goals and the threat they pose. Your pitiful little brain conceives the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan to be a total failure rather than a difficult struggle to achieve a better world. You are of the pea-brained mindset who believes that you can negotiate with truly evil people; people who would shake your hand one minute and cut your head off the next.

Bush is NOT responsible for the bloodshed in Iraq; the Islamofascists are. And that's what you and millions of stupid Democrats just DON'T UNDERSTAND and REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND, no matter how many times intelligent people attempt to get it to penetrate past your thick skulls and into some brain tissue. You think that because the enemy is capable of fighting back that there's some flaw in the battle plan; that the war was ill-conceived. You evidently missed the class where you were supposed to learn that a war involves reacting to and adjusting to the enemy's strategies. There will be victories and defeats. But you cut-and-run Dumbocrats want to turn tail when things get rough. There, you clearly don't understand the stakes at hand. Sadly, it appears to be more of a "let's blame Bush" strategy instead of a "how do we win this battle?" strategy. What a shame!

The real threats to the US, (and various other "first world" nations but none more so), today are:
[LIST=1][*]The widening gulf between rich and poor (and the unattainability of the American dream)[*]Gobal warming, polution, and the practical scarcity of natural resources

OMIGOD! You're living in such a state of denial! We're living in a golden age at the moment! The possibilities in the U.S. are phenomenal. The unemployment level is rock bottom again, the economy is doing well (as opposed to the gloom-and-doom scenario forecasted by you Dumbocrats a few years ago) and the luxuries we all enjoy are at our fingertips. Practically everyone has TVs, if not widescreen, plasma, etc. Cellphones are everywhere...the only ones who seem to be complaining are those that are overly dependent on others to take care of them: welfare-loving Democrats! To see these things as threats and to ignore the Islamofascist agenda is clearly RIDICULOUSLY myopic.

[*]Alienation of the rest of the world as result of the misuse of power, and resulting in terrorism and nuclear arms proliferation.

First, I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. It doesn't matter what their opinion is; the important thing is that we do the RIGHT thing, and the right thing is prosecuting the war on terror. If we don't pursue beating these thugs into pulp we can kiss the rest of the things we enjoy goodbye. I suppose you'd be happy living under Taliban-like rule as long as you're satisfied that some Frenchman likes you? That's some ridiculously stupid thinking on your part. Secondly, you have to believe these reports that "the rest of the world doesn't like us". The mainstream media has proven itself to be unreliable and tools of the left-wing liberals. There's an agenda behind what they say and they're not to be trusted.

The Republican Party needs to be view in terms of these issues, especially No.1. The cardinal error of American "middle-class" is that that party represents their interests in any way. Americans accept a very broad definition of "middle class", (basically anyone with a full-time job), and that's fine with me. But I'm specifically not talking (only) about the working poor, rather about the professionals, corporate middle managers, and small to medium entrepreneurs. You folks, get rid of the notion that what happens to the destitute and the working poor isn't your problem, their impoverishment will eventually -- and sooner rather than later -- result in your own. The Repulicans' only true constituency is the gobal corporations and the super-rich who believe they ignore the welfare of the nation to further their own, misanthropic, self-interests.

Blah, blah, blah. Ask yourself: why is it that most of the super-rich are Dumbocrats? John Kerry? Warren Buffett? The Kennedys? Ted Turner? Somehow, Dumbocrats have the idea that taxing businesses to death is doing "Robin Hood" good deeds. The "big corporations" make the money, so why not inflict penalties on them and distribute that money to the poor? Well, the BIG FLAW in that INCREDIBLY STUPID idea is that the corporations will pick up and move elsewhere where they don't get taxed to death and where they can maintain their competitive edge. Along with those moves, the jobs disappear. Or if they can't stay competitive and don't move, they can't afford to stay in business and the jobs disappear when they shut down. So, because of the Democrats' misguided ideological bent, they cause more poverty with their screwed-up policies. Conversely, Republicans try to attract businesses by lowering taxes, allowing corporations to prosper. When corporations prosper, the people supporting those corporations prosper. It's a simple concept, but apparently too simple for Democrats to understand.

