It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The cut and run Democrats

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
The cut and run democrats

Will have our troops fleeing from Iraq with their tails between their legs. The rest of the world will applaud that sign of weakness because it will prove that America is just like them, nothing but sheep.

Vietnam is proof that the will of Americans can be broken and thrown into disarray when pounded by the left long enough.

Many rejoiced when America failed to liberate the Vietnamese people from Communism and then turned their backs when the North Vietnamese slaughtered millions of their own people once the Americans were booted out of that country in disgrace.

I guess we have become use to holding up ideals to others only to run and hide when those ideals get to hot to carry.

America if your super power position is to great a burden please relinquish it and let some other country have that power, the world really doesn’t need meddlers who can’t or will not finish what they start.

America wants to be the big dog on the block but it only has the will of sheep.




posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I'm thinking you're just trolling for the "right". When will you learn that takeing sides along political parties won't work? It's too divisive to the people.

And I think the people are starting to realize it.

Are you the pot calling the kettle black?

[edit on 5-11-2006 by elaine]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Why do you think terrorist leaders around the world are endorsing Democrats? Terrorist know that a weak America, led by Democrats, makes their jobs easier. Instead of being hunted down as terrorists, they are looked at as common criminals.

If well-known terrorists are campaigning for Democrats, shouldn't you do the opposite and vote Republican? Unless you really hate America and want terrorists to be given a free ride?



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I'm sorry but those "fear tactics" aren't working so well anymore. I will vote for the person not the party.

I refuse to be categorized or fear-mongered to. Rational thought needs to take the lead now, not fear and propaganda.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine

I'm thinking you're just trolling for the "right". When will you learn that takeing sides along political parties won't work? It's too divisive to the people.

And I think the people are starting to realize it.

Are you the pot calling the kettle black?

[edit on 5-11-2006 by elaine]



I’m a moderate, but when the majority of a certain party is more than willing to kowtow to those that hate democracy I take sides---because I like democracy.

The dems also hate or at least make lots of noise against things that make democracy possible, which is Capitalism.

The dems also tell us they are going to raise taxes on the rich when they really mean they are going to raise taxes on the working classes instead; they are being very deceptive with the tax issue solely for votes.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
It's always occurred to me that choices on ballots should be based on character and who you think can represent his or constituents with integrity.

Instead, there are a lot of people that vote for candidates just because of their party affiliation. This makes no sense to me.

Just because someone runs on a particular ticket does'nt given them an automatic monopoly on political savvy or the the knowledge to solve all our problems.

There are good republicans to vote for and good democrats to vote for.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by elaine]

[edit on 5-11-2006 by elaine]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
What do you want to do sleeper? How are America’s troops going to stop Iraq falling into the hands of the Muslim fundamentalist? By helping the democratically elected Iraqi government?
Fat problem is sleeper that the majority of Iraqis are Muslim fundamentalists (so be it of different sorts). Fact is the majority of Iraqis want us out and have done for well over a year: www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
Fact is the current Iraqi government does not represent Iraqi people because it has not kicked us out, because it hasn’t endorsed enough genocide yet. Indeed it has actually punished some extremists within it who have been caught doing it, but the fact is that in a country where you need a militia-terrorist organisations support just to get elected without a bullet almost certainly going through your head; its these people willing to kill their fellow Iraqis who represent the will of Iraq’s political class most. Of course the will of ordinary Iraqis is different; they want peace and stability, and many are now crying out for the days of Saddam (even ordinary Shiites allegedly persecuted under him; when in fact it was only the extremist amongst them who were and would be the targets of any state competent in delivering social stability & security.

Isn’t the reality sleeper that almost every political indication you can think of shows that the moderates who are within the Iraqi government are about to be booted out in the next Iraqi election? That even if (somehow) this was avoided there are still enough extremists elements, and other corrupt individuals within this current government; to make this governments efforts by and large totally incompetent?

You Republicans will indeed be lucky if the Democrats win power and cut and run from Iraq because at least you will be able to pretend that it is this reaction to George Bush’s actions that’s responsible for their failure, rather than the original actions (i.e. invading Iraq and removing the stable, secular, western style dictatorship of Saddam).

However I have to agree with you that cut and running is not the answer; just as I disagree with you that trying to make the current Iraqi government isn’t a complete folly; where troops and resources go in at one end of the siv and come out as dead body parts, social backwardism, and territory fit for Iran at the other.

My opinion is that we need to find another Saddam. I.e. Someone who is…
A. Secular
B. Into western economy and social models
C. Effective at organising a secret police force, and other security apparatus needed to keep Iraq under control (translation: away from Iran).

