PDA

View Full Version : Democrats, are you happy?



Matt McKenzie
10-03-2009, 08:40 AM
Here's a serious question for those on the left. Now that the Dems have controlled the Federal government in its entirety for the last 10 months and Congress for the last couple of years, are you happy with what they've accomplished? If so, can you give some examples of those things that have improved the country or your life in particular? If not, what would you like for them to accomplish to make our lives better? Please avoid the "they would have done XXXX, but the Republicans wouldn't let them" type of arguments. I'm just curious about what has been accomplished that makes their supporters proud to be their supporters.
Hopefully this will be a civil discussion. Please keep the name-calling and juvinile behavior to a minimum.
Thanks,

Pete
10-03-2009, 10:23 AM
I'm not on the left or right.
I'm conservative in behavior and life style
This is some of the stuff I would like to see

Only dispose welfare to those who are unable to take care of themselves

Send troops home, and let other countries take care of their own problems

Close borders ,,and convieniently send those here illigally--- home.

Bring the price of AMMo down:)

Balance budget and pay down debt

The next time Iran threatens us with mass distruction,,,do unto to them before they do unto us

Go to a new taxing system
Get rid of the federal researve
Get rid of NAFDA

encourage manufactering at home and
Give insentives for americans to set up shop here in the US

Thats a few things That would improve things for the majority of people,,, some of it requires a slow transition and some of it can be done overnight.

Honestly in the last 20 years I cant think of anything the government has done to improve my life. The best thing goverment can do to improve peoples lives is just up hold the constitution and let state governments do what they need to do to make their states better for the people. Also they should stay out of peoples lives.

You cant save everyone from themselves

So what massachusettes would do is different than what wyoming would do.
If people like what massachusetes does then they can move there if people like what wyoming does then they can move there.
Quit making across the board rules for things which should not apply to an area. It makes no sence




Pete

dnf777
10-03-2009, 01:18 PM
Here's a serious question for those on the left. Now that the Dems have controlled the Federal government in its entirety for the last 10 months and Congress for the last couple of years, are you happy with what they've accomplished? If so, can you give some examples of those things that have improved the country or your life in particular? If not, what would you like for them to accomplish to make our lives better? Please avoid the "they would have done XXXX, but the Republicans wouldn't let them" type of arguments. I'm just curious about what has been accomplished that makes their supporters proud to be their supporters.
Hopefully this will be a civil discussion. Please keep the name-calling and juvinile behavior to a minimum.
Thanks,

Were YOU happy with where the country was on Jan 19? Largest budget deficit in history, largest government, two wars with no exit strategy? And don't anyone remind me Bush isn't president anymore. To ignore history is moronic. Remember the hole neocon policy got us into before running back to them!

You can't take a snapshot in time and project that to all that is. Look at trends and the effects on the long term that policies have had.

If we could have back the money we've spent in Iraq (not to mention the lives) We could pay for the bailout, provide MEANINGFUL health reform, and invest in energy independence. And probably have enough left over to repair our collapsing bridges and crumbling roads.

road kill
10-03-2009, 02:34 PM
Were YOU happy with where the country was on Jan 19? Largest budget deficit in history, largest government, two wars with no exit strategy? .


If these are your issues, you must be horrified now.

Because all that has happened is these problems, and more, have escalated.


Plus.....we didn't get the Olympics!!:-x

Oh well, I am sure he will negotiate better with Iran than the IOC!!:D

Matt McKenzie
10-03-2009, 07:00 PM
Were YOU happy with where the country was on Jan 19? Largest budget deficit in history, largest government, two wars with no exit strategy? And don't anyone remind me Bush isn't president anymore. To ignore history is moronic. Remember the hole neocon policy got us into before running back to them!

You can't take a snapshot in time and project that to all that is. Look at trends and the effects on the long term that policies have had.

If we could have back the money we've spent in Iraq (not to mention the lives) We could pay for the bailout, provide MEANINGFUL health reform, and invest in energy independence. And probably have enough left over to repair our collapsing bridges and crumbling roads.

So I guess your answer is "no" since you chose to deflect. I wasn't trying to start a right/left pissing match. It was a simple question. You don't have to defend your folks or tear down the last administration. I just want to know what you point to with pride that the Democrats have done this year. Oh well.

TXduckdog
10-03-2009, 07:07 PM
Were YOU happy with where the country was on Jan 19? Largest budget deficit in history, largest government, two wars with no exit strategy? And don't anyone remind me Bush isn't president anymore. To ignore history is moronic. Remember the hole neocon policy got us into before running back to them!

You can't take a snapshot in time and project that to all that is. Look at trends and the effects on the long term that policies have had.

If we could have back the money we've spent in Iraq (not to mention the lives) We could pay for the bailout, provide MEANINGFUL health reform, and invest in energy independence. And probably have enough left over to repair our collapsing bridges and crumbling roads.


Bush was caving into the Dems big time.....and grew this government to unbelievable heights...he was an idiot for doing so......you keep up with the mantra of no exit strategy......like its a big deal. It's the same old liberal BS. It's not the exit strategy, stupid....its accomplishing the mission. When the goals have been accomplished, we come home. It's people like you that caused us to LOSE in Viet Nam.

Your crap about military spending vs taking that money and spending it domestically is so lame.....it's right out of the 60's. Slick Willy and the Dems controlling the House and Senate finance committees drove the bus off the edge by creating the mortgage crises that damn near sunk this economy.

