NationStates Jolt Archive

So it seems the Dem's have the tiger by the tail. What is the plan forward? I keep hearing vote for change. What are we changing to? Is there a website somewhere that lays out the Democrats strategy for the next couple of years?

They've got two years to work it out.

Give them at least till January to hammer out the details, I think they were probably a bit shocked at getting both houses after all.

So it seems the Dem's have the tiger by the tail. What is the plan forward? I keep hearing vote for change. What are we changing to? Is there a website somewhere that lays out the Democrats strategy for the next couple of years?

I've been wondering this myself. That's all we hear about is "change". No one in the party has given anybody a plan for change anything.

That's pretty scary.
Senator Candidate (D): "I declare that if you vote for me I'll give you change."

Journalist: "The American People need to know what exactly are your plans on this "change".

Senator Candidate (D): :confused: ahem "Like I said, it's time for a change Vote for me and my colleagues and We'll change the current hold on Congress that the Republicans currently have."

They've got two years to work it out.

Give them at least till January to hammer out the details, I think they were probably a bit shocked at getting both houses after all.

They should know by historical statistics they would get at least the house. I am seriously wondering if they even have a rough draft of what the agenda is. January is just around the corner.

Raise the min. wage, investigate, and get us out of Iraq. simple really.

Senator Candidate (D): :confused: ahem "Like I said, it's time for a change Vote for me and my colleagues and We'll change the current hold on Congress that the Republicans currently have."

This is what I am afraid of. They only planned on taking control. Nothing afterwards has been planned yet. Sounds very familiar to the plan to overthrow saddam yet there was very little prep on what was going to happen afterwards. Look what that got us. The plan I don't want to hear is tax hikes and endless investigations into the war and Bush.

Raise the min. wage, investigate, and get us out of Iraq. simple really.

They will not pull out of Iraq right away. That would be suicide for the Democrats and very bad for the nation.

Raise the min. wage, investigate, and get us out of Iraq. simple really.simple is better.

So it seems the Dem's have the tiger by the tail. What is the plan forward? I keep hearing vote for change. What are we changing to? Is there a website somewhere that lays out the Democrats strategy for the next couple of years?Well, the tiger will bite the Democrat's tail, then they'll run around a tree very fast until they turn to butter.

Raise the min. wage, investigate, and get us out of Iraq. simple really.

I'm against the minimum wage raise. As for the investigations, that's all they ever want to do, unless it's against one of their own people's scandals and what not. As for Iraq, I believe that in order to be successful you should have some sort of plan. I have not heard anything even close to a plan.

Repair our damaged nation, root out the crooks and scoundrals responsible, bring a reasonable and competent approach to our disasterous adventure in iraq, make our country once again respectable in the world, work towards fixing health care, save the people money by empowering the government to negotiate with phraceutical companies, like other civilized countries do, raise the minimum wage, find a reasonable solution to immigration, end the era of irresponsible, unethical, despicable laws which have been passed in the last four years, protect our freedom and our civil liberties, bring scientific facts back into decision making, fund necessary research like stem cells, limit the corrupting factor of political christianism in government...

There's your website, ace.

Well, the tiger will bite the Democrat's tail, then they'll run around a tree very fast until they turn to butter.Perfect.

And Kerry would look much better with shoes on his ears *nod*

This is what I am afraid of. They only planned on taking control. Nothing afterwards has been planned yet. Sounds very familiar to the plan to overthrow saddam yet there was very little prep on what was going to happen afterwards. Look what that got us. The plan I don't want to hear is tax hikes and endless investigations into the war and Bush.

This is why in another thread I had mentioned how the Democrats had two years to prove themselves or they can kiss the 2008 Presidential bid good bye.

If they mainly focus on the tax hikes and having their continuous investigations on President Bush, the war, and Iraq then they will lose the Presidential Election of 08.

They should know by historical statistics they would get at least the house. I am seriously wondering if they even have a rough draft of what the agenda is. January is just around the corner.
Check out the DNC website, it probably has the talking points. The Speaker elect has promised a fix in the health care mess (Closing the loopholes), investigations into Iraq, min wage raise, and getting an actual plan to get us out of Iraq. Oh, and fiscal soundness, but everyone says that.

Whether they can deliver or not tis the question.

dp

I'm against the minimum wage raise. As for the investigations, that's all they ever want to do, unless it's against one of their own people's scandals and what not. As for Iraq, I believe that in order to be successful you should have some sort of plan. I have not heard anything even close to a plan.
As opposed to the See no Evil, Hear no Evil, GOP that had to be dragooned into holding a show hearing?

I'm expecting a cleaning of the house, ala the GOP when it took control in 1994 and voters were discusted with the Dems.

Perfect.

And Kerry would look much better with shoes on his ears *nod*LOL..
I truly wish Kerry does not run again.

They will not pull out of Iraq right away. That would be suicide for the Democrats and very bad for the nation.

it would be great if they pulled out now. To sum up Bill Maher; if you pound away on an area like the US did in Iraq leaving it irritated and inflamed, the nicest thing you can do is just pull out:D

As for leaving Iraq, I believe that in order to be successful you should have some sort of plan. I have not heard anything even close to a plan.a Fligth plan? :D :D :p :D

Some people just don't get it. :headbang:

The Democrats are for Big Government and Tax Hikes. That's probably why they want a minimum wage hike because if you give the poor a raise and also raise taxes (which is inevitable) gives their Big Government more money. :headbang:

just pull out
http://www.trincoll.edu/~sharris/gifs/sports_entertainment/Just_Do_It_nike.jpg
sound like a plan.

clear and simple.

Check out the DNC website, it probably has the talking points. The Speaker elect has promised a fix in the health care mess (Closing the loopholes), investigations into Iraq, min wage raise, and getting an actual plan to get us out of Iraq. Oh, and fiscal soundness, but everyone says that.

Whether they can deliver or not tis the question.

Fixing healthcare eh? I wonder if they are going to revive Hillary care?

Investigations into what in Iraq? I'm for very limited investigations pertaining to contracts. But not into the who's what's and where's while we are still engaged in combat there. That would be a disaster for the Dem's in '08.

I always figured the plan to get out of Iraq is when they can survive without a civil war breaking out. Or when they straight ask us to leave. They recently asked us to stay for a couple of years more btw.

Raise min wage. I say leave that to the states to decide.

Fiscal soundness? Well that will take more then one round of elections. That is a very long term proposition and going to take alot of work to make it happen.

Well, the tiger will bite the Democrat's tail, then they'll run around a tree very fast until they turn to butter.

Too bad that story is no longer PC.

I used to love the restaurant chain of the same name.

I'm against the minimum wage raise. As for the investigations, that's all they ever want to do, unless it's against one of their own people's scandals and what not. As for Iraq, I believe that in order to be successful you should have some sort of plan. I have not heard anything even close to a plan.

yeah, you're right. The Republicans would never do something like that would they? They wouldn't spend 8 years trying to prove something, anything, against a man named Clinton only to come up with a blowjob. Skip the holier than thou routine and we'll all be better for it. If you skip past the sound-bytes and actually go to their websites, Pelosi, Reed, Democrats.org you'll see some semblence of a plan. Really, they took power as of today, can we give them a little victory time before they draw your ire, or are those grapes too sour? As a Republican with Liberatarian leaning I was happy to see the return of two party rule and some balance. One party going unchecked leads us to pre-concluded rationales for war when one may not have been needed. How the government used or misused intelligence as a rationale for war is a BIG DEAL and should be investigated. Unless you think blowjobs are worse than nearly 3k killed, 20k wounded American soldier and untol numbers of Iraqis. :confused:

Some people just don't get it. :headbang:

The Democrats are for Big Government and Tax Hikes. That's probably why they want a minimum wage hike because if you give the poor a raise and also raise taxes (which is inevitable) gives their Big Government more money. :headbang:
And some people just don't get that making these kinds of generalzations will do nothing for the debate and can get you a nice warning for trolling.

And I find it surpremely ironic that you whine about Democrats making BIG government when the largest government increase in history has been under President George W Bush and a Rebuplican controlled Congress.

Some people just don't get it. :headbang:

The Democrats are for Big Government and Tax Hikes. That's probably why they want a minimum wage hike because if you give the poor a raise and also raise taxes (which is inevitable) gives their Big Government more money. :headbang:

Funny how under Bush and Republican rule, we've now got the biggest Government ever.

Some people just don't get it. :headbang:

The Democrats are for Big Government and Tax Hikes. That's probably why they want a minimum wage hike because if you give the poor a raise and also raise taxes (which is inevitable) gives their Big Government more money. :headbang:

At least they would try and raise the money to pay for their Big Goverment, unlike the Spend and Charge it Republicans.

And I find it surpremely ironic that you whine about Democrats making BIG government when the largest government increase in history has been under President George W Bush and a Rebuplican controlled Congress. Why let the facts get in the way of the GOP Fantasy World.

Too bad that story is no longer PC.Wonder if my mom still has her copy... I used to love it...

Some people just don't get it. :headbang:

The Democrats are for Big Government and Tax Hikes. That's probably why they want a minimum wage hike because if you give the poor a raise and also raise taxes (which is inevitable) gives their Big Government more money. :headbang:

Band your head all you want, but the LARGEST GOVERNMENT IN US HISTORY exists currently undre Gweroge W. Bush. Can you remind me what party he's from? Please oh please find statistical analysis to defeat my point instead of "nah uh, Dems want to raise you taxes and let fags marry each other man." :headbang:

Why let the facts get in the way of the GOP Fantasy World.

I know by listening to talk radio that this fact has not gone past even the most hardcore in the GOP.

Fixing healthcare eh? I wonder if they are going to revive Hillary care?
Nope, I believe it was allowing the government to bid on drugs and making the new drug plan actually understandable.

Investigations into what in Iraq? I'm for very limited investigations pertaining to contracts. But not into the who's what's and where's while we are still engaged in combat there. That would be a disaster for the Dem's in '08.
IIRC, the contracts (where did all that money go to) and intelligence and its use by the Bush Administration pre-war. The why did we get into it when we were supposed to be chasing Ossama.

I always figured the plan to get out of Iraq is when they can survive without a civil war breaking out. Or when they straight ask us to leave. They recently asked us to stay for a couple of years more btw.
Civil war has broken out, the only people not aware of this is the Bush Administration. Hell, even the Iraqi government is admiting that it's civil war.

And most Iraqis want us gone.

Raise min wage. I say leave that to the states to decide.
Um... since the min wage is a FEDERAL law... I think that behoves Congress to deal with it.

Fiscal soundness? Well that will take more then one round of elections. That is a very long term proposition and going to take alot of work to make it happen.
Quite true, which is why I discounted it. But we'll see if they can make inroads on it.

