Welcoming the party switchers

[Mr.Conley]

You might be right about the outcome, but I think you are overstating the effects of the nonsense that the GOP has pulled, with flag burning, etc. I have criticised those, I think it's a travesty that they did so. However, most people of both parties don't even read the newspaper and really could care less about those types of issues. Truth to tell, even NCLB gets more than a glance.

Global warming is another nonstarter, as a few are either terrified of it, than the WOT-they will always vote dem or far left alternative; or they don't believe it all and will always vote rep. or far right alternative.

Typically yea, but since this is a midterm election, and they traditionally only get a 20-30% turnout, I'm expecting only people who rabidly support one party, who are really into politics, or who are highly motivated on one issue to come out and vote.

A lot of Hispanics have been motivated by the immigration debate. Sure, there probably are Hispanics who'll still vote Republican, but the number is going to drop. Plus we're probably going to see a lot of Hispanics who previously haven't voted going out the the polls now, and they're probably going to vote Democrat.

I think that Global Warming is going to be a plus issue for the Democrats, if you believe it, then you're probably freaked out enough to go vote, if you don't then I doubt you're going to go out and vote just to stop someone who believes in global warming from getting into office. Basically, I don't think the antiglobal warming group will be nearly as motivated as the proglobal warming group to go to the polls. Al Gore's flick will really expand the proglobal warming base, but I can't say whether this group will be large enough to affect the elections.

I think NCLB might be an issue, the laws coming up for renewal next Congress, and the teachers unions are going to be out in full force trying to get Democrats who might vote against, or at least alter, the legislation in their benefit. I don't like it, but I bet that's what's going to happen.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess you could do that, and I would support it, but is it the greatest cost to benefit?

Regardless of what we do though, we don't need the level of public fear we currently have in this country. It doesn't help the situation. It makes everyone anxious, more easily manipulated, and it doesn't improve the situation. I know that everyone here would love to stop a terrorist attack, but worrying about it all day isn't going to stop it. It's better for us as a nation to realize that we've done what we could, hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and move on. We can live our lives in fear, but that isn't going to save us, and it isn't going to make what time we have enjoyable.

Guess I could do what ?, be concerned? Gee thanks !

I'm not talking about advancing public hysteria and frankly I don't see any. I'm also not suggesting worrying all day long. We've done everything we can so move on?? I bet you can't find a big group of folks anywhere to agree with you on that one. You would take us back to the day when an embassy bombing or an attack on our warships are just one of those things that happen.

 

[Gunny]

Guess I could do what ?, be concerned? Gee thanks !

I'm not talking about advancing public hysteria and frankly I don't see any. I'm also not suggesting worrying all day long. We've done everything we can so move on?? I bet you can't find a big group of folks anywhere to agree with you on that one. You would take us back to the day when an embassy bombing or an attack on our warships are just one of those things that happen.

Y'know, in a way, I could at least take some satisfaction if the libbies get control. I'm tired of this defend against stupid, baseless accusations bullshit. I'm a Marine. I prefer attack mode.

Just LET the libs gain control. The libbies around here will be like Jimmy Stewart in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" tapdancing to Lee Marvin's gun.

 

[nukeman]

The idea is to win elections so you can make a difference.

You have a better chance now as a Democrat, than as a Republican, of winning.

This is a misleading statement!! Most of Kansas is made up of Democrats so in order to get elected some republicans are jumping ship and changing parties..

This has absolutely nothing to do with hating the GOP but it has to do with getting elected. We all know that politicians arent about doing whtat is right but just getting elected and having a job..

Kansas is by its own addmission a YELLOW DOG DEMOCRAT state. If you dont know what that is you need to do more research..

This is really a non issue for the GOP in almost all other states..

 

[Mr.Conley]

Guess I could do what ?, be concerned? Gee thanks !

I'm not talking about advancing public hysteria and frankly I don't see any. I'm also not suggesting worrying all day long. We've done everything we can so move on?? I bet you can't find a big group of folks anywhere to agree with you on that one. You would take us back to the day when an embassy bombing or an attack on our warships are just one of those things that happen.

No one said you're trying to advance public hysteria. No one said you want people to worry all day long. And can you stop with the straw mans.

I'm saying I have a problem when either party brings up a new draconian measure and justifies it by saying we live in a "post-9/11 world."