Your boys hold all the cards...they chose to spend like wild a$$ indians on the bailout and have a stranglehold on your MEANINGFUL health reform and energy independance is out there for the taking but for the WACKO environmentalists that really control your party. If they would simply let US companies drill we'd be out of the woods. But no, the Chi-Comms are drilling off Florida and the Brits have hit the biggest field in world history in the western gulf.

Not to mention what the incredibly STUPID environmentalists have done to the central valley of California, a veritable Garden of Eden and now a dust bowl over a FRICKING FISH!!!!

luvalab
10-03-2009, 07:34 PM
Democrats and Republicans are the same party.

Doesn't anybody get that yet???

:confused:

dnf777
10-03-2009, 10:08 PM
Democrats and Republicans are the same party.

Doesn't anybody get that yet???

:confused:

You said it! I find it hilarious that whenever I remind people of the follies of the last administration, and they THEY grew the gov't and the debt, they have NO reply other than to say I"m defending Obama! Weak.

I've said more times that I can count, that I don't subscribe to the disasterous, self-serving platforms of either major party.

I am very concerned about Obama's spending. There's alot of things that I hold dear, but realize we gotta pay some bills before we can afford them. Bush didn't seem to understand that either. Let's pretend the Iraq trillion dollar war was necessary for the sake of argument. The tax-cut for corporations and the very wealthy was a gift we could not afford! And don't give me it created jobs for cryin out loud. Outrage at this president is only legit if you expressed outrage at the last guy's spending....what I"m seeing is just partisan politics for the most part.

I agree with you luvalab, the rest is just a rant.

luvalab
10-03-2009, 10:28 PM
You said it! I find it hilarious that whenever I remind people of the follies of the last administration, and they THEY grew the gov't and the debt, they have NO reply other than to say I"m defending Obama! Weak.

I've said more times that I can count, that I don't subscribe to the disasterous, self-serving platforms of either major party.

I am very concerned about Obama's spending. There's alot of things that I hold dear, but realize we gotta pay some bills before we can afford them. Bush didn't seem to understand that either. Let's pretend the Iraq trillion dollar war was necessary for the sake of argument. The tax-cut for corporations and the very wealthy was a gift we could not afford! And don't give me it created jobs for cryin out loud. Outrage at this president is only legit if you expressed outrage at the last guy's spending....what I"m seeing is just partisan politics for the most part.

I agree with you luvalab, the rest is just a rant.

Just to be fair, let's not forget Mr. Clinton. He was downright artful.

M&K's Retrievers
10-03-2009, 11:26 PM
Were YOU happy with where the country was on Jan 19? Largest budget deficit in history, largest government, two wars with no exit strategy? And don't anyone remind me Bush isn't president anymore. To ignore history is moronic. Remember the hole neocon policy got us into before running back to them!

You can't take a snapshot in time and project that to all that is. Look at trends and the effects on the long term that policies have had.

If we could have back the money we've spent in Iraq (not to mention the lives) We could pay for the bailout, provide MEANINGFUL health reform, and invest in energy independence. And probably have enough left over to repair our collapsing bridges and crumbling roads.

You just can't answer the question can you?

cotts135
10-04-2009, 05:11 AM
Democrats and Republicans are the same party.

Doesn't anybody get that yet???

:confused:
Quick and to the point but ooooooooh so true.

Matt McKenzie
10-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Ain't it funny how those who constantly bash the previous administration can't come up with one positive thing the Democrats have done? I'm not saying that nothing positive has been accomplished. I'm not saying that I'm a Bush-lover. I just find it interesting that if you take away the playbook and try to corner them into naming one thing that the Dems have accomplished that makes them proud, all you hear is crickets.

YardleyLabs
10-04-2009, 02:53 PM
Why not, it's been three months since this same topic was last introduced....

1. Iraq: Following a plan announced during the campaign and roundly condemned by Republicans, the Obama administration has managed a wind down of the Iraq war that looks to be on schedule for withdrawing forces next year and has already resulted in both a shift away from front line fighting responsibilities and a reduction in the total commitment of American forces.

2. Secured passage and has implemented economic stimulus programs that have reduced taxes for most Americans and resulted in massive, non-recurring expenditures that have, according to most economic models, increased economic activity by 2-3% and helped to improve the economic disaster that we were facing a year ago. This program will be argued about for years to come. My personal belief (no one can prove anything yet) is that it is the only reason the DOW is now around 9500 instead of the 6500 that some on this forum and elsewhere were projecting. Is the recovery done? No. Is the program helping? I believe it is.

3. Substantially increased the force size in Afghanistan and refocused on this mission which had become an orphan in the last administration. The administration is now deciding how far to extend this commitment. However, the fact that we are focused on it at all and not simply coasting toward defeat as we were 12 months ago, is because of the actions of this administration.

4. It is too early to say that the administration saved the US auto industry. However, I suspect that the only reason that GM and Chrysler are around today in any form is because of the actions of the administration.

5. The administration is still actively pursuing passage of health insurance reform legislation consistent with what was promised during the campaign. It appears likely that something substantial will be passed, although it will take several months. I believe our country will be strengthened by this.

6. While it is too soon to see what benefits, if any, will result, the administration has dramatically improved perceptions of the US worldwide si that more countries are willing to work with us on difficult issues. There have been some signs of this is dealings with Iran and the Palestine/Israel conflict.