Wonder if my mom still has her copy... I used to love it...

I'm just glad I'm not the only person here who knows what we're talking about. ;)

Why let the facts get in the way of the GOP Fantasy World.

The GOP fantasy world doesn't need to be engaged with anymore.

It's over, it's broken, it's smashed to bits. Done. Kaput.

We need to focus on moving ahead and repairing the damage that has been done, not squabbling with this sort. Let them rot in their ash bin.

The more the empty noise of this sort distracts us, the less we will get done.

I'm just glad I'm not the only person here who knows what we're talking about. ;)You and me both, Kat.

Feeling old? :p

Band your head all you want, but the LARGEST GOVERNMENT IN US HISTORY exists currently undre Gweroge W. Bush. Can you remind me what party he's from? Please oh please find statistical analysis to defeat my point instead of "nah uh, Dems want to raise you taxes and let fags marry each other man." :headbang:

When did I mention gay marriage as an issue? As for the raising taxes issue it's a fact if you would bother checking to see who has the best record involving raising taxes.

Whether they can deliver or not tis the question.

I don't even trust the Dems to deliver a pizza promptly, much less sound policy initiatives. Sadly, the past few years I've seen the party being pretty seriously lacking in efficacy. The party wasn't even a good opposition for the Republicans, and we sure as hell needed a good opposition to the Repubs, if nothing else to keep them busy and out of trouble to some degree. Keep them on their toes, if you will.

I'm against the minimum wage raise. As for the investigations, that's all they ever want to do, unless it's against one of their own people's scandals and what not. As for Iraq, I believe that in order to be successful you should have some sort of plan. I have not heard anything even close to a plan.
You never questioned George Bush for his lack of a plan. Bush never had an exit strategy. Even Bush the Elder wouldn't go into Iraq because he did not have an exit strategy. Kerry asked Bush 2 years ago about Bush's exit plan. Guess what....Bush didn't have one then and he still doesn't have one.

However, Democrats do have an exit strategy, that is, at least one Democrat. George McGovern. He even wrote a book on it:

McGovern on Iraq: Withdraw in 6 Months (http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/sin/2006/10/george_mcgovern_releases_new_b.asp)

As for Iraq, I believe that in order to be successful you should have some sort of plan.
I guess that is why Bush failed? He never had a plan!!

Where is Bin Laden?

Where are the WMD?

Why has terrorism increased?

Why didn't Iraqis welcome US "liberators" with open arms?

Swiping at Dems by suggesting that they don't have a plan speaks volumes about Busheviks and their failed "strategies".

And some people just don't get that making these kinds of generalzations will do nothing for the debate and can get you a nice warning for trolling.

And I find it surpremely ironic that you whine about Democrats making BIG government when the largest government increase in history has been under President George W Bush and a Rebuplican controlled Congress.

How is stating my opinion and feelings of what is to happen in our near future called as trolling?

I believe on many occasions here on NS people constantly bash and have their own opinions and feelings of republicans without the threat of getting a "warning for trolling" thrown at them.

Wonder if my mom still has her copy... I used to love it...
It's made a large comback in Japan, I could get you a Japanese copy if you like.

You and me both, Kat.

Feeling old? :p

NEVAH!!!!!

When did I mention gay marriage as an issue? As for the raising taxes issue it's a fact if you would bother checking to see who has the best record involving raising taxes.

How would raising taxes be a bad thing? Tell the American people its to pay for the war in Iraq. If we are going to blow a bunch of money as Bush has done it is better to tax and spend rather than spend and spend.

They recently asked us to stay for a couple of years more btw.
Where can we find such evidence?

Well, the tiger will bite the Democrat's tail, then they'll run around a tree very fast until they turn to butter.

Yea for Helen Bannerman!

And Kerry would look much better with shoes on his ears *nod*

Indeed. :D

How would raising taxes be a bad thing? Tell the American people its to pay for the war in Iraq. If we are going to blow a bunch of money as Bush has done it is better to tax and spend rather than spend and spend.

Or have the balls to say "we screwed up" and work to develop a stable exit strategy, saving us the money of having to stay in Iraq and keeping taxes low.

Or have the balls to say "we screwed up" and work to develop a stable exit strategy, saving us the money of having to stay in Iraq and keeping taxes low.

Sure, that would be better. But taxing people to pay for the war is more likely. How many politicians can admit that they made a mistake? And there are too many Americans who still actually support that stupid war. I bet many wouldn't want us to leave until the violence stops completely or something stupid like that.

Besides, there are plenty of other things that are dragging us further into debt that raising taxes (especially on the rich) can pay for. Actually having a balanced budget sure would be great.

Sure, that would be better. But taxing people to pay for the war is more likely. How many politicians can admit that they made a mistake? And there are too many Americans who still actually support that stupid war. I bet many wouldn't want us to leave until the violence stops completely or something stupid like that.

I know, that's a big problem. Maybe Rumsfeld's replacement will be able to correct some of his predecessor's mistakes and accelerate the process, but who knows?

Besides, there are plenty of other things that are dragging us further into debt that raising taxes (especially on the rich) can pay for. Actually having a balanced budget sure would be great.

Oh yeah, taxes will have to go up and we need to balance the budget ASAP.

I think now isn't the best time to do it, especially given the fact that the economy has been slowing, but when growth accelerates again we should definitely consider it. We have to start correcting those long-term problems now, or else we're going to suffer a lot more when we have to raise taxes even higher.

I know, that's a big problem. Maybe Rumsfeld's replacement will be able to correct some of his predecessor's mistakes and accelerate the process, but who knows?

At least we could start using more of our budget in Iraq for actual reconstruction and Iraqi army training so we can hurry the hell up and get our own people out. It would be nice to see all those billions going to Iraq to instead go to education. To put it frankly, kids in America are stupid and we need to do something about it.

Why do people keep saying this. "the Democrats don't have a plan." or "So what's they're plan. Nothing."

As far as I can tell the old gongress was just as plannless if not more. What's even worse is all the position of weakness bullshit. I assure you. Democrats will not start giving terrorists suckers. Despite what some people say.

Also, the other thing you hear every time a Republican speaks is "Democrats will raise taxes."

Well so did Republicans, but they lowered the taxes on the rich. Do they ever, and I mean ever because I have not heard one yet, say which income bracket the tax raises will be on? And changing the minimum is common sense. People on minimum wage make less than it takes to get them to their job. That's f'ed up.

Actually having a balanced budget sure would be great.

Our current stable of American politicians balancing a budget would be rather like them riding unicycles, I think. Unlikely to succeed and will probably end badly.

If anything, the huge deficit will largely impact any reforms the Democratic majority planned to implement. I dont think that they would have raised taxes any time soon, at least hoping to gain a more secure foothold. However, new taxes are almost a need at this point and they will need money if they want to be able to demonstrate any kind of change come the election cycle.

It seems unfair, but even cleaning up all Bush's messes may not be enough to create their party identity. They need to actually move beyond it while solving it at the same time.

Our current stable of American politicians balancing a budget would be rather like them riding unicycles, I think. Unlikely to succeed and will probably end badly.

I think that it needs to be an ammendment to the constitution. I believe that would be the most effective way to force Congress to pass a balanced budget.

Where can we find such evidence?

Iraq says asks for US troops to stick around for a few more years.

Here you go:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02112006/325/iraq-says-u-s-troops-stay-few-years.html

I think that it needs to be an ammendment to the constitution. I believe that would be the most effective way to force Congress to pass a balanced budget.
I'd be warry of that. Nevada has a constitution to that effect, and it sometimes causes very painful choices that often leaves the state in a lurch come an emergency.

We'd need something that allowed Congress to spend in a deficit should such an emergency arise.

I'd be warry of that. Nevada has a constitution to that effect, and it sometimes causes very painful choices that often leaves the state in a lurch come an emergency.

We'd need something that allowed Congress to spend in a deficit should such an emergency arise.


There are always exceptions. That can be written into the ammendment.

The Democrats "plan" for America is for them to be in charge for a while :rolleyes:

Iraq says asks for US troops to stick around for a few more years.

Here you go:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02112006/325/iraq-says-u-s-troops-stay-few-years.html

Iraq can't put it's own house in order so they want to lean on us. We can't let them do that. A deadline needs to be set so they will get some inititive and try to do something for themselves for once.

There are always exceptions. That can be written into the ammendment.
I'm just saying make sure it is written that way.

Iraq can't put it's own house in order so they want to lean on us. We can't let them do that. A deadline needs to be set so they will get some inititive and try to do something for themselves for once.

Problem with deadlines in war is that they are rarely met.

Iraq says asks for US troops to stick around for a few more years.

Here you go:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02112006/325/iraq-says-u-s-troops-stay-few-years.html
Apparently, the President Jalal Talabani is out of touch with the Iraqi people?

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1h.jpg

Apparently, the President Jalal Talabani is out of touch with the Iraqi people?

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1h.jpg

Well wouldn't be the first time a leader didn't reflect the will of his people. But I wonder what the same poll would have looked like in post-war Germany and Japan. Or even asking the Serbs the same thing after Nato got involved in the Balkans. To be honest I do not think the majority always choose the best path.

Problem with deadlines in war is that they are rarely met.

The main purpose of it would be to send a message to Iraq that we will not be there forever, they must take some control over themselves. Which is why we need to drastically increase our spending to rebuild their infanstructure. I believe that if life improves in their country then people have less reason to fight. Now, a large part of the problem is sectarian violence. We really can't do anything about that, Iraqis are going to have to find their own solution. So we really should not be there for much longer.

Thier fist and foremost move must be to rollback the attacks the Republicans made on the constitution that allows US citizens to be arrested and tourtered without due proccess, and wiretapping survailence. Then work on the war in Iraq, then work on changing the eminent domain deal back to what it was before corperations could take your house for a weak price. Those things are the most important and must come before addressing the issues abortion, gay marrige, and energy independance.

The main purpose of it would be to send a message to Iraq that we will not be there forever, they must take some control over themselves. Which is why we need to drastically increase our spending to rebuild their infanstructure. I believe that if life improves in their country then people have less reason to fight. Now, a large part of the problem is sectarian violence. We really can't do anything about that, Iraqis are going to have to find their own solution. So we really should not be there for much longer.

We currently spend about $100,000. on Iraq, PER SECOND.

I'm sure the Insurgents have the resourfulness to make half of what we spend every second make last over a year.

We currently spend about $100,000. on Iraq, PER SECOND.

I'm sure the Insurgents have the resourfulness to make half of what we spend every second make last over a year.

