Scathing indictment...
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
- Status
What else could be expected of a party that ran on no platform other than "the other party is bad and you should elect us"?
What could be said of an electorate which would hoist such a party to prominence on the world stage; and allow them to make judgements on their behalf?
What could be said of an electorate which would hoist such a party to prominence on the world stage; and allow them to make judgements on their behalf?
How about you turn off the AM radio for a couple minutes and read about the democratic platform.
It isn't for want of their own platform, it is a failure to communicate it over the superb rhetoric of "cut and run" "tax and spend" etc.
It really is superb as these phrases dominate the meme space, regardless of accuracy.
I wonder though: if George W Bush announced tomorrow that we won the war, we've accomplished our goals and that our boys in the military would be returning home and we''re only keeping contractors out there to help rebuild, would there be a cry of "cut and run" from the right?
WeedWacker
New member
Saw pirates three tonight. One scene that was very well done was a negotiation between the pirate leaders of the world. One insult led to another which broke out in a fight. The lady says "this is madness" to which mr. depp said "No this is politics" 
I didn't see the part about how running away is the better part of valor, either. There is a word for that, you know.
I also didn't see the poll numbers of Americans who want the United States to lose this war.
The fact is that the Democrats are beating the drum for the defeat of this country to an enemy that will never stop until they subjugate every man, woman, and child on the planet. They will stop at nothing and will use every means to achieve that goal and the Democrats do not, will not, and cannot understand that. They see themselves as the future of America where a single party system will reign. Who will be dictator, I do not know; but one thing is for certain -- it will NOT be a Republican.
If the Islamic radical movement could park a ship with a nuclear device in New York harbor tomorrow we would all be reading about it in the paper the next day; but not from the New York Times or The Post. They would no longer exist.
It is said that Armageddon will start in the Middle East; and Ahmadinejad has a dream that he will be the architect. If he gets a nuclear bomb, he will not hesitate to use it on an Israeli city. At that point -- and this is my own personal opinion -- I believe that what is left of Isreal will nuke every major city in the Middle East -- Mecca, Riyadh, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Tehran, Beirut -- with other cities in Bahrain, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen as secondary targets. After that, the world economy will descend to mid 19th century levels and the collapse will be the beginning of the end of whatever remains of "civilization". What is left of the Middle East will have finally gotten its wish of reverting to the 8th century.
The Democrats are so interested in gaining the power they crave through gleaning votes from whatever sources they can find -- even unfriendly ones bent on our destruction -- they will allow the enemy into the gates with open arms. They see no value in spending largess on a war effort that keeps the enemy from those gates when those funds could be spent on so many much more important socialist programs.
The Democrats are the party of the open hand. They believe that if they but fill every open hand that they will somehow gain peace and contentment and that an enemy bent on our destruction will aquiesce to their machinations. They cannot grasp that this enemy has no respect for life, let alone whatever riches that life could enjoy on this earth.
Netanyahu said it best when he stated "You could have detante and peristroika with the Russians because they held life above ideology. This enemy, however, holds ideology above life." The Democrats simply don't get this simple formula. They believe that we can negotiate with the terrorists yet not a single one of them has a phone number we can call to start those negotiations with the likes of Bin Laden. CBS, NBC, and ABC, however, likely do have that number. They are Bin Laden's best unwitting friends -- useful idiots as it were -- and he uses them to their fullest.
Speaking of useful idiots, Keith Olbermann has star credentials.
I also didn't see the poll numbers of Americans who want the United States to lose this war.
The fact is that the Democrats are beating the drum for the defeat of this country to an enemy that will never stop until they subjugate every man, woman, and child on the planet. They will stop at nothing and will use every means to achieve that goal and the Democrats do not, will not, and cannot understand that. They see themselves as the future of America where a single party system will reign. Who will be dictator, I do not know; but one thing is for certain -- it will NOT be a Republican.
If the Islamic radical movement could park a ship with a nuclear device in New York harbor tomorrow we would all be reading about it in the paper the next day; but not from the New York Times or The Post. They would no longer exist.
It is said that Armageddon will start in the Middle East; and Ahmadinejad has a dream that he will be the architect. If he gets a nuclear bomb, he will not hesitate to use it on an Israeli city. At that point -- and this is my own personal opinion -- I believe that what is left of Isreal will nuke every major city in the Middle East -- Mecca, Riyadh, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Tehran, Beirut -- with other cities in Bahrain, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen as secondary targets. After that, the world economy will descend to mid 19th century levels and the collapse will be the beginning of the end of whatever remains of "civilization". What is left of the Middle East will have finally gotten its wish of reverting to the 8th century.
The Democrats are so interested in gaining the power they crave through gleaning votes from whatever sources they can find -- even unfriendly ones bent on our destruction -- they will allow the enemy into the gates with open arms. They see no value in spending largess on a war effort that keeps the enemy from those gates when those funds could be spent on so many much more important socialist programs.
