 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / April 2007Political Persuasion of RVer's
I get the impression that the vast majority of RVer's are the independent, self-reliant type. That would mean most of you are either Republicans or libertarians. Is this true? How many of you voted for Goldwater? TIA, Steve I don't see Republicans as self-reliant. Consider their sheepish support of Bush and Co. Libertarianism reminds me of abstinence birth control. Totally inarguable in theory but a wreck in practice. Democrats seem to me to be more reality based. >I get the impression that the vast majority of RVer's are the independent, >self-reliant type. That would mean most of you are either Republicans or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve Dan Listermann wrote:...... Democrats seem to me to be more reality based.<<<< hahahahaha Compared to what.....the Flintstones ?? They never take reality into account when ever they pass a law. Example 1....Bush cut taxes a few years ago and the economy has been growing ever since. The first thing Democrats want to do is RAISE TAXES, which has been shown again and again to slow the economy. They haven't learned this simple fact...lower tax RATE = MORE tax dollars collected, even though it has been proven over and over. How about when the Democrats decided to put an extra tax on Yachts ? It was going to make "the rich' pay their fair share. Remember what happened ? "The rich" quit buying yachts and the middle class people building the boats got laid off. Democrat have no idea how the real world works.  SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > Dan Listermann wrote:...... Democrats seem to me to be more reality > based.<<<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Example 1....Bush cut taxes a few years ago and the economy has been > growing ever since. The Clinton surplus turned into a record deficit and exploded the nation debt in just a couple of years after the tax cuts for the rich and crumby bribes for everybody else. The slow growth of our economy will be paid for by our grandchuildren for a long time. Tell me how the Republicians "take reality into account" when they crow about the pitiful and expensive "growth." > The first thing Democrats want to do is RAISE TAXES, which has been shown > again and again to slow the economy. > They haven't learned this simple fact...lower tax RATE = MORE tax dollars > collected, even though it has been proven over and over. Try to remember Clinton's "Deficit Reduction Act of 1993." Every Republician confidently declared that raising taxes on the rich would induce a strong recession if not a depression. There was not a single Republician vote in eather house for that bill. Reality - a full two term presidency, Blow Job Clinton's, without a recession and the first budget surplus in thirty years. The previous record for economic expansion was Ronald "Balanced Budget by '84" Reagan's 65 months bought and not paid for by record deficits. "Reality, what a concept?," Robin Williams >> Dan Listermann wrote:...... Democrats seem to me to be more reality >> based.<<<< [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > "Reality, what a concept?," Robin Williams Surplus = Overtaxation. Don Langerhorn wrote..... Try to remember Clinton's "Deficit Reduction Act of 1993." Every Republician confidently declared that raising taxes on the rich would induce a strong recession if not a depression. There was not a single Republician vote in eather house for that bill. Reality - a full two term presidency, Blow Job Clinton's, without a recession and the first budget surplus in thirty years. The previous record for economic expansion was Ronald "Balanced Budget by '84" Reagan's 65 months bought and not paid for by record deficits. It's just amazing how the left can't even get history right. Bill did cause the economic boon in the 1990's, but it Bill Gates not Bill Clinton. Think of where computers were in 1990 and then where they were in 1998. Computers caused 90% of the boon. The only thing Clinton had to do with the boom was to slow it down a little with tax increases. And as far as Reagan's tax cuts........they caused record amounts of money to pour into the federal government's coffers. The only reason for the deficits was the Democrats spent much more money than came in. Had the left kept their spending down there would have been no deficit. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > Don Langerhorn wrote..... Try to remember Clinton's "Deficit Reduction > Act of 1993." Every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bill did cause the economic boon in the 1990's, but it Bill Gates not Bill > Clinton. It really hurts you guys to have to think that Clinton was not the source of all evil doesn't it? > Think of where computers were in 1990 and then where they were in 1998. > Computers caused 90% of the boon. > The only thing Clinton had to do with the boom was to slow it down a > little with tax increases. Maybe you know where the "Great Depression of '94" happened. > And as far as Reagan's tax cuts........they caused record amounts of money > to pour into the federal government's coffers. Did you know that Ronald "Balanced Budget Budget by '84" Reagan's tax cuts caused the first nominal reduction in revenues since the 50's? How about his doubling of revenue over his two terms. Pretty nifty, huh? Did you know that the same thing happened during the Carter adminstration - in a single term? Correct for inflation if you want, it does not help Ronald "Balanced Budget Budget by '84" Reagan's record much. Oh, yea, he raised Social Security tax amoung others too. > The only reason for the deficits was the Democrats spent much more money > than came in. Do you know that the Democrats only controled Congress the first two years of Ronald "Balanced Budget Budget by '84" Reagan's terms. The Senate was under the control of the Republicans. It takes BOTH houses to pass a bill - BOTH. > Had the left kept their spending down there would have been no deficit. How about the deficit that the Republicans ran up the last six years? Can you blame that on the Democrats? Dan Listermann wrote:.. It really hurts you guys to have to think that Clinton was not the source of all evil doesn't it?<<< I never thought he was the source of any evil. He spent 8 years doing whatever would make people like him. Whether it was good or bad for the country had no bearing on what he did, as long as it made people like him. I can't imagine the hell Bill had to go through with Hillary screaming at him for 8 years. (not that she stopped after his 2 terms) SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > It really hurts you guys to have to think that Clinton was not the source of > all evil doesn't it? No single politician is. He sure left his fair share of problems though. > Did you know that Ronald "Balanced Budget Budget by '84" Reagan's tax cuts > caused the first nominal reduction in revenues since the 50's? Revenues went up not long after the Reagan cuts just as they have with the Bush cuts. Furthermore Carter left double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates for Reagan to deal with. They all came down under Reagan. > How about the deficit that the Republicans ran up the last six years? Can > you blame that on the Democrats? Lesse how the Dems are handling it now? $21 Billion of pork barrel spending in a pointless Iraq War bill? Ya, the Dems sure have spending under control!! >> It really hurts you guys to have to think that Clinton was not the source >> of all evil doesn't it? > > No single politician is. He sure left his fair share of problems though. What sort of problems do you think the current Bush will leave? >> Did you know that Ronald "Balanced Budget Budget by '84" Reagan's tax >> cuts caused the first nominal reduction in revenues since the 50's? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > unemployment and double digit interest rates for Reagan to deal with. > They all came down under Reagan. The normal state of affairs is that the revenue increases as it had since the 50s. After the inital revenue drop due to the cuts, revenue did increase but at a reduced rate from where it had in the past. Not something to crow about. >> How about the deficit that the Republicans ran up the last six years? >> Can you blame that on the Democrats? > > Lesse how the Dems are handling it now? $21 Billion of pork barrel > spending in a pointless Iraq War bill? Ya, the Dems sure have spending > under control!! No comment on the Republican performance, I see. Not much to crow about there either. > What sort of problems do you think the current Bush will leave? Time will tell. There hasn't been a President worth a dang in my lifetime. I will say I have no desire to going back to treating terrorism as a police action. > No comment on the Republican performance, I see. Not much to crow about > there either. I agree the Reps haven't been too good. But to suggest the Dems are the answer to anything is absurd. They're even worse. >> What sort of problems do you think the current Bush will leave? > > Time will tell. There hasn't been a President worth a dang in my > lifetime. I will say I have no desire to going back to treating terrorism > as a police action. Bush will leave huge problems that will take decades to get over. I hate to do it, but I fear that we will lose our "super power" status. The Iraq debacule has exposed exactly how we can be defeated in any conflict. All the whiz bang technology and power we have has shown to be useless. >> No comment on the Republican performance, I see. Not much to crow about >> there either. > > I agree the Reps haven't been too good. But to suggest the Dems are the > answer to anything is absurd. They're even worse. Worse than the Republicans? That will take effort. Dan Listermann wrote:.... The Iraq debacule has exposed exactly how we can be defeated in any conflict. Finally !!! A statement I can agree with. All any enemy needs is the Democrats undermining the war effort. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > Dan Listermann wrote:.... The Iraq debacule has exposed exactly how we can > be defeated in any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A statement I can agree with. > All any enemy needs is the Democrats undermining the war effort. All the enemy needed was a stupid president to play right into the hands of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden could not have wrote a better script from his point of view. > Bush will leave huge problems that will take decades to get over. I hate to > do it, but I fear that we will lose our "super power" status. The Iraq > debacule has exposed exactly how we can be defeated in any conflict. All > the whiz bang technology and power we have has shown to be useless. I think progress is being made now. The problem is we don't hear the whole story on the nightly news. Those that have gone over and returned seem to tell a different story than the media is reporting. > Worse than the Republicans? That will take effort. The Dems have no plan at all for dealing with Terrorism. That is worse. Failure in Iraq is worse. Like it or not it's a must win situation and it can be done. If the Reps solution is bad, the Dems lack of a solution is even worse. I kinda hate to participate in these off-topics. However, compared to the recent spate of successful trolls, this is an <ahem> IMPORTANT topic - at least, to me. <sigh> >> The Iraq debacle has exposed exactly how we can >> be defeated in any conflict. Exactly, but it is not YET a debacle. Every two-bit, tin-horned bad guy is watching how this plays out. If we bail-out before there is obvious success - yes, VICTORY - we can expect other horrifying attacks on our soil, one or more than might make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Are we a PAPER TIGER? I sure hope not, but "the jury's still out" on that one. >> All the whiz bang technology and power we have has shown to be useless. Are you kidding? If we REALLY let loose, it would be REAL "shock and awe". It's about time we did so. "The Surge" may well be that event. Rumor has it that it just MIGHT be working. God forbid. <sarcasm intended> > I think progress is being made now. Ding. <right answer> > we don't hear the whole story on the nightly news. Ding. <right answer> > Failure in Iraq is worse. Like it or not it's a must win situation Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding! <spot on info> > If the Reps solution is bad, the Dems lack of a > solution is even worse. We HAVE to win there. I really fear the impact on our lives here, in the USA, should we fail. Pulling-out now would surely be a disaster for Iraq and probably, eventually, us. Publicly stating a pull-out date would be virtually unprecedented in warfare. Commanders, dead and gone, are rolling-over in their graves already. If we could unite behind this, most of the troops could be home within the year. SignatureJR >It's about time we did so. "The Surge" may well be that event. Rumor has it > that it just MIGHT be working. God forbid. <sarcasm intended> The liberal left won't ever admit any successes. We aren't hearing the whole story on the nightly news. Any good news out of Iraq is quickly ridiculed by the left. Divide and conquer seems to be working for our enemies. >>> The Iraq debacle has exposed exactly how we can >>> be defeated in any conflict. > > Exactly, but it is not YET a debacle. Define "debacle" please. > Every two-bit, tin-horned bad guy is watching how this plays out. If we > bail-out before there is obvious success - yes, VICTORY - we can expect > other > horrifying attacks on our soil, one or more than might make 9/11 look like > a > walk in the park. This presupposes that "victory" is possible. Try to convince me of this. > Are we a PAPER TIGER? I sure hope not, but "the jury's still out" on that > one. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it > that it just MIGHT be working. God forbid. <sarcasm intended> Any military force can push down an insurgency anywhere of its choosing any time. The problem is that it is a game of "Wack-A-Mole." The insurgents just go underground or move to another area. They don't just quit. The "Surge" is temporary. > We HAVE to win there. I really fear the impact on our lives here, in the > USA, > should we fail. Pulling-out now would surely be a disaster for Iraq and > probably, eventually, us. OK, convince me that it is possible to "win." Bush's latese war cry is "The war can be won." There is inspiration! > Publicly stating a pull-out date would be virtually unprecedented in > warfare. > Commanders, dead and gone, are rolling-over in their graves already. And this is just how bad Bush's war has fallen to. Getting out is now the best of the really horrible options and we will have to live with the really bad consequences. > If we could unite behind this, most of the troops > could be home within the year. I wish I could believe such a thing. > This presupposes that "victory" is possible. Try to convince me of this. Convincing