NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.

Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.

The Democrats like Roosevelt and Truman were defeatists in WWII?


Really?

Oh, that's right.... they ran screaming and fearful all the way to victory!

And Truman sure was afraid to get mixed up in Korea too!.... no. wait, that WAS him that went to Korea. It was that Eisenhower Republican that called for truce there....and those pussy's Kennedy and Johnson were sure afraid to go toe-to-toe with Russia over Cuban missiles, or to get involved in wars in Asia.



Anyone else find it funny how some Republicans bring up Clinton going into Bosnia when it suits them as some sort of precedent for GW to go to Iraq (both actions without UN approval), but then conveniently forget about that war when they want to call him a chicken who was too afraid to go to war?


That being said - I will grant you ONE on your list from the last 60 years. Carter WAS a useless President. No doubt about that one at all.....

Between him and Nixon, the 70s were a decade of disaster on Pennsylvania.

Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war.

Whereas good old red-blooded Republican Reagan stuck to his capitalist principles and bought the hostages' freedom -- essentially telling terrorist nations that if they kidnapped US citizens, the Reagan administration would (domestic political advantage permitting) cough up with truckloads of high-tech weapons. There's a real man for ya. A real hair-dying, Hollywood soldier. Yee-haw.

wow you really need to look out for this tendency to channel ann coulter, next thing you know youll start to menstruate.

If Eisenhower wouldn't have been such a pussy, he would have allowed the military to cross the 38th Parallel and push China back to their own border. There wouldn't be a North Korea and there wouldn't be inexplicable mushroom clouds from a closed, Communist state threatening the world anymore.

Yup, thanks a lot Republicans for showing that spine!

Oh, and any time someone brings up Democrats from the Civil War era, they are showing that they have forgotten all about the fact that those Democrats followed the same principles that the Democrats did in the middle of the 20th century, when they left the party to become Republicans. So you're essentially talking about the early Republicans when you say stuff like that.

Who was in the White House during World War II? You know the time...the generation that has been referred to as America's Greatest Generation? Who was leading our country at that time? I can't seem to recall the name of the Republican president during that era. Who was the great Republican from that era again?

Tokugawa Shogunate, you win the award for

Partisan Bullshit Thread of the Week

Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.
As if political party labels of people living in the 1800s has ANY bearing at all on what these labels mean nowadays :rolleyes:

OMG you are stoopid lol1!!!11! hahqaahaahha

(I thought that might be about the appropriate level of response for more partisan name calling bullshit)

wow you really need to look out for this tendency to channel ann coulter, next thing you know youll start to menstruate.
wow, i cant wait till she dies, then she might take over the guys body

Now, I would not say that all Democrats are Whipms, I'm a democrat in all the games i play(and I'm always ready for a fight never even give tribute to my more powerful neighbors when they threaten to kill me) I'd assume to take over as Supreme Dictator and indicate Martial Law throughout my Nation and take my forces over the border and Eliminate a threat to peace once and for all(sure I love peace but when Negotations break down between me and him...... all out War!) I love to keep the eople happy(so I only declare War on those my people want dead) but I would never activally declare war on others(I've seen it happen) Nazi-Germany, Fascist-Italy, Imperial-Japan all fell because they attacked the whole world even the Ancient Empire's fell I'm a Empire in CIV3 I followed in Germany's footsteps for world Domination around 1900(there was no end to WWI and there was no WWII) not as long as I had Marines around to enforce my laws else where on the Planet(I genetically modified my Marines) every single one of them, they were the ultimate Bad-ass! 5000 health 800 Attack not even a Nuke or ICBM could stop them! they are the cause of Victory in all fronts in Europe(and Asia) Russia never was able to counter-Attack America never entered the War China stood alone against me and the Japs, China was the begining of the end for me(that's when I made me mistake) though I had 90% of Africa under my Control(Zululand and Greeks came to South America) America offered them Ecnomic Help and they took it, though I forced them to pay 100 Tribute to me every 100 yrs(100 yrs was about 90 secs) then I finally asked the Chinese for a Truce(I could not keep sending Marine's to Asia) 90% of my Military was in Europe and 10% in Asia(China was lucky) Russia Invaded me in the mid 1970's and I pushed them all the way back to the Ural Mountains(they wanted peace and that treaty was the only thing that saved them)

[Tokugawa Shogunate #1]
Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.

