You can say my points are 'crap' without any thing to back them up. If you want to do that, I can't stop you.
But the fact is that the war is going badly in Iraq. Heck, Iraqis were able to launch rockets at a well guarded hotel, well within the control of US troops, where a major representitive of the government was staying. We are not in control in Iraq, and very few countries are coming to back us up.
Quote:
Quote:
:
Not only that, but our foreign policy is so bad that we can't even get other nations to sign on at this point to help rebuild the country.
That's crap.
This is not crap, it's a fact. If we had the backing of other nations and gone into Iraq as more of a coalition, we might still be facing some difficult challenges, but at least we wouldn't be there to bear most of those problems ourselves. Instead, you have Billions of American dollars, our tax money, going to Iraq to rebuild their country where our own country could use the help.
Quote:
""Better"? Fran, we fight the war there...or in the streets of Manhattan. I've made my choice.
How many terrorists involved in 9/11 were Iraqi? Can you tell me which terrorist attack on the US was orchestrated by Iraqis? Remember why we invaded? Where are those weapons of mass destruction?
Hell, we help the Saudi government more than almost any other country out there, and it's Saudis that attacked us on 9/11. Bin Laden is Saudi, not Iraqi. Also remember that some of the same people in the White House now were the same people that supported Saddam Hussein in the 80s.
The war on terror is being fought in Afghanistan, yet Afghanistan wasn't even appropriated any money in the Bush budget until the US Senate asked where it was. President Karzai is saying the lack of money coming into the country (much less than was pledged) could plunge the country right back into the same state it was before 9/11. Yet Iraq gets almost all of the attention these days.
You say I'm drinking the Kool Aid, but you're the one who has really been influenced by his party. You believe things that are not true. You directly relate Iraq to 9/11 when Iraqis were not involved. There is no proof of an Iraq- Al Qaeda connection, there have been no weapons of mass destruction found, we can't get other nations to come through to help us fund the rebuilding, and the war is going badly. The companies that are making out well out of Iraq happen to be the close friends of the Bush administration, like Halliburton. Our money is going to Iraq when the money promised to New York City was never even delivered.
The Democratic nominee is going to drive home these points in the debates against Bush next year. As I've said before, the Bush Administration has very few successes to talk about, and things are going to have to be a heck of a lot better next year for Bush to be re-elected, and even then, he's going to have a lot of problems.
There is no proof of an Iraq- Al Qaeda connection,
To be totally honest wasn´t there something about some Iraqi generals daughters child being married with someone who knew some semi high ranking Al Quada officer?
The attacks on September 11th were carried out by SAUDIS.
There's more connections to the Bin Laden family to the Bush family than there are between the Iraq and Al Qaeda. NOT Osama, but the Bin Laden's that were in the U.S. got out really easily.
Incredible, incredible read! I particular thought this answer was interesting:
So taxes could be framed as an issue of patriotism?
It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country ? the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.
Absolutely fascinating. I have to give it the wingers, they have their shit together.
Notice how the Democrats are running against Bush and pundits are just trying to portray them and their supporters as Bush-Haters... gimme a break... if he was doing a brilliant job... and people were just trying to tear him down for political reasons... they MIGHT have a point.
But this is about policies and promises and the ensuing failures.
Notice how the Democrats are running against Bush and pundits are just trying to portray them and their supporters as Bush-Haters... gimme a break... if he was doing a brilliant job... and people were just trying to tear him down for political reasons... they MIGHT have a point.
But this is about policies and promises and the ensuing failures.
It's also about paying your fair share. Conservatives have been successfully arguing to years that the wealthy shouldn't be forced to pay higher taxes because it ultimately supports the lazy and that is unfair. If the argument were that simple and they could prove that their taxes are used ONLY for income redistribution then they'd have a point.
But, when you factor in that the wealthy take far more advantage of our nation's infrastructure and "free market" advantages their wealth affords them, then they should "pay their dues" for using/abusing the system.
I'm tired of rich Republicans crying "I made $10M last year and I paid THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES! That's "million" with an a capital "M". This is an outrage!" No. You paid 30% that will be used to support the infrastructure that you will use next year to earn another $10M.
"There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists ? vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues ? you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it."
It's not about who I'd like to win (obviously). I just saying that I think there are a lot of Republicans PRAYING for Dean to win.