The Democrats are the party of the open hand. They believe that if they but fill every open hand that they will somehow gain peace and contentment and that an enemy bent on our destruction will aquiesce to their machinations. They cannot grasp that this enemy has no respect for life, let alone whatever riches that life could enjoy on this earth.
Netanyahu said it best when he stated "You could have detante and peristroika with the Russians because they held life above ideology. This enemy, however, holds ideology above life." The Democrats simply don't get this simple formula. They believe that we can negotiate with the terrorists yet not a single one of them has a phone number we can call to start those negotiations with the likes of Bin Laden. CBS, NBC, and ABC, however, likely do have that number. They are Bin Laden's best unwitting friends -- useful idiots as it were -- and he uses them to their fullest.
Speaking of useful idiots, Keith Olbermann has star credentials.
Please tell us who exactly said (or implied) that it is possible to negotiate with terrorists?
All your basic premises are spurious attacks on a made up bogiemen in your head that you call Democrats.
Your rant is very entertaining.. can you please explain some of it (some parts are incoherent)? For instance:
Aren't you implying that the "Liberal media" is the enemy of Islamic radicals?
Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell would be overjoyed. Bringing about the rapture seems their life work.
You are just offensive in your ignorance.
Please explain... What exactly is your problem with Keith? Maybe you just have a problem with anyone critical of the government? Is it his rants that steam you up so much?
I would equate your loon statement about Keith to yourself, except your platform is much smaller.
All your basic premises are spurious attacks on a made up bogiemen in your head that you call Democrats.
Your rant is very entertaining.. can you please explain some of it (some parts are incoherent)? For instance:
Aren't you implying that the "Liberal media" is the enemy of Islamic radicals?
Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell would be overjoyed. Bringing about the rapture seems their life work.
You are just offensive in your ignorance.
Please explain... What exactly is your problem with Keith? Maybe you just have a problem with anyone critical of the government? Is it his rants that steam you up so much?
I would equate your loon statement about Keith to yourself, except your platform is much smaller.
KO's "special comments" are by far the least interesting part of his broadcast. At least he puts them at the end so you can flip channels.
I'm all for a BBC Americana. Stick to the news, don't try and tell me how to interpret it, and take it seriously.
Watching cable news is like watching the olympics in the US: 20 seconds of footage followed by 15 minutes of athlete profiles and sponsorship messages, all while we miss the whole game that went on.
I'm all for a BBC Americana. Stick to the news, don't try and tell me how to interpret it, and take it seriously.
Watching cable news is like watching the olympics in the US: 20 seconds of footage followed by 15 minutes of athlete profiles and sponsorship messages, all while we miss the whole game that went on.
JuanCarlos
New member
Could be. Of course, some top Democrats supposedly didn't vote for it. But even aside from that, it sounds more like a group of politicians who are beholden to a public that, while a majority want the war to end, will gasp in knee-jerk horror if somebody invokes the name of "the troops" and suggests they may be inconvenienced.
Even if the person doing the suggesting is full of crap.
That just confirms the flip-flop, Juan.
The Democrats control the House and the Senate. If they truly wanted to stop the "illegal, unjust occupation", they could easily do it. Just cut off the funding. Right now. No timetables, no conditions, just pass a bill that cuts the funding. Heck, they could even do nothing (make no further appropriation legislation for the military) and obtain the same result. It's that simple.
But instead of taking action, it is easier for the Democrats to endlessly criticize and attack the President about Iraq while, at the same time, the Democrats pass legislation to fund the "unjust, illegal occupation." This is a critical example of the Democrats exercising politics over principle.
The Democrats control the House and the Senate. If they truly wanted to stop the "illegal, unjust occupation", they could easily do it. Just cut off the funding. Right now. No timetables, no conditions, just pass a bill that cuts the funding. Heck, they could even do nothing (make no further appropriation legislation for the military) and obtain the same result. It's that simple.
But instead of taking action, it is easier for the Democrats to endlessly criticize and attack the President about Iraq while, at the same time, the Democrats pass legislation to fund the "unjust, illegal occupation." This is a critical example of the Democrats exercising politics over principle.
Everyone who has stated that the war can be won by negotiation and through diplomatic means. Kerry, Edwards, et al for example.
No, the bogeymen are the terrorists that the very real Democrats want to allow to win this war.
No. You made that up in your head. You must be the only person out there who believes The Post is part of the liberal media.
I truly -- TRULY -- did not believe that anyone reading my post would fail to understand a simple fact. If an atomic bomb were to be detonated in NY that a newspaper whose facilities and staff, who had just been obliterated, could report on that fact the next day. Silly me for giving so much credit.
You give them far too much credit. God controls man; not the other way around. Even though Fallwell now has the opportunity for a personal audience with God I am sure he holds as much sway now as he did in life.