We are speaking of present day wimps,. er,.. democrats.

Yes,.. democrats are wimps. Michael Moore said so.

(( YOU look it up..! :) ))

The REASON they are wimps is due to the inherent wimpishness in taking the postion that the Clintons are anything but pond scum.

That IS the primary plank of the Democrat Party,.. isn't it..!?

wow, i cant wait till she dies, then she might take over the guys body

You will be waiting a long time; a sucubus can live forever! ;)

Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.

Hey asshole just because we dont put ourselves into dumb wars doesnt mean that were wimps, Bush is a horrible president, hes tough, but thats a bad thing, plus kerry is much more of a Tough guy than Bush, Bush has never been in a war.

Has there ever been one good Republican president? And Lincoln wasnt very good, so dont say he was.

the Republicans consider proactive thoughtful actions as wimpy because they like reactive kneejerk actions because they are incapable of consiering the consequences of such things.

Yeah, stupid democrats not getting into enough wars :rolleyes:

Yeah, stupid democrats not getting into enough wars :rolleyes:


hahah! yeah because apparently that is the best way to solve a problem

what am I sayn'? I'm not even supposed to be here! sorry. I accedientally came here(copied that some where else) and I cannot read very well(my sight's kinda going bad) I'm going to get Eye Surgery whenever I can.

[Tokugawa Shogunate #1]
Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.

We are speaking of present day wimps,. er,.. democrats.

Yes,.. democrats are wimps. Michael Moore said so.

(( YOU look it up..! :) ))

The REASON they are wimps is due to the inherent wimpishness in taking the postion that the Clintons are anything but pond scum.

That IS the primary plank of the Democrat Party,.. isn't it..!?
I agree alot of mainstream democracts are wimps-which is why Howard Dean was such a breath of fresh air-And Clinton wasnt a real democrat he was a neoliberal like Bush is a neoconservative

Hey asshole just because we dont put ourselves into dumb wars doesnt mean that were wimps, Bush is a horrible president, hes tough, but thats a bad thing, plus kerry is much more of a Tough guy than Bush, Bush has never been in a war.

Has there ever been one good Republican president? And Lincoln wasnt very good, so dont say he was.
Lincoln was a good republican president but the republicans have to go way back to the 1800s to find an example of a good one--Teddy Roosevelt was kinda good too tho but Im not sure if he was a full fledged repub or not

Whereas good old red-blooded Republican Reagan stuck to his capitalist principles and bought the hostages' freedom -- essentially telling terrorist nations that if they kidnapped US citizens, the Reagan administration would (domestic political advantage permitting) cough up with truckloads of high-tech weapons. There's a real man for ya. A real hair-dying, Hollywood soldier. Yee-haw.

And what was so wrong with Iran-Contra? We sold weapons that would be used against Iraqis to secure to release of our hostages (whom we were also supplying with weapons to kill Iranians) and used the proceeds to fund the Contras fighting against the communist Sandinistas. It was a win-win. "Oh, but it was wrong and illegal!" So what.

Have you noticed what the democrats' beliefs during a conflict in the last, what, 150 years? During the Civil War, Copperhead Democrats such as Vallandingham and Seymour went so far as being defeatists and causing acts of treason, such as trying to burn down New York, Chicago, and Philidelphia by HIRING CONFEDRATES to end the war for them. How about that? They were calling the war a faliure from the first time we lost 1st Manassass. Pathetic. The same went for World War I, the World War II (isolationist party under none other than the democrat Charles Linburg), and with the exception of maybe the gulf war. Look at Clinton and Carter. Carter waffled on the Iran Hostage Situation for months on end, and only sent a half-hearted inscursion to save the hostages when invasion of Iran was necessisary for such an act of war. Clinton when he was president was content to launch just cruise missles during the Nairobi bombings and the U.S.S. Cole Incidents.

Your post indicates an unsurprising lack of understanding regarding both Democrats and the wider world at large.