Social conservatives?? The Republican Party pays lip service to the American Dream and Christian values, but it's only that. Republican leaders serve mammon and they do not serve God. So social conservatives too are deceived by Republicans. Consider yourself "Christian Right"?? Then you are self-deceived as well. The term is an oxymoron: the Christian Right are neither right, (small "r"), nor truly Christians -- rather they are Pharisees.

No one is perfect, for sure. There may be Republicans in power who pay lip service, as you say. But there are a great number who are sincere and can be trusted. One thing for certain is that the Democratic Party is thoroughly saturated with amoral, lying scum. I can think of only one Democrat who I would trust: Zell Miller. Why he still considers himself a Democrat, I don't know. I might halfway trust Jimmy Carter. I think he's basically a good man with a sincere heart, but he's just too stupid for words to describe. Good GOD! He thinks that Hugo Chavez is someone good! When did his brain atrophy so much??

Liars, liars, liars. The Democratic Party is SATURATED with liars! Pelosi, both Clintons, Kerry, Rather, Mooron, Schumer, Sheehan, Gore, Biden, Dean even Lieberman who I once thought was halfway okay before he associated himself with Gore! How can ANYONE trust a party that has such difficulty with truth?

In short there are really only two kinds of Republican voter:

1. The greed rich, and
2. The stupid.

There is only one kind of Democrat voter: the total idiot who has to project his inadequacies on others in order to get his agenda satisfied. Time and time again, conservatives try to debate with liberals, but the liberals can't seem to support their arguments with facts. They come out with all sorts of stupid conspiracy theories, but once those theories are easily shot down with reason and fact, they either scamper back into their hiding places to come up with more hair-brained theories or try to breathe life back into the thing that was just shot full of holes. They never learn, do they? Yet, they want everybody else to believe that they have all the answers. They only can criticize: they offer no solutions.

I agree with you entirely. I just have one question: Given the questionable results of the last two national elections, can we expect that the Neocons are going to play by the rules, or cheat any way they can to hold onto power??

Oh yeah. The same old lame-brained "if we don't win, they cheated" argument. When will you learn that you can slant the news media fully to the left, you can tweak the opinion polls to make it look like people think like you do, but when it comes down to voting, your fiction just doesn't match up to reality?? The vast majority of voting fraud that's been uncovered has been perpetrated by Democrats. Again, it's just another stupid conspiracy theory that you employ to avoid facing the hard facts: no matter how you attempt to get others to buy into your flawed perceptions, they see your idiocy and run in the other direction. You Dumbocrats have made voting MUCH easier for me than ever before! If I see a (D) after someone's name, I immediately associate them with stupidity. I don't have to put a lot of research into how they stand on the issues. You've REALLY got to be a total idiot to be a Democrat (sorry, Zell...just change your party, OK?)

Are they going to use Diebold to win, or declare Marital Law if the election goes against them?? Okay, that's two questions...

One question for you Laz...when are you going to get a grip on reality?

Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich benefit the middle class and poor is a myopic idiot. Check your financial records and you will find that the middle class does better when Democrats run the government.

Yeah, like Carter's wonderful economy, eh? We had 16% home loan finance rates under his administration. Everything was in the toilet. Fortunately, we had 8 years of Reagan to put things back together again. Clinton was lucky to ride the dot com wave. Of course, the economy collapsed at the end of his term, proving that he wasn't responsible for the boom to begin with. Actually, the false prosperity created during the Clinton administration had a huge negative impact for MANY YEARS beyond that, causing many people to lose their life's savings. Great going, nimrod!

My prediction is that the American electorate in its infinite wisdom will overwhelmingly respond to elect a Democratic Congress and, later, turn tail and elect another Republican as President.Why, you ask? Well, they have a history of doing just that.