But don’t believe me; and keep trying. Keep the flow of troops and resources going into the Iraqi government. Keep trying to restructure them so they may actually last at least a year after you’ve left. Then look in amazement when the Iraqi people (after all they’ve been through) vote “Ayatollah Nuclear” a government that hates you, loves terrorist who blow themselves up in the Middle East, ether targeting Israel or other western interests (possibly even on home soil). Be amazed when you discover so many of the Iraqi secular people (who were even under Saddam a small minority) have been executed by death squads; that the new Iraqi governments idea of being civilised is where woman get stoned to death for refusing to wear the veil, where homosexuals are castrated, and everyone goes to their form of “church” (Mosque) to learn why America must never be forgiven, and never negotiated with.
Remember the opposite of Saddam can also bring security (and he is favoured through the democratic route, due to Iraqi peoples make up, a make up that wasn’t always so backward but has been made so by the terrible events of the last 15 years).

P.S Sleeper What’s this to do with the war on terrorism? Isn’t it a U.S politics or indeed a Slug Fest Thread?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper
I’m a moderate, but when the majority of a certain party is more than willing to kowtow to those that hate democracy I take sides---because I like democracy.

The dems also hate or at least make lots of noise against things that make democracy possible, which is Capitalism.

The dems also tell us they are going to raise taxes on the rich when they really mean they are going to raise taxes on the working classes instead; they are being very deceptive with the tax issue solely for votes.


Hellooo, Earth to Sleeper...the Dems aren't doing anything right now and haven't for 6 years. The tax cuts were designed to make the rich richer and it was pushed by Bush, not democrats. Where do you get the idea that it was Democrats?


THe fact that you accuse Democrats of being anti-democratic is laughable, at best. What do you think we've been doing for the last 6 years? That's right, we've been protesting, writing letters, etc. to preserve the freedoms that the Repubs are taking away from us, the People. We've been complaining about our vanishing democracy for 6 years; where've you been? Or have you been a Sleeper?


Truly, you are showing your ignorance when you label a group of people with such a broad brush, especially when you don't even know what that group believes in, as you apparently don't know what Dems believe in. Sleeper, I think you need to WAKE UP!



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984


P.S Sleeper What’s this to do with the war on terrorism? Isn’t it a U.S politics or indeed a Slug Fest Thread?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]


The mods like moving my threads where there is the least visibility, my arguments must really be that good that they can't come back with a response---


I agree with what you say, and there is a good likely hood that this mess will fall on the democrat’s plate---but that may not be a good thing in the long run for anybody.

We do need to put in power another Saddam, perhaps one much worst to keep the lid on that part of the world, but we can’t simply leave until we do so or that sucker is going to blow!

These people are not going to be stopped; the most we can hope for is to keep them under some kind of control. They have been a hornets next for the past thirty years and it took them two tries to bring a big chunk of New York city down---the dems did nothing to stop them on their watch in the past and they will do nothing to stop them now or in the future.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady


Hellooo, Earth to Sleeper...the Dems aren't doing anything right now and haven't for 6 years. The tax cuts were designed to make the rich richer and it was pushed by Bush, not democrats. Where do you get the idea that it was Democrats?


The dems fill almost half of both houses, but I do agree they don’t do much.

And the tax cuts making the rich richer---what intelligent person is still buying asinine statements like that? The tax cuts help the working class; the people that pay most of the taxes, the rich have nothing to do with it. That is the lamest propaganda from the left still in use today.



THe fact that you accuse Democrats of being anti-democratic is laughable, at best. What do you think we've been doing for the last 6 years? That's right, we've been protesting, writing letters, etc. to preserve the freedoms that the Repubs are taking away from us, the People. We've been complaining about our vanishing democracy for 6 years; where've you been? Or have you been a Sleeper?


Dems have been hampering progress in Iraq as they did in Vietnam, throwing monkey wrenches into any legislation that would facilitate getting things done, and then complaining when things get worst.


Sleeper, I think you need to WAKE UP!


I think it would be productive if more Americans woke up and did the right thing on Tuesday, and vote republican.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   


The dems fill almost half of both houses, but I do agree they don’t do much.


The minority party does not set the agenda in the United States. In fact, the Bush administration has discouraged it from doing so more so than any other administration I can remember..



The current Congress has been marked by some of the most extreme partisanship in many decades, and has largely ignored the Democratic minority on issue after issue when it came to allowing legislation to be introduced or amended -- with Republicans sometimes engineering congressional victories by only one vote. In past decades, the Congress was much more of an institution of compromise in which the minority party was at least able to achieve some of their agenda or be allowed to have floor votes on proposed alternative legislation or amendments.