I'm saying that:
1. The amount of time and resources we devote to the problem of terrorism beyond the nessicary measures I listed is unnessicarially large. While we are no doubt marginallizing the terrorist threat, the threat is already so minute that we as a nation would be better off investing the money, people, and resources into other important government programs or my returning the money to the people of the United States.
2. Politicians from both parties are using the "post-9/11 world" mindset to advance their own agendas at the expense of the people. Often the only responce officials have to public inquirements is that "the events of September the 11th changed this nation and we must change to reflect it." No other questions can be raised because we as a nation are still too scared
to object, even when the subject at hand is practically unrelated to terrorism.
3. "The post 9/11" mindset has and is damaging the US national psyche. We as a nation and as individuals give the terrorist threat too much credence, creating a state of fear that leads to mental and physical health deterioration. It has also damaged the traditional American spirit of optimism and hope while creating a new wave of xenophobia.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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

The Democratic strategy was outlined in 2005, and appears to be more comprehensive than anything Chimpy's administration has outlined to date. But then, that wouldn't take much, endlessly repeating the mantra "Stay the course..." and hoping the excrement doesn't intersect the fan-blade doesn't really count as any sort of strategy.

<center><a href=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/DEM_strategy_2005.pdf>Ensuring America's Stength and Security</a></center>

Sorry about the tardy reply...I've spent the better part of the last two days dragging dialysis machines between the ICU's and the ER. Exhausting.

 

[CSM]

The Democratic strategy was outlined in 2005, and appears to be more comprehensive than anything Chimpy's administration has outlined to date. But then, that wouldn't take much, endlessly repeating the mantra "Stay the course..." and hoping the excrement doesn't intersect the fan-blade doesn't really count as any sort of strategy.

<center><a href=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/DEM_strategy_2005.pdf>Ensuring America's Stength and Security</a></center>

Sorry about the tardy reply...I've spent the better part of the last two days dragging dialysis machines between the ICU's and the ER. Exhausting.

Thanks for the link, Bully. I read the Dems strategy with some interest and agree with quite a bit of it (except the UN stuff...but then most know how I feel about the UN). The problem is that I do not believe they intend to implement a single thing they list; and in fact, have done just the opposite of what they proposed. For example, they propose a long term strategy in Iraq in their "plan" and then Democratic leaders publicly call for immediate withdrawal. Either some of the Dems didn't read their strategy or (as I beleive) the Dems are blowing smoke.

They even contradict themselves in their own document. Near the beginning they talk about cutting future weapons research and modernization to finance training and equipping troops and near the end they talk about modernizing the force. You wonder why I dont trust them?

It is also apparrent that as whoever authored this, while starting out ok, just couldn't resist bashing Bush and even became more blatant as the document went on. I could almost hear the hysteria coming off the page. Almost sound like fingrnails on a blackboard (which is just slightly less than hearing Hillary speak).

Interesting document but I just dont trust them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Thanks for the link, Bully. I read the Dems strategy with some interest and agree with quite a bit of it (except the UN stuff...but then most know how I feel about the UN). The problem is that I do not believe they intend to implement a single thing they list; and in fact, have done just the opposite of what they proposed. For example, they propose a long term strategy in Iraq in their "plan" and then Democratic leaders publicly call for immediate withdrawal. Either some of the Dems didn't read their strategy or (as I beleive) the Dems are blowing smoke.

They even contradict themselves in their own document. Near the beginning they talk about cutting future weapons research and modernization to finance training and equipping troops and near the end they talk about modernizing the force. You wonder why I dont trust them?

It is also apparrent that as whoever authored this, while starting out ok, just couldn't resist bashing Bush and even became more blatant as the document went on. I could almost hear the hysteria coming off the page. Almost sound like fingrnails on a blackboard (which is just slightly less than hearing Hillary speak).

Interesting document but I just dont trust them.

And you actually believe Chimpy and his merry band are going to do any thing? As for bashing Chimpy <i>et al</i> they deserve every lick they get, and then some. They have placed their own short term political gain ahead of the security of the country. Anyone who does so is a traitor and we shouldn't hesitate to call them such.

 

[Annie]

I read it too. Other than some treaties regarding defense issues, along with some areas in 'general welfare' that would necessitate increased spending, it's not much different than what has been suggested throughout GW's term. So we should 'switch' for more of the same? I don't think so.

General position papers are not a bad place to start, but getting anything accomplished is a whole different ballgame. Both parties, when in power, still have to deal with Congress. For many reasons; interests groups, budgetary concerns, pork, crisis that arise, etc.; it turns into 6 in one hand, 1/2 dozen in the other.

At least we got some tax relief.

 

[CSM]

And you actually believe Chimpy and his merry band are going to do any thing? As for bashing Chimpy <i>et al</i> they deserve every lick they get, and then some. They have placed their own short term political gain ahead of the security of the country. Anyone who does so is a traitor and we shouldn't hesitate to call them such.

Dont want to debate, eh? Ok, I guess you were just trolling again.

 

[CSM]

I read it too. Other than some treaties regarding defense issues, along with some areas in 'general welfare' that would necessitate increased spending, it's not much different than what has been suggested throughout GW's term. So we should 'switch' for more of the same? I don't think so.

