A vote for American defeat...

[Gary Conner]

Working hard to destroy America? Is that written somewhere? Can I see somewhere that a Democrat has, on record, said that they are trying to destroy this country?

Have you ever followed the statements of former President Jimmy Carter, regarding foreign policy of each President who followed him?

It has long been a tradition that all former Presidents at minimum, refrained from criticizing other Administrations and their foreign policy.

Carter is the best example of supporting each and every dictatorship AGAINST our policy since he left office.

In fact, he even screwed Clinton's Administration regarding Korea.

If you want to know of a Democrat working to destroy America, Jimmy Carter is a poster child for Democrats saying assinine things in support of almost every dictatorship in the world.

 

[Redworm]

Come on, if you think that a polotician a not corrupt just because they are a Democrat you are in la la land.

If you think a politician is not corrupt just because they are Republican you are also in la la land. They all have personal agendas, the liberals and conservatives both. There isn't an educated adult in America that does not have a personal agenda.

 

[Redworm]

Minorities have more rights than anyone else in this country!

That really depends on where in the country you are.

 

[buzz_knox]

So giving minorities equal rights, trying to abolish poverty, increasing money for education, creating healthcare programs such as medicaid and medicare, creating federal funding of projects for the arts, creating cultural centers, creating the Department of Transportation, trying to protect the environment, as well as passing acts to protect consumers are all terrible things that are obviously created to destroy America?

Minority rights? Insured by the Constitution so not really a single party issue. And I seem to recall a lot of Dems voting against those civil rights bills and Dem politicians block minority access to voting and education.

Abolishing poverty? Ah, yes, the "butter and guns" argument. It helped castrate Social Security (by letting the feds dip into the "trustfund" to pay for the programs", as well as being an unconstitutional act. And I'm sorry, but if War on Terror is a joke, the War on Poverty is an even bigger joke. Poverty is alive and well in those areas which

Funding of the arts? Cultural centers? Not granted as a power of the national gov't under the Constitution until the Supremes were threatened by FDR.

Protecting the environment? Unconstitutional. For years, the national gov't was excluded from environmental laws. In Oak Ridge, freon was routinely used as a cleaning agent . . . after they made topping off your car's air conditioning system nearly impossible or illegal. And if we'd signed Kyoto as the Dems wanted, we'd be faced with massive restrictions on our economy while other nations (China and India in particular) would have seen their economy growing under far fewer restrictions.

Medicare and medicaid? Programs which aren't constitutional under the literal reading of the Constitution, and which were created as a wealth redistribution plan to insure votes for those who keep the program going.

Protecting consumers from dangerous things? Unconstitutional but noble. That is, of course, until you consider that whenever the FDA announces a new drug, it discusses the thousands of lives that will be saved each year. Great, until you realize that the FDA has been holding up that drug's availability while it conducts tests that 1) are often not worth the paper they are printed on, 2) merely duplicate tests done in other nations but which the FDA will not recognize, 3) dont' take into account actual usage of the drug in other nations, because the FDA won't allow it, and 4) increased the cost of R&D into drugs through the roof. So, the FDA held up the drug that could have saved X thousands of lives over Y years . . . and for what?

Not to be harsh, but if you are citing the Dems accomplishments, don't go to things that are unconstitutional or for which the party properly shouldn't get credit for.

 

[Desert Heat]

That really depends on where in the country you are.

Here in Tucson, AZ anything other than being an illegal is the minority. The illegal immigration has fully taken over and nobody cares. They get all the jobs thanks to Affirmative Action and the hospitals are virtually bankrupt. What have the Dems done to help my city? On that same note, what have the Repubs done as well? Nothing!!!!

Schools have to slow down the learning curve of each classroom to teach these kids ENGLISH! More flyers and textbooks are written in Spanish than English.

Our beautiful desert has been destroyed and we hand them more benefits than I get!

 

[UH1-D Rotorhead]

Power was never "handed" over....

....the people have spoken....Americans either voted in the Dems, or voted out the Reps...either way, it's what makes us a cut above the rest.

 

[invention_45]

At least the Republicans are trying to fight terror. Some of this concerns me greatly, but handing over power to appeasers and people who advocate surrender is a bad idea. When NYC disappears in an Al-Queda mushroom cloud, a lot of people's Habeus Corpus rights will be moot.

Not if, when. Enjoy ideological purity while you can.

Yes. They're fighting terror by stirring up the pot over there badly enough so that we'll have terrorists to fight for a century to come. In a war over nothing.

And just exactly how is Al Queda going to make NYC disappear in a mushroom cloud? Oh, I think I get it. They are going to either conduct their own Manhattan Project, only somehow out of satellite view, a pretty laughable idea, or they are going to persuade a nation who owns a working weapon to sell them one. So that that nation risks the exploded weapon being traced to them as an origin and being thereafter converted to radioactive glass, something the US is very capable of doing.