Beyond these "big" issues, the administration has made progress in a number of smaller areas including a significant increase (2 million acres) in preserved wildlands, elimination of the ban on Federal financing for research using new strains of rfetal stem cells, an elmination of the Federal ban on foreign aid and Aids prevention assistance in foreign countries for programs that include any discussion of abortion in their materials, etc.

zeus3925
10-04-2009, 03:23 PM
In addition, there has been some badly needed work on the country's infrastructure. The county's transportation system regardless of modality is on the verge of collapse.

Matt McKenzie
10-04-2009, 06:22 PM
Why not, it's been three months since this same topic was last introduced....

1. Iraq: Following a plan announced during the campaign and roundly condemned by Republicans, the Obama administration has managed a wind down of the Iraq war that looks to be on schedule for withdrawing forces next year and has already resulted in both a shift away from front line fighting responsibilities and a reduction in the total commitment of American forces.

2. Secured passage and has implemented economic stimulus programs that have reduced taxes for most Americans and resulted in massive, non-recurring expenditures that have, according to most economic models, increased economic activity by 2-3% and helped to improve the economic disaster that we were facing a year ago. This program will be argued about for years to come. My personal belief (no one can prove anything yet) is that it is the only reason the DOW is now around 9500 instead of the 6500 that some on this forum and elsewhere were projecting. Is the recovery done? No. Is the program helping? I believe it is.

3. Substantially increased the force size in Afghanistan and refocused on this mission which had become an orphan in the last administration. The administration is now deciding how far to extend this commitment. However, the fact that we are focused on it at all and not simply coasting toward defeat as we were 12 months ago, is because of the actions of this administration.

4. It is too early to say that the administration saved the US auto industry. However, I suspect that the only reason that GM and Chrysler are around today in any form is because of the actions of the administration.

5. The administration is still actively pursuing passage of health insurance reform legislation consistent with what was promised during the campaign. It appears likely that something substantial will be passed, although it will take several months. I believe our country will be strengthened by this.

6. While it is too soon to see what benefits, if any, will result, the administration has dramatically improved perceptions of the US worldwide si that more countries are willing to work with us on difficult issues. There have been some signs of this is dealings with Iran and the Palestine/Israel conflict.

Beyond these "big" issues, the administration has made progress in a number of smaller areas including a significant increase (2 million acres) in preserved wildlands, elimination of the ban on Federal financing for research using new strains of rfetal stem cells, an elmination of the Federal ban on foreign aid and Aids prevention assistance in foreign countries for programs that include any discussion of abortion in their materials, etc.

Jeff,
As usual, you come through with a well thought out response to the question. Thanks for attacking it directly rather than deflecting. Although my perspective is different on most of these, the only ones I won't give you are 5 which even by your discription hasn't been accomplished yet and 6 which is just too ambiguous to call. Perception worldwide has no real meaning. Are we talking about our allies? Our enemies? Countries that don't count either way? The popular opinion of the people of those countries or the leadership with whom we must deal? I'm just not buying it.
As far as the stimulus and the auto bailout, I didn't agree with that path when the Bush Administration started it and I didn't agree with it when the Obama Adminstration continued. History may prove me wrong. Or it may prove nothing. But it is a significant accomplishment that many see as positvie.
As far as Iraq goes, I don't know what the new Administration changed. It seems to me they kept the same SECDEF and kept the same plan and it proved to be effective.
Afganistan. I don't have a clue what the right answer is there. Most of us don't understand that Afganistan is not really a nation in the way that most of us understand the word and that an outcome that is perfectly reasonable when dealing with Iraq makes absolutely no sense when speaking of Afganistan. I believe that there was no other option but to invade Afganistan to remove the Taliban from power when we did, but I don't know what a reasonable goal is for us to call the final outcome a "success". It seems that we've been doing for the last few years hasn't been working. Hopefully throwing more manpower and firepower at the problem will accomplish something we can all be proud of. We'll see.

YardleyLabs
10-04-2009, 06:51 PM
Jeff,
As usual, you come through with a well thought out response to the question. Thanks for attacking it directly rather than deflecting. Although my perspective is different on most of these, the only ones I won't give you are 5 which even by your discription hasn't been accomplished yet and 6 which is just too ambiguous to call. Perception worldwide has no real meaning. Are we talking about our allies? Our enemies? Countries that don't count either way? The popular opinion of the people of those countries or the leadership with whom we must deal? I'm just not buying it.
As far as the stimulus and the auto bailout, I didn't agree with that path when the Bush Administration started it and I didn't agree with it when the Obama Adminstration continued. History may prove me wrong. Or it may prove nothing. But it is a significant accomplishment that many see as positvie.
As far as Iraq goes, I don't know what the new Administration changed. It seems to me they kept the same SECDEF and kept the same plan and it proved to be effective.
Afganistan. I don't have a clue what the right answer is there. Most of us don't understand that Afganistan is not really a nation in the way that most of us understand the word and that an outcome that is perfectly reasonable when dealing with Iraq makes absolutely no sense when speaking of Afganistan. I believe that there was no other option but to invade Afganistan to remove the Taliban from power when we did, but I don't know what a reasonable goal is for us to call the final outcome a "success". It seems that we've been doing for the last few years hasn't been working. Hopefully throwing more manpower and firepower at the problem will accomplish something we can all be proud of. We'll see.
I certainly won't argue 5 and 6, but change starts with movement and 9 months is not very long to see results. On Iraq, it is interesting that even as McCain was attacking Obama's position during the campaign, that Bush moved to embrace the Obama position, reversing his earlier stands against a defined time schedule for withdrawal. That and the appointment of Gates were among Bush's best moves in office. In evaluating the progress and credit attributable to Obama, I would look at what was considered reasonable and possible in the first half of last year when Obama was being virtually accused of treason for his position on Iraq. From The Weekly Standard, for example, we have the following from April 2008:

"On the front page of today's Washington Post we can see the outline of what may become a devastating narrative for the Obama administration and the left. Yesterday's brutal attacks in Iraq, which left more than 80 dead, are tied directly to President Obama's push for a hasty withdrawal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042401100.html?hpid=topnews):"

And so, the question is did Obama continue Bush's policies, or did Bush move toward Obama's position even as McCain's position hardened? In either case. I believe that even if Obama's role is simply one of managing an orderly withdrawal, that this is a good accomplishment given the many ways things could get completely screwed up.

TXduckdog
10-04-2009, 08:38 PM
Why not, it's been three months since this same topic was last introduced....

1. Iraq: Following a plan announced during the campaign and roundly condemned by Republicans, the Obama administration has managed a wind down of the Iraq war that looks to be on schedule for withdrawing forces next year and has already resulted in both a shift away from front line fighting responsibilities and a reduction in the total commitment of American forces.

2. Secured passage and has implemented economic stimulus programs that have reduced taxes for most Americans and resulted in massive, non-recurring expenditures that have, according to most economic models, increased economic activity by 2-3% and helped to improve the economic disaster that we were facing a year ago. This program will be argued about for years to come. My personal belief (no one can prove anything yet) is that it is the only reason the DOW is now around 9500 instead of the 6500 that some on this forum and elsewhere were projecting. Is the recovery done? No. Is the program helping? I believe it is.

3. Substantially increased the force size in Afghanistan and refocused on this mission which had become an orphan in the last administration. The administration is now deciding how far to extend this commitment. However, the fact that we are focused on it at all and not simply coasting toward defeat as we were 12 months ago, is because of the actions of this administration.

4. It is too early to say that the administration saved the US auto industry. However, I suspect that the only reason that GM and Chrysler are around today in any form is because of the actions of the administration.

5. The administration is still actively pursuing passage of health insurance reform legislation consistent with what was promised during the campaign. It appears likely that something substantial will be passed, although it will take several months. I believe our country will be strengthened by this.

6. While it is too soon to see what benefits, if any, will result, the administration has dramatically improved perceptions of the US worldwide si that more countries are willing to work with us on difficult issues. There have been some signs of this is dealings with Iran and the Palestine/Israel conflict.

Beyond these "big" issues, the administration has made progress in a number of smaller areas including a significant increase (2 million acres) in preserved wildlands, elimination of the ban on Federal financing for research using new strains of rfetal stem cells, an elmination of the Federal ban on foreign aid and Aids prevention assistance in foreign countries for programs that include any discussion of abortion in their materials, etc.


You are, true to nature....optimistic beyond belief.

#1....the current policy in Iraq was implemented in the previous admin...managed a wind down....shift from front line fighting....all as a result of previous admin. The current admin has done nothing substantial in Iraq. Unless you consider allowing the strategy in place to carry itself out.

#2....passed the single largest entitlement package is history with NO evidence of an ability to pay for it...except tax, tax, tax. Unemployment took yet another upward tick despite admin assurances it was going down. The DOW number is no realistic evidence of economic growth. The stimulus package passed under this admin has saddled this country with unprecedented debt....with NO means of repaying it.

#3.....substantially increased the force size in Afghan.....when did this happen...since January? Refocused on this commitment? The command structure has not changed....coasting to defeat...since when?

#4...after caving to UAW pressures.....i dare say, GM and Chrysler would have emerged with new plans despite any stimulus package. Saturn....the singular success story of recent history coming out of Detroit is DEAD. Is that a good thing?

#5...the only thing substantial passed in this legislation is governmental control over every aspect of health care...this is NOT a good thing.

#6....the French and British are highly pi$$ed off at us for the bungling of the Iranian nuclear negotiations and the Russians are laughing their collective butts off. The Iranians are thumbing their noses at us and for the progress in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict....surely your joking.

How about the big issues of drilling in our own territorial waters to achieve true energy independance. How about telling environmentalists to shove off and restore the farming in the cental valley of california?

Nice try Jeff.....

zeus3925
10-04-2009, 09:51 PM
No amount of drilling in the territory of the US is going to give us energy independence--we have pretty well sucked her dry.

As for the Israeli/ Palestinian issue the guys before ignored the whole thing and then tried to push a peace settlement in the last six months of their reign. They came up dry.

The UAW's pension plan was in a state of collapse. They made several concessions to keep the pension fund afloat. If those companies fail, the will union inherit nothing but a bag of dead IOU's. The reorganization is an unmitigated disaster for the UAW. The union has made big give backs on wages and conditions of employment. They have lost tens of thousands of members-- permanently. Benefiting from all this--I don't think so !

YardleyLabs
10-05-2009, 04:27 AM
You are, true to nature....optimistic beyond belief.