Are you calling Americans stupid? Your real name isn't John Kerry, is it? Isn't it WONDERFUL that America didn't elect that lying traitor in 2004? Everything we warned about him was true. He's a pompous idiot, more concerned with his status than with the direction this country NEEDS to go in. I hope he runs again in 2008!

The next Republican nominee will go so far as to distance himself from GB that you'll be hard pressed to remember they're in the same party.

Why would they do that unless they really believe in these tainted polls? GWB has proven to be a great President, and history will verify that. He stuck to his guns concerning the tax breaks. The stupid Democrats cried that he would destroy the economy, but the economy rebounded nicely. Democrats WRONG, GWB right! The same thing goes for Iraq: years from now we'll clearly see that he was on the right track and that Democrats were wrong. Without a doubt, Democrats don't have any viable options. But most of all, Democrats are SORELY wrong in their assessment of who really is the enemy. In their vitriolic passionate hatred for ANYTHING Republican, they ignore the threat of Islamofascism which is very real (despite Mikey Mooron's protests) and very deadly.

The Dems will do what they always do, nominate the most fecklessly meandering twerp imaginable. I swear to God, I have never seen a party so hell-bent on cyclical self-destruction. Mondale-geek, Dukakis-bushy-browed uber wuss, Gore-easily confused greenie wimp, Kerry-vascillating troll...

Well, I'll agree with you there. But what choice do they have? The only good Democrat is Zell Miller who is hated by most of the left-wing lunatics. When you can only pick from a pool of fools, you're likely to pick a fool, aren't you?

and let's not kid ourselves, a Hillary Rodham Clinton nomination would secure a victory for the Republican Party faster than anything imaginable.

Run, Hillary, run! Run Kerry, run! Run, Dean, Run! Pick one! Pick ANY one! They're ALL fools, some just bigger idiots than the rest! Pick Cindy Sheehan for President, or perhaps Cynthia McKinney or John Conyers! My GOD, there must be an inverse IQ-quota requirement to get into the Democratic Party! "Your IQ is over 40? You're not welcome in THIS big tent, buddy!"

[Feanor]

Thanks for your long and ... uhmm ... thoughtful reply. You're right: I'm sure there are stupid Democrates too.

[JSE]

Jeskibuff,

Damn, I sure miss the days when you were around here more! Good to see you popped in to smack some Demo arse.

I have been mostly keeping out of politics of late but I have to comment on this.

I keep hearing democrats saying "we need a new direction in Irag, we need change, we need a fresh look, etc, etc."

What I have not heard, is what this new direction/change/look/etc. will be. Not from one democrat. They keep saying how bad Bush and the Republicans have been and how nothing is working but they have yet to say "HOW THEY" are going to make it work or even what their proposed plan is. Why is that? Oh yeah, they don't have a clue.

JSE

[Feanor]

Jeskibuff,

Damn, I sure miss the days when you were around here more! Good to see you popped in to smack some Demo arse.

I have been mostly keeping out of politics of late but I have to comment on this.

I keep hearing democrats saying "we need a new direction in Irag, we need change, we need a fresh look, etc, etc."

What I have not heard, is what this new direction/change/look/etc. will be. Not from one democrat. They keep saying how bad Bush and the Republicans have been and how nothing is working but they have yet to say "HOW THEY" are going to make it work or even what their proposed plan is. Why is that? Oh yeah, they don't have a clue.

JSE

... is better than a really, really bad one.

[JSE]

... is better than a really, really bad one.

Did you just say that? So "no plan" for Iraq is better than what we are doing now? OK???


I guess we just need to get the darts out and start throwing them at the wall and see what sticks, eh? Yeah, that will work well. You think it's bad now?