How about, rather than simply surrendering now, as Robbins suggests we have done, we remove ALL troops and support people from Iraq. Additionally, we decriminalize (but not legalize) drugs and other things some people find fun but have no victims.

That would leave us with a huge mass of unemployed but presumably competent people. Those people could remain employed by setting up means to inspect 100%, rather than 5%, of incoming shipping containers and other cargo. Since North Korea nor any other unfriendly nation is going to lend out a nuclear bomb with missile kit capable of hitting the US, and since a missile defense system, while futile against a thousand-MIRVed missile arsenal, would be pretty effective against a single missile, shipping is pretty much the only viable option a terrorist would have.

Meanwhile, while we are conducting what could truly be called defense, we could eat a little crow for the rest of the world to watch and then ask them to help fix Iraq back to the way it was, i.e., not a threat, and to pressure the rest of the world to refrain from being one as well.

After a few years of this, we'd deflate the extremists' ability to recruit new terrorists. THAT is a real War on Terror.

Offer anyone who wants to relocate out of the Middle East transportation and a down payment on a house somewhere else that best fits their liking. Get China and the ex-Soviet countries in on the plan using economic incentives. Let the extremists remain behind and slug it out without any interference one way or the other, until the problem spills over to any participating free-world country. If that happens, put all that money we, China, the old USSR and Europe invested in nuclear weapons, delivery, and targeting to good use and end the 2000 year-old problem for good.

 

[Redworm]

Here in Tucson, AZ anything other than being an illegal is the minority. The illegal immigration has fully taken over and nobody cares. They get all the jobs thanks to Affirmative Action and the hospitals are virtually bankrupt. What have the Dems done to help my city? On that same note, what have the Repubs done as well? Nothing!!!!

Schools have to slow down the learning curve of each classroom to teach these kids ENGLISH! More flyers and textbooks are written in Spanish than English.

Our beautiful desert has been destroyed and we hand them more benefits than I get!

That's a different argument. My point was that the idea that minorities have more rights than white male protestants in the US does not hold water in all parts of the country. I'm not fan of affirmative action but in many places, especially in the south and southeast, there is heavy racism that prevents minorities from getting jobs, admission to schools and credit.

As for illegals, yes it's a problem but to think that it's fully taken over is a bit of a stretch. I highly doubt the majority of jobs illegals are doing even fall under the scope of affirmative action because - DING DING DING - they're undocumented and thus not offered all the protections of being a legal employee. I do understand, however, that many are using fake and/or stolen SSNs to get jobs...which of course means they're paying the same taxes as the rest of us. Hrm...

Schools are lowering standards but it's not because of language. Students that don't speak english go to ESOL classes; they don't print the same math books in spanish and hand them to the regular teachers, expecting them to be bilingual to teach their class. If that's actually happened I'd be very surprised but I know it's certainly not happening on a large scale.

The problem with lowering the standards comes from parents - both liberal and conservative, mind you - complaining that their precious little child not be held back a grade because they're simply not as smart as the rest of the kids. The standards are being lowered for American children, not the children of illegals. Kids on Ritalin and Adderall, kids buying crap from vending machines in schools instead of eating healthy lunches, kids being pushed into playing football and baseball instead of studying, kids being told to ignore their biology and history teachers because there's an older book at home that contradicts them; those are the major problems with education. Those are the reasons the standards are being lowered.

I do believe, however, that a national language must be established. My only concern is the numerous American territories. Puerto Ricans are born United States citizens but there's no reason they should be required to learn the english language.

 

[Te Anau]

Two valuable lessons todays Democrats have yet to learn.

"We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." -- Benjamin Franklin
&
"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." --Calvin Coolidge

 

[Heist]

At least the Republicans are trying to fight terror.

That's baloney, if not a deliberate lie, and you know it.

If the Republicans were actually trying to fight "terror", they would have done something about our southern border instead of mocking the citizens who cared about it and then acting out a little charade that accomplished nothing but soundbytes, a few weeks before the election.

Hypothetically speaking, with ten guys, five hundred grand, and ten days, I could wreck this nation. Brushfire the entire western US, backhoe most of the internet into broken sections, and wreck enough power distribution centers to blackout some big cities for weeks. It would be Katrina on a vastly larger scale. All of this is possible because I could bring whoever I wanted and whatever I needed in via the border. It would be much easier than what the insurgents and small % of outside Terrorists in Iraq have to accomplish just to hit their own countrymen.

