OK, I'll jump in....
Let's go point to point.
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
I'm not a regular on this forum anymore but I'll take your bait Andy  
And certainly I'm not the only democrat on this forum. I suspect a sizable number is.
This is going to sound very unorganized but I have many different things to say
|
I don't have any trouble in it being unorganized, let's begin....
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
1. We democrats (not liberals by the way) won because of the hardheadedness of the president. I was never for the war and still not. But I understand we are there now and can't change the fact. But what we're doing is not working as planned yet there is no proposed changes --- from either side. I'm pleased to see Bush as released the sec of state (though I wonder if he would of done so had the republican kept congress). I think Bolton's out as well.
And I really think you guys could of kept congress had Bush fired Rumsfeld in october as part of a political move to keep congress.
|
The
Liberals are who won in this election...plain and simple. You need only look at the plained majority leader, whip, or any of the other already named party heads....they
are not just democrats, they are hard-line LIBERALS. You're not the type of democrat who will hold/control power in this house/senate.....they will.
The war is a much more simple concept. The "War on terror" isn't a war against a country, or a state...but a war on a mindset, an idea. We can not point to any particular country and say "Everyone" in that country is a terrorist!", but Rather to a regime/political system or group, sometimes sponsored by a state/country. It's not like WWII or any other war before, where whole countries were the targets of our aggression. We therefore can not simply "Bomb them back to the stone age!" or solve this problem in a simplistic way.
We must seek out the large sponsors first, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Cutting off the funding, bases, and relative safety that these people have enjoined up until now.
But just as any journey begins with one small step, We have to start this war somewhere...and the most obvious places were Iraq and Afghanistan.
Were these the only places that "Terrorists" were/are? NO!
Will the "War on terror" be over when we are finished there? NO!
Will it make a Huge difference when we establish a fledgling democrocy there. Yes!, Yes it will!
Terrorist exist because of ignorance, exploitation.
Knowledge/Freedom kills these conditions.
If we succeed, the end will be in sight for this madness. Freedom will only have a new and fertile "Soil" in which to grow.
What you and I see in the media is .001% of the real story in Iraq/Afganistan. Ask any vets/solders who are there, we have made Unbeleivable progress there!
But good news dosen't sell, It also dosen't sell your agenda.
The Media
Does Not = the truth... never has, never will.
What you will hear from the vets is that because of the BS on the media, they are getting their "Hands tied" on effectively dealing with the trouble in the theater of operations.
The Republicans and bush, need, if anything, to be
more Conservative. That is what won them virtually every race from 1992 on. RINO's (Republican In Name Only) are what has lost it for us. Like McCain, Etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
2. As far as massachusets is concerned, I find nothing wrong with thier politians - including kennedy, kerry, and the newly elected black governor, as well as the other elected officials. Likewise, I find nothing wrong with the ultra conservative states politicians. See, the people vote in who they want. And Kennedy and Kerry wouldn't keep winning elections unless they weren't who the people of the state want. Not all states or people who live there are what people who live on the opposite side of the country want them to be.
I understand your anger though for those republicans that live in Mass.
|
Wow! Nothing wrong with Kennedy? To Quote a true bumper sticker "Ted Kennedy has killed more people than all of my guns put together!"
Kerry's a whole series of posts in/of himself.
I don't know the new governor, so I can't comment.
If the state votes someone in, that is that. The trouble is the ignorance/apathy in the general populace. They will ***** about how bad it is, but not do anything to change it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
3. As far as congress's agenda is concerned
I'd like to see talk of national health insurance, immigration, and social security. We haven't seen this serouis talk in 5 years.
As far as the rumers of impeachment - as much as I'd like to see it happen (come on the Clinton impeachment was the repulbican's attempt to overthrow the president for no valid reason) it's not going to be discussed unless something new happens. I think impeachment proceedings wouldn't hurt the democrats in 08 but it won't help them as much as getting more of a grip on the other issues I mentioned - insurance, immigration, and social security.{SNIP}
|
You need only look to our friends in Canada on how Poorly "National Health care" works. My whole family is from there....Many save their money and come here to get things done. others just do without. Government isn't who I/we want running this...they suck at
ALL social programs.
And unless
->you<- are paying for it yourself, I already pay for mine/my family's...with My hard earned money. If someone needs it, let
Them pay for their own. I support more than enough freeloaders with my tax dollars now. I will not support any more.
Immigration is a whole nother Pandora's box. But the very first thing that need to be done is to secure the borders. Until that is done
EVERYTHING else is a moot point.
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
4. As far as who will run for President, I'm assuming McCain will get the republican nod. It's way too early to tell though. As far as the democratic side is concerned I see either Clinton, Kerry, or Obama. I think either would do about the same (both general election results and the job should they be president). Like Bill Clinton or not, the democrats and many independants did. I think by giving Hilary the nomination you will get a lot of votes. I don't think she can beat McCain simply because she is a woman as well as the fact that Mccain is a moderate. Obama stands a good chance. He'll get the democratic black vote and the blue collar democrats will vote for him as well because he's not "black" in the sense. {SNIP}
|
If McCain runs, and gets the nod... the Republicans are done. McCain isn't a moderate, he's a RINO, he would cost the republicans the election for sure.
Look for Hitlery being your canidate....not 100% yet, but it's looking like that.
Kerry almost won the first time? Hahahahaha! check your numbers, Largest voter turn out EVER!, Largest vote gap EVER!
It wasn't even close.....
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
5. Just a touch on guns
Now we know certain politicians are anti gun. Democrats are not going to take away guns. Consider the number of gun owning democrats. Agree with it or not, democrats make up a HUGE number of gun owners --- maybe as high as 50%. Blue collar factory, construction, utility, highway workers...
Democrats aren't going to do something stupid with guns. This is a scare tactic by the republican party and NRA (who has to be hard lined in their nature so this post isn't an all out rant on the NRA. They possition themselves the way they do because of lobbying nature of government...as does PETA) I support neither as neither tells the truth or makes sense. (SNIP)
|
Who are the TOP anti-gun politicians?
Finestine, Pelosi, Shummer, Waxman, Kennedy, Conyers....need I go on?
Who are being named in to the top leadership positions in the house/senate? (See Above^^^^)
Thinking that a Tiger will suddenly stop being a tiger, because you call it a dog.....dosen't make it so.
Ask Roy (of Siegfried & Roy) about how "Tame" tigers stop being tigers.
Thinking that
Staunchly ANTI-GUN people will stop being staunchly Anti-Gun People, because it sounds good, or "would be silly!" is living in a fantasy land.
These Ain't your Daddy's Democrats.
Quote:
Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
And that's what I consider myself to me --- a yellowdog democrat. Pro FDR, Pro Clinton, southern, pro-union democrat that will vote for any democrat (inlcuding a dog should my cainaine friend be nominated) before voting for any republican.
|
Vote how you will, this is a free country.
Believing that ->ANY<- democrat is better than ->ANY<- Republican, based only on that is foolish.
No need. You are free to do as you wish. I will simply show Our side, why I think it is better, and why I think your position is not the correct one.
In the end, we must all chose what/who we believe in.
Tall Shadow