JSE

[SRO]

In January 2001, the national debt was roughly $6 TRILLION. Next spring, it is expected to top $9 TRILLION. Your share went from $20,000 to what will be $30,000. I make a decent salary, and with the tax cuts I bring home about $24 a year additional. With the tax cuts that Republicans like to crow about I can cover $120 of my additional $10,000.

Who is fiscally responsible?

Jeskibuff - Who has "vitriolic passionate hatred"? Please re-read your post before replying.

Anyone who would not vote for some one just because of the letter at the end of there name seems short-sighted.

[Feanor]

Did you just say that? So "no plan" for Iraq is better than what we are doing now? OK???

I guess we just need to get the darts out and start throwing them at the wall and see what sticks, eh? Yeah, that will work well. You think it's bad now?

JSE

... being worse than GWB's. Certainly American ought to ask Democrate leaders what their plan is -- although they have actually got at least a year to work out the details, i.e. in time for the Presidential race.

But, hey, listen! I don't believe the US should "cut and run" any more than GWB does. My concern is not so much for American service people (or taxpayers) but for the Iraqi people who would be left in the lurch if the US were to just quit. The US owes a huge debt to them, given the damage done.

On the other hand Iraqis need to yank on their bootstraps a little harder. If Iraqis don't do their part, the US obligation will eventually expire.

[Feanor]

In January 2001, the national debt was roughly $6 TRILLION. Next spring, it is expected to top $9 TRILLION. Your share went from $20,000 to what will be $30,000. I make a decent salary, and with the tax cuts I bring home about $24 a year additional. With the tax cuts that Republicans like to crow about I can cover $120 of my additional $10,000.
...

I guess you could say your share will really be $30,120.

By the way, whose picking up that debt? Isn't a lot of it being financed by the PRC, (People's Republic of China)? Suppose they can that debt? Talk about strategic interests!!!

[SRO]

I haven't heard any plan on Iraq from Bush, other than "stay the course". Even this is no longer the plan. If he doesn't have to tell then why should the Dems?

Of course, a few Dems have brought up a phased withdrawal of troops only to be labeled as cut and runners. Recently I have heard a few Reps use a term ( which currently escapes me ) which means the same thing. Do Republicans also want to cut and run?

[dean_martin]

Things are going "remarkably well" for the Iraqis according to VP Cheney as of Oct.16, 2006:
CHENEY: Well, I think there’s some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn’t over instantaneously. It’s been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don’t think it’s surprising that people are concerned.

On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They’re off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we’ve now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They’ve had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.

It’s still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we’re engaged there with this sort of, at present, the “major front” of the war on terror. That’s what Osama bin Laden says, and he’s right.

Here's what Cheney said over a year ago: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

Although James Baker won't tip his hand completely before tomrrow (election day), he is suggesting that a more modest goal in Iraq may be all we can achieve:

WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.

They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should "make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It also says America's top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.

Both Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-commissioner, Lee Hamilton, have said for nearly a month that the coming weeks and months are crucial for the elected body in Baghdad. More recently, Mr. Baker has said he is leaning against counseling the president to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr. Bush yesterday spoke approvingly of his father's old campaign manager and top diplomat, saying he looked forward to seeing "what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton have to say about getting the job done."

The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself." He added, "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."

But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."

Mr. Baker in recent days has subtly been sounding out this theme with interviewers. On PBS's "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker was careful to say he believed the jury was still out on whether Iraq was a success or a failure. But he also hastened to distinguish between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative."

"If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success," he said.

That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. "Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative," the group member, who requested anonymity, said.

Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.

The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations, though both bodies in the past have spurned requests for significant aid for Iraq.

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.

