Dems are terrorist lovers

So the voters are supposed to make their choices without the truth Gaffer ?
Just vote based on what bush has told us ? Like the WMD's and we know where they are, etc... For me I think not!
 
Gaffer said:
The report was leaked to help the dems in the up coming election. Such things enable the terrorists. The more they persive us to be divided the more they will step up there attacks.

You want to end the iraq situation, get the dems to support Bush there and everywhere the war is being fought. They can argue all they want about other things. Showing a united front will end things in iraq a lot faster than just staying the course.
Click to expand...

Gaffer's got me singing that old Buddy Holly favorite "Rave On" with slightly more political lyrics concerning the situation in Iraq...
 
As far as Bush's neos are concerned I'd rather be dead than red.
Funny how that old saying used to mean something different to McCarthy, and it still works :)
 
The report was leaked to help the dems in the up coming election. Such things enable the terrorists. The more they persive us to be divided the more they will step up there attacks.

You want to end the iraq situation, get the dems to support Bush there and everywhere the war is being fought. They can argue all they want about other things. Showing a united front will end things in iraq a lot faster than just staying the course.

Thats a nice thing to wish for and to a point you are correct. If we are totally united the terrorists would have harder time. This is why terrorism is effective against democracies and not dictatorships. Terrorism is not effective against a dictatorship because you would have to convince the autocrat to change his ways. With Democracies you need only convince a certain part of the population that policy change is needed and then dissent will enter politics of that government.

However this is a necessary price to pay. Squelching debate and dissent squelches the very nature of a democratic republic. This is the price we must pay to live in a free nation. Bad policies must be questioned for if we did not change course we would have to faced with total calmity before change can come.

It would certainly have been to our advantage if natons like Germany, Japan and the USSR were free to challenge their leaders policies.
 
It appears to some that in order to support our freedom we are supposed to give up our freedom of dissent ????
 
Very true IHG. It is wishful thinking and I sure don't want to see opposion silenced. I would like to see the opposion use some sense in how they make their opposing views instead of the outright hate they display so often. But that's wishful thinking too.

If all countries were democracies we wouldn't be fighting wars and the un would be not be a worthless organization.
 
uscitizen said:
It appears to some that in order to support our freedom we are supposed to give up our freedom of dissent ????
Click to expand...

No one said to give up freedom of dessent. Everyone has to be free to dessent but undermining an effort and enabling your enemies is not dessent.

In my opinion the dems are enabling al quada and the rest of the enemies. They are doing so in order to regain power and nothing more. This inspite of the fact our enemies want to kill them as much as the conservatives, probably more. But they are all too blinded by their hatred of Bush and desire for more power in the government.
 
Very true IHG. It is wishful thinking and I sure don't want to see opposion silenced. I would like to see the opposion use some sense in how they make their opposing views instead of the outright hate they display so often. But that's wishful thinking too.

If all countries were democracies we wouldn't be fighting wars and the un would be not be a worthless organization.

Well I'm glad you see it that way some have said that opposition to policy during war time is tantamount to treason.

I also agree the criticism must at least be constructive. Calling Bush a moron doesn't help our military policy. There are lots who are rather constructive though. I think we've got a good bunch here.

Interestingly one thing I've read is that countries that have McDonalds in it don't go to war with each other. Maybe we should open McDonalds in Syria, Iran and North Korea.
 
Not in my opinion Gaffer. In my opinion Bush took entirely the wrong approach to fighting those responsible for 911. Why does Bush seem to have forgotten about Afganistan ? This is just politics to bush, it is not really about fighting AQ or he would be concentrating more on Afganistan.
 
Naah I think all highschool kids should have to spend one school year in another country chosen by random selection.
 
Gaffer said:
No one said to give up freedom of dessent. Everyone has to be free to dessent but undermining an effort and enabling your enemies is not dessent.

In my opinion the dems are enabling al quada and the rest of the enemies. They are doing so in order to regain power and nothing more. This inspite of the fact our enemies want to kill them as much as the conservatives, probably more. But they are all too blinded by their hatred of Bush and desire for more power in the government.
Click to expand...

How much Bush Kool Aid have you guzzled this morning, and WTF are you talking about.

If I merely "wanted Dems to regain power", I would have been in the front bleachers cheering bush on to invade Iraq - because I strongly suspected he was getting us into a quagmire, opening a pandora's box, and creating a disaster of republican's making.

If my sole goal was to make bush-republicans poll numbers crater, I would have been cheering them to invade iraq and make a collasal fuck up that I knew was probable.
 
If your referring to the civil war. that's true. But a civil war is not a war between democracies. In our case it was a war between the states.

But in most cases democracies do not go to war. They work through dialog. It doesn't mean they won't go to war but the chances are far less they will. How many demcracies have we gone to war with in the last 200 years.
 
Bush's re-election ensured loss of support for the republican party.
If Kerry had won the iraq war would have been blamed on him by the repubs.
 
Gaffer said:
If your referring to the civil war. that's true. But a civil war is not a war between democracies. In our case it was a war between the states.

But in most cases democracies do not go to war. They work through dialog. It doesn't mean they won't go to war but the chances are far less they will. How many demcracies have we gone to war with in the last 200 years.
Click to expand...

Ummm I think hitler was elected ....
 
uscitizen said:
Not in my opinion Gaffer. In my opinion Bush took entirely the wrong approach to fighting those responsible for 911. Why does Bush seem to have forgotten about Afganistan ? This is just politics to bush, it is not really about fighting AQ or he would be concentrating more on Afganistan.
Click to expand...

Your Bush hatred is showing again. That is exactly what I was reffering too. The anti-Bush crowd is so consumed with hatred they don't see the real threat. whether he was wrong or not, he's still in charge. And he has access to a lot more information than we ever will. He makes decisions based on that info. whether its a dem or a rep in that position it has to be acted on, right or wrong. Sitting and wishing it away won't accomplish anything. He made some bad decisions and some good ones. The bad ones have to be corrected with other decisions.

Afganistan was relatively quiet until recently. Plus it was the accepted war by the libs and the media. All the attention has been on iraq because so many hate Bush and want to us that to bring him down. saddam was brought down, that bell has been rung and you can't unring it. iraq is now just another front against the jihadist headed by iran.

Instead of Bush is stupid, how about some construtive criticism as to how he could do things better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top