Something different - Why should Republicans get a second shot.

[Xenophon]

We were involved in Vietnam before LBJ.

Eisenhower sent a bunch of "military ad visors" to Vietnam. JFK sent in special forces.

Dude, you should know better.

We had only 'advisors' and the war was nearly over in 1964, the South had lost, until LBJ faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and then lauched 'Operation Starlight' in which a Marine regiment landed at Da Nang and began a sucessful sweep and clear operation in 1965.

On the legs of this LBJ moved over a half million US service perssonel into SVN.

And if you want to play semantics, Vietnam was started by TRUMAN, not Eisenhower, Harry renegged on the uS promise to Ho in favor of the French.

LBJ is definitely the one who amped it up and really turned it into a "war" ... no disagreement there ... I'm just saying that we had our nose in Vietnam llong before LBJ.

Anyway you want to cut that pie, a Democrat was there first.

 

[Article 15]

Dude, you should know better.

We had only 'advisors' and the war was nearly over in 1964, the South had lost, until LBJ faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and then lauched 'Operation Starlight' in which a Marine regiment landed at Da Nang and began a sucessful sweep and clear operation in 1965.

On the legs of this LBJ moved over a half million US service perssonel into SVN.

And if you want to play semantics, Vietnam was started by TRUMAN, not Eisenhower, Harry renegged on the uS promise to Ho in favor of the French.

LBJ is definitely the one who amped it up and really turned it into a "war" ... no disagreement there ... I'm just saying that we had our nose in Vietnam llong before LBJ.

Anyway you want to cut that pie, a Democrat was there first.

I couldn't care less which party was there first.

 

[Xenophon]

LBJ is definitely the one who amped it up and really turned it into a "war" ... no disagreement there ... I'm just saying that we had our nose in Vietnam llong before LBJ.

Anyway you want to cut that pie, a Democrat was there first.

I couldn't care less which party was there first.

I only care so far as to tell a partisan his 'side' is not the good guys that he deeply believes they are, nor is the other guy the 'bad guy' and the root of all evil.

 

[txlonghorn]

Because the Democrats were handed the "keys to the castle" with their Presidency and SuperMajority and STILL managed to fuck it up?

When was that ?

Depends on the castle...if they're talking about the house, then it was several years ago...but if they're talking about the White House then...well, you have a calender and a brain...use them...if that's possible.

 

[Article 15]

Anyway you want to cut that pie, a Democrat was there first.

I couldn't care less which party was there first.

I only care so far as to tell a partisan his 'side' is not the good guys that he deeply believes they are, nor is the other guy the 'bad guy' and the root of all evil.

I hear ya.

I think Eisenhower was one of the best Presidents we had last century.

 

[txlonghorn]

Which came first...the politician or the egg on his face?

 

[Xenophon]

I couldn't care less which party was there first.

I only care so far as to tell a partisan his 'side' is not the good guys that he deeply believes they are, nor is the other guy the 'bad guy' and the root of all evil.

I hear ya.

I think Eisenhower was one of the best Presidents we had last century.

Ike had good points and bad points, but look at the times, he beat adalai stevenson, one of the most intelligent and honest men ever in politics.

They had Ike and Adlai.

Look at what we get to choose from.

 

[Article 15]

I only care so far as to tell a partisan his 'side' is not the good guys that he deeply believes they are, nor is the other guy the 'bad guy' and the root of all evil.

I hear ya.

I think Eisenhower was one of the best Presidents we had last century.

Ike had good points and bad points, but look at the times, he beat adalai stevenson, one of the most intelligent and honest men ever in politics.

They had Ike and Adlai.

Look at what we get to choose from.

The Law of Political Diminishing Return is catching up to us ...

Ike and Nixon would both be at my dream poker table.

 

[txlonghorn]

Why don't we try a term with NO party in charge...lets let as many people as want to run for POTUS do so. And the guy that gets the most votes wins...kinda like HS. I mean, as long as we're gonna act like mindless adolescents, why not govern as mindless adolescents.