Tax cuts: Sorry I don't have a link for this, but it's my understanding that Congress "cut and ran" home to defend their seats before approving the extension of certain tax cuts on which both Democrats and Republicans agreed. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would not allow the extensions to come to a vote unless the proposals included ending the estate tax. These tax breaks, including credits for college tuition, have now expired. The tax forms, booklets, etc. for '06 returns must be printed by Nov. 7th. This of course is before Congress reconvenes for its last session. Although Congress could do something to reinstate the cuts, it is believed that reinstatement after forms and booklets are already printed is not a viable option. So there you have it. I have one kid who just started college and one who will start next fall. If I can't take credits on my taxes for tuition because some joker had to get back to his home state to save his "job", I'm gonna...

Let's not forget that Bush just signed an overhaul to our only law that prevents comingling of the military and police in domestic situations.

[daviethek]

Our president is a windbag cought in the middle of a struggle way over his C average.
The war is being conducted with no regard for the future of of Iraq. If we cared at all about the country, we would seal off the borders, put the proper number of troops in there to do a Real Occuption and give those people the time necessary to learn what the hell to do. Instead we continue on some hap-hazard damage control path. We simply can't win this war. Time and resources are on the side of the enemy. Somebody should have thought about this 5 years ago. Isn't this what we pay the CIA for?

Sure Dems are not offering any suggestions at this point. They are labeled as cut and run traitors if they voice the least amount of verbal opposition. Bush promotes democracy abroad whitch is good but does not tolerate the least amount of dissent at home.Someone else did his civics homework for him.

One things for sure, when things go bad, the Republicans will find someone for us to hate.
They are working on a plan right now that clearly indicates gay marriage is directly responsible for the terrorist threat and impending immigrant imvasion from Mexico. The only way out of danger is to repeal Roe and stop immediately all stem cell research before they create another chicken virus with it. Thanks for the entertainment George.

[jeskibuff]

Thanks for your long and ... uhmm ... thoughtful reply. You're right: I'm sure there are stupid Democrates too.

Yes, my posts are usually long because I like to address each point I disagree with. And yes, they are thoughtful, incorporating logic and reason. And despite your sarcasm, if you had read a little closer, I wasn't saying there are just a FEW stupid Democrats. I was basically saying that roughly 98% of Democrats are too stupid to know what's good for them and this country! The evidence overwhelmingly proves it!

Jeskibuff,

Damn, I sure miss the days when you were around here more! Good to see you popped in to smack some Demo arse.

Thanks, JSE! Priorities change and times change. I miss some of the old days too, but I just don't have the time anymore to frequent the message boards.

I have been mostly keeping out of politics of late but I have to comment on this.

I keep hearing democrats saying "we need a new direction in Irag, we need change, we need a fresh look, etc, etc."

What I have not heard, is what this new direction/change/look/etc. will be. Not from one democrat. They keep saying how bad Bush and the Republicans have been and how nothing is working but they have yet to say "HOW THEY" are going to make it work or even what their proposed plan is. Why is that? Oh yeah, they don't have a clue.

You've got that right. Why it's not obvious to more people is beyond my ability to comprehend. Some people just cling tenaciously to their beliefs no matter how many holes get shot in their weak platforms. Oh, and have you seen this this little gem from David Zucker (of Airplane/Naked Gun movie fame)?? It should be mandatory viewing before people vote tomorrow!

Sometimes NO plan ... ... is better than a really, really bad one.

Okay...here's progress. At least you admit the Dumbocrats have no plans. That's the first step towards recovery. As far as your implication that Bush's plan is bad, you're dead wrong. Given the things we know, his plan is the absolutely best track for America, like it or not. The evidence proves it. You evidently just don't have the capacity to grasp it.

In January 2001, the national debt was roughly $6 TRILLION. Next spring, it is expected to top $9 TRILLION. Your share went from $20,000 to what will be $30,000. I make a decent salary, and with the tax cuts I bring home about $24 a year additional. With the tax cuts that Republicans like to crow about I can cover $120 of my additional $10,000.

Who is fiscally responsible?

Wars are expensive. No one really likes them, but the alternative is far worse. Democrats have absolutely no concept of what that alternative is. They have no concept of the nature of our enemies. Quite simply, they are fools not worthy of a single vote.