Yeah but they don't have sharks with lasers. :D

Well wouldn't be the first time a leader didn't reflect the will of his people. But I wonder what the same poll would have looked like in post-war Germany and Japan. Or even asking the Serbs the same thing after Nato got involved in the Balkans. To be honest I do not think the majority always choose the best path.
There is a lot of animosity towards the US reflected in that poll. Remove the focal point and then the Iraqis would have to deal with the best way to rebuild their country.

I also agree with Utracia on this point:

The main purpose of it would be to send a message to Iraq that we will not be there forever, they must take some control over themselves. Which is why we need to drastically increase our spending to rebuild their infastructure. I believe that if life improves in their country then people have less reason to fight.
I think Iraq will improve dramatically once the US withdraws. It may be violent for awhile, but the insurgency will reside and the focus will be on the terrorists. Since the terrorists won't be able to focus on US troops anymore, they have two choices......withdraw themselves, or battle Iraqis for control. I believe the terrorists would have to withdraw.

There is a lot of animosity towards the US


I think Iraq will improve dramatically once the US withdraws. It may be violent for awhile, but the insurgency will reside and the focus will be on the terrorists. Since the terrorists won't be able to focus on US troops anymore, they have two choices......withdraw themselves, or battle Iraqis for control. I believe the terrorists would have to withdraw.

The reason for the animosity I believe is our inability to provide a secure enviroment specifically in Baghdad.

If the US withdraws I think the void will be filled with groups we do not want there. Iran would surely put more influence on the Shia south further dividing Iraq. You could see a Iranian stealth invasion of the south and a very real armed Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north to buffer themselves. There is a real potential for a major meltdown if we leave to soon I think.

We currently spend about $100,000. on Iraq, PER SECOND.

I'm sure the Insurgents have the resourfulness to make half of what we spend every second make last over a year.

How much goes to worthy infanstructure projects, not just to the ground troops? We need more then to kill insurgents to win there. If Iraqis don't have dependable electricity, water, sewage, gasoline, etc., then how are things going to improve? Kill one insurgent and one will take his place but making the country liveable makes it harder to recruit people to fight our soldiers and the Iraqi government.

I'm just glad I'm not the only person here who knows what we're talking about. ;)

That makes 3 of us then. Sambos' (the restaurant) made the best pancakes.

Why do people keep saying this. "the Democrats don't have a plan." or "So what's they're plan. Nothing."

As far as I can tell the old Congress was just as planless if not more. What's even worse is all the position of weakness bullshit. I assure you. Democrats will not start giving terrorists suckers. Despite what some people say.

Also, the other thing you hear every time a Republican speaks is "Democrats will raise taxes."

Your whole attitude thus far is basically; Well the Republicans did it, so why does it matter if the Democrats do it?

If they don't have a clue what they are going to do, then what the hell are they doing trying to run things. We just had 6 years of cluelessness. I thought the Democratic party was supposed have an answer for the GOPs' massive fuckups? If they don't have a plan, then they are no different from their predecessors. I don't believe they are anyways, but that is another thread.

And actually, the GOP did have a plan, on paper. They just preferred to ignore it in favor of rampant spending.

Do you have any proof that they WON'T start raising taxes? Any at all? Have members of the DNC specifically said they won't raise taxes? Any member?

My money, what there is of it, says that once they get comfortable, the majority party will start doing their best to outspend their predecessors. Just because they can. And no politician has ever been able to resist spending money, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.

The reason for the animosity I believe is our inability to provide a secure enviroment specifically in Baghdad.

If the US withdraws I think the void will be filled with groups we do not want there. Iran would surely put more influence on the Shia south further dividing Iraq. You could see a Iranian stealth invasion of the south and a very real armed Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north to buffer themselves. There is a real potential for a major meltdown if we leave to soon I think.
I can certainly see a stronger coalition with Iran and that is what exposes Bush's original invasion as folly. Before the invasion, Iraq was far more secular and leaned towards westernization under Sunni rule. Without that, the Shia majority will enjoy a greater affinity with Iran. Part of that clue was demonstrated by the Iraqi Constitution that reflects a strong move to laws based on Islam.

Did Bush consider any of this before hastily invading Iraq? I really don't think so. The US is stuck and Bush knows it. His plan has failed miserably. Any plan has to be better by default.

How much goes to worthy infanstructure projects, not just to the ground troops? We need more then to kill insurgents to win there. If Iraqis don't have dependable electricity, water, sewage, gasoline, etc., then how are things going to improve? Kill one insurgent and one will take his place but making the country liveable makes it harder to recruit people to fight our soldiers and the Iraqi government.

Each American Citizen owes around $1,500 for the war in Iraq. I say we make all those who supported the war pay for it if they love it so much.

Anyways, what you said is true. However, Throwing money at the situation isnt going to work. No-one is going to be putting in electricity, plumbing and gasoline if they're jsut going to watch it get blown up 3 days later. Esspecialy if the Shieks and Clerics tell them not too. They are the ones with the real power over there. And No-one over there wants a western style nation, they want their arab style lives. Building all these modern utilities are great and all and trying to force our style of lives dont there throats is certianly beautiful, But allot of the things we are giving them they dont even understand and consider it blashphemy or illegal. Westernization is absolutley wrong. Allot of people over there believe that we are going to turn their nation into a sespool of tourist attractions, product placing, out-sourcing, and all the other evil parts of capitalism. They would rather live in a theocracy than see their country be devoured in the sake of the all mighty dollar.

I can certainly see a stronger coalition with Iran and that is what exposes Bush's original invasion as folly. Before the invasion, Iraq was far more secular and leaned towards westernization under Sunni rule. Without that, the Shia majority will enjoy a greater affinity with Iran. Part of that clue was demonstrated by the Iraqi Constitution that reflects a strong move to laws based on Islam.

Did Bush consider any of this before hastily invading Iraq? I really don't think so. The US is stuck and Bush knows it. His plan has failed miserably. Any plan has to be better by default.

I'll be damned, something I agree with CH on. Would that be the 5th or the 6 Sign?

I do rather doubt that the insurgent/terrorists will back off once the US forces leave. They have never seen that American troops would have been able to leave much sooner if they had not started attacking in the first place. I mean, aren't these insurgents one of the reasons the US is still in Iraq?

Our current stable of American politicians balancing a budget would be rather like them riding unicycles, I think. Unlikely to succeed and will probably end badly.
But would be so much fun to watch. :D

then work on changing the eminent domain deal back to what it was before corperations could take your house for a weak price.

I don't know how necessary that is. Many states are handling that themselves through either legislative action or ballot proposals. My state just passed a property rights proposal as did a number of others.

Anyways, what you said is true. However, Throwing money at the situation isnt going to work. No-one is going to be putting in electricity, plumbing and gasoline if they're jsut going to watch it get blown up 3 days later. Esspecialy if the Shieks and Clerics tell them not too. They are the ones with the real power over there. And No-one over there wants a western style nation, they want their arab style lives. Building all these modern utilities are great and all and trying to force our style of lives dont there throats is certianly beautiful, But allot of the things we are giving them they dont even understand and consider it blashphemy or illegal. Westernization is absolutley wrong. Allot of people over there believe that we are going to turn their nation into a sespool of tourist attractions, product placing, out-sourcing, and all the other evil parts of capitalism. They would rather live in a theocracy than see their country be devoured in the sake of the all mighty dollar.

Hell, they would love to get back to a Saddam-era of infanstructure. I don't see them having basic utilities to be a heresy. If we are trying to give them blue jeans, Coke and rock music then we are really wasting our time trying to make them copies of us. If we spend serious time trying to rebuild and the insurgents try to keep blowing it up, it will be the Iraqi people who will get pissed off at them when they see us giving an honest effort to improve their country. Now, they just see our soldiers. As I see it, putting serious effort into rebuilding infanstructure is the only way out of Iraq unless we want to sit there for years on end killing new insurgents all the time.

Then work on changing the eminent domain deal back to what it was before corperations could take your house for a weak price.
That was SCOTUS and they've already said the whole issue should be one placed before the states, not the federal level.

Congress already passed a law forbidding the Federal government from doing that.

Hell, they would love to get back to a Saddam-era of infanstructure. I don't see them having basic utilities to be a heresy. If we are trying to give them blue jeans, Coke and rock music then we are really wasting our time trying to make them copies of us. If we spend serious time trying to rebuild and the insurgents try to keep blowing it up, it will be the Iraqi people who will get pissed off at them when they see us giving an honest effort to improve their country. Now, they just see our soldiers. As I see it, putting serious effort into rebuilding infanstructure is the only way out of Iraq unless we want to sit there for years on end killing new insurgents all the time.

I tend to agree. Do what needs to be done so that the people have a decent standard of living, then we can leave gracefully. I hope.

The reason for the animosity I believe is our inability to provide a secure enviroment specifically in Baghdad.

If the US withdraws I think the void will be filled with groups we do not want there. Iran would surely put more influence on the Shia south further dividing Iraq. You could see a Iranian stealth invasion of the south and a very real armed Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north to buffer themselves. There is a real potential for a major meltdown if we leave to soon I think.
Unlike the wonderful folks who are there now. :rolleyes:

I wonder how many decades from now the Bush crowd will finally get tired of this canard that the Dems are just going to pull all the troops out of Iraq all at once and right away. That's not the plan. And there is a plan. You don't know what it is because Bush was so busy drowning out all explanations with shouts of "CUT AND RUN! CUT AND RUN!"

The plan is basically to disengage US troops from involvement in domestic Iraqi affairs and leave that to the new Iraqi government, and to accomplish this disengagement in stages; to have US forces concentrate on "force protection" which, when spoken by civilian pols, I guess means establish essentially militarized zones under de facto US troop control and to provide military cover for all troop and contractor movements around Iraq; and to begin a phased redeployment of troops to more vulnerable areas, like the borders and, possibly, to what may become permanent bases in less unstable parts of the Mid-East, like, maybe, Kuwait.

Pelosi, Dean, Murtha, and many others have talked about this in the media over the past year. You'd know this if you'd spent more time listening than repeating party talking points.

But would be so much fun to watch. :D

Especially when they fall on their asses. Repeatedly.

Especially when they fall on their asses. Repeatedly.
Feel free to gloat. It's cute when the losers do it.



Sorry. I try to avoid picking on people when they're down, but I couldn't resist that one.

So it seems the Dem's have the tiger by the tail. What is the plan forward? I keep hearing vote for change. What are we changing to? Is there a website somewhere that lays out the Democrats strategy for the next couple of years?


ban guns..lol...
free welfare to all,and medical...payed for by the taxpayer..as the ones writing the laws vote raises to themselves...

forgetting the ones get the free ride dont contribute,,,,or work for the betterment of society.
i wouldfnt mind the safety net....but just getting screwed is funny...so they can votes...how american!

fucking whores...the whole lot.....dems and repuds should be ashamed:mad:

What is the "Democrats" plan for America?

