0
   

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 09:31 am
A Lone Voice wrote:

I take it that is your responses?

Most impressive.

And typical. In your arrogance, have you forgot how to reason?



Did you forget how to read as well as reason?

Read my second post before you post such nonsense.

When you can point to the logical conclusions based on sound reasoning in your original post we can discuss reason and arrogance. Until then you don't have much of a leg to stand on and deserve the ridicule you are getting.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 09:48 am
FreeDuck wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's too simple


Yes. And so is the notion that Democratic leaders wish for failure in Iraq for political gain.
I couldn't agree more. It is more complex than that, and I wouldn't want my argument to be construed as defense of that position. I'd rather not believe there is one single politician hoping for failure, and I do not blame politicians for profiting off their opponents incompetence. I do, however, blame them for not trying to come up with solutions instead of constantly wailing about failure and crying doom. I don't happen to agree with Biden, for instance, but I give him mad credit for formulating solutions instead of screaming we're defeated. Murtha is a disgrace. In his political hyper-partisanship; he couldn't stop shouting at the rain long enough to congratulate the Iraqis on a successful election nor show some appreciation for what could well be a monumental historical step. It is plenty fair to suggest his premature call for surrender emboldened our enemies.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 10:01 am
I used your words, O'Bill, but I was really mostly addressing ALV. You won't get any argument from me about Murtha, as he used to be my congressman and I know first hand that he's good at winning pork but not much else. And I agree that the dems should come up with more solutions, but I also understand that they have pretty much been marginalized the last 4 or more years and so my expectations aren't quite as high as yours.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 10:02 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's too simple


Yes. And so is the notion that Democratic leaders wish for failure in Iraq for political gain.
I couldn't agree more. It is more complex than that, and I wouldn't want my argument to be construed as defense of that position. I'd rather not believe there is one single politician hoping for failure, and I do not blame politicians for profiting off their opponents incompetence. I do, however, blame them for not trying to come up with solutions instead of constantly wailing about failure and crying doom. I don't happen to agree with Biden, for instance, but I give him mad credit for formulating solutions instead of screaming we're defeated. Murtha is a disgrace. In his political hyper-partisanship; he couldn't stop shouting at the rain long enough to congratulate the Iraqis on a successful election nor show some appreciation for what could well be a monumental historical step. It is plenty fair to suggest his premature call for surrender emboldened our enemies.


Bill....you SHAVED? You're still gorgeous but so different!!!

But I disagree. I do think that even against their own sensibilities and instincts, most Democrats who hate Bush do not want any success in Iraq that he will get credit for. If they did, they would also see the necessity of rooting for the team to win. They won't do that. They want failure so that their hatred of Bush is justified.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 10:51 am
You mean beyond the whining, the crying, the insolent behavior, the anti-Bush speak, the bleating, the idiotic ideas, the inability to have any sort of plan, the lack of any focus, the impotent law making and the general lack of intelligence that there is something else that is wrong with Dems?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:20 am
I bet it's the fact they won control of both houses of Congress.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:52 am
Yes, the Democrats now control both Houses of Congress ... narrowly.

Is that the result of a sudden major shift in support for the sitting Administration, is it an overwhelming mandate for radical change in course? I don't think so.

Those elected in the off-term canvass were from the right wing of the Democratic Party, not the radical left whose shrill condemnations of this Administration is so prominently seen here. Even in those races where the Democrats replaced Republican representatives, the races were extremely close. The Democratic Congress an opportunity over the next two years to implement public policies that are more to their liking. Perhaps they will come up with a winning strategy for the War on Terrorism, or perhaps they haven't any better approach than that followed by the Administration. Will the Democratic Congress deliver on its implied promise to lead the country into peace, prosperity and security against the enemies of our nation? Only time will tell.

My guess is that the Democrats have no plan, and that we will continue to hear the same old condemnation of the lame duck Administration's policies. I rather expect that the Democratic Party will devour its own favorites with relish, and that their internal discords will prevent them from adopting any effective policies.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:54 am
McG wrote: "...the idiotic ideas..." applies to how Bush prosecuted this war from the very beginning to now; incompetent and mismanaged. From WMDs to rid a tyrant to bring democracy to the Middle East, and finally to survival of his "plan." What plan?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:57 am
ebrown_p wrote:
I bet it's the fact they won control of both houses of Congress.