Jeskibuff - Who has "vitriolic passionate hatred"? Please re-read your post before replying.

I usually read my posts several times before I submit them. I check for spelling and grammar, but most importantly the to make sure my message is communicated loud and clear. I really don't hate Dumbocrats. I just have an extremely low tolerance for stupidity. The liberals I know get along with me fine. We have entertaining conversations and many have called me the best Republican they've ever met.

We've just gone through several years that should have clearly exposed the seedy and unsavory nature of the Democratic Party. We had a President that lied in every other word that came out of his mouth. It finally took some DNA proof to corner him into telling the truth. The next Democratic nominee wasn't so adept at lying, thinking he could get away with taking both sides on every issue. Almost half the population voted for the pompous traitor!

We had the obvious media attempt to smear a good President, if nothing but to retaliate for exposing the lying Clintons for who they were. We had Mikey Mooron make his moronic Fahrenheit film while Dan Rather peddled his fake "authentic" memos. We had book after book of Bush-hating rhetoric published, yet the accusers all get exposed as the liars. Bush got blamed for everything from the WTC collapse to hurricane Katrina. Yet, with this huge mountain of evidence showing Dumbocrats to be liars, traitors and frauds, we STILL have millions of clueless people still supporting the Dumbocratic Party! WHAT DOES IT TAKE to get it through their thick skulls???

Anyone who would not vote for some one just because of the letter at the end of there name seems short-sighted.

To reiterate, anyone who has seen what has gone on the last several years and still votes the (D)s has the vision problem. They obviously are totally blind.

It's hard to imagine any other plan ...being worse than GWB's. Certainly American ought to ask Democrate leaders what their plan is -- although they have actually got at least a year to work out the details, i.e. in time for the Presidential race.

Good luck on getting anything out of a Dimocrat leader. And as I stated before, GWB's plan is solid and sensible.

But, hey, listen! I don't believe the US should "cut and run" any more than GWB does. My concern is not so much for American service people (or taxpayers) but for the Iraqi people who would be left in the lurch if the US were to just quit. The US owes a huge debt to them, given the damage done.

You obviously infer the damage was done by the U.S. What you fail to realize is that the damage was done by Saddam and is currently being perpetrated by terrorists. But it's comforting to know that you have a tad bit more ethical backbone than the bulk of Democrats have.

On the other hand Iraqis need to yank on their bootstraps a little harder. If Iraqis don't do their part, the US obligation will eventually expire.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the good ones are being slaughtered by the bad ones. The terrorists have demonstrated their capacity to infiltrate the Iraqi police force and inflict enormous damage. Those who don't value life have a great deal of persuasion (via fear) over people who do.

I haven't heard any plan on Iraq from Bush, other than "stay the course". Even this is no longer the plan. If he doesn't have to tell then why should the Dems?

The plan has been on the table all along: build up the Iraqi troops so they can take over. Unfortunately, the blood-thirsty terrorists have a counterplan that is working very well: slaughter as many of the good Iraqis that they can. The intricacies of our plan aren't on display and shouldn't be. That involves our use of technology and methods in identifying and exterminating the vermin. The methods are being adjusted and new tactics must be used, but the overall plan is the same: stay the course. We also have to fight Dumbocrats who want to restrict our tactics in this war. Those who believe that plans are foolproof are just idiots - the enemy has the capability of reacting to our strategy. If we stuck to the same methodology, we'd be the fools, but we've been changing. Democratic fools just want to declare a victory by saying "Bush has failed, let's pack up and stop the killing!" Good thing these pansies weren't in command when storming Normandy beach! Dean_Martin's post has a good example of the Bush plan: "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate." It doesn't begin to describe that caliphate, but think "Taliban".

Of course, a few Dems have brought up a phased withdrawal of troops only to be labeled as cut and runners. Recently I have heard a few Reps use a term ( which currently escapes me ) which means the same thing. Do Republicans also want to cut and run?

