Welcoming the party switchers

[cygonaut]

94 Days to go.

http://www.100actions.com/a/2006/08/relax_but_get_i.html

 

[dilloduck]

94 Days to go.

http://www.100actions.com/a/2006/08/relax_but_get_i.html

Until what?

 

[manu1959]

Then ask yourself, and be honest, "Just what has Chimpy...er...George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress done to make America safer?"

Our ports remain unsecured. Chemical and nuclear facilities in and near major metropolitan areas remain as secure as a package of Oreos with a bunch of stoners. Iraq, rather than the stable democracy promised by the administration, has become a training ground for terrorists and is spiralling ionto the chaos of civil war, threatening the entire region. Our armed forces are so overstretched as to be unready for any new situation which is likely to crop up. Our borders are a sieve.

Can you honestly say anything has been done by this administration, since that awful day of September 11, 2001, to make this nation safer? Stop, look at the evidence, examine the facts, put ideology aside and think.

what leads you to believe our boarders, ports, ships in foreign ports, embassies, chemical and nuclear faculties are less secure now than they were during the blow job years? Further, if this administration, since that awful day of September 11, 2001, has done nothing to make this nation safer can you list all of the bills the dems have authored that have tried to make this nation safer but have either been voted down or vetoed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

what leads you to believe our boarders, ports, ships in foreign ports, embassies, chemical and nuclear faculties are less secure now than they were during the blow job years? Further, if this administration, since that awful day of September 11, 2001, has done nothing to make this nation safer can you list all of the bills the dems have authored that have tried to make this nation safer but have either been voted down or vetoed.

DUring the Clinton years, America was not faced with the threat of international terrorism that we now face. Prior to 9/11, the worst terrorist action on US soil was home-grow a la Timothy McVey. So, your first sentence is a straw-man and irrelevant to the conversation.

As to your second assertion, it would be more appropriate to review the number of bills killed in the GOP controlled Congress that would have tightened security at petro/chem/nuke facilities around the country. In the years since 9/11, the GOP has killed numerous amendments, sponsored by Democrats, to the Homeland Security spending bill that would fund tighter sea and air port security, train and equip fire-fighters and other first responders, help to secure our borders and rail system. And don't forget, it was originally the Democrats in Congress who called for the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. The idea was co-opted by Chimpy and the GOP when they saw the political consequences of not establishing such a department. Since then, they have starved it financially and appointed incompetent political cronies to run it. You remember Michael Brown, don't you?

In short, the so called "war on terror" has been little more than a rhetorical tool cynically used by this president and the GOP to secure their strangle-hold on power. Their actions on the matter have been notably lacking. So, I turn it back on you. What has Chimpy and the GOP actually done to bolster homeland security beyond paying lip-service to the notion?

 

[dilloduck]

DUring the Clinton years, America was not faced with the threat of international terrorism that we now face. Prior to 9/11, the worst terrorist action on US soil was home-grow a la Timothy McVey. So, your first sentence is a straw-man and irrelevant to the conversation.

As to your second assertion, it would be more appropriate to review the number of bills killed in the GOP controlled Congress that would have tightened security at petro/chem/nuke facilities around the country. In the years since 9/11, the GOP has killed numerous amendments, sponsored by Democrats, to the Homeland Security spending bill that would fund tighter sea and air port security, train and equip fire-fighters and other first responders, help to secure our borders and rail system. And don't forget, it was originally the Democrats in Congress who called for the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. The idea was co-opted by Chimpy and the GOP when they saw the political consequences of not establishing such a department. Since then, they have starved it financially and appointed incompetent political cronies to run it. You remember Michael Brown, don't you?

In short, the so called "war on terror" has been little more than a rhetorical tool cynically used by this president and the GOP to secure their strangle-hold on power. Their actions on the matter have been notably lacking. So, I turn it back on you. What has Chimpy and the GOP actually done to bolster homeland security beyond paying lip-service to the notion?

DUring the Clinton years, America was not faced with the threat of international terrorism that we now face

no--we didn't. Today we face the results of all the planning that was done and attacks that occured during the "blow job years".

 

[Bullypulpit]

I've been more than a bit vocal on all those. The question is, have I observed anything to make me think the dems would do better? No. Is their evidence that they would do less? Yes.

That's all right. I suggest you sleep on it and get back to me. If you really think the GOP as it is currently constituted, is more capable than the Democrats at securing America and maintaining our civil-liberties, I won't mention it to you again. Have nice dreams!

 

[Bullypulpit]

no--we didn't. Today we face the results of all the planning that was done and attacks that occured during the "blow job years".

And when Goatboy had actionable intel, conservatives and the GOP accused him of wagging the dog.

 

[dilloduck]

That's all right. I suggest you sleep on it and get back to me. If you really think the GOP as it is currently constituted, is more capable than the Democrats at securing America and maintaining our civil-liberties, I won't mention it to you again. Have nice dreams!