The majority party has the power to control the debate in this country. To suggest otherwise demostrates a lack of understand regarding our political process.



I’m a moderate,


Repeating a 'talking point' and obvious partisian catch phrase such as 'cut and run' democrats would suggest otherwise. So would this statement:


Will have our troops fleeing from Iraq with their tails between their legs. The rest of the world will applaud that sign of weakness because it will prove that America is just like them, nothing but sheep.


Nevermind that few, if any are advocating unconditional withdrawal and surrender. Nevermind that many of our countries military leaders want to see Rumsfeld gone and the Bush administration refuses to comply. A recently published editorial from the Army Times highlights my point:


"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the editorial reads.

"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the Secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

"This is not about the mid-term elections," the editorial reads. "Regardless of which party wins November 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard, bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."


Bush's reaction was predicatable:


Q Has the President seen or been told about the editorials?

MR. SNOW: He's been told about the editorial.

Q His reaction?

MR. SNOW: His reaction was just to sort of shrug it off. I mean, he understands what editorial writers sometimes do, and in this case, they're grandstanding. The notion that somehow, as the editorial says, that this is not intended to influence the elections — you've got to be kidding me. I mean, if they didn't want it to influence the elections, they could have published it Wednesday.


And why did they choose to run the publication now?:



Hodierne explains, "We did it right now because, last week, president Bush renewed his vows with the Secretary and said that the Secretary would be around for the balance of the two years of the president's term. We thought that was the wrong decision and took the opportunity to do so."



The dems also tell us they are going to raise taxes on the rich when they really mean they are going to raise taxes on the working classes instead;


I'd like some proof to back up that claim... got link? Otherwise it will seem like you are just making stuff up to further a partisian agenda.


[edit on 6-11-2006 by zoopnfunk]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
'Cut and Run?' Where did I hear that just recently? That's right, the president said that. Did you believe the Democrats were cut and runners before you heard the prez say that? I doubt it.



...the world really doesn’t need meddlers who can’t or will not finish what they start.


Are you seriously that linear minded? Just because something was started, doesn't make it right, and have to be finished at all costs.

Silly meddling Hirohito, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Bush......



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Why do you think terrorist leaders around the world are endorsing Democrats? Terrorist know that a weak America, led by Democrats, makes their jobs easier. Instead of being hunted down as terrorists, they are looked at as common criminals.

If well-known terrorists are campaigning for Democrats, shouldn't you do the opposite and vote Republican? Unless you really hate America and want terrorists to be given a free ride?
Terrorists R US. This is the most pathetic posting i've ever read in my years here on ATS. Who do you suppose the well-known terrorists are campaigning TO???

It would be an interesting read. By all means provide the link and source. I cant wait. OR is this what FOX is saying?
Could it be that Democrats have always wanted diplomacy and peace? Nah! That couldnt be. It has to be Democrats are terrorists- everyone of them. Including me.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoopnfunk

I'd like some proof to back up that claim... got link? Otherwise it will seem like you are just making stuff up to further a partisian agenda.



The proof that the average worker pays more taxes every time the dems say they want to soak the rich is in the pay envelope. Every single time taxes go up for whatever reason the average worker pays more taxes. Ask anyone you know that works for a living if they believe they are not paying enough in taxes.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline

Are you seriously that linear minded? Just because something was started, doesn't make it right, and have to be finished at all costs.

Silly meddling Hirohito, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Bush......



Vietnam was not who we were fighting during that war, we were fighting the USSR and China. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were the battle grounds chosen for that war. That war was a pressure valve that may have kept the major powers from a nuclear exchange.


The average person is never going to understand how things work behind the scenes they only see what’s on the surface.

Iraq is another such field of battle which has little to do with Iraq and more to do with global terrorism by bigger players than the Iraqis.

There is no running from this battle, it’s a battle that has been going on for over a thousand years and keeps getting stronger as time goes by. It only move across the ocean in the last few years but it will continue to grow. If we ignore cancer it might go away but then again it may spread very quickly.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Ask anyone you know that works for a living if they believe they are not paying enough in taxes.


I work for a living.

Once again you've come back with personal opinion and conjecture rather than straight facts, figures and statistics to back up your point. How about a link to an article that uses numbers to illustrate you point?

Here, please allow me to help:



A case in point: taxes. The conservative viewpoint is clearly that a smaller tax burden is preferable. So, if Republicans are really so conservative, then in places where Republicans are in political control the tax burden should be lower. Right?