There are cowardly Republicans too, afraid that they may not get elected if they associate themselves with Bush. They deserve to lose, but to replace even a cowardly Republican with a wishy-washy fool of a Democrat is a much worse thing.

bush is an embarrasment Our president is a windbag cought in the middle of a struggle way over his C average.

With all this hot air coming out of windbags like you, tell me why is it so easy to use logic and reason to defend the strategies of GWB and shoot holes in your flimsy arguments? Who's the real "C average" student in this scenario? Here's a hint: it's not GWB! You need to study harder!

The war is being conducted with no regard for the future of of Iraq.

What a load of bull! It is entirely focused on the future of Iraq. We could "win" it in a second if we dropped a nuke on Baghdad, but we value innocent lives so we put our own flesh and blood on the line so they can have a future!

If we cared at all about the country, we would seal off the borders, put the proper number of troops in there to do a Real Occuption and give those people the time necessary to learn what the hell to do. Instead we continue on some hap-hazard damage control path. We simply can't win this war. Time and resources are on the side of the enemy. Somebody should have thought about this 5 years ago. Isn't this what we pay the CIA for?

Spoken like a true armchair quarterback! Do you have any idea what kind of manpower alone is necessary to seal off the borders of a country the size of California? I realize you look at a map and see a country the size of a postage stamp, but that's really just a picture. The real Iraq is MUCH bigger!

Sure Dems are not offering any suggestions at this point. They are labeled as cut and run traitors if they voice the least amount of verbal opposition.

Simply because they only offer criticism and their selfish motives are clear as day. Never have they come up with alternatives. Dumb Kerry said he had a plan, but I guess he's keeping it all to himself because he lost, isn't he? GET A CLUE! That dolt doesn't have the slightest idea what he would do!

Bush promotes democracy abroad whitch is good but does not tolerate the least amount of dissent at home.

Well, I guess this will be the last we hear from you then. Good luck in the concentration camps.

Idiot.

[daviethek]

none of your remarks constitute a rebuttal. I wasn't mentioning Kerry. He actually is considered a windbag among the dems I know. there is little argument there. Monday morning quarterbacking is a charge that is appropriate if the event is recent and the conclusion obviously bad, but we have been watching this thing unfold for a long time now. My bigest fear is that you will be making the same childish personally insulting and defensive statements about the war 4 years from now. You are taking this way too personal. Being from Chicago, you learn to trust no politicians......ever. dk

[jeskibuff]

none of your remarks constitute a rebuttal.

None of your remarks warranted a rebuttal. You suggested that GWB is an idiot, yet your own remarks suggest that you're projecting. We've heard this same screed over and over again from Dumbocrats and it's just not worth the effort to try to enlighten those who insist on remaining in the dark. Fortunately, the last few elections have indicated that there are enough people who understand the insanity of liberals and are fighting hard to keep them out of power. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a repeat, despite all the media's dire predictions for Republicans.

I do hold out hope though. For instance, the maker of that video (David Zucker) used to be a Democrat. Here it is again, in case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h3GPc_yMCE

Of course, David exhibited great intellect by creating some of the most hilarious movies ever made. It's only natural that someone with such intelligence should abandon the party of fools.

[FLZapped]

Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich benefit the middle class and poor is a myopic idiot. Check your financial records and you will find that the middle class does better when Democrats run the government.

Funny, I'm middle class. Checked my records and guess what, I received a nice refund check and more money every paycheck.....

-Bruce

[Feanor]

Funny, I'm middle class. Checked my records and guess what, I received a nice refund check and more money every paycheck.....

-Bruce

There is more to tax cuts than the reduction in your taxes. Irresponsible tax cuts means reduction in vital public services and increase in public debt.

The consumate stupidity of the middle class that so many believe that they derive less benefit from public spending than what it cost them in taxes. To be sure, we can all point to programs that we consider a waste of money; problem is no two of us will have the same list of what ought to be cut.