Well duh ...

Ban guns, abortions for all, and a gay couple in every kid's bedroom.

Just like every Neocon has predicted.

It will start on Monday. We need the weekend to celebrate in drunken debauchery.

There are always exceptions. That can be written into the ammendment.

The same problem would arise as did 200 years ago with the "necessary and proper" clause.

Do you make it vague, so as to not allow for the unexpected occurances, but being vague it can be used to justify just about anything?

Or do you make it so strict, that when the unexpected occurs, it is extremely difficult to work around?

I think common sense in this issue should rule the day. If deficit spending is necessary, than do it. Sometimes you have to spend money you don't have. However, in most cases, a balanced budget should be maintained.

Of course, there are certain "incentives", which indirectly encourages deficit spending, but I won't go into that.

Well duh ...

Ban guns, abortions for all, and a gay couple in every kid's bedroom.

Just like every Neocon has predicted.

It will start on Monday. We need the weekend to celebrate in drunken debauchery.

Don't forget allowing a terrorist on every street corner. Because, Democrats obviously love the terrorists and hate America. It seems so obvious doesn't it?

Planning on joining me in the drunken debauchery? I think there'll be an Ann Coulter pinata. :)

Don't forget allowing a terrorist on every street corner. Because, Democrats obviously love the terrorists and hate America. It seems so obvious doesn't it?

Planning on joining me in the drunken debauchery? I think they'll be an Ann Coulter pinata. :)

Oh yeah! Osama bin Laden will be President in 2008 because of us! I forgot!

Yay! When the pinata breaks open, will there be little bottles of Rum and "the day after pill"?

In addition to the war plan outlined roughly in my other post, the Dems will do what they always do:

Right off the bat, they'll up the minimum wage and very, very slightly lower taxes for the middle class while very, very slightly increasing them for the highest brackets. That makes the voters feel good and gives everyone a quick flush of well-being and optimism for the next stages.

Then they'll wade in full blast with years and years of debate, negotiations and committee hearings about new laws or amendments to older laws affecting the environment, healthcare for families and seniors, organized labor issues, and other core Dem interests. They will be very busy and very noisy about it, and once in a great while, they'll get something done and make a big deal about it, and in amongst all this Business As Usual(tm), they will sneak in a few special agenda items. These will include:

- Implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for domestic security.

- Comprehensive immigration reform, which may or may not come in the form Bush wants (i.e. amnesty).

- Investigative hearings into the Bush admin's secret policies in Iraq and the dealings leading up to the war (probably done as quietly as possible).

- Investigative hearings into the Bush admin's secret domestic policies, especially Cheney's energy policy and Bush's domestic surveillance and similar bills (probably done as quietly as possible; I predict also a revisiting of the Patriot Act, eventually).

- Several measures favored by Bush that are not yet in force will never get into force. They will be stalled in committee until a new president is in office, and then they will die. We can hope for this fate for the Military Commissions Act.

ban guns..lol...
free welfare to all,and medical...payed for by the taxpayer..as the ones writing the laws vote raises to themselves...

forgetting the ones get the free ride dont contribute,,,,or work for the betterment of society.
i wouldfnt mind the safety net....but just getting screwed is funny...so they can votes...how american!

fucking whores...the whole lot.....dems and repuds should be ashamed:mad:

Heh, what pisses me off most is all of the benefits that Congressmen have. Free health care for them and their family, (huge)tax breaks, free travel, several priveleges, and TWO DOLLAR PACKS OF SMOKES, among many more.

Yes, that's right. They can get lung cancer and get a free lung transplant, all on the cheap! Yay America.

One wonders, then, who is giving them these benefits. Themselves, that's who! Wooo! They pay themselves whatever the hell they want, and any benefits they want, regardless of how much it actually costs us. Yay fucking America. I hate politicians.

Feel free to gloat. It's cute when the losers do it.



Sorry. I try to avoid picking on people when they're down, but I couldn't resist that one.

Whos' down? And who is gloating? What the hell are you talking about?

Oh yeah! Osama bin Laden will be President in 2008 because of us! I forgot!

Yay! When the pinata breaks open, will there be little bottles of Rum and "the day after pill"?
I don't think rum is gay enough. Make it Midori.

Oh yeah! Osama bin Laden will be President in 2008 because of us! I forgot!

Yay! When the pinata breaks open, will there be little bottles of Rum and "the day after pill"?

I believe that is all part of the surprise! ;)

- Implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for domestic security.

Oh NOES!

- Comprehensive immigration reform, which may or may not come in the form Bush wants (i.e. amnesty).

OH NOES!

- Investigative hearings into the Bush admin's secret policies in Iraq and the dealings leading up to the war (probably done as quietly as possible).

OH NOES!!!!!!

- Investigative hearings into the Bush admin's secret domestic policies, especially Cheney's energy policy and Bush's domestic surveillance and similar bills (probably done as quietly as possible; I predict also a revisiting of the Patriot Act, eventually).

Ok god you're killing me ....

You're saying the Dems will want oversight into what the Bush admin wants to hide.

OH NOES!!!11!!!1eleven!!1!one!

I don't think rum is gay enough. Make it Midori.

Good call! Midori is acceptable too. :D

- Comprehensive immigration reform, which may or may not come in the form Bush wants (i.e. amnesty).



Out of everything that Bush has done, this is likely the only one I can actually agree with. Hey, what's the number, 11 million people here illegally? Most of them are working. Make em legal, that way they get fair wages and can have taxable income.

Could generate quite the revenue to pay for alot of what has been mussed up.

Whos' down? And who is gloating? What the hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about you. All the posts of yours I've ever read have been pretty far right and pretty down on Dems, and you seemed to be implying that they will fail now they are in office. I beg your pardon if that's not your real opinion. Maybe I haven't seen enough of your posts. Or maybe you're one of those libertarians who like to insist how they are let down by both the parties. If I'm wrong, I take it back.

It will still be just as much fun to watch the Dems reign in Republican spending as it would be to watch politicians ride unicycles. In fact, I'd bet some of them will turn out to be not half bad at it.

It will still be just as much fun to watch the Dems reign in Republican spending as it would be to watch politicians ride unicycles. In fact, I'd bet some of them will turn out to be not half bad at it.

*hands you a glass of midori and a surprisingly beautiful island girl*

So it seems the Dem's have the tiger by the tail. What is the plan forward? I keep hearing vote for change. What are we changing to? Is there a website somewhere that lays out the Democrats strategy for the next couple of years?



no different then the repubs...colllecting money...living large...jeez....they are the same assholes in different clothes...whore comes to mind.

i will say if they go after guns...then i will be pissed..i would be a dem if it was not for the retarded agenda they have about guns.

i say fuck all of them...bunch of skeezy whores...both sides.

america needs a 3rd party..period!

i will never vote again,either repub or dem...fucking pelosi has a say in my life...that flat sickens me....fucking yuppie jerkoff know it alll...pompous bitch...
yea,she knows whats best for me.....what a pos...and she has a position of power and a say over my life?


fucking hypocrite pos lying bitch


no different the whore bush...

pack of liars...
i truly despise all dems and repugs


rant off

by the way,just like the other asshole from san fran,she voted for a gun ban....but even though she has a security team...she has one of the impossible to have ccw in san fran..fuck that bitch...her life must be more important then mine..go figure......what a pos hypocrite.

Out of everything that Bush has done, this is likely the only one I can actually agree with. Hey, what's the number, 11 million people here illegally? Most of them are working. Make em legal, that way they get fair wages and can have taxable income.

Could generate quite the revenue to pay for alot of what has been mussed up.
Yeaahhh..... yeah.... (unhappy and uncertain "yeahs")

I don't know about this immigration thing. I'm not a big fan of a totally open border with a dystopia like Mexico, especially when it's an unofficial and thus unregulated open border. And we tried amnesty in the 80s and it didn't work out too well.

On the other hand, I have no desire to send back most of the people who have come over, who are such hardworking slobs, they'd be a credit to any country they lived in except the dystopia of Mexico. And 11 million is a lot of people...

I don't think there is a good answer to this issue yet, so I suppose amnesty it will have to be.

*hands you a glass of midori and a surprisingly beautiful island girl*
Make it a beautiful island boy. I drink the gay drinks, but I'm a hetero gal.
;)

I'm talking about you. All the posts of yours I've ever read have been pretty far right and pretty down on Dems, and you seemed to be implying that they will fail now they are in office. I beg your pardon if that's not your real opinion. Maybe I haven't seen enough of your posts. Or maybe you're one of those libertarians who like to insist how they are let down by both the parties. If I'm wrong, I take it back.

It will still be just as much fun to watch the Dems reign in Republican spending as it would be to watch politicians ride unicycles. In fact, I'd bet some of them will turn out to be not half bad at it.

Don't worry about it, most people seem to be confused about my political beliefs. My own dad considers me to be very liberal, while a guy I have known for several years, who is very conservative, believes that I am even more conservative then he is. Go figure.:D

Of course I am down on the Democrats. I see them as the same useless power-whores I see the Republicans as. Yep, I am one of those libertarians who dislikes both mainstream parties. I don't insist, I simply state the facts. :p

My actual point in my comment about falling on there asses was I enjoy all pols taking a nosedive, irrespective of their party affiliations.

And honestly, yeah there are always a few good people on both sides of the aisle. But there are enough bad apples in both partys to give politicians a bad name. At the same time, neither party, when they have been in power has done much worthwhile, in my opinion.

So I will bet that in the end, they will do the same thing the GOP spent the past 6 years doing, blithering on about their opponents, spending massive sums of money on pork projects and completely failing to do what they were elected to do. Why? Because they are politicians, and pols aren't interested, with a few exceptions here and there, in anything that doesn't help them acquire more money and more power.

Yeah, I am a bit cynical about most things. Been told I am a bit of a bummer at parties too. :D

no different then the repubs...colllecting money...living large...jeez....they are the same assholes in different clothes...whore comes to mind.

i will say if they go after guns...then i will be pissed..i would be a dem if it was not for the retarded agenda they have about guns.

i say fuck all of them...bunch of skeezy whores...both sides.

america needs a 3rd party..period!

i will never vote again,either repub or dem...fucking pelosi has a say in my life...that flat sickens me....fucking yuppie jerkoff know it alll...pompous bitch...
yea,she knows whats best for me.....what a pos...and she has a position of power and a say over my life?


fucking hypocrite pos lying bitch


no different the whore bush...

pack of liars...
i truly despise all dems and repugs


rant off

by the way,just like the other asshole from san fran,she voted for a gun ban....but even though she has a security team...she has one of the impossible to have ccw in san fran..fuck that bitch...her life must be more important then mine..go figure......what a pos hypocrite.