#1....the current policy in Iraq was implemented in the previous admin...managed a wind down....shift from front line fighting....all as a result of previous admin. The current admin has done nothing substantial in Iraq. Unless you consider allowing the strategy in place to carry itself out.

#2....passed the single largest entitlement package is history with NO evidence of an ability to pay for it...except tax, tax, tax. Unemployment took yet another upward tick despite admin assurances it was going down. The DOW number is no realistic evidence of economic growth. The stimulus package passed under this admin has saddled this country with unprecedented debt....with NO means of repaying it.

#3.....substantially increased the force size in Afghan.....when did this happen...since January? Refocused on this commitment? The command structure has not changed....coasting to defeat...since when?

#4...after caving to UAW pressures.....i dare say, GM and Chrysler would have emerged with new plans despite any stimulus package. Saturn....the singular success story of recent history coming out of Detroit is DEAD. Is that a good thing?

#5...the only thing substantial passed in this legislation is governmental control over every aspect of health care...this is NOT a good thing.

#6....the French and British are highly pi$$ed off at us for the bungling of the Iranian nuclear negotiations and the Russians are laughing their collective butts off. The Iranians are thumbing their noses at us and for the progress in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict....surely your joking.

How about the big issues of drilling in our own territorial waters to achieve true energy independance. How about telling environmentalists to shove off and restore the farming in the cental valley of california?

Nice try Jeff.....
Actually, I think the question was what were Democrats happy about, not what were conservatives angry about.;-)

#1 - Actually, the prior administration shifted to Obama's policy articulated during the campaign and initially attacked by the administration. The change in administration position was a huge embarrassment to the McCain campaign which stuck by its guns in opposing any form of withdrawal timetable.
#3 - Yes, the force has been increased by over 20,000 since January (actually 21000 were authorized, but not all have been move in yet). The strategy was radically changed from one of withdrawal to a limited number of safe zones to confrontation of the enemy on a much broader scale (explaining the increase in casualties). The command structure was changed with the appointment of McChrystal.

#5 - Actually nothing at all has been passed yet.

On the others, we'll see.

Gerry Clinchy
10-05-2009, 06:14 AM
Actually, I think the question was what were Democrats happy about, not what were conservatives angry about.;-)

#1 - Actually, the prior administration shifted to Obama's policy articulated during the campaign and initially attacked by the administration. The change in administration position was a huge embarrassment to the McCain campaign which stuck by its guns in opposing any form of withdrawal timetable.
#3 - Yes, the force has been increased by over 20,000 since January (actually 21000 were authorized, but not all have been move in yet). The strategy was radically changed from one of withdrawal to a limited number of safe zones to confrontation of the enemy on a much broader scale (explaining the increase in casualties). The command structure was changed with the appointment of McChrystal.

#5 - Actually nothing at all has been passed yet.

On the others, we'll see.


#1 Wasn't a big issue of the campaign debates over whether the "surge" in Iraq was of any use? At the time of the debates, the surgein Iraq was yielding results. The other issue was that O insisted that a similar surge in A'stan could not be substantiated just because it had been successful in Iraq. I had mentioned at the time that more troops in A'stan didn't necessarily mean that the mode of implementing those troops would be identical to the way they were implemented in Iraq. Essentially, that now seems to be the way it has turned out. A need for considerably more troops, but the use of those troops in a different way than in Iraq.

It also seems that part of O's decrease in polls has to do with the fact that he just might have shifted toward the need for a "surge" in A'stan.

I'd say that "the view from the top" may be different from the view from the campaign trail.

#3 See #1. O's original position was strongly stating that securing A'stan was important; while saying that a troop surge was not the answer. Now, he may face the fact that he was not correct in that assessment.

We don't know what McCain would have done, although we do know that he was in favor of troop strength in both Iraq and A'stan.

The fact that McCain might not have agreed with Bush is a bad thing? I don't see that as an "embarrassment" to McCain ... simply a difference of opinion between him and the sitting administration at the time.

I think that the sitting administration was already changing its position on the importance of A'stan as well. So, maybe O's emphasis on the importance of A'stan was not so different from what was developing on that issue ... except that in the campaign he didn't believe more troops were the answer. OTOH, I see an inconsistency there ... how do you conclude that A'stan was "neglected"; believe that should be "fixed"; and not expect that make take more troop strength? Again, the "job" of the troops might be different, but not sure how you escape the need for more of them to accomplish the task. I got the impression that O's "plan" would be to re-allocate troop strength from Iraq to A'stan.

road kill
10-05-2009, 06:22 AM
"6. While it is too soon to see what benefits, if any, will result, the administration has dramatically improved perceptions of the US worldwide si that more countries are willing to work with us on difficult issues. There have been some signs of this is dealings with Iran and the Palestine/Israel conflict."

Really?

Outside of Chavez, Ahmenedajead(sp?), Castro, Gahdaffi and Carter, who's opinion of us has improved?


Just list the names and your references to support such an absurd claim below:

TXduckdog
10-05-2009, 09:03 AM
Actually, I think the question was what were Democrats happy about, not what were conservatives angry about.;-)

#3 - Yes, the force has been increased by over 20,000 since January (actually 21000 were authorized, but not all have been move in yet). The strategy was radically changed from one of withdrawal to a limited number of safe zones to confrontation of the enemy on a much broader scale (explaining the increase in casualties). The command structure was changed with the appointment of McChrystal.
.