Actually,the Dems DONT control both houses of Congress.
They have the majority in both houses,but they dont have the 60 votes in the Senate to get what they wan.
They have to rely on the repubs,so the repubs can block anything they dont like.
AND,the dems in the Senate cannot muster enough votes to override a Presidential veto.

So,the repubs find themselves in the same position that the dems were in prior to the last election.

They are in the minority,but they still control the Senate.


Also,ebrown said...
Quote:
This is Iraqis fighting Iraqis over the future of THEIR country


If that was the case,then why are coalition troops constantly finding Iranian,Syrian,Jordanian,Egyptian,Turkish, and other pasports on the people that they capture,along with other foreign passports on the bodies of insurgents killed.

If this was only Iraqi's fighting each other,we would probably have left already.
But,since there ARE foreign fighters in Iraq,yor claim that it is only Iraqi's fighting Iraqi's is blatantly false.

As for the comment someone made about the NG being in Iraq...SO WHAT!!!

The people in the NG ALL volunteered to serve their country,and they all knew that the chance was there that they would go.
They are as well trained and well equipped as the regular army,and they are an important part of our military.
The NG has fought in EVERY war that the US has been involved in since the NG was first formed.

The dems,while not openly saying they want the US to lose in Iraq,sure arent doing anything to show that they do want to win.
The dems are relying on bad news so they can win.
Leaving aside the war,every time good economic news comes out,the dems and the left say "yeah but".

So,if the dems arent relying on bad news to win their elections,they sure are giving that appearance.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:01 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. What is perplexing is Brandon's use of the term "anti-democratic forces', since most Iraqis (in the most non-partisan polls we have including Gallup) want the US out which begs the question of what democratic forces would look like.

Not that perplexing. Pro-democratic forces are Iraqis who want to preserve elections. Anti-democratic forces are Iraqis or outside forces who do not want Iraq to have this or any other elected government. Big puzzle.

ebrown_p wrote:
But this is not brave Iraqi's standing up to an outside force (unless that outside force is us).

Some of the Iraqi police and soldiers are in favor of the idea of an elected government, and are fighting to protect it.

ebrown_p wrote:
This is Iraqis fighting Iraqis over the future of THEIR country. The idea that we can, or should, impose our idea of "democracy" on them, when so many of them are willing to give up their lives (bravely or not) to oppose us is more and more ludicrous.

The various Iraqis are giving up their lives for various different reasons, among them, to defend the democractically elected government they now have. What's ludicrous is the idea that democracy is some product like Coca Cola that we are forcing on them.

ebrown_p wrote:
My only point is that Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. The sooner we accept that, the sooner this inane war will end.

We are presently defending the new democratic government until it's stable.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:09 pm
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:13 pm
Brandon,

If (hypothetically speaking of course) the majority of Iraqis did not support the "democratically elected" government, and in fact voted almost entirely along ethnic lines.

If (also hypothetically speaking of course) the majority of Iraqi's now had no alligience to the "democratically elected" government, infact if (again hypothetically) they thought the whole thing a sham set up by an occupying force.

And, if (hypothetically) the vast number of attacks against US troops in Iraq were commited by Iraqis (not foreign fighters), and (hypothetically speaking) the US army itself admited as much.

And (hypotheticially) if most of the Iraqis identified far more closely with their ethnic/religious group then any loyalty to a governemen that (hypothetically) everyone knows is (hypothetically) impotent.

And, if (of course completely hypothetically speaking) the majority of Iraqis opposed the US occupation, including over 50% of Iraqi citizens asked say killing US troops was morally justifiable action against an occupation.

And if (and I am really stretching here, but bear with me) the majority of American citizens felt the war was not only unjustified, but wanted a timetable to withdraw American troops as soon as possible. And if (stay with me) hypothetically they Americans opposing the war had an unexpected success in mid-term elections backed up by every poll.

Now I know I have made a lot of stuff up here, but I want to see how far your commitment is... And this is a yes or no question.

Under these ridiculous circumstances would you contemplate withdrawing US troops from Iraq?
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:16 pm
parados wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:

I take it that is your responses?

Most impressive.