Third in line to the presidency.

Don't worry about it, most people seem to be confused about my political beliefs. My own dad considers me to be very liberal, while a guy I have known for several years, who is very conservative, believes that I am even more conservative then he is. Go figure.:D

Of course I am down on the Democrats. I see them as the same useless power-whores I see the Republicans as. Yep, I am one of those libertarians who dislikes both mainstream parties. I don't insist, I simply state the facts. :p

My actual point in my comment about falling on there asses was I enjoy all pols taking a nosedive, irrespective of their party affiliations.

And honestly, yeah there are always a few good people on both sides of the aisle. But there are enough bad apples in both partys to give politicians a bad name. At the same time, neither party, when they have been in power has done much worthwhile, in my opinion.

So I will bet that in the end, they will do the same thing the GOP spent the past 6 years doing, blithering on about their opponents, spending massive sums of money on pork projects and completely failing to do what they were elected to do. Why? Because they are politicians, and pols aren't interested, with a few exceptions here and there, in anything that doesn't help them acquire more money and more power.

Yeah, I am a bit cynical about most things. Been told I am a bit of a bummer at parties too. :D

Likewise. People have serious trouble pegging me politically.

Though I'm closer to being a classical conservative than a libertarian if you look at my political compass results. (I hate what conservatism has become, and don't have much regard for either of the big two parties, so little in fact, that I refuse to vote for them and cast mine to a third party, which happens to be the LP just because they're slightly better than the Greens, IMO.)

Don't worry about it, most people seem to be confused about my political beliefs. My own dad considers me to be very liberal, while a guy I have known for several years, who is very conservative, believes that I am even more conservative then he is. Go figure.:D

Of course I am down on the Democrats. I see them as the same useless power-whores I see the Republicans as. Yep, I am one of those libertarians who dislikes both mainstream parties. I don't insist, I simply state the facts. :p

My actual point in my comment about falling on there asses was I enjoy all pols taking a nosedive, irrespective of their party affiliations.

And honestly, yeah there are always a few good people on both sides of the aisle. But there are enough bad apples in both partys to give politicians a bad name. At the same time, neither party, when they have been in power has done much worthwhile, in my opinion.

So I will bet that in the end, they will do the same thing the GOP spent the past 6 years doing, blithering on about their opponents, spending massive sums of money on pork projects and completely failing to do what they were elected to do. Why? Because they are politicians, and pols aren't interested, with a few exceptions here and there, in anything that doesn't help them acquire more money and more power.
I see. *checks off "libertarian" column and moves on*

Yeah, I am a bit cynical about most things. Been told I am a bit of a bummer at parties too. :D
That's okay. Most of the libertarians I know are, but that's why there's liquor at parties. :p

Third in line to the presidency.
Don't pick on him. Can't you see he's been hitting the Midori extra hard?

I'm against the minimum wage raise.

I think its nessecary myself to slow down illegal imigration. Part of the attraction of illegal imigration is the knowledge that they can get work even in places where there are no vacciences as because they work cheeply, the busniesses will hire them and remove more expensive staff.

The beauty of being in opposition is that you don't have to have a plan.

I predict a lot of playing to popular opinion as every big shot in both parties is now trying to present him- (or herself) as a good candidate of '08.

I'm against the minimum wage raise.
You don't have to agree with a plan for it to be a plan, Mr Moneybags.

Investigations are needed. Holding government accountable is essential in a democratic republic.

Truth is it's going to be tough. The Republican very seriously fucked things up in an historic way. I don't know if there can be any plan other than damage control. Good things have already happened, though. It's pretty clear that Bush's dad's friends are taking over now so that George's stupidity and arrogance can't do any more damage. Rumsfeld, who will go down in history as the most incompetent secretary of defense in this country's history, is out. Cheney, the lone remaining neocon in Bush's inner circle, is being elbowed aside by James Baker III, a conservative pragamatist who favors results over ideology. Without a Democratic victory none of that would have happened. I think even without a "plan" there's no question that we are better off today than we were on Monday.

Truth is it's going to be tough. The Republican very seriously fucked things up in an historic way. I don't know if there can be any plan other than damage control. Good things have already happened, though. It's pretty clear that Bush's dad's friends are taking over now so that George's stupidity and arrogance can't do any more damage. Rumsfeld, who will go down in history as the most incompetent secretary of defense in this country's history, is out. Cheney, the lone remaining neocon in Bush's inner circle, is being elbowed aside by James Baker III, a conservative pragamatist who favors results over ideology. Without a Democratic victory none of that would have happened. I think even without a "plan" there's no question that we are better off today than we were on Monday.

I'ld lay odds that they fuck it up though. They have a chance to keep both houses and get the presidency in '08. Too many of the DNC leadership though will try and push through thier pet "gun control" policies again even though most of the freshmen are pro-firearm. That'll cost them.

I'ld lay odds that they fuck it up though. They have a chance to keep both houses and get the presidency in '08. Too many of the DNC leadership though will try and push through thier pet "gun control" policies again even though most of the freshmen are pro-firearm. That'll cost them.
Yes that would be stupid if they did so. However my limited sources tell me that Democrats are increasingly abandoning gun control campaigns.

Even if they didn't, is gun control really a big enough issue for enough people to be willing to return the Republicans to power?

Yes that would be stupid if they did so. However my limited sources tell me that Democrats are increasingly abandoning gun control campaigns.

The juniors are, yes. The senior leadership supports it wholeheartedly.

Even if they didn't, is gun control really a big enough issue for enough people to be willing to return the Republicans to power?

Yes.

I'ld lay odds that they fuck it up though. They have a chance to keep both houses and get the presidency in '08. Too many of the DNC leadership though will try and push through thier pet "gun control" policies again even though most of the freshmen are pro-firearm. That'll cost them.

Nah, nationally most people are for reasonable gun control so I don't think that would hurt them. In any case Ithink they've got bigger things on their plate over the next two years so I doubt gun control will get much attention. The one conservative issue that I think can definately screw them, though, is immigration. They pass an amnesty, which Bush wouldn't only sign he'd jack off on it, and they lose next election. I'll tell you what, though. If they preside over a graceful exit from Iraq and they could pass laws allowing man-boy love and still win in the next election.

Even if they didn't, is gun control really a big enough issue for enough people to be willing to return the Republicans to power?

Yup.

The juniors are, yes. The senior leadership supports it wholeheartedly.
Can't get much more senior than Majority Leader of the Senate, and Senator Reid doesn't support gun control.

Can't get much more senior than Majority Leader of the Senate, and Senator Reid doesn't support gun control.

Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Feinstien, et al. sure do.

Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Feinstien, et al. sure do.

Is ther even e gun control bill on the table? I haven't even heard anyone talk about gun control in two years. It didn't even show up in the polls before the election as an issue people even cared about. I think they'll be occupies in other ways.

I don't even know what the REPUBLICAN Plan was, and they were in power for the last 12 years.

I don't even know what the REPUBLICAN Plan was, and they were in power for the last 12 years.

It's simple.

First, we smoke the evil doers out of their holes. Then we stay the course while freedom is on the march. Then the Iraqis stand up and we stnd down.

Done, done and done. :)

If they mainly focus on the tax hikes and having their continuous investigations on President Bush, the war, and Iraq then they will lose the Presidential Election of 08.


Good point. Being a republican that voted mainly democrat this election, I'd like to see the parties work together for the people they are supposed to represent.....

Now that you have stopped laughing..... Wouldn't it be nice if the dems actually try to do something positive for the country instead of retaliate for the past few years?

It's simple.

First, we smoke the evil doers out of their holes. Then we stay the course while freedom is on the march. Then the Iraqis stand up and we stnd down.

Done, done and done. :)

Hmmmm....

So where's Osama?

Hmmmm....

So where's Osama?


Is that anything like, Where's Waldo?

Good point. Being a republican that voted mainly democrat this election, I'd like to see the parties work together for the people they are supposed to represent.....

Now that you have stopped laughing..... Wouldn't it be nice if the dems actually try to do something positive for the country instead of retaliate for the past few years?

I still voted mostly Republican in my state of Washington. The dem's have had control of all sides for way to long and they have screwed up the state royaly.

But going to have to say I seen a big ole sign down the street today saying impeach Bush. So I would think it's safe to say that may be part of some Dem's plan. I personally believe that the far left part of the Democratic party is going to screw this opportunity up for them. I think if the moderates in the Democratic party do not take control then they will lose in 08 like the Republicans did in 06.

You don't have to agree with a plan for it to be a plan, Mr Moneybags.

Investigations are needed. Holding government accountable is essential in a democratic republic.

The reasoning I am against the minimum wage hike is mainly because it will ultimately be taken more money from the middle class.

No I am not "Mr Moneybags". I live paycheck to paycheck. I do, however, make a reasonable amount more than minimum wage. I would be classified as the middle class, although, I feel I'm on the lower part of the middle-class spectrum.

If you raise minimum wage you can also expect higher prices for purchases. Corporations and other businesses will pass the minimum wage hike onto the consumers. You raise minimum raise, I will not get that high of an increase in my wages. I will still get my annual raise which in todays times I feel is insufficiant with today's cost of living. It seems that prices on everything is raising and wages get a measly raise each year. Therefore, you will be making the Middle-Class even poorer.

I never said that investigations aren't necessary. I just don't want them to mainly focus on it. The time is to move forward not focus on the past.

Is that anything like, Where's Waldo?


Remember most people can find Waldo.

Hmmmm....

So where's Osama?

I wanna be the education president. :)

Repair our damaged nation, root out the crooks and scoundrals responsible, bring a reasonable and competent approach to our disasterous adventure in iraq, make our country once again respectable in the world, work towards fixing health care, save the people money by empowering the government to negotiate with phraceutical companies, like other civilized countries do, raise the minimum wage, find a reasonable solution to immigration, end the era of irresponsible, unethical, despicable laws which have been passed in the last four years, protect our freedom and our civil liberties, bring scientific facts back into decision making, fund necessary research like stem cells, limit the corrupting factor of political christianism in government...

There's your website, ace.

These are in fact great talking points, but a little sparce on the details. [bring reasonable and competant appraoch to our disasterous adventure in iraq] is basically as close as they've goten to a plan forward. For a party that has had 8 years to complain about the direction of the country, they've done little in actually outlining their move forward. In what way will raising the minimum wage help the middle class ? Which is SUPPOSIDLY their focus this time around. I know Im making more money then 5.15, so I only really plan to see higher prices at my local grosery store as they pass the bill onto me.

