President- Republican or Democrat?

[Delegation]

I feel that a Democratic President is almost inevitable but I beileve that a democratic president who wants to take us out of Iraq is the worst president we can have. Leaving Iraq would be the worst mistake this country has ever made.:(

[Truth_and_Power]

I feel that a Democratic President is almost inevitable but I beileve that a democratic president who wants to take us out of Iraq is the worst president we can have. Leaving Iraq would be the worst mistake this country has ever made.:(


Personally I'd say entering iraq was a bigger mistake.

[Jaysun]

Personally I'd say entering iraq was a bigger mistake.


I agree... It sould have been Iran!

[Elrathin]

I just wish that called for war all the time were actually the ones that would have to go fight it.

[firefox]

No kidding. I say let the people who want to start wars be the first to "die for their country".

[1Samuel8]

No kidding. I say let the people who want to start wars be the first to "die for their country".-- and pay their own way doing it too.

[Mayberry]

I just wish that called for war all the time were actually the ones that would have to go fight it.
4 year Navy and Gulf War veteran. We need to finish the job in Iraq. No matter if it was a "mistake" to go there or not, we started it, we finish it.

[NortheastCynic]

I wouldn't call a Democrat being elected "inevitable". The Democratic Congress lied to the electorate about their first 100 hours legislation and haven't done anything significant to reduce our presence in Iraq. Personally, I like gridlock, so if the Republicans take back one House of Congress, I don't care who wins the Presidency, if the Dems keep both Houses, I would want a Republican President. The less the government does the less of our liberties they can violate/take away.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

I just wish that called for war all the time were actually the ones that would have to go fight it.



No kidding. I say let the people who want to start wars be the first to "die for their country".



-- and pay their own way doing it too.


I agree. I'm so sick of the blood thirsty republicans calling for war with Iran and endless war in Iraq. We've lost over 400 brave men and women since February of this year. Does anyone give a f u c k about them?

http://icasualties.org/oif/SumDetails.aspx?hndRef=6

You cowards who call for war without joining the military should be ashamed of yourselves.

[NortheastCynic]

Viola, I have to take issue with the last part of you post. We have a volunteer army with civilian oversight. That means it is inevitable [and desirable] that people who are not in the army direct it and therefore it is permissable for those not in it to call for its use.

Calling people cowards for wanting military force to be used without joining themselves is tantamount to calling people who aren't police officers cowards when they say more police should be deployed in a high crime areas.

-NC

[Labrocca]

I agree. I'm so sick of the blood thirsty republicans calling for war with Iran and endless war in Iraq. We've lost over 400 brave men and women since February of this year. Does anyone give a f u c k about them?

You cowards who call for war without joining the military should be ashamed of yourselves.


OMG...I can barely control my anger.

[preservanation]

VoilaLee:You cowards who call for war without joining the military should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you could divert a modicum of the raw hate you feel away from your fellow countrymen and toward the sworn enemies of America and western civ, we'd be a lot further along with the war on terror, and, yes, Iraq.
"United we Stand" is not in some peoples lexicon.

[Jaaaman]

I agree. I'm so sick of the blood thirsty republicans calling for war with Iran and endless war in Iraq. We've lost over 400 brave men and women since February of this year. Does anyone give a f u c k about them?

You cowards who call for war without joining the military should be ashamed of yourselves.


OMG...I can barely control my anger.

I am barely controlling my anger towards her right now as well Labrocca...

[1Samuel8]

Calling people cowards for wanting military force to be used without joining themselves is tantamount to calling people who aren't police officers cowards when they say more police should be deployed in a high crime areas.Not entirely.
There is nothing courageous about extorting tax-payer's money to fund the military or the police force.

If they want to avoid being called "cowards" they should fund their missions through private contributions.