It will be interesting to see how the field handles the new economic data showing a basically normalized economy with (now) strong growth projections. [/QUOTE
Ok I've been gone for awhile but now I'm back! SDW get off it! You sit there in your little, isolated eastern corner of the U.S. and don't get it that maybe the economy is going well in Coatsville but elsewhere people are still in the dumps ( I don't care what links you pull up since you previously haven't cared about mine )and are angry. Yes SDW alot of unhappy campers.
And now what? you're rooting for a democrat so you think Bush can beat him if he's the winner? Pathetic.
The thing is there are so many people out there disgusted with Bush a monkey could run and win!
I think the American people are going to pat Geedub on the back, say thanks for helping us through 9/11 and getting the war on terror underway, and then elect a new president to help repair our reputation on the world stage.
I think the American people believe that we need a Democrat in the White House to help restore our relationships with old Europe, the Russians and the Asias. Once we've restored those relationships to pre-Geedub status, we can then affectively reinsert ourselves, along with a true coalition, back into Middle-Eastern politics.
I think the American people will keep a Republican congress to maintain our sense of national security (although a false one) while giving the new Democratic president a mandate to help re-unify ourselves to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate world leader, not just a warmongering nation.
I think the American people are going to pat Geedub on the back, say thanks for helping us through 9/11 and getting the war on terror underway, and then elect a new president to help repair our reputation on the world stage.
I think the American people believe that we need a Democrat in the White House to help restore our relationships with old Europe, the Russians and the Asias. Once we've restored those relationships to pre-Geedub status, we can then affectively reinsert ourselves, along with a true coalition, back into Middle-Eastern politics.
I think the American people will keep a Republican congress to maintain our sense of national security (although a false one) while giving the new Democratic president a mandate to help re-unify ourselves to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate world leader, not just a warmongering nation.
Just my opinion.
A logical view of the situation. Pretty much right on the head of the nail.
I think the American people are going to pat Geedub on the back, say thanks for helping us through 9/11 and getting the war on terror underway, and then elect a new president to help repair our reputation on the world stage.
I think the American people believe that we need a Democrat in the White House to help restore our relationships with old Europe, the Russians and the Asias. Once we've restored those relationships to pre-Geedub status, we can then affectively reinsert ourselves, along with a true coalition, back into Middle-Eastern politics.
I think the American people will keep a Republican congress to maintain our sense of national security (although a false one) while giving the new Democratic president a mandate to help re-unify ourselves to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate world leader, not just a warmongering nation.
"In a nutshell, 57% of independents disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq. Back in April, he had a 73% approval rating from independents. Now that approval is at 39%. In addition,
Independents are less inclined to vote for Bush next year than to vote for a Democrat; 35% of registered independent voters choose Bush and 42% choose an unnamed Democrat. Among all registered voters, Bush leads the unnamed Democrat 46%-43%, which is within the 4-point error margin.
Support for the war also is declining:
Fifty-seven percent say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq. That is up considerably from two months ago, when 46% wanted to withdraw some or all of the troops. Seventy percent of Democrats, 58% of independents and 43% of Republicans want a partial or full withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Democratic support for the war has fallen more sharply than independent support Ñ from 54% in April to 24% now."
It's all about the swing voters. The independants. The Democratic party is already galvanized and ready to vote Bush out... there will be alot less democrats willing to vote for Bush this time out. That means that he needs to GET EVEN MORE of the independant vote... and right now... more independants in NH are looking at Dean and Clark.
It's not about who I'd like to win (obviously). I just saying that I think there are a lot of Republicans PRAYING for Dean to win.
It will be interesting to see how the field handles the new economic data showing a basically normalized economy with (now) strong growth projections. [/QUOTE
Ok I've been gone for awhile but now I'm back! SDW get off it! You sit there in your little, isolated eastern corner of the U.S. and don't get it that maybe the economy is going well in Coatsville but elsewhere people are still in the dumps ( I don't care what links you pull up since you previously haven't cared about mine )and are angry. Yes SDW alot of unhappy campers.
And now what? you're rooting for a democrat so you think Bush can beat him if he's the winner? Pathetic.
The thing is there are so many people out there disgusted with Bush a monkey could run and win!
Makes a lot of sense to me. Dean would provide a clear choice. If offered another democrat, the voter might think he/she is a moderate and inclusive leader and mistakenly vote for him/her.