a liberal or democrat is not possible. They gave up fighting terrorism on 9/12. They never ever presented any course of action to deal with terrorism. I don't like the Reps plan but the Dems lack of a plan is worse. >> This presupposes that "victory" is possible. Try to convince me of this. > > Convincing a liberal or democrat is not possible. They gave up fighting > terrorism on 9/12. They never ever presented any course of action to deal > with terrorism. I don't like the Reps plan but the Dems lack of a plan is > worse. Fine, tell me about the Republican plan . . . > "miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message > Fine, tell me about the Republican plan . . . See what I mean? The only thing you can do is bash Reps. Great, you don't like their plan. Now I ask again, what is the Dems well thought out course of action for dealing with global terrorism? I'll help ya out, they don't have any such plan. None what soever. They are too tied up with politics to worry about things like terrorism. The Reps are a mess but the Dems are not the solution. >> "miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with politics to worry about things like terrorism. The Reps are a mess > but the Dems are not the solution. The Republican "plan" is more of the same indefinitely. Tell me how proud you are of that! We need to spend our resources on things that are not a distraction from fighting terrorism like Iraq. Port and border security come to mind. > We need to spend our resources on things that are not a distraction from > fighting terrorism like Iraq. Port and border security come to mind. I agree with better immigration control and security. However, that will do little in the fight against global terrorism. No matter what you do for border security they're going to get in and attack as long as they're still out there. So your plan is to let them keep building up against us and hope we can stop them from coming in. Are you saying we should turn to isolationism? What happens in the rest of the world does have an effect here at home. We can't just ignore terrorism and attempt to just keep them out (that should be done as well as fighting them). >> We need to spend our resources on things that are not a distraction from >> fighting terrorism like Iraq. Port and border security come to mind. > > I agree with better immigration control and security. However, that will > do little in the fight against global terrorism. You keep conflating Iraq with terrorism. Bush would be proud of you. Nobody is debating fighting terrorism. I am debating the stupid war in Iraq. > You keep conflating Iraq with terrorism. Bush would be proud of you. > Nobody is debating fighting terrorism. I am debating the stupid war in > Iraq. Who is it that we are fighting in Iraq? Who is funding then? Would you rather they come here and we fight them in the USA? Where do you wish to be fighting them or is it better to ignore them as we did prior to 9/11? >> You keep conflating Iraq with terrorism. Bush would be proud of you. >> Nobody is debating fighting terrorism. I am debating the stupid war in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rather they come here and we fight them in the USA? Where do you wish to > be fighting them or is it better to ignore them as we did prior to 9/11? We are refereeing a religious civil war we ignited. The Bush inspired al Qaeda is a minor player there but a major excuse of his for staying. Keep conflating. > We are refereeing a religious civil war we ignited. The Bush inspired al > Qaeda is a minor player there but a major excuse of his for staying. Keep > conflating. There already was a civil war in Iraq. Saddam killed anyone that opposed him as well as their families. Al Queda is a minor player in Iraq? Good grief. Who do you think is funding the insurgency? You do you think is attacking with the intent to create a civil war? >> We are refereeing a religious civil war we ignited. The Bush inspired al >> Qaeda is a minor player there but a major excuse of his for staying. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > grief. Who do you think is funding the insurgency? You do you think is > attacking with the intent to create a civil war? What a mess. . . >You keep conflating Iraq with terrorism. Bush would be proud of you. >Nobody is debating fighting terrorism. I am debating the stupid war in >Iraq. The war in Iraq is being fought against TERRORISTS in the location they have chosen. Perhaps we should fight them in Omaha. There are far fewer there and so we would suffer fewer casualties. There! Is that all better? Maybe Iceland? Japan? What an idiot. >>You keep conflating Iraq with terrorism. Bush would be proud of you. >>Nobody is debating fighting terrorism. I am debating the stupid war in >>Iraq. > > The war in Iraq is being fought against TERRORISTS in the location > they have chosen. Wrong. . . The bulk of the people attacking us have no interest in attacking us here beyond vengence for what we brought their country. Perhaps we should fight them in Omaha. There are > far fewer there and so we would suffer fewer casualties. There! Is > that all better? > > Maybe Iceland? Japan? What an idiot. You really are incapable of seeing the different factions in Iraq because it fits your needs to lump them as al Qaeda. This is as stupid as the stuff Cheney mutters. The Iraqis want us out of their country. If you were them, you would too. >Fine, tell me about the Republican plan . . . Easy. Keep fighting them with every available resource (not currently being currently) until they are wiped out. Will take years, but that is the only way. >>Fine, tell me about the Republican plan . . . > > Easy. Keep fighting them with every available resource (not currently > being currently) until they are wiped out. Will take years, but that > is the only way. Who exactly? Can you do better than "the terrorists?" >>>Fine, tell me about the Republican plan . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Who exactly? Can you do better than "the terrorists?" You are too f.cking stupid to deal with. PLONK >>>>Fine, tell me about the Republican plan . . . >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are too f.cking stupid to deal with. PLONK Unsurprising | > This presupposes that "victory" is possible. Try to convince me of this. | | Convincing a liberal or democrat is not possible. They gave up fighting | terrorism on 9/12. They never ever presented any course of action to | deal with terrorism. I don't like the Reps plan but the Dems lack of a | plan is worse. Kisserner is convinced IRAQ is a lost cause. Powel cautioned against going in. Last I checked neither were Democrats. >Kisserner is convinced IRAQ is a lost cause. Powel cautioned against going >in. > >Last I checked neither were Democrats. I don't know who either of the aforementioned people are but Henry Kissinger is basically a moderate epublican and Colin Powell is a liberal! >> Bush will leave huge problems that will take decades to get over. I hate >> to do it, but I fear that we will lose our "super power" status. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whole story on the nightly news. Those that have gone over and returned > seem to tell a different story than the media is reporting. Yea, yea yea, that is what the righties keep harping about. Just ask "Old 5% Full" Cheney. . . >> Worse than the Republicans? That will take effort. > > The Dems have no plan at all for dealing with Terrorism. That is worse. > Failure in Iraq is worse. Like it or not it's a must win situation and it > can be done. If the Reps solution is bad, the Dems lack of a solution is > even worse. The Democrats intend to quit wasting lives and treasure in Iraq and use these resources to fight real terrorism, not Bush's imagined terrorists. The Republican "solution" is an open ended commitment to an obvious disaster that they created. That is stupid. Dan Listermann wrote:....The Democrats intend to quit wasting lives and treasure in Iraq and use these resources to fight real terrorism, not Bush's imagined terrorists.<<<< Where the hell do you come up with this sh.t ?? The Democrats have NEVER had a plan for ANYTHING !! (other than cut-and-run) Tell us about this great plan the Democrats are keeping secret. And then tell us how you got to know about it, since no one in the world but you knows about it. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > Dan Listermann wrote:....The Democrats intend to quit wasting lives and > treasure in Iraq and use these resources to fight real terrorism, not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And then tell us how you got to know about it, since no one in the world > but you knows about it. LOL! Let's look at the Republican "plan." An open ended commitment unending commitment to a stupid self induced disaster, but, hey, it is a plan. > LOL! Let's look at the Republican "plan." An open ended commitment >unending commitment to a stupid self induced disaster, but, hey, it is a >plan. Can you show me a 'plan' from WWII (If you know anything about it)? Can you show me a 'timetable'from WWII? I don't recall Churchill saying "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. (Until May 31, 1944!)" Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School >> LOL! Let's look at the Republican "plan." An open ended commitment >>unending commitment to a stupid self induced disaster, but, hey, it is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 31, 1944!)" > Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School Again, we had hope of winning WWII. Tell me how to win in Iraq besides try harder, longer. > Yea, yea yea, that is what the righties keep harping about. Just ask "Old > 5% Full" Cheney. . . Yada yada yada...the left is all about doom and gloom, exactly what our enemies want to hear. They love liberals as they are the route to victory..for terrorists that is. > The Democrats intend to quit wasting lives and treasure in Iraq and use > these resources to fight real terrorism, not Bush's imagined terrorists. Oh? Care to share some solid examples of 'real terrorism'? Don't tell me whats not, tell me what is. >> Yea, yea yea, that is what the righties keep harping about. Just ask >> "Old 5% Full" Cheney. . . [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh? Care to share some solid examples of 'real terrorism'? Don't tell me > whats not, tell me what is. Real terrorism was not in Iraq before we attacked despite the mumblings of Cheney. Bush has converted Iraq into a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. Tell me how we are attracting them to Iraq to kill them there. I doubt that even your sort can believe that. We are going to live with Bush's Iraq inspired nutcakes for decades. Real terrorism is bin Laden and Co. Bush let him get away. Bush's current war cry,"The war can be won!" > Real terrorism was not in Iraq before we attacked despite the mumblings of > Cheney. I asked you to tell me what Real Terrorism is. No answer? But you are right. It would have been better to bring the fight over here right? > Real terrorism is bin Laden and Co. Bush let him get away. Bull. Taking out Ladin might be nice but it won't even come close to slowing down terrorism. So many seem to believe that Al Queda is a global well structured organization with a top down line of command with Ladin at the top. It is no such thing. Now that you have repeated what the liberal band wagon says over and over, what is the Dems plan for dealing with terrorism? Name it please. >> Real terrorism was not in Iraq before we attacked despite the mumblings >> of Cheney. > > I asked you to tell me what Real Terrorism is. No answer? 9-11, Madrid, London > But you are right. It would have been better to bring the fight over here > right? Fighting in Iraq will create more of them to fend off here. >> Real terrorism is bin Laden and Co. Bush let him get away. > > Bull. Taking out Ladin might be nice but it won't even come close to > slowing down terrorism. So many seem to believe that Al Queda is a global > well structured organization with a top down line of command with Ladin at > the top. It is no such thing. Where is bin Laden? > Now that you have repeated what the liberal band wagon says over and over, > what is the Dems plan for dealing with terrorism? Name it please. Get out of Iraq and spend our resources infiltrating al Qaeda and defending our borders. Tell me how wasting lives and treasure in Iraq is making us more secure. > 9-11, Madrid, London Those are the effects of terrorism. What is your method of fighting those that conduct such acts? Don't try to tell me what we shouldn't be doing (Iraq etc.). Tell me what we should be doing to fight them. Border security is needed but they're going to get here eventually if we don't fight them somewhere. > Fighting in Iraq will create more of them to fend off here. Bull. Iraq is not the reason for terrorism. 9/11 happened prior to Iraq. Countries both for and against the USA have been attacked before and after 9/11. It is absurd logic to think Iraq is the cause of terrorism. It's not. It's a response to it. > Get out of Iraq and spend our resources infiltrating al Qaeda and defending > our borders. Great. Where is Al Queda? They're all over the world but most of their resources are now in Iraq. Bringing them to a central place is better than attempting to fight 1000's of groups all over the world as you seem to want. Al queda is NOT an organization by any means. It is a hodge podge of independent groups all over the world. >> 9-11, Madrid, London > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > security is needed but they're going to get here eventually if we don't > fight them somewhere. What does that have to do with Iraq? >> Fighting in Iraq will create more of them to fend off here. > > Bull. Iraq is not the reason for terrorism. 9/11 happened prior to Iraq. > Countries both for and against the USA have been attacked before and after > 9/11. It is absurd logic to think Iraq is the cause of terrorism. It's > not. It's a response to it. While Cheney might disagree with you, you are right, Iraq is not the reason for terrorism, but, because of Bush's Blunder, it is aggravating terrorism. >> Get out of Iraq and spend our resources infiltrating al Qaeda and >> defending our borders. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to want. Al queda is NOT an organization by any means. It is a hodge > podge of independent groups all over the world. Believing that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq is holding them down is nothing more than wishful thinking. They are thriving on Bush's Blunder. > What does that have to do with Iraq? HUH? I didn't mention Iraq to which you replied. I asked you a question. What is the Dems plan for dealing with global terrorism? You refuse to answer because in fact the Dems have NO plan at all. > While Cheney might disagree with you, you are right, Iraq is not the reason > for terrorism, but, because of Bush's Blunder, it is aggravating terrorism. Bull. These terrorists did their dirty work prior to Iraq and they will continue to do so. It seems you wish to appease them so they won't hurt us. Good plan. > Believing that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq is holding them down is nothing > more than wishful thinking. They are thriving on Bush's Blunder. Got any proof of that? How many attacks against the USA or even USA interests around the world have occurred in the last 5 years as compared to 5 years prior? >> What does that have to do with Iraq? > > HUH? I didn't mention Iraq to which you replied. I asked you a question. > What is the Dems plan for dealing with global terrorism? You refuse to > answer because in fact the Dems have NO plan at all. The Democrats want to use our resources to fight terror, not referee a religious civil war. What is the "Repub" plan? You won't answer that. >> While Cheney might disagree with you, you are right, Iraq is not the >> reason for terrorism, but, because of Bush's Blunder, it is aggravating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > continue to do so. It seems you wish to appease them so they won't hurt > us. Good plan. Al Qaeda is using Bush's Iraq Blunder as a recruiting tool. He played directly into their hands. They love him. >> Believing that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq is holding them down is nothing >> more than wishful thinking. They are thriving on Bush's Blunder. > > Got any proof of that? How many attacks against the USA or even USA > interests around the world have occurred in the last 5 years as compared > to 5 years prior? I am sure that Tony Blair could have said something similar on 7/6/6. > The Democrats want to use our resources to fight terror, not referee a > religious civil war. I'm still waiting for what the Dems solid well thought out plan is. Prior to the last elections the Dems said "We have a plan". I think many of us are still waiting to hear what that plan is. > I am sure that Tony Blair could have said something similar on 7/6/6. No. Those attacks were not the first attacks in western Europe. Nice try though. >> The Democrats want to use our resources to fight terror, not referee a >> religious civil war. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No. Those attacks were not the first attacks in western Europe. Nice try > though. No, but they did happen just like they could happen here. Just because we haven't had an attack again yet does not mean that Bush's Blunder in Iraq has stopped them. > No, but they did happen just like they could happen here. Just because we > haven't had an attack again yet does not mean that Bush's Blunder in Iraq > has stopped them. It's a fair bet that Al Queda has tried to attack us again and failed. Their resources are pretty tied up in Iraq. >> No, but they did happen just like they could happen here. Just because >> we haven't had an attack again yet does not mean that Bush's Blunder in >> Iraq has stopped them. > > It's a fair bet that Al Queda has tried to attack us again and failed. > Their resources are pretty tied up in Iraq. No, it is more likely that OUR resources are pretty tied up in Iraq . . . >>> Real terrorism was not in Iraq before we attacked despite the mumblings >>> of Cheney. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Where is bin Laden? He is and has been DEADER THAN A F'in doornail for a few years. BUT recall, WWII was conceived and begun by Isokoru Yamamoto (attack on Pearl Harbor). We tracked him down and killed him on April 18, 1943. Did the war end on his death? Hell no, it ended 2+ years later. After 2 nuclear explosions. We never did kill Hitler. He died of his own hand. just before we (allies) crushed his military. . >Tell me how wasting lives and treasure in Iraq is making us more secure. Have there been any attacks on American soil in the past 5+ years? The best defense is a nuclear offense! >>Tell me how wasting lives and treasure in Iraq is making us more secure. > > Have there been any attacks on American soil in the past 5+ years? Tony Blair might have said the same thing 7/6/5 > The best defense is a nuclear offense! Oh the right wing nucular threat. . . Give me a geographic target and defend it. Miles, Give it up. The purpose of an army is it break things and kill people. They do that to cause their enemy to loose the will to continue resisting them. Well, That being the case. We have lost. Al Quaeda has won. Congress has just voted for us to surrender with no terms required. Personally, I didn't like thinking of the US as a nation of quitters with no fortitude, but by act of congress, we are. SuperPower - my a.s. The US has become a nation of pussies. The mere fact that we have allowed ourselves to be forced by to limit our fight with unilateral adherence to the obsolete Geneva Accords and set of rules of engagement that are designed to keep our troops from prevailing is enough to show the world that they have absolutely nothing to fear. Matt Colie Signaturetarget of diversity victim of affirmative action refugee from the war on poverty minimized by political correctness > SuperPower - my a.s. The US has become a nation of pussies. The mere > fact that we have allowed ourselves to be forced by to limit our fight > with unilateral adherence to the obsolete Geneva Accords and set of rules > of engagement that are designed to keep our troops from prevailing is > enough to show the world that they have absolutely nothing to fear. How would you fight differently in Iraq? Details please. > How would you fight differently in Iraq? Details please. Terrorists deliberately set up shop in places that are politically incorrect to attack. If they setup shop inside a sacred mosque too bad, it should be gone but the liberal left will cry foul and side with the terrorists every time. We can't fight on their terms and thats how its been going so far. We need to fight on our terms. >> How would you fight differently in Iraq? Details please. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > terrorists every time. We can't fight on their terms and thats how its > been going so far. We need to fight on our terms. So you think that we can "win" in Iraq if we go around blowing up mosques. > So you think that we can "win" in Iraq if we go around blowing up mosques. I think we can win if we tell the liberals to F' off and allow our military to fight on their terms. Attack wherever the terrorists are holding up and fighting from. >> So you think that we can "win" in Iraq if we go around blowing up >> mosques. > > I think we can win if we tell the liberals to F' off and allow our > military to fight on their terms. Attack wherever the terrorists are > holding up and fighting from. Ho Ra! What a great American you must be . . . >> SuperPower - my a.s. The US has become a nation of pussies. The mere >> fact that we have allowed ourselves to be forced by to limit our fight [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How would you fight differently in Iraq? Details please. The current rules of engagement that our men are held to require that they not return fire at a Mosque or civilian dwelling that had not already been identified as hostile. Hence, clear a civilian dwelling, the troops have to go inside and ferret out the terrorists one at a time. Often walking into a ambush. This is fighting their war. Let's fight ours. Have the troops call in an M1, use a stand-off TOW missile or other weapon to destroy the dwelling. In the case of a mosque, our troops are required to get confirmation from command to return fire that is coming