[NortheastCynic]

That is not how social security [and I mean that in the literal sense, not in reference to the illegal SS program] works. States Constitutions provide them the legal authority to fund police forces and they have the responsibility to do so. In practice, high poverty areas would not be able to afford quality police protection where rich areas would, in addition, there would be no unifom standard for police. As I said, police powers are one of the few Constitutionally and ethically correct things state governments do, in my opinion.

-NC

[1Samuel8]

As I said, police powers are one of the few Constitutionally and ethically correct things state governments do, in my opinion.I reject the "ethically" part and I would like to ask you "Why ethically?" but that does not belong in this thread.
Is there a different thread that discusses this topic in which we could continue?

[NortheastCynic]

I'm not entirely sure, I can start one if you wish, I think it'd be a good debate to have.

-NC

[PatrickHenry]

It'll be a Dem unless the GOP can nominate someone with real ideas. More of the same Republican BS is gonna be like trying to feed your kids sand...

Now if Ron Paul were the nominee...
Here's what he had to say yesterday: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst060407.htm
Good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results.

The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives.

All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served.

The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intended but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination, without victory or resolution in sight.

Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don’t have the troops, the money, the equipment or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so.

Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear, the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and support of the troops so nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives.

This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other.

Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida.

It’s time for a change in our foreign policy.

[firefox]

I just wish that called for war all the time were actually the ones that would have to go fight it.
4 year Navy and Gulf War veteran. We need to finish the job in Iraq. No matter if it was a "mistake" to go there or not, we started it, we finish it.


No one on this forum did, as far as I know. Did you participate in the campaign? Throwing "we" about doesn't vie well with reality, Mayberry.

[Mayberry]

Throwing "we" about doesn't vie well with reality, Mayberry.
Well the reality is that "we" are this country. "We" elected everyone who voted to go to war. So therefore, "we" do need to finish what we started. And even though all these Democrats with long term memory loss and denial syndrome would like to believe that they didn't vote to go to war, they did. So they need to suck it up, quit playing politics with our soldier's lives, give them everything they need, and let them finish this. Finish the job in Iraq, bring in Bin Laden's head on a stick, and be done with it. And after it's all over, "we" need to hold politicians accountable for everything they did or didn't do, clean house, and never go to war again unless we are directly attacked in a Pearl Harbor fashion. That means not going to places like Darfur, Somalia, etc..... Let the UN handle it, if they are capable of doing so, which I doubt. It's somebody else's turn next time.

[1Samuel8]

Well the reality is that "we" are this country. "We" elected everyone who voted to go to war.That is not reality in the very least.

Do not hide or obfuscate the responsibility of the actions of "some" Americans by cluttering it behind an entire group of people. You are abusing democracy.

[preservanation]

Well the reality is that "we" are this country. "We" elected everyone who voted to go to war.That is not reality in the very least.

Do not hide or obfuscate the responsibility of the actions of "some" Americans by cluttering it behind an entire group of people. You are abusing democracy.

What do you care about democracy?
You're an anarchist!

[1Samuel8]

What do you care about democracy?Very lttle.
I am rejecting the frivolous arguments about how "we" are responsible for the actions of statesmen and their employees.

You're an anarchist!Big deal. I am also a comic-book collector and a cat-lover too. What is your point??

[Mayberry]

I am rejecting the frivolous arguments about how "we" are responsible for the actions of statesmen and their employees.
"We" are responsible for putting them in office. Not "you" personally, but the majority of voters. Any way, these people supposedly represent us. So in that context, "we" are responsible. I suppose that if you did not vote, you could claim innocence.

[1Samuel8]

"We" are responsible for putting them in office. Not "you" personally, but the majority of voters.I will take that as an agreement.

Any way, these people supposedly represent us. So in that context, "we" are responsible.I would never in my life expect you to be complacent and accept such a tenuous form of responsibility.

I suppose that if you did not vote, you could claim innocence.Given that voter turn-out is gradually dropping, I wonder who "these people" will represent in the future.