General position papers are not a bad place to start, but getting anything accomplished is a whole different ballgame. Both parties, when in power, still have to deal with Congress. For many reasons; interests groups, budgetary concerns, pork, crisis that arise, etc.; it turns into 6 in one hand, 1/2 dozen in the other.

At least we got some tax relief.

ITA.

Dems would rather 'talk' than 'do'.

 

[sitarro]

And you actually believe Chimpy and his merry band are going to do any thing? As for bashing Chimpy <i>et al</i> they deserve every lick they get, and then some. They have placed their own short term political gain ahead of the security of the country. Anyone who does so is a traitor and we shouldn't hesitate to call them such.

Your repetitive use of the lame chimp reference proves to all what a pathetic, uneducated, urine drenched, bed pan emptier you are bullishit. Who could possibly give even the tiniest shit(that you will need to clean up of course) what you think about anything? Stop drinking the left overs from the dialysis machine.

You are just the type of low brow, naive dimwit that the Dems dream about.

 

[Annie]

Your repetitive use of the lame chimp reference proves to all what a pathetic, uneducated, urine drenched, bed pan emptier you are bullishit. Who could possibly give even the tiniest shit(that you will need to clean up of course) what you think about anything? Stop drinking the left overs from the dialysis machine.

You are just the type of low brow, naive dimwit that the Dems dream about.

While I agree that 'lame chimp' does reflect Bully's view of the administration, meaning no matter what was done, he would never acknowledge any success; I fail to see how putting down his career has anything to do with it. In fact, I bet we would all be glad that he chose it, if we needed the services of the facility where he works. It's a worthwhile, indeed noble position.

 

[Bullypulpit]

While I agree that 'lame chimp' does reflect Bully's view of the administration, meaning no matter what was done, he would never acknowledge any success; I fail to see how putting down his career has anything to do with it. In fact, I bet we would all be glad that he chose it, if we needed the services of the facility where he works. It's a worthwhile, indeed noble position.

My thanks for your defense, and you see the reason this poor, benighted soul is on my "Ignore" list.

I would, however, acknowledge any real success of Chimpy's administration were it to manifest itself. I'll give credit where its due, when I see it.

 

[Annie]

My thanks for your defense, and you see the reason this poor, benighted soul is on my "Ignore" list.

I would, however, acknowledeg any real success of Chimpy's administration were it to manifest itself. I'll give credit where its due, when I see it.

No thanks needed. Now about the other, Other than falling on his sword, I can't imagine what he could do right?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dont want to debate, eh? Ok, I guess you were just trolling again.

What's to debate? The democrats laid out a plan, which is more than the Administration has done.

 

[CSM]

What's to debate? The democrats laid out a plan, which is more than the Administration has done.

Yeah, yeah, everything that has happened since 9/11 has happened by accident. I know you dont agree with ANYTHING this administration has said or done so you are correct...debating with you would be useless.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I read it too. Other than some treaties regarding defense issues, along with some areas in 'general welfare' that would necessitate increased spending, it's not much different than what has been suggested throughout GW's term. So we should 'switch' for more of the same? I don't think so.

General position papers are not a bad place to start, but getting anything accomplished is a whole different ballgame. Both parties, when in power, still have to deal with Congress. For many reasons; interests groups, budgetary concerns, pork, crisis that arise, etc.; it turns into 6 in one hand, 1/2 dozen in the other.

At least we got some tax relief.

Actually, the average tax-payer is a net loser under Chimpy's tax policies. Between 2001 and 2006, the average tax cut was $1855. But the added share of the national debt for the average tax-payer was $8936. You do the arithmetic. The tax-relief was just more smoke and mirrors...Short term gain at the expense of long term security. The political <i>modus operandi</i> of Chimpy McPresident and his administration.

Until the paradigm shifts, and politicians start taking their responsibilities seriously, rather than pandering to special interests, we'll just have to muddle along with what we've got. And the GOP, as it now stands, ain't it.

 

[CSM]

Just so you all know, there is indeed a National Security Strategy; it is required by law (Golwater-Nichols Act).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

You may or may not agree with it but if you read it you will see that many of the points proposed by the Dems are already being addressed and in much greater detail.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yeah, yeah, everything that has happened since 9/11 has happened by accident. I know you dont agree with ANYTHING this administration has said or done so you are correct...debating with you would be useless.

No, the events that have transpired in the US and its foreign policy since 9/11, have been the result of the ill-concieved, misguided, short-sighted, untenable policies originating in the White House.

The only debate, at this point, is whether Chimpy and his administration will be held accountable for their high-crimes and misdemeanors.