And all the other subjects you've touched on are all topics they will be unable to move on unless they are prepared to compromise with republicans, given their slim majority. If they wouldn't compromise with republicans before on these issues, why would this suddenly change now ?

But going to have to say I seen a big ole sign down the street today saying impeach Bush. So I would think it's safe to say that may be part of some Dem's plan. I personally believe that the far left part of the Democratic party is going to screw this opportunity up for them. I think if the moderates in the Democratic party do not take control then they will lose in 08 like the Republicans did in 06.

That's becoming the increasing consensus among an awful lot of moderates, if the D's come across as foaming at the mouth partisans, it's going to hurt them bad. Think 1996 for the R's.

Remember most people can find Waldo.

Not to mention that there's actually efforts made to look for Waldo in the United States. Can't say that much about Osama, since Dear Leader disbanded the Bin Ladin Busters.

Is ther even e gun control bill on the table? I haven't even heard anyone talk about gun control in two years. It didn't even show up in the polls before the election as an issue people even cared about. I think they'll be occupies in other ways.

I can foresee the Dems trying to revive the assault weapons ban (perhaps the biggest joke of anti-gun legislation ever created), but I don't think the President would sign it into law. Now...knowing that, they might attach it as a ryder to something important, forcing the President to sign it--that's the only reason there needs to be a line-item veto for the President.

If they honestly think that gun control will win them any support, the Democrats are seriously out of touch with the public. Oh wait...they all ready are out of touch with the public.

If they honestly think that gun control will win them any support, the Democrats are seriously out of touch with the public. Oh wait...they all ready are out of touch with the public.

Gun control agendas don't kill American troops in Iraq every day now does it?

Remember most people can find Waldo.


Quoted cause that was too damned funny!

You're in Washington too? My condolences.

Good point. Being a republican that voted mainly democrat this election, I'd like to see the parties work together for the people they are supposed to represent.....

Now that you have stopped laughing..... Wouldn't it be nice if the dems actually try to do something positive for the country instead of retaliate for the past few years?

You know, most here on NS claim me to be a neocon, Republican, or what ever else, which is fine. It's their opinions.

I think that both the Republican direction and also the Democrat direction will be the wrong direction. I personally feel much safer and secure and overall better about the middle roads.

So now since this election is over, there is more of a balance of power. I feel that the American People have spoken Loud and Clear. I don't feel that that message was directed only towards the Republicans but also the Democrats. I believe that the American People are tired of watching the 2 sides bicker and fighting over everything. The time has come for the politicians to pull together and do what is Right for America. They both need to reach that middle roads. The Democrats have been given a chance by the People so now we will see if the Democrats and Republicans will start acting "For the People".

Gun control agendas don't kill American troops in Iraq every day now does it?

Are you kidding? The Dems want to pass gun control laws that will effect the troops as well. No more assault weapons or hand guns for our troops. Just hunting rifles and only if they get a license after a waiting period.

Gun control agendas don't kill American troops in Iraq every day now does it?

Soldiers die in war.

Hmmmm....

So where's Osama?

Well I believe one of the two:

1. He's hiding in some hole somewheres.

2. His health is in question, which brings me to the possibility that he may already be dead.

Bottom Line: He's obviously the coward he is since he has to send others to do his evil doings.

You know, most here on NS claim me to be a neocon, Republican, or what ever else, which is fine. It's their opinions.

I think that both the Republican direction and also the Democrat direction will be the wrong direction. I personally feel much safer and secure and overall better about the middle roads.

So now since this election is over, there is more of a balance of power. I feel that the American People have spoken Loud and Clear. I don't feel that that message was directed only towards the Republicans but also the Democrats. I believe that the American People are tired of watching the 2 sides bicker and fighting over everything. The time has come for the politicians to pull together and do what is Right for America. They both need to reach that middle roads. The Democrats have been given a chance by the People so now we will see if the Democrats and Republicans will start acting "For the People".
No. This was directed squarely at President Bush. It was aimed right between his eyes and it hit it's intended target dead on. This was about 3,000 dead American soldiers piled up on Bush's front porch while Iraq burns in his front yard.

Soldiers die in war.

In this case, a completely unnecessary war started by an out of touch Bushevik administration who lied and flip-flopped on a justification. End result? Terrorism is increasing thanks in part to Dear Leader turning Iraq into World of Jihadcraft.

Democrats, out of touch? The flag-draped caskets come with an elephant stamp, kiddo.

Bottom Line: He's obviously the coward he is since he has to send others to do his evil doings.

You realize that you have just given the definition of every single national leader in the world?

You know, most here on NS claim me to be a neocon, Republican, or what ever else, which is fine. It's their opinions.

I think that both the Republican direction and also the Democrat direction will be the wrong direction. I personally feel much safer and secure and overall better about the middle roads.

So now since this election is over, there is more of a balance of power. I feel that the American People have spoken Loud and Clear. I don't feel that that message was directed only towards the Republicans but also the Democrats. I believe that the American People are tired of watching the 2 sides bicker and fighting over everything. The time has come for the politicians to pull together and do what is Right for America. They both need to reach that middle roads. The Democrats have been given a chance by the People so now we will see if the Democrats and Republicans will start acting "For the People".

This election was not a vote for the Democrats; it was a vote against the Republicans. There are four ways to vote in any US election: directly for/against a candidate or indirectly for/against a candidate.

When the public gets tired of two sides bickering (I doubt they ever will because we, as a whole, are stupid creatures that too easily cling to ingrained ideas), you will see a surge of the third parties. I hope to one day see the Libertarians elected to Congress and, eventually, the Whitehouse...

In this case, a completely unnecessary war started by an out of touch Bushevik administration who lied and flip-flopped on a justification. End result? Terrorism is increasing thanks in part to Dear Leader turning Iraq into World of Jihadcraft.

Democrats, out of touch? The flag-draped caskets come with an elephant stamp, kiddo.

A) There's a difference between lying and being wrong. If you haven't realized the difference yet by this stage in your life, you have something wrong with your grasp of the language.

B) Terrorism is increasing. Fueled by our existance on this earth much more so than our existance in Iraq.

C) Bushevik? That's not even original. Tsk, tsk.

D) I'm not a Republican and I loathe them as much as the Democrats--I don't see a difference between the two. Both want to tax the life out of me and make me bow to a statist government that runs my life for me.

No thank you, kiddo.

I hope to one day see the Libertarians elected to Congress and, eventually, the Whitehouse...

We can dream. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this country who simply refuse to even think of voting for another party candidate because they don't think they can win and it would be wasting a vote. And if NSG is any indication, most people refuse to contemplate doign anyhtig other than voting strict Party lines.

But yeah, I hope that happens too. And the sooner the better.

This election was not a vote for the Democrats; it was a vote against the Republicans.

Which is why democrats best take this opprotunity seriously. Or we will only see more republicans rise again in 08

We can dream. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this country who simply refuse to even think of voting for another party candidate because they don't think they can win and it would be wasting a vote.

That's the bane of the two-party system. Both have such a hold over the public that people refuse to even entertain the idea of voting for another party.


But yeah, I hope that happens too. And the sooner the better.

It will happen, I believe, when people get sick of voting for whomever they perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

Which is why democrats best take this opprotunity seriously. Or we will only see more republicans rise again in 08

Again, I see no difference between the two. Both actively mine away at personal freedoms and both follow a "we know what's better for you than you do, Mr. Joe American" policy. They're two factions cut from the same cloth.

This election was not a vote for the Democrats; it was a vote against the Republicans.

And 2+2=5.

And 2+2=5.

Why yes. Yes, it does.

Again, I see no difference between the two. Both actively mine away at personal freedoms and both follow a "we know what's better for you than you do, Mr. Joe American" policy. They're two factions cut from the same cloth.

It just comes down to that old saying, Republican is the party of bad ideas, while Democrat is the party of no ideas...

Why yes. Yes, it does.

For someone who claims to be a Libertarian you're sounding apologist on behalf of the Bushevik Republicans (not to be confused with actual, sensible Republicans):

This election was not a vote for the Democrats; it was a vote against the Republicans

A) There's a difference between lying and being wrong.

This election was not a vote for the Democrats; it was a vote against the Republicans.

That may be incidently plausible, but you cannot disregard a full victory by the democrats, particularly with the current circumstances. The Republicans messed up, and people may be looking for a new way instead of simply a way to frighten the conservatives.

For someone who claims to be a Libertarian you're sounding apologist on behalf of the Bushevik Republicans (not to be confused with actual, sensible Republicans):

I'm sounding "apologist" because the President didn't lie. That doesn't mean I don't believe the war is wrong. The war is wrong because the US--much less any other nation--doesn't have the right to march over there and flip the country upside-down. We have our own problems on our own shores; we don't need to be causing more of them in other nations.

Afghanistan was a fully-justified war. That's where we should be focusing our attention. Not Iraq.

But, all that said, I don't believe the President lied. Operated under horribly false information and jumped the gun on making war? Yes. Lied? No.

And the only "sensible" Republicans are the ones who've abandoned their party and become Libertarians.

That may be incidently plausible, but you cannot disregard a full victory by the democrats, particularly with the current circumstances. The Republicans messed up, and people may be looking for a new way instead of simply a way to frighten the conservatives.

The situation came down to "Republicans = bad; anyone else = better than them." The Democrats were the means to an end: removing the Republicans from power.

I can't say I'm disappointed that the Republicans don't control the Congress because I'm not. I am disappointed, however, that the Democrats control it and won't do anything constructive with their majority.

If you raise minimum wage you can also expect higher prices for purchases.
The cost of living continues to go up, yet you don't think that entry level jobs should keep pace? By not keeping pace, the low end earner goes deeper into poverty. The US has the worst poverty level of all 17 OECD countries.

Corporations and other businesses will pass the minimum wage hike onto the consumers.
I guess that is the cost of doing business?

You raise minimum raise, I will not get that high of an increase in my wages.
Why not? I thought that you said that the corporations and other businesses will pass the minimum wage hike onto the consumer? Do the employers also expect to take the increase out of their employees pockets as well?

I will still get my annual raise which in todays times I feel is insufficiant with today's cost of living.
Doesn't your employer give you a raise that meets the cost of living increase? No? Why not?

It seems that prices on everything is raising and wages get a measly raise each year. Therefore, you will be making the Middle-Class even poorer.
That is where that HUGE tax cut that Bush gave you helps out? :rolleyes:

I guess the Bush economy is not doing so well after all then?

Why yes. Yes, it does.

For sufficiently high values of 2, anyway.

But, all that said, I don't believe the President lied. Operated under horribly false information and jumped the gun on making war? Yes. Lied? No.