With that possibility open, with Al Qaida knowing of it and already moving agents into our country, how can you say that Bush and the Republican party cared about stopping terrorism, when you know that they deliberately avoided doing anything about the most likely vector to be used by terrorists to enter our country?

Do you honestly believe what you are saying, or do you feel that it is acceptable to propogate falsehoods to bolster your position?

Greg, will I ever get an answer on this? You're active in all of the threads you posted except for this one. I hope your reply is coherent and non-profane so that it won't get the topic locked this time.

Does what I say make you uncomfortable?

 

[Greg Bell]

hope your reply is coherent and non-profane so that it won't get the topic locked this time.

Did I get a thread locked?

As for your post. You called me a liar, and claimed to have insights into my motivations that you could not have. Since I am a big boy I don't really mind, but I didn't necessarily feel the need to respond.

 

[Heist]

Whoops, I confused you with someone else with a similar name. My bad.

I didn't directly accuse you of being a liar. I guess I should have expected that you'd look for any possible way out of facing what I said, though.

Why do you think it's a good thing that we are vulnerable to crippling terrorist attacks due to Bush and his border policies? To be fair, all of the parties and administration members are generally on the same page here, but that does not excuse your golden boys in the GOP.

 

[Greg Bell]

We can chose to stick our heads in sand and return to a pre 9/11 mindset out of bitterness for grievances real and imagined. The simple truth is, the Democrats and the "independents" are so wrapped up in hatred for Bush and Republicans that they have lost sight of the fact that radical Islam has been on the march since the 1960s, and continues to grow. The Republicans, as I stated before, have made some mistakes and overstepped the Constitutional limits with some of their anti-terror measures. But again, at least they are doing something. Patriot, Patriot II, the torture debates, all of these things that would not be happening if it wasn't for the WOT. A WOT that only the Republicans seem interested in fighting.

Terrorists will acquire a nuclear weapon, it is a mathematical certainty.Al queda has announced that it is a top priority. When this happens, the debate won't be about whether this or that measure was over the line, it will be over why we did not do more. If there is an attack next year the same people who howl the loudest now will accuse Bush of not doing what it took to catch the terrorists. Unfortunatley, all the knee-jerk satisfaction of opposing every thing Bush has done will be little solace.

 

[BamaXD]

Well, if we weren't fighting an ever more expensive "War on Terror", do you think that money being spent on replacing Humvee's that have been blown up by IED's, could be spent on actual National Security? Such as a true, full length method of protection for our borders, as well as maybe increasing the seagoing cargo searches from 10% to maybe 50% or more? How about actually paying our military more, stop base closures, as well as pay increases for all first responders such as Police, EMT's, and Firefighters? So much money could be put to better use here, actually protecting America. Just my thoughts. -BamaXD

 

[Greg Bell]

Well, if we weren't fighting an ever more expensive "War on Terror", do you think that money being spent on replacing Humvee's that have been blown up by IED's, could be spent on actual National Security?

I think we should do both. It isn't either/or.

Such as a true, full length method of protection for our borders, as well as maybe increasing the seagoing cargo searches from 10% to maybe 50% or more?

I would like to see that. Unfortunately, I doubt

How about actually paying our military more, stop base closures, as well as pay increases for all first responders such as Police, EMT's, and Firefighters? So much money could be put to better use here, actually protecting America.

All good ideas. Again, it is short-sighted to surrender to our enemies in Iraq. There needs to be an uproar for more aggressive action, not appeasement and the humiliating national disgrace of another surrender.

The Democrats have done a hit job on national security. Wait and see how many of these things get done by Nancy Pelosisi and Ted Kennedy. So, we will have even less of these things that frustrate you; plus we will be forced to surrender in Iraq; our enemies will be emboldend by the fact that our citizenry is weak (as they have always claimed); and the ugly work of stamping out terror will have been stymied by myopic libertarians and ACLU activists. There is a reason the Middle east, Hugo Chavez, the French and Russians are so thrilled with the election. And I can tell you, it is because they know that the Americans have foolishly done something against their own interests.

 

[invention_45]

Terrorists will acquire a nuclear weapon, it is a mathematical certainty

.

Equally certain is they won't deliver it onto US soil. All we have to do is take all the personnel fighting and supporting in Iraq out and put them to work, along with SWAT teams enforcing victimles crime laws, inspecting 100%, rather than 5%, of incoming cargo and luggage.

So that leaves them with the missile option. It appears that only nations have missiles that can reach us. Who's going to hand one over to a terrorist group when the result will be that it, being a single missile, will only be shot down by a missile defense system (works for 1 missile, not for 1000), then identified as to country of origin, and used as a reason to vaporize that country?

Forget a nuclear weapon delivered by a terrorist. It isn't going to happen.