from a mosque. They are required to use the minimum force and not damage the building. The hell with that. Mow it flat. When the hostilities cease, bring in a modular structure and a silo to replace it. Yes, some innocent women and children might get killed, but according to Al Qaeda there are no innocent people. Does this make us as bad as them? Not until we start carving non-combatant's heads of with rusty knives. A friend's son just got back from Fallujah, he is still wondering how come the news over here does not relate at all to what is going on over there. As a friend of the a British Commander, he was surprised that nothing was made of the fact they left Basrah because there was nothing left to do there - they were Done. So I guess we should surrender and go home. Matt Colie >>> SuperPower - my a.s. The US has become a nation of pussies. The mere >>> fact that we have allowed ourselves to be forced by to limit our fight [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not return fire at a Mosque or civilian dwelling that had not already been > identified as hostile. > Hence, clear a civilian dwelling, the troops have to go inside and ferret > out the terrorists one at a time. Often walking into a ambush. > This is fighting their war. Let's fight ours. Have the troops call in an > M1, use a stand-off TOW missile or other weapon to destroy the dwelling. Do you really feel that destroying masques and houses indiscriminatley will win this war? > In the case of a mosque, our troops are required to get confirmation from > command to return fire that is coming from a mosque. They are required to > use the minimum force and not damage the building. The hell with that. > Mow it flat. When the hostilities cease, bring in a modular structure and > a silo to replace it. While it has happened, you don't hear of fire coming from masques enough to turn the tide in this looser. > Yes, some innocent women and children might get killed, but according to > Al Qaeda there are no innocent people. You should know by now that al Qaeda is a very small part of the people attacking our troops. Yelling "al Qaeda!" whenever discussing this subject won't get you very far. > Do you really feel that destroying masques and houses indiscriminatley will > win this war? Who said anything about indiscriminately? Ones that are identified to house combatants. > You should know by now that al Qaeda is a very small part of the people > attacking our troops. Yelling "al Qaeda!" whenever discussing this subject > won't get you very far. Thats only partly true. While those fighting against us aren't Al Queda members themselves they are funded and supplied considerably by them. >> Do you really feel that destroying masques and houses indiscriminatley >> will win this war? > > Who said anything about indiscriminately? Ones that are identified to > house combatants. Are you trying to tell me that is our troops are receiving fire from a house, they are not able to return fire. If you are, you are going to have to back this up. >> You should know by now that al Qaeda is a very small part of the people >> attacking our troops. Yelling "al Qaeda!" whenever discussing this >> subject won't get you very far. > > Thats only partly true. While those fighting against us aren't Al Queda > members themselves they are funded and supplied considerably by them. Wrong . . . These people are cheerfully fighting us to defend their country. I doubt that al Qaeda has any real money anymore to put anywhere. > Are you trying to tell me that is our troops are receiving fire from a > house, they are not able to return fire. If you are, you are going to have > to back this up. Huh? I'm talking about taking out a house that is known to have terrorists in them. Most of which never fired anything from. Thats the problem. Taking a position against enemy fire is a defense. I'm talking about going on the offense. > Wrong . . . These people are cheerfully fighting us to defend their > country. I doubt that al Qaeda has any real money anymore to put anywhere. You have no clue!! It takes money and organization to put up much of a fight. Thats who we're fighting. >> Are you trying to tell me that is our troops are receiving fire from a >> house, they are not able to return fire. If you are, you are going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problem. Taking a position against enemy fire is a defense. I'm talking > about going on the offense. Oh really . . . . Find some other excuse for Bush's Blunder. >> Wrong . . . These people are cheerfully fighting us to defend their >> country. I doubt that al Qaeda has any real money anymore to put >> anywhere. > > You have no clue!! It takes money and organization to put up much of a > fight. Thats who we're fighting. I guess you believe that we have totally failed to cut off al Qaeda's money supply. Seeing Bush's performance generally, I might be inclined to believe that. >>> Are you trying to tell me that is our troops are receiving fire from a >>> house, they are not able to return fire. If you are, you are going to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh really . . . . Find some other excuse for Bush's Blunder.. You asked a question regarding strategy in general. Now you're going off on a tangent to rant about Bush? Your question and my reply had nothing to do with Bush. You're on the liberal hate band wagon where you can't discuss anything!! > I guess you believe that we have totally failed to cut off al Qaeda's money > supply. You think the USA can control ALL funds going to Al Queda? First off Al Queda isn't just one group of people that money flows through. >>>> Are you trying to tell me that is our troops are receiving fire from a >>>> house, they are not able to return fire. If you are, you are going to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to do with Bush. You're on the liberal hate band wagon where you can't > discuss anything!! Oh blowing up a house that someone told you held a "terrorist" is holding us back. That would be a great way to chase out "undesirables" from your neighborhood, wouldn't it? As I said, you are going to have to find some other excuse for Bush's Blunder. >> I guess you believe that we have totally failed to cut off al Qaeda's >> money supply. > > You think the USA can control ALL funds going to Al Queda? First off Al > Queda isn't just one group of people that money flows through. I thought you said that al Qaeda was funding this war? >>>> SuperPower - my a.s. The US has become a nation of pussies. The mere >>>> fact that we have allowed ourselves to be forced by to limit our fight [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Do you really feel that destroying masques and houses indiscriminatley will > win this war? You obviously did not read what I wrote..... I never said indiscriminately (indiscriminatley) destroy anything - ever. Commissioned officers that have been on site and under fire have told me (first hand) that receiving fire from residences and mosques is very common. Current rules require that the patrol be certain that no civilians are in any dwelling before it is destroyed. They may return fire only to identified targets (or face UCMJ). >> In the case of a mosque, our troops are required to get confirmation from >> command to return fire that is coming from a mosque. They are required to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > While it has happened, you don't hear of fire coming from masques enough to > turn the tide in this looser. I have heard a lot, but I