[Mayberry]

I would never in my life expect you to be complacent and accept such a tenuous form of responsibility.
Well, if I voted for them, then I suppose some of the responsibility is mine. The ones who should be held accountable are the politicians themselves, of course. The voter has no control over the actions of the official, the voter is just partially responsible for installing the official. Given that voter turn-out is gradually dropping, I wonder who "these people" will represent in the future.
It's scary to contemplate. Voter apathy is just feeding the current crop of crooked politicians. Perhaps they feel empowered to do as they please, since no one seems to care anyway. There needs to be a massive campaign to get people to turn off American Idol and start reading about their government and political candidates. A massive turnout of well informed voters would probably clean out the government as we know it.

[1Samuel8]

I do not expect you to agree with me on the following but I would like you to understand. It's scary to contemplate. Voter apathy is just feeding the current crop of crooked politicians.I actually find voter apathy to be a good thing: it suggests people do not see a need for government.

There needs to be a massive campaign to get people to turn off American Idol and start reading about their government and political candidates. A massive turnout of well informed voters would probably clean out the government as we know it.Forgive me but I believe that is naive. You are suggesting that there is an objectively right choice of government and an objectively wrong one. Here is a question for you: would you really care who your local school board trustees were if you home-schooled your children -- hypothetically?

Try to look at government services like any other service (for example: television broadcasting) in life. All that a consumer can do is peacefully abstain by not buying the product and turning the television off. One consumer makes no difference to the market and in the regular day-to-day activities, the question of WHO is in government matters very little.

[preservanation]

What do you care about democracy?Very lttle.
I am rejecting the frivolous arguments about how "we" are responsible for the actions of statesmen and their employees.

You're an anarchist!Big deal. I am also a comic-book collector and a cat-lover too. What is your point??

Are you in favor of the violent overthrow of our gov?

[1Samuel8]

I notice that you refuse to answer my question. Anyway: Are you in favor of the violent overthrow of our gov?No.

Are you in favor of the violent subordination of citizens by our government?

[Mayberry]

I notice that you refuse to answer my question. Some of us have a life outside of here, you know. I've been busy. would you really care who your local school board trustees were if you home-schooled your children -- hypothetically?
Yes, because they set my property tax rate. All that a consumer can do is peacefully abstain by not buying the product and turning the television off. Unfortunately, this is not possible. You are forced to pay taxes, get a driver's license, register your vehicles, have them inspected, etc....... Avoiding the government is not possible. Not without penalty anyway. the question of WHO is in government matters very little. I find it to be of the utmost importance myself. If a socialist like Hillary were to be elected, it would matter a great deal, because with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, this country would soon resemble the old Soviet Union.

[Labrocca]

Voters are really split...the past few elections have really shown that. It can go either way. IMHO though the GOP has more interesting candidates while the Dems have Obama and Clinton...not really much for choice imho...one is inexperienced and the other is a career politician with lots of baggage.

[quiet man]

it will be a democrat in the end. male or female is another question?

[Mayberry]

it will be a democrat in the end. male or female is another question?

Keep dreaming. Hillary has shown her true colors and won't make it. She's plain nuts. Obama is too inexperienced, and senators never win anyway.

[PatrickHenry]

Hillary...She's plain nuts.
You mean mentally unhealthy? While I oppose her politics, I am unaware of any mental health issues...Could you post a link?

[PatrickHenry]

If a socialist like Hillary were to be elected, it would matter a great deal, because with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, this country would soon resemble the old Soviet Union.
Sheesh! What an alarmist...

This is ridiculous on the face of it...

How would the government be any more intrusive under a bunch of Democratic Party pols than they are now?