Couple this with a foreign policy that reduces the motivation of potential terrorists to make that jump and join cells. Immediately remove our beaks from hotspots like, say, the middle east. Offer those who aren't interested in anything more than living in peace a relocation deal to wherever they want. Then let the remaining fools destroy themselves without our aid. Should any of their undesired activities spill over into the free world, put a few of our already-paid-for nuclear arsenal into resolving that problem.

These recommendations only fail if we have an agenda that's more important than ending the terrorism problem. Do we?

 

[Greg Bell]

Equally certain is they won't deliver it onto US soil. All we have to do is take all the personnel fighting and supporting in Iraq out and put them to work, along with SWAT teams enforcing victimles crime laws, inspecting 100%, rather than 5%, of incoming cargo and luggage.

Again, I agree that increasing cargo searches is a wonderful idea. If you are saying we should take SWAT teams off drug duty and onto real security duty you and I are in 100% agreement. There is no reason, however, to believe that they do not want to deliver a crippling blow to "the great Satan." All it takes is a nuke, a canadian garbage scow, and for Musharif to be replaced by a Apocalyptic Muslim for New York to join Pompeii.

Forget a nuclear weapon delivered by a terrorist. It isn't going to happen.

Wishful thinking. All it takes is a crazy enough Muslim to take over Pakistan or Iran and it is all over.

ouple this with a foreign policy that reduces the motivation of potential terrorists to make that jump and join cells. Immediately remove our beaks from hotspots like, say, the middle east. Offer those who aren't interested in anything more than living in peace a relocation deal to wherever they want. Then let the remaining fools destroy themselves without our aid. Should any of their undesired activities spill over into the free world, put a few of our already-paid-for nuclear arsenal into resolving that problem.

Appeasement won't work. To even test your theory we would have not only to abandon the Iraqis, but the Israelis and friendly nations in the Middle East. Bad idea. Plus, these guys are religious lunatics, not traditional nationalists. The madrases are turning out terrorists bent on a world caliphate. It is Pollyannaish to believe surrender will placate them.

 

[invention_45]

Wishful thinking. All it takes is a crazy enough Muslim to take over Pakistan or Iran and it is all over.

No, not wishful thinking. Missile defense (ABM) systems that work against a couple of incoming missiles exist. Where such systems get unrealistic is when they are proposed against 500 MIRVed incoming missiles. N. Korea doesn't have 500, nor very likely any MIRVed missiles, nor any thermonuclear weapons. Nor does Pakistan or Iran. They have regional problems. They are not going to give a crucial nuclear weapon and missile to a terrorist who might not even do with it what he says he's going to, only to be discovered as the weapon's source and vaporized.

So there's not only reason not to worry about being nuked by terrorists, but there's redundant protection without risk of a common-mode failure.

This situation may not remain in place for over twenty or thirty years, but it's long enough to get back in the good graces of the rest of the planet and have them help defuse the motives of terrorism.

 

[Desert Heat]

As for illegals, yes it's a problem but to think that it's fully taken over is a bit of a stretch. I highly doubt the majority of jobs illegals are doing even fall under the scope of affirmative action because - DING DING DING - they're undocumented and thus not offered all the protections of being a legal employee. I do understand, however, that many are using fake and/or stolen SSNs to get jobs...which of course means they're paying the same taxes as the rest of us. Hrm...

Sounds like you have never been to Tucson

The problem with lowering the standards comes from parents - both liberal and conservative, mind you - complaining that their precious little child not be held back a grade because they're simply not as smart as the rest of the kids.

Sounds like you don't work in a school in Tucson

 

[invention_45]

Appeasement won't work.

This isn't appeasement. This is a carrot and stick approach.

To even test your theory we would have not only to abandon the Iraqis, but the Israelis and friendly nations in the Middle East.

So what. Let them learn to cooperate with each other, at least those who choose to remain there after we finish relocating those who don't want to fight over sand.

Plus, these guys are religious lunatics, not traditional nationalists. The madrases are turning out terrorists bent on a world caliphate. It is Pollyannaish to believe surrender will placate them.

Read my lips. The surrender WONT placate them. But. There are what, around 3,000 hydrogen bombs amongst the US, old USSR, and China, nations which have started to become accustomed to a global economy outlook and thus have motive to cooperate. These weapons can go anywhere anytime. There are maybe 100 plain old fission weapons in possession of those who don't want to join in, and of those, it's unlikely any can reach far outside the Middle East. And there are maybe 50 loose cannons ("briefcase" fission weapons) from the old USSR. But no delivery system for those.

They can be as bent as they want, but if peace is clearly in their best interests, the number of intractable religiously-driven fanatics that get their way (just like happened on Tuesday) will drop and risk will be reduced.