With Dean, the American voter would be given the opportunity to vote for a real Bush hater - my bet is that will help re-elect Bush - the Republicans smell self-destruction by the demos. No wonder they (we) are gleeful.
Keep thinking that... tow the line... it'll only help the democratic cause.
Independants like Dean and Clarke. So keep underestimating.
Oh Gooodddd, Clarke? Never has a canidate self-destructed so fast, so far, with so little preesure. There are revolving doors that change positions less frequently than he. Would have, would'nt have supported the war...and now he says he'd have been a republican if Rove had returned his call...
Nope...Hillary is the only substantial threat...very substantial.
He's always supported the military's efforts in Iraq... and he also said he didn't believe there were enough troops the get the job done. He's always thought it was a bad idea to go in without a coalition.
The only thing he's said is he isn't sure how he would have voted on letting Bush go into Iraq BECAUSE of the case they made AT THE TIME. He says he wouldn't have voted for it now.
And his comment about Carl Rove was a JOKE that keeps getting taken out of context.
So keep dissembling and towing the party line... those of us who pay attention see things a bit differently.
He's always supported the military's efforts in Iraq... and he also said he didn't believe there were enough troops the get the job done. He's always thought it was a bad idea to go in without a coalition.
The only thing he's said is he isn't sure how he would have voted on letting Bush go into Iraq BECAUSE of the case they made AT THE TIME. He says he wouldn't have voted for it now.
And his comment about Carl Rove was a JOKE that keeps getting taken out of context.
So keep dissembling and towing the party line... those of us who pay attention see things a bit differently.
Well, I hate to tell ya, if you are counting on the vote of "those who pay attention", your in deep do do. He's hardly out of the box without looking very shakely - a joke or not.
I didn't say he'd win the nomination... I only said that Independants like him. He's never ran for office... which certainly doesn't help him... and he entered the race late which also hurts his chances.
It's nice to see how the republicans treat a decorated war hero. Not any better than how they treated McCain with push polls... or showing images of Max Cleland with a photo of Osama and questioning his patriotism.
But a Dean/Clark ticket... don't think that scares the republican strategists a little?
Comments
But the fact is that the war is going badly in Iraq. Heck, Iraqis were able to launch rockets at a well guarded hotel, well within the control of US troops, where a major representitive of the government was staying. We are not in control in Iraq, and very few countries are coming to back us up.
:
Not only that, but our foreign policy is so bad that we can't even get other nations to sign on at this point to help rebuild the country.
That's crap.
This is not crap, it's a fact. If we had the backing of other nations and gone into Iraq as more of a coalition, we might still be facing some difficult challenges, but at least we wouldn't be there to bear most of those problems ourselves. Instead, you have Billions of American dollars, our tax money, going to Iraq to rebuild their country where our own country could use the help.
""Better"? Fran, we fight the war there...or in the streets of Manhattan. I've made my choice.
How many terrorists involved in 9/11 were Iraqi? Can you tell me which terrorist attack on the US was orchestrated by Iraqis? Remember why we invaded? Where are those weapons of mass destruction?
Hell, we help the Saudi government more than almost any other country out there, and it's Saudis that attacked us on 9/11. Bin Laden is Saudi, not Iraqi. Also remember that some of the same people in the White House now were the same people that supported Saddam Hussein in the 80s.
The war on terror is being fought in Afghanistan, yet Afghanistan wasn't even appropriated any money in the Bush budget until the US Senate asked where it was. President Karzai is saying the lack of money coming into the country (much less than was pledged) could plunge the country right back into the same state it was before 9/11. Yet Iraq gets almost all of the attention these days.
You say I'm drinking the Kool Aid, but you're the one who has really been influenced by his party. You believe things that are not true. You directly relate Iraq to 9/11 when Iraqis were not involved. There is no proof of an Iraq- Al Qaeda connection, there have been no weapons of mass destruction found, we can't get other nations to come through to help us fund the rebuilding, and the war is going badly. The companies that are making out well out of Iraq happen to be the close friends of the Bush administration, like Halliburton. Our money is going to Iraq when the money promised to New York City was never even delivered.
The Democratic nominee is going to drive home these points in the debates against Bush next year. As I've said before, the Bush Administration has very few successes to talk about, and things are going to have to be a heck of a lot better next year for Bush to be re-elected, and even then, he's going to have a lot of problems.
