Will Democrats ever be happy?

[Wakie]

love how my topic gets diverted to something else[/sarcasm]

My point is, for those partisan hacks: If George Bush tomorrow, did a complete 180 on most everything, removed our troops from Iraq and apologized, repealed the Patriot Act, put funding into stem cell research, became pro-choice, started 35 different social programs to help the poor, college students, the elderly and city dwellers, turned the pork barrel funding to help the 'blue states', tried firing Cheney and replacing him with Russ Feingold, confiscated our guns, raised taxes on the rich, paid off the deficit with it, and tried to start a national health care system, while backing off the the Social Security issue....  Why would you still hate him?  (I know this would never happen)  But my point is, why are the attacks on him personal?  Even if he could change, you'd still hate him and not his policies.  Why?

Can we change the name from George Bush to Bill Clinton and ask the same question?  Or better yet, can we ask why the GOP hates Hillary so much?

[minionofmidas]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

Check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're kidding me, right?  My gf's brother is over there for the third time.  He said it was the most secure AFTER the fall of Baghdad and that it has gotten progressively worse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.  We've done this in name and image, but not in true authority.  Really ... who do you think is calling the shots in Iraq?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're kidding me, right?  Almost Done??  Until last week they couldn't even agree on what to CALL the country!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't this #4?  Or are you talking about a 2nd round of post Constituiton elections?  If that is the case they you can't say this is planned as the format and timeline isn't in place UNTIL the Constituition is in place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not a "well defined" goal.  If I go for a run am I "worn down" after 2 miles?  3 miles?  6 feet?  20 miles?

The problem here is that the "insurgency" are fueled by 2 sources.

Source #1 is the Iranian government, and frankly what they want is a friendly Islamic ally on its Western border.  The last thing they want a US-supported ally in a country they fought a brutal and bloody war with 20 years ago.  They're going to do whatever they can to prevent it.

Proof?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.  It was a major F up by this administration when they disolved the Iraqi military.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously a last step of any military withdrawal.


The major problem with any "exit" from Iraq is that it requires the Iraqi's to have (A) a functional government and (B) the military capability to handle the insurgency on their own.  How long does America want to wait for the Iraqi's to put their crap together?
[/quote]Not to mention (C) nonetheless still have a government friendly to / dependent on / your choice of words the US.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Could the perverted racist fascist lover please f*** off?

You're such an eloquent warmonger.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could the perverted racist fascist lover please f*** off?

You're such an eloquent warmonger.

Since when have I been a "warmonger". That post was because I was pissed off at a load of fascist love posted by a deranged aristo-pervert and couldn't be bothered to waste my time replying to it normally.

[MaC]

love how my topic gets diverted to something else[/sarcasm]

My point is, for those partisan hacks: If George Bush tomorrow, did a complete 180 on most everything, removed our troops from Iraq and apologized, repealed the Patriot Act, put funding into stem cell research, became pro-choice, started 35 different social programs to help the poor, college students, the elderly and city dwellers, turned the pork barrel funding to help the 'blue states', tried firing Cheney and replacing him with Russ Feingold, confiscated our guns, raised taxes on the rich, paid off the deficit with it, and tried to start a national health care system, while backing off the the Social Security issue....  Why would you still hate him?  (I know this would never happen)  But my point is, why are the attacks on him personal?  Even if he could change, you'd still hate him and not his policies.  Why?

Can we change the name from George Bush to Bill Clinton and ask the same question?  Or better yet, can we ask why the GOP hates Hillary so much?

heck if any President adopted mostly (real) libertarian policys, I'd be oozing with happiness.

[TheresNoMoney]

love how my topic gets diverted to something else[/sarcasm]
removed our troops from Iraq and apologized

He doesn't have to remove them tomorrow. He just needs a clear target date and a plan to get them out in the near future.

repealed the Patriot Act

He doesn't have to repeal the whole thing, just the worst violations of civil rights.

put funding into stem cell research

That (funding for embyronic stem cell research) would be awesome.

became pro-choice

Again, good.

started 35 different social programs to help the poor, college students, the elderly and city dwellers

We don't need 35 new social programs, we just need to strengthen the ones we already have.

turned the pork barrel funding to help the 'blue states'

He should cut pork barrel spending altogether.

tried firing Cheney and replacing him with Russ Feingold

We need Russ in the Senate. VPs hold little true power.

confiscated our guns

That is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and I wouldn't support it.

raised taxes on the rich, paid off the deficit with it

Both good ideas.

and tried to start a national health care system

We don't need a national health care system, we need a universal, single-payer health care system.

while backing off the the Social Security issue....

That would be another good thing.

Why would you still hate him?  (I know this would never happen) 

It would be hard to forgive him for all his past ups, but I'd look at him much more favorably.

[J. J.]