don't listen to the main stream media anymore. You don't hear much do you. You didn't hear about the mosque in Mosul that was a weapons cashe. You didn't hear about the 14yo girl that tried to surrender during a dwelling approach that was carrying a bomb-belt. You don't hear about the residents of the area thanking our troops for closing down a kill zone dwelling or mosque that has been raining death on the locals because they are the wrong sect. >> Yes, some innocent women and children might get killed, but according to >> Al Qaeda there are no innocent people. > > You should know by now that al Qaeda is a very small part of the people > attacking our troops. Yelling "al Qaeda!" whenever discussing this subject > won't get you very far. Please read what I wrote. Again, I never said that all the terrorists were card carrying Al Qaeda. All I did say was that according to them, there are no innocent civilians. They are working very hard to prove this point and using it against the western (our) morays to wonderful advantage. We are being very stupid and trying to fight a moral war against stateless guarilla force and by the the current liberal attitude that says it is unfair to use any advantage to your own gain. Now Congress wants to run this expedition. We will loose. We might do it in Cut-and-Run mode, but we will lose. I don't like loosing, but if it is what you want then the right people are running congress. Matt Colie Signaturetarget of diversity victim of affirmative action refugee from the war on poverty minimized by political correctness "Dan Listermann" <snip> | > I agree the Reps haven't been too good. But to suggest the Dems are the | > answer to anything is absurd. They're even worse. | | Worse than the Republicans? That will take effort. Sadly I think they are up to making a really good try at the task. > "Dan Listermann" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sadly I think they are up to making a really good try at the task. "The war can be won," Bush. > Surplus = Overtaxation. Exactly. However, there never ever was any surplus. Try to find on a goverment website any single year where revenue was higher than spending. The feds website show to the $ on an annual basis. The surplus was a projection. Wishful thinking that never happened. | > Surplus = Overtaxation. | | Exactly. However, there never ever was any surplus. Try to find on a | government website any single year where revenue was higher than | spending. The feds website show to the $ on an annual basis. The | surplus was a projection. Wishful thinking that never happened. Agree but how does that compare to the current projections of a long term defecate (sic)? > Agree but how does that compare to the current projections of a long term > defecate (sic)? I agree but the problem is NOT too low of tax rates. More money is flowing in that ever before. Furthermore the Dems use of the term 'tax cuts for the rich' is mis-leading. As a % of total taxes paid by all the wealthiest now pay a higher share, not lower. That means their cut was less than for others, not more. Most people have no idea on the actual rates. They just hear what politicians tell them and accept it as the truth. | > Agree but how does that compare to the current projections of a long term | > defecate (sic)? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | actual rates. They just hear what politicians tell them and accept it | as the truth. Other income (outside the 1% to 5% as I started to say lower income) pay a larger segment of their income to taxes and fees than do the rich. Have jury duty?. Large municipalities have a special deal for parking $10 / day. (Jury compensation is less.) Locally fees for water, sewage, trash, and a classic 'catch up fee' to pay for new trucks as there was a budget shortage. At the same meeting the city approved the purchase of $9,000 municipal art. (Discounted from $27K as no one else would buy it) Fees doubled in less than 30 days. There is a library fee, a technology fee, copy/print at the library cost $0.20 (same equipment at the local sack and save cost $0.04). Municipal utilities have closed most of their pay centers and the for commercial pay centers have doubled their fees as a result. > Other income (outside the 1% to 5% as I started to say lower income) pay a > larger segment of their income to taxes and fees than do the rich. Huh? Are you saying the lower or middle class pay a higher % of their income? You serious? Got anything to back that up from a credible source such as IRS.GOV records? > Have jury duty?. Large municipalities have a special deal for parking $10 / > day. (Jury compensation is less.) Not here in Phoenix. Parking is validated. Every city and state has their own rules. | > Other income (outside the 1% to 5% as I started to say lower income) pay a | > larger segment of their income to taxes and fees than do the rich. | | Huh? Are you saying the lower or middle class pay a higher % of their | income? You serious? Got anything to back that up from a credible | source such as IRS.GOV records? Not as direct income tax but as state and local taxes and *fees*. There was a segment on the news this evening that Google has a waver of sales tax in NC valued at $91M and this on the purchase of electricity alone. That Google received the tax break was not the news but that someone was taking the deal to court as a violation of the NC constitution was... > There was a segment on the news this evening that Google has a waver of > sales tax in NC valued at $91M and this on the purchase of electricity > alone. You're referring to corporate tax benefits and not personal income taxes. Corporate welfare has been made by politicians of both parties. Sometimes its a good thing, other times I strongly disagree with it. States do so to bring a high employment firm to their state rather than letting it go to another. Tax benefits is the main bargaining chip they have to get a company to move there. The wealthy now pay a higher % of total income taxes paid since the cuts. The Dems preaching "tax cuts for the rich" is a myth. They got the lowest % cut. Few know what the Dems first order of business in congress was since taking power. They voted a bill that would allow taxes to be raised by simple majority rather than the usual 2/3's majority. Now why would the Dems make that their first order of business? | > There was a segment on the news this evening that Google has a waver of | > sales tax in NC valued at $91M and this on the purchase of electricity [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | simple majority rather than the usual 2/3's majority. Now why would the | Dems make that their first order of business? I've been on both sides of the Corporate welfare game and while it is labeled as such the gravy is spread around the top. As part of the tax cuts many programs that funded things on the state and local level were cut with the result that there were precipitous increases in fees. As example of the impact. Back when in Texas the state was short of funds. The solution was to cut meds for the mental health program. The result was folk that were functional and employed (marginally so but employed) were unable to sustain employment and a) went on welfare and b) became a law enforcement problem. the state saved $1.50 per day per person and the local government (law enforcement) had a bill of $10+ to house these folk. >> Surplus = Overtaxation. > > Exactly. However, there never ever was any surplus. Try to find on a > goverment website any single year where revenue was higher than spending. > The feds website show to the $ on an annual basis. The surplus was a > projection. Wishful thinking that never happened. Babble about the meaning of "surplus" all you want, but you can't deny that things were better by this measurement when Clinton left office. Dan Listermann wrote:.... Babble about the meaning of "surplus" all you want, but you can't deny that things were better by this measurement when Clinton left office. Things weren't better. People only thought things were better. The ecomony was tanking before Clinton left office but the administration used some phony numbers to make it look like everything was fine. All the phony dot com companies came into being while Clinton was in office and most were bankrupt before he left office. No one knew the mess the economy was in until Clinton was out of office. Then the left blamed everything on Bush...hell, they are STILL blaming everything on Bush, as Don's post proves. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > Dan Listermann wrote:.... Babble about the meaning of "surplus" all you > want, but you can't deny that things were better by this measurement when > Clinton left office. > > >Things weren't better. People only thought things were better. > The ecomony was tanking before Clinton left office but the administration > used some phony numbers to make it look like everything was fine. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then the left blamed everything on Bush...hell, they are STILL blaming > everything on Bush, as Don's post proves. Oh please. A full two term presidency without a recession ( 50% better than "Old Balanced Budget by '84" "amazing record") and you have to harp on a light recession which some blame could be laid at Bush's feet by talking the economy down. The Clinton haters just can't give that up. "Things weren't better." LOL! Tell us all about it! >> Dan Listermann wrote:.... Babble about the meaning of "surplus" all you >> want, but you can't deny that things were better by this measurement when [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > "Things weren't better." LOL! Tell us all about it! Do not forget the spectacular cuts in the military during the Clinton years. This was possible because of the fall of the Soviet Union of which Ronald Reagan was instrumental. Only a person who thinks like a bean counter would attribute all that happens under one president to that prsident alone. I also remind you of the spectacular increases in military spending during the Bush years because of the inaction of Clinton. If you thought the "Greed of the 80's" was bad, what about the "Greed of the 90's"? Exxon, dotcom etc. Don >>> Dan Listermann wrote:.... Babble about the meaning of "surplus" all you >>> want, but you can't deny that things were better by this measurement [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > years. This was possible because of the fall of the Soviet Union of which > Ronald Reagan was instrumental. "Old Balanced Budget by '84" did his part just like all the other presidents. The Right Wing Nuts just love to gush all over the old boy and give his a lot of undue credit. It is my opinion that the USSR's fall had far more to do with, at least from his perspective, a huge miscalculation that Gorby made. He thought that the USSR could exist without a totalitarian government. He loosened the noose and the thing blew apart. Only a person who thinks like a bean counter would > attribute all that happens under one president to that prsident alone. Excellent point. It will be interesting to see what credit you are willing to give "Old Blow Job." > also remind you of the spectacular increases in military spending during > the Bush years because of the inaction of Clinton. Right, that sort of thing happens when you start a unnecessary and stupid war. If you thought the "Greed of > the 80's" was bad, what about the "Greed of the 90's"? Exxon, dotcom etc. It was "Old Blow Job's" fault, all of it! >>>> Dan Listermann wrote:.... Babble about the meaning of "surplus" all you >>>> want, but you can't deny that things were better by this measurement [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > It was "Old Blow Job's" fault, all of it! For most of Clinton's term the Congress had a Republican majority. They wrote the budget and the laws. They are equally to blame. The horror of the current presidency is that all branches of government were controlled by the Republicans, the party of freedom, reduced spending and semi isolationism. Things are a terrible mess today, there is too much freedom, too little spending and too much isolation on the international level. We must relect the Republicans or else the Democrats will spend too much, take away our freedoms and get us into a long, drawn out war. Vote for Gridlock, DL >For most of Clinton's term the Congress had a Republican majority. They >wrote the budget and the laws. They are equally to blame. The horror of the >current presidency is that all branches of government were controlled by the >Republicans, the party of freedom, reduced spending and semi isolationism. >Things are a terrible mess today, there is too much freedom, >too little >spending and too much isolation on the international level. We must relect [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >DL Too much freedom? Explain. Don Langerhorn wrote:... If you thought the "Greed of the 80's" was bad, what about the "Greed of the 90's"? Exxon, dotcom etc.<<< The MSM always mentions the "greed of the 80's" to make the good ecomony look like something bad. You will never hear about the "greed of the 90's" because we had a Democrat president and the MSM won't ever say anything to make a Democrat look bad. See, during the 80's everyone was greedy. During the 90's only an evil few were greedy. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) MSM? > Don Langerhorn wrote:... If you thought the "Greed of the 80's" was bad, > what about the "Greed of the 90's"? Exxon, dotcom etc.<<< [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > See, during the 80's everyone was greedy. > During the 90's only an evil few were greedy. MSM ? Main Stream Media. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC are all interchangeable. Watch any of these news shows and they have the same left leaning slant on every story. And the MSM can't figure out why Fox news has done so well. It the only place where you get both political views. Before every leftie here, gets his shorts in a knot, how many people from the right do ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC regularly have on their news shows ? Fox news has more lefties, regularly, on their shows than all 5 MSM combined. -- > MSM ? > > Main Stream Media. > ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC are all interchangeable. > Watch any of these news shows and they have the same left leaning slant on > every story. LOL! Tell me, what is your opinion of a "MSM" called Faux Noise? > And the MSM can't figure out why Fox news has done so well. > It the only place where you get both political views. I am sorry, that is just too funny! You buy that, huh? > Before every leftie here, gets his shorts in a knot, how many people from > the right do ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC regularly have on their news shows > ? > Fox news has more lefties, regularly, on their shows than all 5 MSM > combined. I am about to bust a gut, sorry. . . |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message