I guess you SHOULD put SOME limitations on it. They all have to put in a million and be present for all debates. Coat and tie or dress and heels will be optional for all appearences. They will have to be able to pay for their own advertising...no party affiliated or special interest donations allowed. Speech writers are STRICTLY forbidden...it's your words or NONE. No non-provit groups will be allowed to recruit voters.

This is strictly a popularity contest of wit, brains and personna. May the best man/woman win.

We'll be back to the old way of doing things before the term is up.

 

[Xenophon]

I hear ya.

I think Eisenhower was one of the best Presidents we had last century.

Ike had good points and bad points, but look at the times, he beat adalai stevenson, one of the most intelligent and honest men ever in politics.

They had Ike and Adlai.

Look at what we get to choose from.

The Law of Political Diminishing Return is catching up to us ...

Ike and Nixon would both be at my dream poker table.

Mine would be Brooke Burke & Jessica Alba.

 

[Rozman]

OK, let's not bash Republicans. Let's ask:

Why should Republicans get a "second shot" at the nation? What will they bring to "heal the damage" that is here, for whatever reason it's here, it IS here.

What are Republican solutions?

What facts to have to back up those solutions?

Start with their many successes from the 8 years before Obama took office. What will they do to keep that success going?

Because the Democrats were handed the "keys to the castle" with their Presidency and SuperMajority and STILL managed to fuck it up?

As I count heads in the Senate, I never saw the Democrats with 60 votes. I saw 58 and 2 independents. It always amazes me how people assume the independents would vote for whatever the democrats came up with when democrats have NEVER voted for something simply because the democrats came up with it.

That's one thing the Democrats have over the GOP, there members are not required, and do not walk in lockstep.

What amazes me is when that dope Franken was sworn in the Dems were crowing about having 60 votes,then they can't get anything done and it's still Bush's fault or the GOP's fault or somebody's fault.Now when they can't get anything done it's well we really never had the 60 votes....What a bunch of dumbasses.

 

[rightwinger]

I couldn't care less which party was there first.

I only care so far as to tell a partisan his 'side' is not the good guys that he deeply believes they are, nor is the other guy the 'bad guy' and the root of all evil.

I hear ya.

I think Eisenhower was one of the best Presidents we had last century.

Agree....I like Ike

 

[Political Junky]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Chris]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

And will take over and make us buy more C-17s than the Pentagon wants.

 

[VaYank5150]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

And will take over and make us buy more C-17s than the Pentagon wants.

....or needs.

 

[Big Fitz]

How about a pledge to constitutionally limit federal spending to 15% of GDP except in wartime.

What good would that do, we're in wartime and there's no end in sight.

Easily remedied. Plus you make all future declarations of war with a sunset date, where they must renew the declaration if necessary. Done.

 

[Big Fitz]

They didn't fuck anything up. They are still cleaning up the mess left by the Republicans.

You think that excuse is going to work anymore?



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only to people who seek the truth. Liar lovers will believe anything but....

Explains the reason you blame Bush for everything still.

 

[Big Fitz]

Eisenhower, a Republican, got us into Vietnam.

LBJ Used the Gulf of Tonkin to get the war rolling. But if you're going to try and blame Eisenhower for FRENCH troops in Indonesia, you're full of it. Kennedy committed at best, "advisers". Before that, we weren't involved.

 

[Chris]

How about a pledge to constitutionally limit federal spending to 15% of GDP except in wartime.

What good would that do, we're in wartime and there's no end in sight.

Easily remedied. Plus you make all future declarations of war with a sunset date, where they must renew the declaration if necessary. Done.

How about not going to war unless their is some extremely compelling national interest at stake?

 

[rdean]

I couldn't care less which party was there first.

I only care so far as to tell a partisan his 'side' is not the good guys that he deeply believes they are, nor is the other guy the 'bad guy' and the root of all evil.

I hear ya.

I think Eisenhower was one of the best Presidents we had last century.

Not that it's relevant, but when Eisenhower was president, the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 90%, CEO's average salary was 20 to 30 times the lowest paid person in the company, NOT 200 or 300 times and the economy was growing in leaps and bounds.