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

Riiiiight.... Apologist.

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

Riiiiight.... Apologist.

Because an undisputedly bias article hosted on an equally bias website speaks so much of credibility.

Call me an apologist. I really don't give a damn. All I want is freedom--that's why I'm a Libertarian.

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

Riiiiight.... Apologist.

Anyone with a bit of intelligence knew that Iraq was going to be invaded. Even if 9-11 did not happen it was still planned. Was living in the UK in 2000. Was at a few parties and people were talking about the elections. I told people then that the US would invade Iraq if Bush was elected. Also told them that the UK was going to be involved. Very few actually agreed with me. In fact the one that most agreed with me was an older gentlemen that worked for the Ministry of Defence. So people understood even before he was elected that there was going to be a war. As a participant in the Gulf War I did want to see the job finished. That is one of my motivations for voting for Bush the first time.

I'm sounding "apologist" because the President didn't lie. That doesn't mean I don't believe the war is wrong. The war is wrong because the US--much less any other nation--doesn't have the right to march over there and flip the country upside-down. We have our own problems on our own shores; we don't need to be causing more of them in other nations.

Afghanistan was a fully-justified war. That's where we should be focusing our attention. Not Iraq.

But, all that said, I don't believe the President lied. Operated under horribly false information and jumped the gun on making war? Yes. Lied? No.

And the only "sensible" Republicans are the ones who've abandoned their party and become Libertarians.
Did Bush lie?

http://members.aol.com/okkep/truth.gif

Hopefully, the Dems will find what is out there?

Did Bush lie?

http://members.aol.com/okkep/truth.gif

Hopefully, the Dems will find what is out there?

Endless investigations will only kill the Democrats chance for a '08 presidential bid. Even if it is warranted people will still punish the Dem's for investigation after investigation.

Anyone with a bit of intelligence knew that Iraq was going to be invaded. Even if 9-11 did not happen it was still planned. Was living in the UK in 2000. Was at a few parties and people were talking about the elections. I told people then that the US would invade Iraq if Bush was elected. Also told them that the UK was going to be involved. Very few actually agreed with me. In fact the one that most agreed with me was an older gentlemen that worked for the Ministry of Defence. So people understood even before he was elected that there was going to be a war. As a participant in the Gulf War I did want to see the job finished. That is one of my motivations for voting for Bush the first time.
Was it worth all the money ($300 Billion), and all the lives (both American and Iraqi), to finally get a 69 year old toothless tabbie?

Yup, 150,000 troops to nail Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11), versus 20,000 troops to "smoke" Bin Laden (America's # 1 priority????) out of his cave.

Somehow, this equation doesn't seem to work.

Was it worth all the money ($300 Billion), and all the lives (both American and Iraqi), to finally get a 69 year old toothless tabbie?

Yup, 150,000 troops to nail Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11), versus 20,000 troops to "smoke" Bin Laden (America's # 1 priority????) out of his cave.

Somehow, this equation doesn't seem to work.

Unfortunately not. We should have been concentrating on Afghanistan (and still should be!).

Was it worth all the money ($300 Billion), and all the lives (both American and Iraqi), to finally get a 69 year old toothless tabbie?

Yup, 150,000 troops to nail Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11), versus 20,000 troops to "smoke" Bin Laden (America's # 1 priority????) out of his cave.

Somehow, this equation doesn't seem to work.

If you ask anyone that lost a loved one if it was worth it. I would imagine it would be not. If you ask our grandchildren whom most likely will still be paying for it. Most likely not.

However one thing that we can never know is how much it would cost us if we did not invade. Remember that we have alot of terrorist tied down in Iraq. Without Iraq they would be plotting and planning an attack on America or a target of America. Could we afford another 9-11? The cost of that was 3,000 lives and a immense sum of money.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp

We do not know what we have avoided by invading Iraq. We will never know really. But I do know that 9-11 cost us alot in lives and money. How much money would it cost us with a couple more 9-11 type attacks? Anyway I am not justifying the war in Iraq. But there is different ways to look at what we are doing. The way I just laid out is one thing to consider.

Endless investigations will only kill the Democrats chance for a '08 presidential bid. Even if it is warranted people will still punish the Dem's for investigation after investigation.
I don't think so. I think many people want to know the truth. Many believe they were lied to and they want answers?

I know that I would want to know the truth.

I don't think so. I think many people want to know the truth. Many believe they were lied to and they want answers?

I know that I would want to know the truth.

Sure so do I. But I am purely talking about political manuevering. I think it would politically be a bad thing for the Democrats. Do I think it is morally right to find out why we did something? Yes I would like to know. Politics and the truth however are on two different wavelengths.

If you ask anyone that lost a loved one if it was worth it. I would imagine it would be not. If you ask our grandchildren whom most likely will still be paying for it. Most likely not.

However one thing that we can never know is how much it would cost us if we did not invade. Remember that we have alot of terrorist tied down in Iraq. Without Iraq they would be plotting and planning an attack on America or a target of America. Could we afford another 9-11? The cost of that was 3,000 lives and a immense sum of money.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp

We do not know what we have avoided by invading Iraq. We will never know really. But I do know that 9-11 cost us alot in lives and money. How much money would it cost us with a couple more 9-11 type attacks? Anyway I am not justifying the war in Iraq. But there is different ways to look at what we are doing. The way I just laid out is one thing to consider.
You say that the US has a lot of terrorists tied down in Iraq but I guess you are not considering the long term effects of this unholy war? Terrorist cells are springing up everywhere as a direct result of the war on Iraq. Worldwide terrorism is up 58% from last year.

Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html)

Study Doesn’t Share Bush’s Optimism on Terror Fight (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html?ex=1317009600&en=a12d4ca8e444fc07&ei=5090=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ei=5088&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ex=1316750400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

Now, you have a lot more terrorists plotting against the US. Yet, you somehow feel safer that they are fighting them over there and not in the US? Where was the birthplace of the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists? Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Methinks you continue to support a truly failed ideolgy.

I think it is important that your country tries to find the truth and fix the broken bridges before it is too late.

The cost of living continues to go up, yet you don't think that entry level jobs should keep pace? By not keeping pace, the low end earner goes deeper into poverty. The US has the worst poverty level of all 17 OECD countries.
Why should we care about how many people are in poverty?

Sure so do I. But I am purely talking about political manuevering. I think it would politically be a bad thing for the Democrats. Do I think it is morally right to find out why we did something? Yes I would like to know. Politics and the truth however are on two different wavelengths.


From both sides of the field. Both Democrats and Republicans are known for their lies and deceit of the American People.

You say that the US has a lot of terrorists tied down in Iraq but I guess you are not considering the long term effects of this unholy war? Terrorist cells are springing up everywhere as a direct result of the war on Iraq. Worldwide terrorism is up 58% from last year.

Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html)

Study Doesn’t Share Bush’s Optimism on Terror Fight (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html?ex=1317009600&en=a12d4ca8e444fc07&ei=5090=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ei=5088&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ex=1316750400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

Now, you have a lot more terrorists plotting against the US. Yet, you somehow feel safer that they are fighting them over there and not in the US? Where was the birthplace of the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists? Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Methinks you continue to support a truly failed ideolgy.

I think it is important that your country tries to find the truth and fix the broken bridges before it is too late.

So what is your plan then. You obviously don't like the current Plan. What is yours to sit down and do Nothing and have a couple attacks per year.

I actually like the Plan to bring them out of their sleepers, to bring them out of hiding instead of pretending that terrorism isn't a major problem.

It's easier to hit something if you can see it not if it's in hiding waiting for your back to be turned. Prime example: 9/11.

Let's bring the terrorists into the open. And Destroy them like the parasites they are.

You say that the US has a lot of terrorists tied down in Iraq but I guess you are not considering the long term effects of this unholy war? Terrorist cells are springing up everywhere as a direct result of the war on Iraq. Worldwide terrorism is up 58% from last year.



Now, you have a lot more terrorists plotting against the US. Yet, you somehow feel safer that they are fighting them over there and not in the US? Where was the birthplace of the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists? Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Methinks you continue to support a truly failed ideolgy.

I think it is important that your country tries to find the truth and fix the broken bridges before it is too late.


Well I believe that I see something different then perhaps you. For one I speak and can read in Arabic. Half of my family is of the "Arabic" group of people. So I am saying this with a little knowledge of the Arab world. I do believe this to be true that we have alot of terrorist tied down. I would consider this a fact from what I have heard from military friends and what I have gleened reading Arabic sites.

As far as the US and the west creating more terrorist. What is happening in my opinion is the light has been shown on the cockroaches in the room. We saw a few cockroaches over the years now we are seeing the whole thing. When I say cockroaches I specifically am meaning the radicalized wing of Islam. One thing people fail to understand is that there are some that will hate us just because the West does not share the values of the radicals. They would kill me as fast as they would kill you. Although I am a muslim and I am assuming your not. They see no difference between us. All they see is that we are people with Westren values. I wish they would write their hate web sites in English so that more people can truly understand the depth of the problem. However you will only have to take it from those that can read them that they are truly a threat. So that is the angle I am coming from. If you still disagree then fine.

Nah, nationally most people are for reasonable gun control so I don't think that would hurt them. In any case Ithink they've got bigger things on their plate over the next two years so I doubt gun control will get much attention. The one conservative issue that I think can definately screw them, though, is immigration. They pass an amnesty, which Bush wouldn't only sign he'd jack off on it, and they lose next election. I'll tell you what, though. If they preside over a graceful exit from Iraq and they could pass laws allowing man-boy love and still win in the next election.
lol That's pushing it a little far... a mile or so.

Sure so do I. But I am purely talking about political manuevering. I think it would politically be a bad thing for the Democrats. Do I think it is morally right to find out why we did something? Yes I would like to know. Politics and the truth however are on two different wavelengths.
The future of your country could depend on finding out the truth. You can't see that? BOTH parties should work together to discover the truths and help America to be the best she can be. The lessons need to be learned so the mistakes will not be repeated.

Things like this, do not help the cause:

Bechtel's billions down the drain (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK10Ak02.html)

This guy did not help the cause:

Bush: Rumsfeld stepping down (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/rumsfeld.ap/index.html)

Toss in faulty intel, Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, Paul Bremmer's policies, Halliburton, Fallujah, UN Security Council refusal to endorse, huge death toll, and worldwide opinion, and you have the Iraq disaster.

The future of your country could depend on finding out the truth. You can't see that? BOTH parties should work together to discover the truths and help America to be the best she can be. The lessons need to be learned so the mistakes will not be repeated.

.