And typical. In your arrogance, have you forgot how to reason?



Did you forget how to read as well as reason?

Read my second post before you post such nonsense.

When you can point to the logical conclusions based on sound reasoning in your original post we can discuss reason and arrogance. Until then you don't have much of a leg to stand on and deserve the ridicule you are getting.


parados wrote:
Quote:
Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what happens, if Petraeus begins to find success, and it looks like our military is starting to turn a corner.


This would be which number corner that we are starting to turn? 12? 48?

This boondoogle has been nothing but "turning the corner" which keeps taking us right back to nowhere.

We have heard the "starting to turn the corner" nonsense far too many times to accept it on face value. The violence calmed for a week before picking up again this weekend. Did we turn another corner?


This would be your paragon of insightfulness?

Are you avoiding my question?

The change in topic you are trying to invoke in my post is obvious; I'll even agree with you for a moment; how many times will the military try to turn the corner?

Being the military, they will continue to try to turn the corner until they win, or are ordered to retreat. We would expect nothing less.

But how about we return to my topic, your efforts at avoidance not withstanding.

How will you react IF 'the corner is turned'?

What if the US military starts winning?

Will you rejoyce? Will you panic? Will you say it doesn't make any difference at this point, the war was wrong to begin with and winning isn't justified?

I can understand dems rallying against 'The Surge.' Really. Mostly for the reasons you state; how many more people are going to be killed and injured in a losing cause? I think they are being disingenueous, though, by making their vote non-binding.

But since they seem to not have the gumption to cut funding for the war (an interesting strategy in itself), the surge will happen. Petraeus will take command.

And this being war and all, we really don't know what will happen.

But I think I know what some of you will be rooting for.

No? Splain me...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:35 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Show me a couple of quotes from any Democrat in Congress or running for office that is supportive of President Bush and/or encourages the troops to do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemies of a free and independent Iraq, and I'll withdraw my statement.

Until then, you only make my case beautifully my friend.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:37 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


FYI, I didn't direct this towards those who want to blame Bush. I find it hard to believe that any normal citizen would wish our military to fail just because of their hatred of Bush.

Are there people like that? Sure, but they're the fringe. At least I hope they are.

I actually directed this to those dems who are poliitical enough to wish for the US military to fail in Iraq. Are they out there? Sure, but maybe not on the fringe?

That's why I'm asking the question.

Again, this is not for those of you who were against the war from day one, who are anti-war in nature. I respect your beliefs.

This is for those of you who think like those in congress who voted to go to war, but now are ardent in their oppisition to it.

If the Bush admin had not mishandled the beginnings of this war, if the military had been successful from the beginning and Iraq was calm, public opinion would have never dropped and the anti-war faction would have been viewed as out of the mainstream, much as they were in the beginning.

But public opinion is fickle, and if the military is successful in this latest 'surge', public opinion might once again change.

And my question is:

How will dems react?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:05 pm
For those of us who think that the US starting Iraq war was a disasterous (and unnecessary) mistake -- who should we blame?
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:17 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
For those of us who think that the US starting Iraq war was a disasterous (and unnecessary) mistake -- who should we blame?


Interesting question.

Why don't you start a new thread, and I'll answer it there.

I'd prefer to remain on topic here...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:22 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:23 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Show me a couple of quotes from any Democrat in Congress or running for office that is supportive of President Bush and/or encourages the troops to do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemies of a free and independent Iraq, and I'll withdraw my statement.

Until then, you only make my case beautifully my friend.


so because I think bush and his war are a total failure that automatically means I WANT this war to fail and continue to take the lives of our soldiers and piss away my tax money and degrade our status in the world and divert money that could be spent on infrasturcture, education and health services to a failed war just so I can talk **** about bush?

Because you make my case re: you idiots, beautifully with that sort of nonsensical horseshit honey.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:41 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?


"Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad?"

Sorry for highlighting it twice, but I needed to be sure about this.

Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad?

That sure seems to be a winning repub strategy. More soldiers die = Bush not looking bad....

Really?

I think Bush and the repubs look terrible, every time a soldier dies. Or should that go without saying?

But tell me, Duck: How will you feel if the surge begins to work? What if a couple of months from now, Iraq is stable?

Will you rejoice?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 01:18:12