Are the borders in Iraq secure? Judging from the fact that most insurgients are coming from other countries, I'd say no and we're not succeeding.

Let's face it, we cannot completely secure the borders of the US (or of just about any other country that isn't a police state).  Limiting the number entering is going to be the ultimate success here.

[Speed of Sound]

love how my topic gets diverted to something else[/sarcasm]

My point is, for those partisan hacks: If George Bush tomorrow, did a complete 180 on most everything, removed our troops from Iraq and apologized, repealed the Patriot Act, put funding into stem cell research, became pro-choice, started 35 different social programs to help the poor, college students, the elderly and city dwellers, turned the pork barrel funding to help the 'blue states', tried firing Cheney and replacing him with Russ Feingold, confiscated our guns, raised taxes on the rich, paid off the deficit with it, and tried to start a national health care system, while backing off the the Social Security issue....  Why would you still hate him?  (I know this would never happen)  But my point is, why are the attacks on him personal?  Even if he could change, you'd still hate him and not his policies.  Why?

its tough to forgive someone who killed so many people for a dumb cause. It would be good if he pulled out tomorrow, but that wont bring back those that are dead. and i WOULD hate him for confiscating all guns. that would be idiotic.and that many social programs would put the government back in debt in just a few years. So that'd be another bad move. Although the Universial Healthcare would be nice. (but we'll get that in 08 with our new president and new senate )

[MaC]

okay, as far as gun control goes, it's talked about as a liberal issue (liberals wanting it).  It seems like two liberals counter that example.  Still I wonder how jfern reacts to this. 

My point is that people shouldn't take someone who opposed their ideology personally.  You sitting at your computer, hating Bush all the while isn't going to change anything, and negativity turns people off to listening to you.  I mean when I talk about politics, I  try talking about how much better life would be in general if government just got off our backs.  However, getting stuck on one issue (namely Bush in this case) is one that makes the party look like they're whinning and it's not really helping anything.  Using persuasion to win people over is really the best way to go.

Same goes with Republicans on Clinton, although that's over, but it was brought up.

[Speed of Sound]

okay, as far as gun control goes, it's talked about as a liberal issue (liberals wanting it).  It seems like two liberals counter that example.  Still I wonder how jfern reacts to this. 

My point is that people shouldn't take someone who opposed their ideology personally.  You sitting at your computer, hating Bush all the while isn't going to change anything, and negativity turns people off to listening to you.  I mean when I talk about politics, I  try talking about how much better life would be in general if government just got off our backs.  However, getting stuck on one issue (namely Bush in this case) is one that makes the party look like they're whinning and it's not really helping anything.  Using persuasion to win people over is really the best way to go.

while talking to others that arent forum people (because they clearly know what they believe in. otherwise they wouldnt be here) i do use alot less negativity. and when i am negative, i tend to talk about the party in general, not just Bush. lthough the party has its good people (McCain, Chafee, Snowe are a few)

[RJ]

Milk and Cereal, I think you're confusing a couple of things, here. I think the majority of people who hate Bush hate the man because of the views and policies, not the policies because of the man. It's not as though people hate the Iraq war because Bush started it. They hate the war and therefore hate the man.

Fact: I don't like George W. Bush at all. Fact: the reason I dislike him so is because of the war in Iraq and his complete budget mismanagement. These are the two major problems I have with him. If you're pro-war, that's one thing I suppose. There are huge issues on its validity in the first place, but that's one thing. The budget, however, is something entirely different. How someone could take over a budget that was balanced and repeatedly turn out 3-400+ billion dollar deficits and then claim he's laying the groundwork for our country's success for years to come is just plain foolish. I don't know how anyone could justify this and keep a straight face as they're doing it. He thinks it's some great accomplishment that the deficit is "down" to 330 billion. He thinks it's great budget management to eventually produce a 200 billion dollar hole anually(that's one of his campaign promises believe it or not). There are other issues, but those two stand out in my mind like a sore thumb. If he had never done these two things, I'd be able to tolerate him.

It has been mentioned that insurgients are taking casualties at a much higher rate than the American counterparts in Iraq. While this is very true, it still doesn't mean that it's OK for our military to continually take casualties. I'm not at the point yet in which I think we should pull out all together, but I think a new strategy has been called for for a long time now. Meanwhile, Dubya sits at home insisting he's right on everything. How long can we go on losing on average 2-3 men per day over there?

I'm sorry if you dislike negativity on these issues, but I think these are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. Insisting everything's just great just isn't a solution.

[RJ]

There are some who want us to lose because it would be an embarrassment to Bush, regardless of the terrible consequences this would have on the country.  These people play up every negative sign without looking at the whole picture.