Originally posted by Fran441
There is no proof of an Iraq- Al Qaeda connection,
To be totally honest wasn´t there something about some Iraqi generals daughters child being married with someone who knew some semi high ranking Al Quada officer?
The attacks on September 11th were carried out by SAUDIS.
There's more connections to the Bin Laden family to the Bush family than there are between the Iraq and Al Qaeda. NOT Osama, but the Bin Laden's that were in the U.S. got out really easily.
alot of the conservatives on this message board are quite adept at it too.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...7_lakoff.shtml
Originally posted by chu_bakka
here's a good article about the language conservatives use to frame their arguments...
alot of the conservatives on this message board are quite adept at it too.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...7_lakoff.shtml
Incredible, incredible read! I particular thought this answer was interesting:
So taxes could be framed as an issue of patriotism?
It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country ? the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.
Absolutely fascinating. I have to give it the wingers, they have their shit together.
hehe... again... couldn't resist.
Notice how the Democrats are running against Bush and pundits are just trying to portray them and their supporters as Bush-Haters... gimme a break... if he was doing a brilliant job... and people were just trying to tear him down for political reasons... they MIGHT have a point.
But this is about policies and promises and the ensuing failures.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
the operative word being ... shit.
hehe... again... couldn't resist.
Notice how the Democrats are running against Bush and pundits are just trying to portray them and their supporters as Bush-Haters... gimme a break... if he was doing a brilliant job... and people were just trying to tear him down for political reasons... they MIGHT have a point.
But this is about policies and promises and the ensuing failures.
It's also about paying your fair share. Conservatives have been successfully arguing to years that the wealthy shouldn't be forced to pay higher taxes because it ultimately supports the lazy and that is unfair. If the argument were that simple and they could prove that their taxes are used ONLY for income redistribution then they'd have a point.
But, when you factor in that the wealthy take far more advantage of our nation's infrastructure and "free market" advantages their wealth affords them, then they should "pay their dues" for using/abusing the system.
I'm tired of rich Republicans crying "I made $10M last year and I paid THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES! That's "million" with an a capital "M". This is an outrage!" No. You paid 30% that will be used to support the infrastructure that you will use next year to earn another $10M.
"There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists ? vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues ? you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it."
Okay neo-cons. Flame away!
I agree with you on that
It's not about who I'd like to win (obviously). I just saying that I think there are a lot of Republicans PRAYING for Dean to win.
It will be interesting to see how the field handles the new economic data showing a basically normalized economy with (now) strong growth projections. [/QUOTE
Ok I've been gone for awhile but now I'm back! SDW get off it! You sit there in your little, isolated eastern corner of the U.S. and don't get it that maybe the economy is going well in Coatsville but elsewhere people are still in the dumps ( I don't care what links you pull up since you previously haven't cared about mine )and are angry. Yes SDW alot of unhappy campers.
And now what? you're rooting for a democrat so you think Bush can beat him if he's the winner? Pathetic.
The thing is there are so many people out there disgusted with Bush a monkey could run and win!
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
I think the American people believe that we need a Democrat in the White House to help restore our relationships with old Europe, the Russians and the Asias. Once we've restored those relationships to pre-Geedub status, we can then affectively reinsert ourselves, along with a true coalition, back into Middle-Eastern politics.
I think the American people will keep a Republican congress to maintain our sense of national security (although a false one) while giving the new Democratic president a mandate to help re-unify ourselves to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate world leader, not just a warmongering nation.
Just my opinion.
Originally posted by Northgate
I think the American people are going to pat Geedub on the back, say thanks for helping us through 9/11 and getting the war on terror underway, and then elect a new president to help repair our reputation on the world stage.
I think the American people believe that we need a Democrat in the White House to help restore our relationships with old Europe, the Russians and the Asias. Once we've restored those relationships to pre-Geedub status, we can then affectively reinsert ourselves, along with a true coalition, back into Middle-Eastern politics.
I think the American people will keep a Republican congress to maintain our sense of national security (although a false one) while giving the new Democratic president a mandate to help re-unify ourselves to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate world leader, not just a warmongering nation.
Just my opinion.
A logical view of the situation. Pretty much right on the head of the nail.
Originally posted by Northgate
I think the American people are going to pat Geedub on the back, say thanks for helping us through 9/11 and getting the war on terror underway, and then elect a new president to help repair our reputation on the world stage.