Fact check.....the troop increase was a rubber stamp by the Obama admin...it was in the pipeline way before he took office. As was Operation Khanjar. It was a copy cat of the highly successful troop surge in Iraq.
Stalemate maybe...withdrawal...definitely not. Marines actually started moving into the area as early as March 2008.

The 10,000 troops arriving in June was to be supplemented by an additional 11,000. I cannot find any evidence that the balance has yet arrived. Hence the call for more troops.

JDogger
10-05-2009, 11:03 AM
So I guess your answer is "no" since you chose to deflect. I wasn't trying to start a right/left pissing match. It was a simple question. You don't have to defend your folks or tear down the last administration. I just want to know what you point to with pride that the Democrats have done this year. Oh well.

Yes you were. Your intention was to rebut any answer you recieved.

Personally, I can't point with pride at anything the government has done in the last couple decades, regardless of party. :(

JD

Martin
10-05-2009, 12:14 PM
I'm not on the left or right.
I'm conservative in behavior and life style
This is some of the stuff I would like to see

Only dispose welfare to those who are unable to take care of themselves

Send troops home, and let other countries take care of their own problems

Close borders ,,and convieniently send those here illigally--- home.

Bring the price of AMMo down:)

Balance budget and pay down debt

The next time Iran threatens us with mass distruction,,,do unto to them before they do unto us

Go to a new taxing system
Get rid of the federal researve
Get rid of NAFDA

encourage manufactering at home and
Give insentives for americans to set up shop here in the US

Thats a few things That would improve things for the majority of people,,, some of it requires a slow transition and some of it can be done overnight.

Honestly in the last 20 years I cant think of anything the government has done to improve my life. The best thing goverment can do to improve peoples lives is just up hold the constitution and let state governments do what they need to do to make their states better for the people. Also they should stay out of peoples lives.

You cant save everyone from themselves

So what massachusettes would do is different than what wyoming would do.
If people like what massachusetes does then they can move there if people like what wyoming does then they can move there.
Quit making across the board rules for things which should not apply to an area. It makes no sence




Pete

Are you running in 2012? Where do I send contribution?
Youv'e got my vote!

Matin

Marvin S
10-05-2009, 12:19 PM
Personally, I can't point with pride at anything the government has done in the last couple decades, regardless of party. :(

JD

:) :) - for once we agree - other than I did support, & still do, keeping the fight in the Middle East.

But with - "Read My Lips" Bush, "Dip My Pen in the Company Ink" Clinton, & the "Compassionate Conservative" Bush you couldn't expect much. & now we have Obongo, who is trying to be a combination of Carter & FDR & proving to be the worst of both. :eek:

YardleyLabs
10-05-2009, 12:32 PM
Fact check.....the troop increase was a rubber stamp by the Obama admin...it was in the pipeline way before he took office. As was Operation Khanjar. It was a copy cat of the highly successful troop surge in Iraq.
Stalemate maybe...withdrawal...definitely not. Marines actually started moving into the area as early as March 2008.

The 10,000 troops arriving in June was to be supplemented by an additional 11,000. I cannot find any evidence that the balance has yet arrived. Hence the call for more troops.
According to statements by Gates, US troop levels at the end of the last administration were about 36,000. Levels are now at 64,000 and 68,000 have been authorized. Some of the increases were authorized by Bush; most were authorized by Obama since he became President.

Franco
10-05-2009, 04:20 PM
The only thing that will reel in our out-of-control govenment is for the energy states to talking seriously about Secession.

The old saying, "Money talks and B S walks" holds so true here.

All our government with our career politicians are nothing more than B S. Both sides of the isle have created the mess and it is "the people" that need to take control.

We need to enforce strict term limits as well as qualifying voters. If a person can not pass a standard civics test given in American(English to some), then they can't vote.

No more illegals and crackheads determining who will be our President.

The energy states have the power to control and our leadership needs to step up before it is too late as the current administration has accelerated our desent into disaster.

YardleyLabs
10-05-2009, 04:35 PM
The only thing that will reel in our out-of-control govenment is for the energy states to talking seriously about Secession.

The old saying, "Money talks and B S walks" holds so true here.

All our government with our career politicians are nothing more than B S. Both sides of the isle have created the mess and it is "the people" that need to take control.

We need to enforce strict term limits as well as qualifying voters. If a person can not pass a standard civics test given in American(English to some), then they can't vote.

No more illegals and crackheads determining who will be our President.

The energy states have the power to control and our leadership needs to step up before it is too late as the current administration has accelerated our desent into disaster.
Not only that, let's take the vote away from anyone caught underpaying taxes, anyone making an illegal campaign contribution, anyone arguing for secession, and all the other criminal types running around. ;-)

I say let all citizens vote (no exclusions even on death row). In fact, make it mandatory. The Russian solution for dissidents was to put them in insane asylums. Many in this country would like to put them in jail. Let everyone vote and if there are too many prisoners they will toss the jailers out.

There is no way to limit the vote without giving those with the power an open license to steal elections. That happened for years with poll taxes and "literacy" tests, combined with frequent changes of polling places with only selective notice. The Courts appropriately recognized those actions for what they were and threw them out.

Franco
10-05-2009, 04:50 PM
I say let all citizens vote (no exclusions even on death row). In fact, make it mandatory.



Only if you want to continue our downward spiral.