THis is the 3rd time I've quoted you. I'm not picking on you personally, but I just have to say I think that there are an equal number of people who want to continue as we are simply because it would be an embarrasment to Bush to do anything differently in Iraq. There are also a signifigant number of people who ride in their cars with "support the troops and their families" signs attached. Well, one of their family members(Cindy Sheehan) has something to say. The soldier who asked Donald Crumsfield last fall about the armor on vehicles and overall lack of servicable equipment has/had somehting to say. Why does everyone dismiss their words as "liberal biasness" when they have something to say? Shouldn't we support our troops?

[MaC]

Milk and Cereal, I think you're confusing a couple of things, here. I think the majority of people who hate Bush hate the man because of the views and policies, not the policies because of the man. It's not as though people hate the Iraq war because Bush started it. They hate the war and therefore hate the man.

  I guess I'm arguing that they hold this reverse logic.  Sometimes it sure seems like they hate the policies because of the man, and I'm sure some do, but perhaps you're right on this.

[minionofmidas]

Milk and Cereal, I think you're confusing a couple of things, here. I think the majority of people who hate Bush hate the man because of the views and policies, not the policies because of the man. It's not as though people hate the Iraq war because Bush started it. They hate the war and therefore hate the man.

  I guess I'm arguing that they hold this reverse logic.  Sometimes it sure seems like they hate the policies because of the man, and I'm sure some do, but perhaps you're right on this.

While people do of course hate the man because of his views (and character), it's more complex with policies. Once you dislike a politician, you're not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on a new policy anymore. After all, why should you?

[dazzleman]

There are some who want us to lose because it would be an embarrassment to Bush, regardless of the terrible consequences this would have on the country.  These people play up every negative sign without looking at the whole picture.

THis is the 3rd time I've quoted you. I'm not picking on you personally, but I just have to say I think that there are an equal number of people who want to continue as we are simply because it would be an embarrasment to Bush to do anything differently in Iraq. There are also a signifigant number of people who ride in their cars with "support the troops and their families" signs attached. Well, one of their family members(Cindy Sheehan) has something to say. The soldier who asked Donald Crumsfield last fall about the armor on vehicles and overall lack of servicable equipment has/had somehting to say. Why does everyone dismiss their words as "liberal biasness" when they have something to say? Shouldn't we support our troops?

I'm flattered that you've quoted me three times.  I guess I missed the other two.

I think Cindy Sheehan is a very sad case.  She has lost her son, her marriage, and most of her family is against her.  She is saying things that are just crazy.  She is an unstable and disturbed woman whose grief is being exploited by ruthless people on the far left who simply want the US to be humiliated in Iraq.

The armor issue is different.  Our soldiers should have the best armor.

I don't think everybody who doesn't think the Iraq war is a good idea is against the troops.  The war always was a risky proposition, but it was also perceived that in the wake of Sept. 11th and the possibility that Iraq would provide WMDs to terrorists, doing nothing was also perceived as being risky.  I don't believe that Bush "lied" about WMDs when everybody else also believed Iraq had them.  Liberals are just trying to distort the facts in this case, as usual.

[Jake]

Donald Rumsfeld is the single biggest impediment to victory in Iraq though he will never be replaced because Bush doesn't want to lose face to the far-left crowd.

[dazzleman]

Donald Rumsfeld is the single biggest impediment to victory in Iraq though he will never be replaced because Bush doesn't want to lose face to the far-left crowd.

You may be right.  I have my doubts about Rumsfeld.  It seems his theories on how many troops would be needed were wildly optimistic.  He was probably wildly optimistic about other things as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

okay, as far as gun control goes, it's talked about as a liberal issue (liberals wanting it).  It seems like two liberals counter that example.  Still I wonder how jfern reacts to this. 

My point is that people shouldn't take someone who opposed their ideology personally.  You sitting at your computer, hating Bush all the while isn't going to change anything, and negativity turns people off to listening to you.  I mean when I talk about politics, I  try talking about how much better life would be in general if government just got off our backs.  However, getting stuck on one issue (namely Bush in this case) is one that makes the party look like they're whinning and it's not really helping anything.  Using persuasion to win people over is really the best way to go.

while talking to others that arent forum people (because they clearly know what they believe in. otherwise they wouldnt be here) i do use alot less negativity. and when i am negative, i tend to talk about the party in general, not just Bush. lthough the party has its good people (McCain, Chafee, Snowe are a few)

McCain has problems for campaigning for Bush after Bush took him down in a very negative campaign. What a bozo. Snowe and Chaffee are alright, but they still vote for Frist to be majority leader, and so we should still try and defeat them.

[Jake]

Donald Rumsfeld is the single biggest impediment to victory in Iraq though he will never be replaced because Bush doesn't want to lose face to the far-left crowd.

You may be right.  I have my doubts about Rumsfeld.  It seems his theories on how many troops would be needed were wildly optimistic.  He was probably wildly optimistic about other things as well.

Mostly his micromanagement of the fighting, though also his failure to plan for an exit for Iraq before the fighting began.