Maybe you can tell us ,Bully. (or is it a secret weapon). WHAT IS THE DEMOCRATS' PLAN FOR A SECURE AMERICA !

 

[Mr.Conley]

I disagree with you about their reforming NCLB, they are more beholden to the NEA.

As for the bolded, they have different issues. I would NOT be comfortable with the current democratic leadership and WOT, and I think it's underplayed, not over.

I don't think so, the NEA would want the whole thing scrapped, but I don't think the Democrats could do that with Bush still in the White House and without at least 60 seats in the Senate, something they sure aren't getting. They'll compromise when the law comes up for renewal and everyone will be the better for it.

No one ever said the WOT is over, I just think that it's overhyped by both parties, especially the GOP, inorder to frighten people to vote for them. The WOT is now a sad joke that the Republicans use to garner votes while the Democrats decry what the Republicans are doing so they too can garner votes. If the parties were really concerned about saving as many American lives as possible, they'd build 20 ft tall metal poles every 50 ft so that no one in the country ever gets struck by lightning again. Even that would save more lives and would cost less than what we are spending in Iraq. It's really a nonpartisan issue. Set up the DoHS, secure the nuclear facitilties, chemical plants, and other possible sources of bomb materials, integrate the FBI, TSA, CIA, NSA, and INS databases, secure the border with Mexico, and place checkpoints at the entrypoints into the country. The party affiliation of the Speaker of the House has nothing to do with accomplishing any of this.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think so, the NEA would want the whole thing scrapped, but I don't think the Democrats could do that with Bush still in the White House and without at least 60 seats in the Senate, something they sure aren't getting. They'll compromise when the law comes up for renewal and everyone will be the better for it.


, especially the GOP, inorder to frighten people to vote for them. The WOT is now a sad joke that the Republicans use to garner votes while the Democrats decry what the Republicans are doing so they too can garner votes. If the parties were really concerned about saving as many American lives as possible, they'd build 20 ft tall metal poles every 50 ft so that no one in the country ever gets struck by lightning again. Even that would save more lives and would cost less than what we are spending in Iraq. It's really a nonpartisan issue. Set up the DoHS, secure the nuclear facitilties, chemical plants, and other possible sources of bomb materials, integrate the FBI, TSA, CIA, NSA, and INS databases, secure the border with Mexico, and place checkpoints at the entrypoints into the country. The party affiliation of the Speaker of the House has nothing to do with accomplishing any of this.

No one ever said the WOT is over, I just think that it's overhyped by both parties

The islamo-terrorists are bluffing? 9/11 was a diversion? Heck, lets bring everyone home and disband homeland security. It's all a joke.

Are YOU willing to call thier bluff and take responsiblity for the outcome?

 

[Mr.Conley]

The islamo-terrorists are bluffing? 9/11 was a diversion? Heck, lets bring everyone home and disband homeland security. It's all a joke.

Are YOU willing to call thier bluff and take responsiblity for the outcome?

If you're going to make stuff up you'll have to do better than that.

Read what I said and then comment.

Remember: read; then comment.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think so, the NEA would want the whole thing scrapped, but I don't think the Democrats could do that with Bush still in the White House and without at least 60 seats in the Senate, something they sure aren't getting. They'll compromise when the law comes up for renewal and everyone will be the better for it.

No one ever said the WOT is over, I just think that it's overhyped by both parties, especially the GOP, inorder to frighten people to vote for them. The WOT is now a sad joke that the Republicans use to garner votes while the Democrats decry what the Republicans are doing so they too can garner votes. If the parties were really concerned about saving as many American lives as possible, they'd build 20 ft tall metal poles every 50 ft so that no one in the country ever gets struck by lightning again. Even that would save more lives and would cost less than what we are spending in Iraq. It's really a nonpartisan issue. Set up the DoHS, secure the nuclear facitilties, chemical plants, and other possible sources of bomb materials, integrate the FBI, TSA, CIA, NSA, and INS databases, secure the border with Mexico, and place checkpoints at the entrypoints into the country. The party affiliation of the Speaker of the House has nothing to do with accomplishing any of this.

I'll even quote it if you like :

No one ever said the WOT is over, I just think that it's overhyped by both parties, especially the GOP, inorder to frighten people to vote for them. The WOT is now a sad joke that the Republicans use to garner votes while the Democrats decry what the Republicans are doing so they too can garner votes

.

Why would we need to :

Set up the DoHS, secure the nuclear facitilties, chemical plants, and other possible sources of bomb materials, integrate the FBI, TSA, CIA, NSA, and INS databases, secure the border with Mexico, and place checkpoints at the entrypoints into the country.

if this is all some over-hyped incident ?

 

[cygonaut]

It's simply a matter of political survival. Except for Lieberman and a few others, the Democratic party is the best bet.

 

[Mr.Conley]

if this is all some over-hyped incident ?