Well, thanks to new data from The Tax Foundation, we can test that hypothesis. For each of the 50 states, the Tax Foundation measures the amount of state and local taxation as a proportion of state income. Then the Tax Foundation ranked the 50 states from 1-50 with #1 being the highest-taxed state as a proportion of state income, and #50 being the least-taxed state as a proportion of state income. Thanks to public information records, we also know which party controls which state political bodies: who the governor is, which party controls a state house, and which party controls a state senate.

SO, the Republicans-Are-Conservative (RAC) Hypotheses, restated in terms of this data, are as follows:

RAC Hypothesis #1: States with Republican Governors should have a larger Tax Foundation rank number (indicating a lower tax burden) than states with Democratic Governors.

RAC Hypothesis #2: States whose lower houses of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans should have a larger Tax Foundation rank number (indicating a lower tax burden) than states whose lower houses are controlled by Democrats.

RAC Hypothesis #3: States whose upper houses of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans should have a larger Tax Foundation rank number (indicating a lower tax burden) than states whose upper houses are controlled by Democrats.


And the results?


RAC Hypothesis #1: NOT SUPPORTED. The average rank of states with a Democratic Governor is 26.7, while the average rank of states with a Republican Governor is 24.6. This outcome is opposite that predicted by the "Republicans-Are-Conservative" Hypothesis #1. If you want conservative tax policy, by all means don't get a Republican governor.

RAC Hypothesis #2: SUPPORTED. States whose upper and lower houses are controlled by Democrats have an average Tax Foundation ranking of 21.3. A state whose lower legislative house is controlled by Republicans, however, has an average Tax Foundation ranking of 29.6. This means that having a Republican-controlled lower house is positively associated with conservative tax policy, an outcome in line with the "Republicans-Are-Conservative" Hypothesis #2.

RAC Hypothesis #3: NOT SUPPORTED. States whose upper and lower houses are controlled by Democrats have an average Tax Foundation ranking of 21.3. A state whose upper legislative house is controlled by Republicans, however, has an average Tax Foundation ranking of 20.9. In other words, there's very little difference between the tax conservatism of states with upper houses run by Republicans and upper houses run by Democrats -- if anything, the states with upper houses run by Democrats tend to rank as slightly more conservative. This outcome is opposite that predicted by the "Republicans-Are-Conservative" Hypothesis #3.


In this context your blanket statements about Democrats raising taxes would seem a bit contrived.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Could it be that Democrats have always wanted diplomacy and peace? Nah! That couldnt be. It has to be Democrats are terrorists- everyone of them. Including me.


The dems have always wanted diplomacy and peace, so has everyone else.

Enemies of democracy and especially the USA also want diplomacy and peace.

Especially diplomacy.

The losing side needs diplomacy in order to have time to get reorganized; they need diplomacy so that they can change strategy to something more effective. They need diplomacy so that they can catch their breath.

And the democrats are willing to give them diplomacy, which is why our enemies are hopping for a democrat victory.

And then they will give us all the peace they can shove up our behinds.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoopnfunk


In this context your blanket statements about Democrats raising taxes would seem a bit contrived.



There is no argument that dems will spend billions of tax dollars to fund absurd studies that the average American doesn’t have the time or desire to read through.

Certainly I can Google and display infinite amounts of studies that show every conceivable view point on this planet but most people aren’t going to read it---there simply aren’t enough hours in the day.

But most people get a pay check every week or two, and they can see for themselves how much taxes keep going up----while services keep going down.

It doesn’t take an expensive study to see those things.

The fact is the democrats use the tax the rich pitch to raise taxes on everyone---because it works.

Everyone is for taxing somebody else---it just never works that way.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper


But most people get a pay check every week or two, and they can see for themselves how much taxes keep going up----while services keep going down.



I was reading in the paper this morning that the Dem's haven't controlled Congress in 12 years and the presidency have been Rep. since 2000. How can you blame dem.s for the above if they haven't been in power?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Democrats say they will tax the rich, but tax everyone instead.
Republicans just say no more taxes, but tax everyone instead.

Fill your cars and boats, get drunk on the weekends and spend your weeknights watching sports. That's all you really want anyways.

Don't worry, when you have to walk an extra step to the pump, realise that somewhere in the country a man just told another man that he loves him, meet a woman who feels more comfortable covering her face in public, or see a car load of Mexicans heading to the stockyards, and you feel you have to speak up about the atrocities happening in your country—we'll be here to listen.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join