YardleyLabs
10-05-2009, 07:01 PM
Only if you want to continue our downward spiral.
I'd rather take my chances with democracy than bet on any self sustaining group's idea of right directions.

WaterDogRem
10-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Not only that, let's take the vote away from anyone caught underpaying taxes, anyone making an illegal campaign contribution, anyone arguing for secession, and all the other criminal types running around. ;-)

These people don't need to vote. They are the ones in office or being appointed to lead positions in our government.

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 10:52 AM
These people don't need to vote. They are the ones in office or being appointed to lead positions in our government.
Certainly some of them are. Others help run the national parties, and I suspect some help organize tea parties. Personally, however, I would stick with my plan A: give every adult citizen the vote and make voting mandatory. Let's top having elections decided by which 35-40% of the electorate decides not to vote.

ducknwork
10-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Do you really think it is a great idea to have people that know nothing about what or whom they are voting for being required to vote? If you don't do your homework and vote educatedly (;)), you shouldn't be voting. I can't stand when people vote a straight ticket, as it is another form of uneducated voting.
________
Nikita (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Nikita/)

road kill
10-06-2009, 11:21 AM
Certainly some of them are. Others help run the national parties, and I suspect some help organize tea parties. Personally, however, I would stick with my plan A: give every adult citizen the vote and make voting mandatory. Let's top having elections decided by which 35-40% of the electorate decides not to vote.

Would that include Military Active Duty personell??:D

Just askin'........

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 11:44 AM
Would that include Military Active Duty personell??:D

Just askin'........

Certainly those 18 and over. Why not have voting machines set up specifically to capture the military vote instead of requiring absentee ballots in every case? The logistics might be a little complicated, but the current set up makes it too hard for our soldiers to fulfill the voting responsibilities. In fact, once we figure out how to collect votes efficiently on a military base, doing the same on college campuses should be a cinch.;-)

zeus3925
10-06-2009, 01:39 PM
The only thing that will reel in our out-of-control govenment is for the energy states to talking seriously about Secession.


The energy states have the power to control and our leadership needs to step up before it is too late as the current administration has accelerated our desent into disaster.

You gonna elect J.R. Ewing president, are you? Kinky Freidman for speaker of the House?

Franco
10-06-2009, 01:51 PM
You gonna elect J.R. Ewing president, are you? Kinky Freidman for speaker of the House?


I was thinking more along the lines of; Dick Cheney, J C Watts, Bobby Jindal and Drew Brees.

zeus3925
10-06-2009, 02:16 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of; Dick Cheney, J C Watts, Bobby Jindal and Drew Brees.

Yeah they'll set it real straight. Do the conservatives get issued arm bands, too? Got to have someway of tellin' them apart from them destructive "liberals"!

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 04:09 PM
Do you really think it is a great idea to have people that know nothing about what or whom they are voting for being required to vote? If you don't do your homework and vote educatedly (;)), you shouldn't be voting. I can't stand when people vote a straight ticket, as it is another form of uneducated voting.
Fair question. Most evidence suggests that the majority of voters who do go to the polls have no idea who most of the candidates are except for national elections. They know least about people in the most local spots with almost no one knowing anything about boards of education. I am perfectly happy adding a choice on ballots for "No choice". However, if we begin approaching voting as a mandatory requirement with penalties associated with non-compliance, we also get rid of a number of marginally corrupt practices now followed in an effort to exclude voters and force more focus on voter education.

Hoosier
10-06-2009, 04:20 PM
Fair question. Most evidence suggests that the majority of voters who do go to the polls have no idea who most of the candidates are except for national elections. They know least about people in the most local spots with almost no one knowing anything about boards of education. I am perfectly happy adding a choice on ballots for "No choice". However, if we begin approaching voting as a mandatory requirement with penalties associated with non-compliance, we also get rid of a number of marginally corrupt practices now followed in an effort to exclude voters and force more focus on voter education.

Yes, what we really need is an authoritarian government. :rolleyes:

dnf777
10-06-2009, 04:33 PM
Do you really think it is a great idea to have people that know nothing about what or whom they are voting for being required to vote? If you don't do your homework and vote educatedly (;)), you shouldn't be voting. I can't stand when people vote a straight ticket, as it is another form of uneducated voting.

I'm not sure I would condemn all straight-ticket voters as uneducated. I personally don't do it, but if someone wants to support a platform, then straight ticket is likely the best way to do so.

I don't think mandating uneducated voters is a good idea. Besides, I'm still trying to figure out why Yardley would want to give republican candidates that kind of advantage?? :eek::-P

Bayou Magic
10-06-2009, 04:55 PM
Fair question. Most evidence suggests that the majority of voters who do go to the polls have no idea who most of the candidates are except for national elections. They know least about people in the most local spots with almost no one knowing anything about boards of education. I am perfectly happy adding a choice on ballots for "No choice". However, if we begin approaching voting as a mandatory requirement with penalties associated with non-compliance, we also get rid of a number of marginally corrupt practices now followed in an effort to exclude voters and force more focus on voter education.

Great idea! Let's extend the requirement to vote to illegal aliens, felons (in and out of jail), drug addicts, illiterates, criminally insane (nevermind they already vote _______). While we are at it, let's remove that age limit thing. It's just too difficult to police. Since Mexico and Canada are so close, shouldn't we let them have a say in who leads their neighbor country?