For one, we can't just go bombing everything in site. It is politically and economically impossible. And it wouldn't solve anything ANYWAY. If you really want to stop terror, you need a plan not only to kill off terrorists, but also to address the underlying social problems that spawned them. And while the Bush Administration has been very good at killing people, it's not shown a whit of interest in fixing the other half of the equation.

And what was so wrong with Iran-Contra? We sold weapons that would be used against Iraqis to secure to release of our hostages (whom we were also supplying with weapons to kill Iranians) and used the proceeds to fund the Contras fighting against the communist Sandinistas. It was a win-win. "Oh, but it was wrong and illegal!" So what.

That is monstrous. It merely made the problem worse, AND it set a abd precedent.

And watch it. <I> am a liberal, but my political views have nothing to do with my willingness to defend America. I am not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. But there is a smart way to do it and a stupid way to do it. Your Republican friends are opting for the stupid way, and I assure you that unless we throw Bush out of office, we will be dealing with this problem twenty or thirty years from now all over again.

Democrats are not wimps. They just have a different world view. They see the world as a warm fuzzy place and there is good in everyone. Unfortunately their view is flawed. The world is a harsh cold place with a large proportion of very bad people who want to do very bad things. The Democrats do not see a need for a strong military because it takes money away from their pet "feel good" program of the day. We need to protect Democrats from themselves....

...Bush is a horrible president...
Has there ever been one good Republican president? And Lincoln wasnt very good, so dont say he was.
I can understand where you are coming from on Lincoln, But how about Roosevelt, or Eisenhower, even Reagan. Granted there have been many Democrats who have done just as much for the country, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, but from the things I have heard from Carter, Clinton, or Kerry. For the recored I would like to point out that Democrats got us into both World Wars so you can't just say its Republicans making all the trouble. Lastly, Bush did an excellent job of getting us through 9/11, and I daresay better than Gore or Kerry could have or will do.

Democrats are not wimps. They just have a different world view. They see the world as a warm fuzzy place and there is good in everyone. Unfortunately their view is flawed. The world is a harsh cold place with a large proportion of very bad people who want to do very bad things. The Democrats do not see a need for a strong military because it takes money away from their pet "feel good" program of the day. We need to protect Democrats from themselves....
Seriously...All these welfare programs just make people lazy.
----------------------------------------------------------
Save money on taxes, shoot a couple people on welfare
-Random Bumper Sticker
The next person that says pasifism is stupid, I'm gonna punch them in the face
-Masticatus

And what was so wrong with Iran-Contra? We sold weapons that would be used against Iraqis to secure to release of our hostages (whom we were also supplying with weapons to kill Iranians) and used the proceeds to fund the Contras fighting against the communist Sandinistas. It was a win-win. "Oh, but it was wrong and illegal!" So what.

No, it wasn't a win-win. It broke the law. It broke a long standing doctorine that you do not negotiate with hostage-takers. Why? Because what happens when you give them what they want is the demands go up and more hostages are taken. Giving them what they want puts a big target on your citizens.

I mean, how can anyone wonder why the Middle East hates us when we supply both sides of a conflict with arms?

I have a question. Which side, Republicans or Democrats, are more willing to stand up to authority, to fight the good fight even when those in power say they shouldn't? Does it take more courage to stand up and fight for your beliefs, or just to do what you are told?

Republicans are the wimps, because they start fights and let others do the bleeding (Bush, Cheney, and a cast of thousands.)

And what was so wrong with Iran-Contra? We sold weapons that would be used against Iraqis to secure to release of our hostages (whom we were also supplying with weapons to kill Iranians) and used the proceeds to fund the Contras fighting against the communist Sandinistas. It was a win-win. "Oh, but it was wrong and illegal!" So what.
rewarding hostage takers with arms to overthrow another countrys govts is hardly noble

Democrats are not wimps. They just have a different world view. They see the world as a warm fuzzy place and there is good in everyone. Unfortunately their view is flawed. The world is a harsh cold place with a large proportion of very bad people who want to do very bad things. The Democrats do not see a need for a strong military because it takes money away from their pet "feel good" program of the day. We need to protect Democrats from themselves....

Actually, the view of Democrats is that the world could be made into a warm fuzzy place with enough diligence and enough understanding as to why people are cold and brutal. Republicans just take it at face value and figure they might as well be cold and brutal as well.