And the Democrats, and their followers, are offensive in their vote buying ways through filling the open hand, their stand against desegregation, their vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Need I go on?
He is a friend to those who would destroy him and all about him. I truly believe that he truly believe that wha he says is good and correct. The terrorists love him for his words and hate him for his <insert infidel belief here>. They love to hear him speak against his government and would love to see him hanging from the goal post of the local soccer field.
He can rant against the giovernment and the war all he wants but regardless of the cause, premise, whatever of our starting this war we are in it. If we were to simply turn tail and run like the cowards he envisions us to be the terrorists win. Olbermann wants the terrorists to win by virtue of his desire that we lose. He is that weakness that the terrorists love to exploit and to them he is simply one more useful idiot and I agree with the terrorists on that point.
Richard Hanson
New member
It has become very common for politicos, and others, to proclaim that they are doing the will of the American people as if the American people are some kind of monolithic creature lacking a diversity of views and interests. At best, the Democrat party possesses a mandate from a meager majority.
The people I voted for do not have a mandate to end the battle for Iraq in an ignoble defeat, not at all, instead they have my mandate to do all within their power to win the war and to prevail in Iraq.
It is hubris to equate a small political majority with unanimity of purpose or opinion.
The objective reality is that so long as those members of Congress that represent my views and carry into effect my mandate are of sufficient numbers as to sustain a presidential veto, then the Democrat members of congress, and assorted RINOs, lack the power to impose their will on the very sizable minority that did not grant them their franchise.
Even if some on this forum are incapable of accepting, or even understand this reality, many Democrat members of congress are and they have acted, without regard to their desperate and vitriolic rhetoric, in a manner consistent with a realistic and pragmatic understanding of the situation.
Respectfully,
Richard
The people I voted for do not have a mandate to end the battle for Iraq in an ignoble defeat, not at all, instead they have my mandate to do all within their power to win the war and to prevail in Iraq.
It is hubris to equate a small political majority with unanimity of purpose or opinion.
The objective reality is that so long as those members of Congress that represent my views and carry into effect my mandate are of sufficient numbers as to sustain a presidential veto, then the Democrat members of congress, and assorted RINOs, lack the power to impose their will on the very sizable minority that did not grant them their franchise.
Even if some on this forum are incapable of accepting, or even understand this reality, many Democrat members of congress are and they have acted, without regard to their desperate and vitriolic rhetoric, in a manner consistent with a realistic and pragmatic understanding of the situation.
Respectfully,
Richard
By the by. Did you catch the thread at http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2366798 wherein an Iraqi MP all but stands up and starts singing "God Bless America"? There are some in foreign lands who are far more appreciative of our efforts than some who gather here and denounce those same efforts.
I should hope we could finally find someone happy we are there! But this isn't about the "being greeted as liberators" thing anymore.
We've achieved all our goals. We are rebuilding Iraq. However, by continuing to maintain military their, we are allowing Iraqis the easy choice of not having to stand up. Not having to police themselves, not having to die for what THEY believe in.
Keep rebuilding Iraq, but reduce the military presence. Iraq needs to take off their pampers and learn to use the potty.
Can you show me some examples? I have NEVER heard that put forth. Afghanistan still has 100% support as far as I know.
Then you should re-read what Richard wrote that you noted was well said.
Don't be silly. I didn't say that. I was trying to determine why you named targets. Otherwise, your paragraph basically said a bomb in NYC would blow things up. Well, yes, that's what bombs do
I give them no credit. They could slam their heads into walls and have the same end results. However, following from your ME domino paragraph they would support anything that would bring about war in Israel, as that is the land of Armageddon. Sadly, I recently saw poll results indicating 70% of the US believed in the rapture (correlating with % of strong christians) and 50% thought that is would come about in their lifetimes. That is a VERY large number that would be looking forward to death.. or afterlife.. or whatever rapture implies.
No, I don't you you know what the terrorists like, agree with, applaud for. I think people in general have a fundamental problem understanding those that hate us. Kind of like trying to imagine the world without yourself.. you can get a kind of 2-dimensional picture, but not fully grasp the concept -- our brains aren't wired that way.
I've asked different people this question and haven't had a coherent response, maybe you could give it a whirl:
What does a victory in the war on terrorism entail?
Here are some points to consider in your response:
a) It only takes one person to carry out a terrorist attack
b) There will always be people that hate us (rationally or not)
Slugthrower
New member
"You give them far too much credit. God controls man; not the other way around." Jimpeel.
Not to turn this into a religious debate or to hijack this thread.
-- Then Don't. Antipitas --
We are in Iraq because of the series of events that man chose to engage in from hundreds of years ago. This "Holy" war wasn't born yesterday to be sure.
Not to turn this into a religious debate or to hijack this thread.
-- Then Don't. Antipitas --
We are in Iraq because of the series of events that man chose to engage in from hundreds of years ago. This "Holy" war wasn't born yesterday to be sure.
- Status