Just trying to be fair,
fp

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 05:01 PM
My suggestion for mandatory voting is at least somewhat facetious in response to Franco's suggestion that we should suppress voting (or voters) that he believes are irresponsible. However, it is only somewhat facetious.

I find it profoundly disturbing that a primary focus of campaign strategies is on enhancing turnout from some voters while suppressing turnout from others.

All the battles about registration are actually battles about manipulating turnout. None of those involved "in the business" actually believes that these battles have anything to do with voting fraud. Fraud occurs at the polling place and in the counting rooms, and the biggest fraud is founded on challenging voters who might be unfriendly on election day since most will leave without fighting for their right to vote. My basis for those statements are statements made by campaign consultants advising both Republican and Democrat candidates. The power of tactics to manipulate turnout stems directly from the low voter turnouts in America. Increase turnout dramatically and the fraud becomes harder to perpetuate.

It is a truism that elections are decided by the undecided. That doesn't mean those voters are ignorant or irrational. Maybe they are the only ones listening carefully, thinking, and making up their minds based on what they believe is truly best. I worry more about the "base" voters on each side since these are the people most likely to be extremists and true believers who would sacrifice democracy to strengthen support for their own notions of what is right.

WaterDogRem
10-06-2009, 05:16 PM
I worry more about the "base" voters on each side since these are the people most likely to be extremists and true believers who would sacrifice democracy to strengthen support for their own notions of what is right.

Like the panthers in Philly. This was a slam-dunk case, especially when they ignored the court, but then the O admin came in and dropped the case.
I'm sure there examples going both ways but we must eliminate these kinds of actions.

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 07:39 PM
Like the panthers in Philly. This was a slam-dunk case, especially when they ignored the court, but then the O admin came in and dropped the case.
I'm sure there examples going both ways but we must eliminate these kinds of actions.What case? I looked at the tapes many times and watched voters entering undisturbed. The police were called when Republican representatives from outside the district said they felt threatened and the two men left. One man was arrested; one was not. The entire incident was over quickly and no voter was threatened or intimidated as far as I could see or based on anything reported locally. The action was denounced immediately by the Black Panther national organization and the Philadelphia chapter was suspended. The only illegal action was the public display of a billy stick by one of the men. Had it been an assault rifle at a presidential speech, we all would have praised the defense of the second amendment. However, in PA, such a weapon requires a permit and must be concealed. That is why he was arrested. There were literally thousands of cases of alleged voting irregularities around the country. This one simply did not rise to a level worthy of greater attention except for the purpose of hate mongering. As far as I know, they are also not pursuing investigations of the signs posted near polls in some Democratic districts of Pittsburgh indicating that to avoid overcrowding that voting for Democrats had been rescheduled until the Wednesday following election day.:rolleyes:

dnf777
10-06-2009, 07:57 PM
It is a truism that elections are decided by the undecided. That doesn't mean those voters are ignorant or irrational. Maybe they are the only ones listening carefully, thinking, and making up their minds based on what they believe is truly best.


http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/daily-show-undecided-voters-aka-stup

Ok, its from the Jon Stewart show, but I think righties and lefties will find this hilarious just the same!

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 08:17 PM
http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/daily-show-undecided-voters-aka-stup

Ok, its from the Jon Stewart show, but I think righties and lefties will find this hilarious just the same!
I'll admit, his theory may hold water better than mine.....:rolleyes:

Franco
10-06-2009, 08:31 PM
One has to qualify for a Drivers Lisence, Concealed Weapon Permit, Home Mortgage, Car Loan, Job Requirement etc... but one doesn't have to qualify to have a vote on who runs local, state and Federal government?

The mess we are in is directly related to the voters who know nothing casting thier vote!

Simple, pass a comprehensive Civics Test in English and earn the privie to vote. Can't pass the test, then one has no business voting.

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 09:13 PM
One has to qualify for a Drivers Lisence, Concealed Weapon Permit, Home Mortgage, Car Loan, Job Requirement etc... but one doesn't have to qualify to have a vote on who runs local, state and Federal government?

The mess we are in is directly related to the voters who know nothing casting thier vote!

Simple, pass a comprehensive Civics Test in English and earn the privie to vote. Can't pass the test, then one has no business voting.
I assume you would agree that congressional seats should then be allocated based on the number of actual voters rather than the population as a whole and that Federal aid will be distributed on the same basis. After all, there should be no representation without representation. Given that we are a federation of states, each state should obviously be permitted to define its own standards for voting eligibility.

ducknwork
10-07-2009, 06:26 AM
Fair question. Most evidence suggests that the majority of voters who do go to the polls have no idea who most of the candidates are except for national elections. They know least about people in the most local spots with almost no one knowing anything about boards of education. I am perfectly happy adding a choice on ballots for "No choice".


I know when I vote, if I don't know much or anything about two candidates, I have the option to leave it blank. That is the responsible thing to do.
________
Amateur homemade (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/60/homemade/videos/1)

cucklebur
10-07-2009, 10:08 PM
Democrats and Republicans are the same party.

Doesn't anybody get that yet???

:confused:

Yes I get it, the only difference in the two is one will skin you from the ankles up and the other will skin you from the neck down.

luvalab
10-08-2009, 12:31 AM
Yes I get it, the only difference in the two is one will skin you from the ankles up and the other will skin you from the neck down.

I'm not sure what this means, but thanks ( ??? ) for the creepy image--insomnia is now totally established.