[GMichael]

WOW! You guys play rough. But I like it. You could get more info reading this thread than you could watching a billion of their idiot commercials. And I think that's how many I've seen in the last week.

[dean_martin]

The main problem with Bush's "plan" for Iraq is that he and his administration are not flexible enough to deal with unexpected contingencies. We ARE fighting enemies of ours in Iraq, but that's not the only fighting going on. The Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence between the Sunnis and Shiites is more bloody and widespread than I think anyone expected. Establishing a democratic form of government based on US principles may not be the answer. But Bush insists on "Democracy" for Iraq. I think if you equate "strategy" with "goals" then the Bush plan for Iraq is failing. If you think of "tactics" in the context of fighting then our military is in a sense "hamstrung" if you consider that much of the current violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. The obvious conclusion is to re-work the goal (or, overall strategy) to something more easily achieved, like some form of representative national government combined with a loose confederation of states within Iraq. Those states would require more autonomy than is preferred and some form of monitoring would be required to prevent or warn of terrorists setting up shop. For example, Musharraf in Pakistan has very little control over what goes on in the northern region of his country, however, he knows exactly what is going on.

I think it's very clear that our goal of democracy, as we know it, in Iraq should be modified. The real questions, however, relate to "tactics" (battle operations) and choices on the ground as we're fighting terrorists, and Iraqis are fighting each other. We hear very little about "tactics" which is not surprising because of what the enemy will learn. From what we do see and hear though it appears that our "tactics" need to be questioned as well at some level within our military.

Our current adminstration lost its credibility with the American people by its rhetoric. We will be welcomed as liberators? Oil and gas production will pay for stabilization? The insurgency is in its last throes? We will stay the course? I never said we will stay the course? Amazingly, none of this rhetoric has anything to do with the "mistaken" reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. Since we're there now, I won't even go into that.

[SRO]

Jeskibuff,

My comment on your post has nothing to do with grammar. I was referring to your obvious hatred of Democrats ( sorry, Dumbocrats ). It must be the respect you show by the capital D. Oh yeah, you mentioned the " some of my best friends are... " argument as well. What is the saying about people who live in glass houses?

The war has cost roughly $400 million, where has the other $2.6 trillion gone? You personally can not lower your income and increase your spending without some consequences. 43 has already borrowed more $$$$ form foreign banks than 1 through 42 COMBINED!! Who do you want in charge of your tax money?

W has lied about nation building. In the 2000 campaign, he stated that he would not be involved in it. Seems like what we are doing in Iraq. Is this a flip flop?

Where is Osama? He was a priority for a while, dead or alive we were going to find him. Then W doesn't think about him too much. Is this a flip flop? Seems we took our eye off the ball.

Hope the following doesn't bust one of your stereotypes, but I am off to work.

[JSE]

W has lied about nation building. In the 2000 campaign, he stated that he would not be involved in it. Seems like what we are doing in Iraq. Is this a flip flop?

Lied? I think that's a stretch. In 2000 he probably had no intentions of nation buidling. I think it's reasonable to assume 9/11 probably changed his mind, rightly or wrongly. The world was a different place after this event. You and other democrats keep saying W is too bull headed and unwilling to change course in Iraq but then you also call him out for a change of course in your above statement. So do you want someone unwaivering or someone who can adapt and change course when needed? I'm confused.

[GMichael]

Lied? I think that's a stretch. In 2000 he probably had no intentions of nation buidling. I think it's reasonable to assume 9/11 probably changed his mind, rightly or wrongly. The world was a different place after this event. You and other democrats keep saying W is too bull headed and unwilling to change course in Iraq but then you also call him out for a change of course in your above statement. So do you want someone unwaivering or someone who can adapt and change course when needed? I'm confused.

They want someone who is not a republican. The arguments will change as needed.