Yes and No. It's important to impliment all the programs I mentioned, and a few more that I didn't feel like writing down, but once you've done that you're pretty much set. Islamic terrorists have been trying to attack this country for at least 30 years, and according to you more than 50. In that time they've pulled off one successful major attack, 9/11. So to repeat, in 50 years, despite there being hundreds of terrorists with thousands and millions of dollars, and despite the fact they we were TOTALLY unprepared, not even really bothering to find and stop them, despite all of this, they could only pull off one attack in the "pre-9/11" world. How successful do you think they'll be in the "post-9/11" world? But the parties are just unjustifiably hyping the threat that they've scared the American population into submission. Now, whenever I even allude to the impotence of al Quada, or why the state of fear we live in is unnessicary, I get kneejerk reactions like yours about how because of me the terrorists are going to kill us all. They're scaring us into submission in hopes of securing their own power. Not only is it unnessicary, but it's hurting America.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes and No. It's important to impliment all the programs I mentioned, and a few more that I didn't feel like writing down, but once you've done that you're pretty much set. Islamic terrorists have been trying to attack this country for at least 30 years, and according to you more than 50. In that time they've pulled off one successful major attack, 9/11. So to repeat, in 50 years, despite there being hundreds of terrorists with thousands and millions of dollars, and despite the fact they we were TOTALLY unprepared, not even really bothering to find and stop them, despite all of this, they could only pull off one attack in the "pre-9/11" world. How successful do you think they'll be in the "post-9/11" world? But the parties are just unjustifiably hyping the threat that they've scared the American population into submission. Now, whenever I even allude to the impotence of al Quada, or why the state of fear we live in is unnessicary, I get kneejerk reactions like yours about how because of me the terrorists are going to kill us all. They're scaring us into submission in hopes of securing their own power. Not only is it unnessicary, but it's hurting America.

Get someone to run on that platform and see how they do.

:sleepy1:

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It shouldn't be too surprising that some republicans are jumping ship to the democratic party. There was a pretty good number of democrats who switched to the republicans, after they lost control of congress in the 1994 debacle. There won't be any substantial changes either way.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Get someone to run on that platform and see how they do.

So I'm assuming that you're lack of a dignified responce represents your capitulation to my argument.

Nice debating you.

 

[dilloduck]

So I'm assuming that you're lack of a dignified responce represents your capitulation to my argument.

Nice debating you.

Nice try

 

[Mr.Conley]

Nice try

Alright I'll help you. To rephrase:

Face it, the threat of you or I or anyone on this board ever dying in a terrorist attack is so minute, so small, so remote, as to be nonexistent. The government would save far more lives my improving auto safety, putting life guards at every pool in the country, or building lightning rods across the country.

Now does this mean, as you have tried to imply, that we do nothing? No. I've already posted a few of the measures that need to be taken. However, with those actions implimented, it's time for you, me, and everyone else in the country to get off the terrorist bandwagon. We don't need to live in a state of fear. We don't need to constantly worry about flying, or whether to visit New York. The politicians are using the War of Terrorism to terrify us into voting them more power, but with the measures we already have in place and the ones the Republicans will hopefully someday get around to funding, the threat of a major terrorist attack becomes so minor that we as a nation don't have to constantly worry about it like we have been for the past 5 years. The electorate has far more important issues to contemplate. You can fuss all you want about terrorist, but it's not going to do a damn thing. It's would be far more productive for us to simply let the government do it's job and move on with our lives.

Now do you understand?

 

[dilloduck]

Alright I'll help you. To rephrase:

Face it, the threat of you or I or anyone on this board ever dying in a terrorist attack is so minute, so small, so remote, as to be nonexistent. The government would save far more lives my improving auto safety, putting life guards at every pool in the country, or building lightning rods across the country.

Now does this mean, as you have tried to imply, that we do nothing? No. I've already posted a few of the measures that need to be taken. However, with those actions implimented, it's time for you, me, and everyone else in the country to get off the terrorist bandwagon. We don't need to live in a state of fear. We don't need to constantly worry about flying, or whether to visit New York. The politicians are using the War of Terrorism to terrify us into voting them more power, but with the measures we already have in place and the ones the Republicans will hopefully someday get around to funding, the threat of a major terrorist attack becomes so minor that we as a nation don't have to constantly worry about it like we have been for the past 5 years. The electorate has far more important issues to contemplate. You can fuss all you want about terrorist, but it's not going to do a damn thing. It's would be far more productive for us to simply let the government do it's job and move on with our lives.

Now do you understand?

Whatever makes you think that death is my main concern ?
Saying that terrorism is nothing to be concerned about is a bit naive of you IMHO. Are you claiming there is no intent on the part of the the Hizbullys to harm America or do you think it will only take a nip here and a tick there to make us all cozy? Politicians will use anything for votes. It doesn't mean that none of the issues they speak of are true.