Yes I do see the point your making. However with the political climate we have in our modern times it can't be done objectively. There will be to much political posturing and manuevering for the findings part of it to actually help the nation. I think it will have a disasterous outcome for the nation to have such a circus. I would like to know every bit of it so I can make up my own mind. However if that would mean more harm then good. Then I would pass on it and change the only thing that I can, the future.

When I say cockroaches I specifically am meaning the radicalized wing of Islam. One thing people fail to understand is that there are some that will hate us just because the West does not share the values of the radicals. They would kill me as fast as they would kill you. Although I am a muslim and I am assuming your not. They see no difference between us. All they see is that we are people with Westren values. I wish they would write their hate web sites in English so that more people can truly understand the depth of the problem. However you will only have to take it from those that can read them that they are truly a threat. So that is the angle I am coming from. If you still disagree then fine.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but you know, I find it ironic that you suggest that I should be able to read the hateful Arabic sites in English. Well, I have seen the equivalent hateful attitude towards Muslims on the English sites here. They are no different. There are extremists on both sides of this issue and they both are in the wrong. Heck, I have even seen the hate right here on NS. The ethnic slurs, the calls for genocide, and the bitter hatred....right here on NS. I am not trying to justify the radical Muslims actions but we should remember that western countries have been intrusive in Middle East policies for over 60 years, and we can now see the results of those intrusions?

I appreciate where you are coming from, but you know, I find it ironic that you suggest that I should be able to read the hateful Arabic sites in English. Well, I have seen the equivalent hateful attitude towards Muslims on the English sites here. They are no different. There are extremists on both sides of this issue and they both are in the wrong. Heck, I have even seen the hate right here on NS. The ethnic slurs, the calls for genocide, and the bitter hatred....right here on NS. I am not trying to justify the radical Muslims actions but we should remember that western countries have been intrusive in Middle East policies for over 60 years, and we can now see the results of those intrusions?

Absolutely there are radicals on both sides. It is up to us to know who they are and stop them. Either through political suppression, dialog and reason or if need be kill them on the battlefield. As far as Westren involvement in the middle east. Absolutely we have done no favors for ourselves in that arena. I can see where some anger and frustration comes from. But religious radical ideology and being mad about how the West has treated ones country are two completely seperate issues. The religious radicals are far more dangerous then the ones that are pissed because the West treated country X in a bad manner.

Yes I do see the point your making. However with the political climate we have in our modern times it can't be done objectively. There will be to much political posturing and manuevering for the findings part of it to actually help the nation. I think it will have a disasterous outcome for the nation to have such a circus. I would like to know every bit of it so I can make up my own mind. However if that would mean more harm then good. Then I would pass on it and change the only thing that I can, the future.
You can't change the future. You can only change today. If you fix the wrongs of the past today, then you might effect a better tomorrow.

But religious radical ideology and being mad about how the West has treated ones country are two completely seperate issues.
There is no religious radical ideology in the US today? Americans aren't lashing out against people they believe attacked their country? Heck, Americans are lashing out against a country (Iraq) that didn't attack their country, while ignoring where the majority of the attackers came from (Saudi Arabia).

The religious radicals are far more dangerous then the ones that are pissed because the West treated country X in a bad manner.
Perhaps the problem on both sides is that they are looking at each others religion instead of looking at the man?

the republican party is the party of bad ideas...the democratic party is the party...of no ideas. the democrats didnt win anything on tuesday, they just had to sit back and wait for people to get so sick of the republican's bad ideas. nothing will change now, sure bush will use his veto power more often, but none of the issues will be taken care of, we'll still be in iraq and it wont matter really.

the republican party is the party of bad ideas...the democratic party is the party...of no ideas. the democrats didnt win anything on tuesday, they just had to sit back and wait for people to get so sick of the republican's bad ideas. nothing will change now, sure bush will use his veto power more often, but none of the issues will be taken care of, we'll still be in iraq and it wont matter really.

Well, most of us Americans have hope. I really do Hope they accomplish instead of constant bickering and such. I Hope that our politicians will meet at the middle roads. They all seem to claim and use that word "bipartisan" oh so much. So I Hope......

Well, most of us Americans have hope. I really do Hope they accomplish instead of constant bickering and such. I Hope that our politicians will meet at the middle roads. They all seem to claim and use that word "bipartisan" oh so much. So I Hope......

dont we all

but pelosi as speaker aint gonna make life much easier. Howard dean as DNC chair and pelosi as speaker...wow..what a great combination...

The situation came down to "Republicans = bad; anyone else = better than them." The Democrats were the means to an end: removing the Republicans from power.

I can't say I'm disappointed that the Republicans don't control the Congress because I'm not. I am disappointed, however, that the Democrats control it and won't do anything constructive with their majority.

the republican party is the party of bad ideas...the democratic party is the party...of no ideas. the democrats didnt win anything on tuesday, they just had to sit back and wait for people to get so sick of the republican's bad ideas. nothing will change now, sure bush will use his veto power more often, but none of the issues will be taken care of, we'll still be in iraq and it wont matter really.
What are tomorrow's lottery numbers going to be, since you guys are so good at predicting the future? Even King B managed to wake up this morning aglow with a brand new hope. What's your problem? Go back in the thread, look over the Dem points I posted earlier, and make some comments, why don't you?

So what is your plan then. You obviously don't like the current Plan. What is yours to sit down and do Nothing and have a couple attacks per year.
First plan would be to get out of Iraq asap. Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I actually like the Plan to bring them out of their sleepers, to bring them out of hiding instead of pretending that terrorism isn't a major problem.
So then you would support an invasion of Saudi Arabia?

It's easier to hit something if you can see it not if it's in hiding waiting for your back to be turned. Prime example: 9/11.
Well if you want to hit them, you are in the wrong country. Prime example 15 of 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi arabia. How many were there from Iraq? Oh yeah, that's right....ZERO!!

Let's bring the terrorists into the open. And Destroy them like the parasites they are.
Apparently the strategy has failed? And again, perhaps you are in the wrong country? BTW, when are you suiting up to go over there and do your part of defending America?

What would happen if we left iraq in the next six months? More likely then not there would a cuop to overthrow the unstable goverment resulting a civil war causing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths and the world will blame the U.S. for that.

Raise the min. wage, investigate, and get us out of Iraq. simple really.

Only one problem with raising the min. wage: by doing so you also raise businesses' overhead, leaving them without enough money to pay their employees as much as they would like (and the employees need), thereby causing them to have to lay off people, which means FEWER U.S. Jobs and MORE OUTSOURCING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. As if we didn't have enough of that going on already.

Repair our damaged nation, root out the crooks and scoundrals responsible, bring a reasonable and competent approach to our disasterous adventure in iraq, make our country once again respectable in the world, work towards fixing health care, save the people money by empowering the government to negotiate with phraceutical companies, like other civilized countries do, raise the minimum wage, find a reasonable solution to immigration, end the era of irresponsible, unethical, despicable laws which have been passed in the last four years, protect our freedom and our civil liberties, bring scientific facts back into decision making, fund necessary research like stem cells, limit the corrupting factor of political christianism in government...

There's your website, ace.

Oh, so in other words, Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and anybody like them are automatically crooks, scoundrels, irresponsible, and despicable, but liberals, Democrats, and the like are automatically sinless, holy, sacrosanct saints who are above reproach, is THAT what you're saying?
(Which is not to say that W. has done a good job)

Some people just don't get it. :headbang:

The Democrats are for Big Government and Tax Hikes. That's probably why they want a minimum wage hike because if you give the poor a raise and also raise taxes (which is inevitable) gives their Big Government more money. :headbang:

That's EXACTLY right: Big, Ever-Growing Government, and Perpetual Tax Hikes - THAT's what the Democrats are all about. That and getting rid of any means of defending yourself from "your" government (gun control).

And some people just don't get that making these kinds of generalzations will do nothing for the debate and can get you a nice warning for trolling.

And I find it surpremely ironic that you whine about Democrats making BIG government when the largest government increase in history has been under President George W Bush and a Rebuplican controlled Congress.
Funny how under Bush and Republican rule, we've now got the biggest Government ever.

George W. Bush, in increasing the size of the government, is the exception, not the rule.

The general rule is:
Democrats like Big Gov't and Tax Increases
Republicans like Small Gov't and Tax Cuts

But there ARE exceptions, and W. is one of them.

What are tomorrow's lottery numbers going to be, since you guys are so good at predicting the future? Even King B managed to wake up this morning aglow with a brand new hope. What's your problem? Go back in the thread, look over the Dem points I posted earlier, and make some comments, why don't you?

The Democrats will do nothing constructive for this nation because they are as incapable of it as the Republicans. Both parties only serve themselves.

Only one problem with raising the min. wage: by doing so you also raise businesses' overhead, leaving them without enough money to pay their employees as much as they would like (and the employees need), thereby causing them to have to lay off people, which means FEWER U.S. Jobs and MORE OUTSOURCING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. As if we didn't have enough of that going on already.
My personal take on that is.....if a company has to rely on paying workers a minimum wage without increases then it probably shouldn't be in business in the first place.

In regards to your concern:

Hundreds of Economists Say: Raise the Minimum Wage (http://www.epi.org/minwage/epi_minimum_wage_2006.pdf)

(Which is not to say that W. has done a good job)
I think many can agree on that.

That's EXACTLY right: Big, Ever-Growing Government, and Perpetual Tax Hikes - THAT's what the Democrats are all about. That and getting rid of any means of defending yourself from "your" government (gun control).
I guess the Clinton years were an anomaly? :p

George W. Bush, in increasing the size of the government, is the exception, not the rule.
A 6 year exception that has increased the US debt by almost $2 Trillion dollars, with huge annual deficits.

Apparently the Republican duo of Reagan/Bush the Elder also liked to grow the National Debt?

I see a pattern here:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

The general rule is:
Democrats like Big Gov't and Tax Increases
Republicans like Small Gov't and Tax Cuts
It appears that the general rule doesn't apply when Republicans hold the highest office?

But there ARE exceptions, and W. is one of them.
Bush has been a bust!!

The Democrats will do nothing constructive for this nation because they are as incapable of it as the Republicans. Both parties only serve themselves.
And the alternative to the two main stream parties is the Libertarians, which garner about 1 to 2% of the total vote?

I guess you will always be on the outside looking in? At least you will always be able to complain. :p

they got two years to make fools of themselves im american i know

The Democrats will do nothing constructive for this nation because they are as incapable of it as the Republicans. Both parties only serve themselves.
Details? Examples? Line of reasoning? Anything at all to explain how you reached this opinion? How about a line of reasoning that shows that it is impossible to do something constructive for the nation that also serves the interests of the party? Go back to the plans I outlined and show how these would serve only the party and not the nation. Something like that. If you have an argument, make it.