We believe that people are bad, generally, for a reason. We know we can't solve the world's problems, but it is the struggle to do so, which inevitably brings us a little closer to our ideal, that is important.

We have no problem with a strong military. We just have a problem with a military that is so over-inflated that it squeezes out funding from other programs. For example, if we spent a whole lot more on education, within a generation, we'd produce more of the people who invent and design weapons systems, therefor advancing the military faster and more cheaply. Not to mention the improvements in every other industry.

The reason why America became the industrial giant it did was because of the widespread innovations America utilized. We literally manufactured thing that could not be made elsewhere. We need to get back to that principle, and the only way to do that is to dramatically improve education.

We'd also reduce crime and poverty at the same time, as there is a direct correlation between the two and education.

Brains beats brawn every time (well, except high school...luckily I had both.)

I can understand where you are coming from on Lincoln, But how about Roosevelt, or Eisenhower, even Reagan. Granted there have been many Democrats who have done just as much for the country, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, but from the things I have heard from Carter, Clinton, or Kerry. For the recored I would like to point out that Democrats got us into both World Wars so you can't just say its Republicans making all the trouble. Lastly, Bush did an excellent job of getting us through 9/11, and I daresay better than Gore or Kerry could have or will do.
yes Bush did an excellent job of IGNORING specific warnings about 911 and then invading a country that had nothing to do with it

Seriously...All these welfare programs just make people lazy.
----------------------------------------------------------
Save money on taxes, shoot a couple people on welfare
-Random Bumper Sticker
The next person that says pasifism is stupid, I'm gonna punch them in the face
-Masticatus
I agree-corporate welfare needs to be abolished in all of its forms cause it only makes overpaid pot bellied job exporting CEOs even lazier

I agree that this should be the bs thread of the week

Knee jerk statement from some idiot who claims to be a republican drawing a bunch of knee jerk reaction from the supposed other side sheesh what are we getting here besides a defensive action.

Yo everyone either he/she was kidding or is such an idiot that it is just idiotic to argue. We must all have too much time on our hands.

Need we be reminded that your feirce-nonwimp republican leader, was nearly assassinated by a pretzel. A fuckign pretzel?!

And look at John Kerry. It's gotta take some 'nads to go to Vietnam.

And look at John Kerry. It's gotta take some 'nads to go to Vietnam.

It takes even bigger nads to go to war, and then come back and champion the anti-war movement against government opposition and smear tactics.

Kerry has been under fire for 30 years, and he's still fighting. Do NOT believe the anti-Kerry propaganda.

And what was so wrong with Iran-Contra? We sold weapons that would be used against Iraqis to secure to release of our hostages (whom we were also supplying with weapons to kill Iranians) and used the proceeds to fund the Contras fighting against the communist Sandinistas. It was a win-win. "Oh, but it was wrong and illegal!" So what.

Well, Ronnie himself got all apologetic about it when he got caught. Here's a relevant section from his own speech (http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/rriran.htm):

Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.

Yeah, Ronnie. Sure. Maybe you shouldn't have taken all those naps, eh?

Further, Iraq was, at that time, America's bosom buddy. The USA was busy supplying weapons and intelligence to Iraq to help them in the war against Iran, and turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of WMDs, both against the Iranians and against his own people -- something which only now seems to be regarded as a terrible crime. Except that those who aided and abetted Saddam, including the chickenhawk Donald Rumsfeld, are apparently now utterly blameless and indeed strangely amnesiac on the whole issue. And yet people still wonder why so many Iraqis don't see the Americans as heroic liberators. Perhaps they have slightly longer attention spans?

Further still, the Sandanistas were not "communists". They were, from 1984, the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, supported by the large majority of their people who remembered the vicious, US-backed, former Somoza regime. They undoubtedly had their faults, although none of them were particularly surprising given the condition of the country and the nature of the previous dictatorship. They did nothing that would have seemed out-of-place at Abu Ghraib, for instance. The most surprising thing about the Sandanistas is, in fact, their political openness, tolerance and respect for democracy. True, they leaned towards Moscow for support -- but who wouldn't, when the planet's other superpower is openly hostile to them?