I think the American people believe that we need a Democrat in the White House to help restore our relationships with old Europe, the Russians and the Asias. Once we've restored those relationships to pre-Geedub status, we can then affectively reinsert ourselves, along with a true coalition, back into Middle-Eastern politics.
I think the American people will keep a Republican congress to maintain our sense of national security (although a false one) while giving the new Democratic president a mandate to help re-unify ourselves to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate world leader, not just a warmongering nation.
Just my opinion.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Post of the week.
"In a nutshell, 57% of independents disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq. Back in April, he had a 73% approval rating from independents. Now that approval is at 39%. In addition,
Independents are less inclined to vote for Bush next year than to vote for a Democrat; 35% of registered independent voters choose Bush and 42% choose an unnamed Democrat. Among all registered voters, Bush leads the unnamed Democrat 46%-43%, which is within the 4-point error margin.
Support for the war also is declining:
Fifty-seven percent say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq. That is up considerably from two months ago, when 46% wanted to withdraw some or all of the troops. Seventy percent of Democrats, 58% of independents and 43% of Republicans want a partial or full withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Democratic support for the war has fallen more sharply than independent support Ñ from 54% in April to 24% now."
It's all about the swing voters. The independants. The Democratic party is already galvanized and ready to vote Bush out... there will be alot less democrats willing to vote for Bush this time out. That means that he needs to GET EVEN MORE of the independant vote... and right now... more independants in NH are looking at Dean and Clark.
[B]
Originally posted by SDW2001
I agree with you on that
It's not about who I'd like to win (obviously). I just saying that I think there are a lot of Republicans PRAYING for Dean to win.
It will be interesting to see how the field handles the new economic data showing a basically normalized economy with (now) strong growth projections. [/QUOTE
Ok I've been gone for awhile but now I'm back! SDW get off it! You sit there in your little, isolated eastern corner of the U.S. and don't get it that maybe the economy is going well in Coatsville but elsewhere people are still in the dumps ( I don't care what links you pull up since you previously haven't cared about mine )and are angry. Yes SDW alot of unhappy campers.
And now what? you're rooting for a democrat so you think Bush can beat him if he's the winner? Pathetic.
The thing is there are so many people out there disgusted with Bush a monkey could run and win!
Makes a lot of sense to me. Dean would provide a clear choice. If offered another democrat, the voter might think he/she is a moderate and inclusive leader and mistakenly vote for him/her.
With Dean, the American voter would be given the opportunity to vote for a real Bush hater - my bet is that will help re-elect Bush - the Republicans smell self-destruction by the demos. No wonder they (we) are gleeful.
Independants like Dean and Clarke. So keep underestimating.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Keep thinking that... tow the line... it'll only help the democratic cause.
Independants like Dean and Clarke. So keep underestimating.
Oh Gooodddd, Clarke? Never has a canidate self-destructed so fast, so far, with so little preesure. There are revolving doors that change positions less frequently than he. Would have, would'nt have supported the war...and now he says he'd have been a republican if Rove had returned his call...
Nope...Hillary is the only substantial threat...very substantial.
He's always supported the military's efforts in Iraq... and he also said he didn't believe there were enough troops the get the job done. He's always thought it was a bad idea to go in without a coalition.
The only thing he's said is he isn't sure how he would have voted on letting Bush go into Iraq BECAUSE of the case they made AT THE TIME. He says he wouldn't have voted for it now.
And his comment about Carl Rove was a JOKE that keeps getting taken out of context.
So keep dissembling and towing the party line... those of us who pay attention see things a bit differently.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You watch alot of Faux News don't ya?
He's always supported the military's efforts in Iraq... and he also said he didn't believe there were enough troops the get the job done. He's always thought it was a bad idea to go in without a coalition.
The only thing he's said is he isn't sure how he would have voted on letting Bush go into Iraq BECAUSE of the case they made AT THE TIME. He says he wouldn't have voted for it now.
And his comment about Carl Rove was a JOKE that keeps getting taken out of context.
So keep dissembling and towing the party line... those of us who pay attention see things a bit differently.
Well, I hate to tell ya, if you are counting on the vote of "those who pay attention", your in deep do do. He's hardly out of the box without looking very shakely - a joke or not.
It's nice to see how the republicans treat a decorated war hero. Not any better than how they treated McCain with push polls... or showing images of Max Cleland with a photo of Osama and questioning his patriotism.
But a Dean/Clark ticket... don't think that scares the republican strategists a little?