[Mayberry]

How would the government be any more intrusive under a bunch of Democratic Party pols than they are now?
4 words. "It takes a village". Throw in a little Hillary Care, and a dash of "Fairness" doctrine, and it sounds plenty more intrusive to me. Oh, and a however-many-billion-dollar tax increase, that's the most intrusive of all. You mean mentally unhealthy? Yup. I am unaware of any mental health issues...Could you post a link? Sure. Soon as I can find one.:rolleyes: One just has to listen to her idiotic ramblings to make their own determination of her sanity. "Ahh don't feeyul no wayz tarred". Sheesh, what a moron, and a condescending one at that.

[Buck Laser]

Try as I may, I really can't understand the irrational hatred so many people feel for Senator Clinton. She certainly isn't my choice for the democratic nomination, but the problems I have with her have more to do with her policies than her personal qualities.

Clinton is a LONG way from being the most liberal of the putative democratic nominees, and it seems to me that people who consider her a socialist haven't really looked very carefully at her record. Bill Clinton was very much a centrist, and his unwavering commitment to free trade has created some serious problems for us. I see Senator Clinton pursuing the same general path, and that's why I favor other candidates over her.

I can understand a deep and perhaps irrational dislike of politician--Newt Gingrich strikes me as the poorest excuse for a human being ever to appear on the national scene. And Tom DeLay is in the same category.

[Mayberry]

it seems to me that people who consider her a socialist haven't really looked very carefully at her record. Her record be damned, it's what comes out of her mouth that does it. "It takes a village", "It's time to go from an individual economy to a shared economy" (not an exact quote, but that was the gist of it), and the fact that she's been pushing Hillary Care (unsuccessfully) for how long now..... Clinton is a LONG way from being the most liberal of the putative democratic nominees Which is frightening in it's self. Bill Clinton was very much a centrist, Bill Clinton did whatever he thought would boost his approval rating. Oh, except for nearly destroying the military. He was all about that. I know, because I was there. Petty officer 3rd class (E-4) in 1993 made $11,000 a year and qualified for food stamps. Absolutely inexcusable, despicable, and down right disgusting. President Bush has done a superb job of raising the standard of living for our military. Not just pay, but housing, recreational facilities, work environments, equipment...... I can understand a deep and perhaps irrational dislike of politician Nothing irrational about it. Hillary is the anti-Christ! :P

[quiet man]

i did not say if it would be clinton or not. i would not be opposed to her as president. it would make life interesting in washington again. i see a possibilty of a new outlook from the people this time. the winds of change and new faces seems to fit the waves of newer voters. they will not accept the status quo, change is needed they know it.

[Mayberry]

change is needed they know it.
Yup. But not change for the worse!

[quiet man]

change is needed they know it.
Yup. But not change for the worse!

the change will happen. how and who will be affected will be found out later. for the best or worse situation will depend on how you are affected. it will happen ,so hang on tight it's gonna be a bumpy ride. :exclamation:

[NortheastCynic]

"Change is needed"

Then we need to stop electing two very similar parties into power.

-NC

[preservanation]

who's going to be able to finance and support a third party on either side of the aisle?
IMO
Conservatives have a better chance of splitting away from the blue blood check-pants Rebublicans than the Dems have to seperate themselves from the far left soros-socialist types of their party.
Now all it takes is money, and a lot of it:(
(thank you CFReform and you greedy Washington bastards)

[NortheastCynic]

What it takes is media exposure. The Rs and Ds have a monopoly on media coverage, and without it, third parties and alternative ideologies have no chance in hell.

-NC

[preservanation]

Sorocialists???
I like it,.. think I'll use it from now on!:D:D:D

[preservanation]

NortheastCynic:
"What it takes is media exposure. The Rs and Ds have a monopoly on media coverage, and without it, third parties and alternative ideologies have no chance in hell."

-NC- you are precisely correct, but the media bubble may be in the process of being burst.
It sure ain't what it used to be.
In many peoples eyes Cronkite single handedly ended the Vietnam war with one broadcast. That could never happen today, but not for the lack of trying.

[Mayberry]

Then we need to stop electing two very similar parties into power.
Now there's an idea who's time has come.