And yet still further: the Contras were a disgusting band of terrorists, responsible for some of the worst excesses against a civilian population in the whole unhappy history of Central America. From 1983 the elected representatives of the American people would not allow their government to fund these hideous killers, so what did Ronnie & co. do? Bow to the democratic institutions of their nation? Hell, no: they subverted international law, and American law, and the structures of American society in a shabby piece of black-ops gun-running. What do we call countries who support terrorists now? "Axis of evil", isn't it? Takes one to know one, I suppose.

Finally, as Gymoor points out, by dealing with hostage-takers, you incite further hostage-taking. By rewarding Iran for its illegal actions, Reagan took the easy way out. By negotiating with Iran in the runup to the 1980 elections, by doing shady deals with them to keep American citizens imprisoned until after the elections in order to wangle a seedy stunt -- the release of the hostages on the day of Reagan's inauguration -- the Republican party showed their true colours: cheap, shallow, low, conniving criminals who were, and are, unfit to govern what should be, in a better world, a bastion of freedom and a beacon of democracy.

It takes even bigger nads to go to war, and then come back and champion the anti-war movement against government opposition and smear tactics.

Kerry has been under fire for 30 years, and he's still fighting. Do NOT believe the anti-Kerry propaganda.
Kerry also has nads to face the GOP smear machine thats based on the politics of personal destruction

Has there ever been one good Republican president? And Lincoln wasnt very good, so dont say he was.
Hell, has there ever been a good American president? I can only think of one -FDR, and he still shut Japs in concentration camps. All the others were warmongers, slave-keepers, criminals, or something else that sucks.

[Gymoor #28]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Democrats are not wimps. They just have a different world view. They see the world as a warm fuzzy place and there is good in everyone. Unfortunately their view is flawed. The world is a harsh cold place with a large proportion of very bad people who want to do very bad things. The Democrats do not see a need for a strong military because it takes money away from their pet "feel good" program of the day. We need to protect Democrats from themselves....



Actually, the view of Democrats is that the world could be made into a warm fuzzy place with enough diligence and enough understanding as to why people are cold and brutal. Republicans just take it at face value and figure they might as well be cold and brutal as well.

We believe that people are bad, generally, for a reason. We know we can't solve the world's problems, but it is the struggle to do so, which inevitably brings us a little closer to our ideal, that is important.

We have no problem with a strong military. We just have a problem with a military that is so over-inflated that it squeezes out funding from other programs. For example, if we spent a whole lot more on education, within a generation, we'd produce more of the people who invent and design weapons systems, therefor advancing the military faster and more cheaply. Not to mention the improvements in every other industry.

The reason why America became the industrial giant it did was because of the widespread innovations America utilized. We literally manufactured thing that could not be made elsewhere. We need to get back to that principle, and the only way to do that is to dramatically improve education.

We'd also reduce crime and poverty at the same time, as there is a direct correlation between the two and education.

Brains beats brawn every time (well, except high school...luckily I had both.)

.."Actually, the view of Democrats is that the world could be made into a warm fuzzy place with enough diligence and enough understanding as to why people are cold and brutal. Republicans just take it at face value and figure they might as well be cold and brutal as well."..

Not correct. Well close, but not quite. :)

Democrats WISH that people were basically GOOD, yet believe that people are basically BAD. So much disappointed whinging follows.

Republicans believe that people are basically GOOD, yet see people act as if they are BADasses. So we give them a whack upside the head to de-badass them.

.."We just have a problem with a military that is so over-inflated that it squeezes out funding from other programs."..

And republicans have that odd inkling that the military IS a major driver of ecomonies and should contribute to educating and innovating.

As well as having it ready to do good, of course.

.."We'd also reduce crime and poverty at the same time, as there is a direct correlation between the two and education."..

And republicans, the sensible ones anyway, think that free education as far as one can take it should be the rule.

The problem is that various sub-cultures don't respect education, and we're not into trying to convince them when we all need lawn trimmers as well.

the Democratic party has changed so much it is unfair to criticise the modern party from past actions. Back in the Civil War days, the Democratic Party was very conservative, and the Republicans were radical-left wing. Now, the balance has switched.

yes Bush did an excellent job of IGNORING specific warnings about 911 and then invading a country that had nothing to do with it
Just like Clinton did with the Kenyans