Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 2 2007, 10:35 PM) [snapback]434560[/snapback]</div>

No, you seem to think I am for democrats and against republicans. I've stated more than once in this forum that I feel both parties are filled with simple-minded, ignorant, or worse yet, arrogant folks. The problems we face today do not boil down to political classes. To think so shows true ignorance because the political lines are blurred nowadaysand there is corruption and ignorance on both side (I appologize here for not including the other parties).

We have built a cage for ourselves. Not just us but almost every developed country. Until we start looking at the big picture and unite to find a way to survive then all of our efforts will be for naught.

I don't mean this to be condesending towards you but I am having a bit O' trouble making myself clear after a drink. i appologize.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 3 2007, 02:06 AM) [snapback]434576[/snapback]</div>

I agree, both parties suck. both cannot hold true to even their own principles. Both cannot put down their differences to act for the good of America. Both seem like little kids fighting over a toy - except the toy they are fighting over is ours. To think that our current set of politcal candidates is the best each party has to offer is quite frankly dishearterning.

 

There is so much Pork in this Bill it appears the Defeatocrats had to resort to bribery to obtain enough votes to get it passed. <_<

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 3 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]434576[/snapback]</div>

NP - that post didn't sound condescending. Which developed country do you think hasn't built such a cage?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ May 3 2007, 12:42 AM) [snapback]434545[/snapback]</div>

There's no owned involved. You're all smart enough to know the context of that question was very likely within the CURRENT state of things, like OUR generation, relevance to the Iraqi situation at hand, any idiot can, at the very least, regurgitate FDR used WMD's twice...

I suppose I expected a bit too much from certain posters, and ASSUMED they knew better...

Guess not...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 3 2007, 04:17 AM) [snapback]434621[/snapback]</div>

I honestly cannot say because I don't know enough about how each of them works precisely but I would say the majority of them cannot make abrupt changes in their economy because they have been built up to work well with the typical economy and if they shifted alone then the would lose their edge. Kinda like the U.S. dares not make drastic changes quickly because if we did we risk losing our spot as #1 if the other countries did not follow us. So we are caught in a perpetual game of bluff and on constant "alert". We continue to gooble up everything we can before someone else gets it. It is very much like the tragedy of the commons on a grand scale.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 2 2007, 06:17 PM) [snapback]434328[/snapback]</div>

Looking back through history, i see:
18 republican presidents
15 democrat presidents
4 whig presidents
4 democrat-republican presidents
1 federalist president
1 no party president


Doesn't seem to me that the democrats are doing all that badly... 34% of all US presidents have been Democratic, compared to only 41% Republican.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 3 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]434645[/snapback]</div>

Stay silent over what?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]434664[/snapback]</div>

One would argue that some of the Democratic presidents of last century acted and would be viewed today more like republicans than democrats. I do not know one current dem who would have dropped two nukes on two cities in japan. i do not know one dem who could have withstood the american losses in wwII that fdr withstood or the errors in military judgement and intelligence. i do not know one current dem who would have enacted the jfk tax cuts - or even one that would enact the welfare reform act clinton did. lbj stood by the military during vietnam and EXPANDED american involvement there - name one pro-war ever under any circumstance dem today? the dems of the past loved the military - where always united with the repubs placing them in their hearts and thoughts - now the current dems are anti-military (say whatever you want to - there are few americans that think the current dems really support the troops - if they do they sure have a funny way of showing it - cutting the funding - making trips to countries that are actively involved in killing our troops - etc)

more recent history - over past 50 or 75 years how many years has the presidency been in dem and repub hands?

the last two elections the dems ran as dems and not as centrists like clinton. the fact they lost to a guy who cannot speak in public or put together two sentances back to back says something quite amazing to me. my belief is that the next dem candidate will be forced to move even more leftward - and that would be a bad thing imho since most americans are conservative be they dem or repub.

 

Berman, both parties have gotten more and more extreme over the years - Name one republican today who cares as much about the American people as Eisenhower, and would institute programs such as the space race (as i recall Bush has basically gutted the space program since he got into office...), social security, or the interstate highway system.

But like you asked, lets go back 75 years...

7 Republican presidents
- Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush
6 democratic presidents
- Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton

Gee you're right, the democrats haven't won anything, have they?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 10:04 AM) [snapback]434682[/snapback]</div>

I believe it or not do not disagree with you here on some stuff - i am saying the dem presidents of yesteryear would be viewed more like repubs today on crucial issues like defense and security. the other stuff in your post is just you being you.....

 

How has the democratic party done anything to shirk away from national defense or security? As far as i can tell, they want to bring our soldiers home where they can actually defend our country, instead of mounting an offensive against another.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 08:04 AM) [snapback]434682[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I should have qualified my comment to reference the last 40 years. It seems this is when the democrats changed their image. I think it was a combination of Nixon and the Vietnam War, but since the early 70's democrats have had a strong "we are at fault" undercurrent in their message about everything. Since then we have had Carter( who won because of Nixon, is viewed as a complete failure and continues to embarrass himself to this day) and Clinton, who talked a good game when in front of a leftist’s crowd but certainly didn't govern that way. I think until the democrats revise their "everything is bad and it’s your fault" message they will have trouble winning the presidency.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 3 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]434723[/snapback]</div>

absolutely agree. i said before that clinton won in part because of perot and the fact he ran as a centrist. if he had run like gore or kerry he might not have faired any better than they did - not that the repubs ran anyone great either

the more leftist dems have a soap box and several loudspeakers (murtha, pelosi) that will force them even further left. think of this - Dean is too mainstream for them now and has been jetisoned and even lieberman was thrown under the dem bus as is steers more and more left.... i hope they see the wall ahead of them.

 

And yet the republicans are doing the same thing on the right...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]434721[/snapback]</div>

they did a great job on 9/11 didnt they - and i say that with tongue in cheek. if you dont get it by now then forgetaboutit.

how did we defend our country in ww2 or ww1?

why do we keep forces outside the borders of this country like in SoKo, Germany, GB, and hundreds of bases all around the world...........................?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 3 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]434790[/snapback]</div>

WWI - US merchant ships were attacked and sunk by German u-boats. We became involved in the conflict because of direct attacks on our citizens by Germany.

WWII - We became involved in the conflict after a direct attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor.

In neither situation did we attack a country that wasn't a threat to us. But now the right thinks it's ok for us to do so with Iraq.

Of note, we went to war in both cases under a Democratic president. Vietnam and Iraq were both under Republican presidents, were both very costly, and in no way acted to increase the security or defense of our nation.

As you well know (or should, anyways), a good defense isn't solely having more guns than everyone else. It's also in the placement of our guns. Bases around the world give us the advantage of being able to quickly strike anywhere that threatens us. This has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq, and i really don't know why you're trying to sidetrack the conversation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]434805[/snapback]</div>

I guess you are in favor of having US bases in Iraq?

 

Nice try, Berman... I'm in favor of us having bases in friendly countries that actually want us there. Iraq doesn't fit that bill. Neither does attacking a nation, upsetting its government so we can put a puppet government in its place, and creating a haven for terrorists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]434862[/snapback]</div>

how can our troops "defend us" if they stay within US borders?

and

please define friendly country - i understand that sometimes countries are "friendly" to us behind the scenes but outwardly to the public project a different picture - could that be true?

you have such a negative view of the USA - why?

 

Don't confuse a negative view of the war in Iraq and our reasons for being there as a negative view of the US.