krawhitham Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 4 More Years of a bad economy in Michigan!! 4? House = 2 Senate = 6 President has 2 left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonj92 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 4? House = 2 Senate = 6 President has 2 leftI should have been more specific. Our Govenor just got re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I voted Republican across the board.How does that somehow not surprise me? anyway, who cares, democrats took the house, and they should soon take the senate. helluljah is all i can say. btw, you seem like a person fit (or anybody else) to answer my question nobody's responded to yet: give me ONE MAJOR THING BUSH HAS DONE TO BENFIT THE WORKING CLASS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 Since, it seems to me, the Democrat's overwhelming wins were based on the failure of the Bush administration's actions on the Iraq war, I have a very simple question. What are the Democrat's plans for withdrawing our troops while also ensuring that Iraq won't be invaded by Iran or Syria? The Democrats were swept into office because of two reasons: 1). the current regime was responsible for the failed or created intelligence leading up to the war, and 2). the current regime did not have, and still does not have, any plan on what we are doing. Since we are stuck in Iraq civil war just like we were stuck in Vietnam's, we must remain there indefinitely until a populous that does not want democracy either grudgingly accepts it or is destroyed by its conflicting elements. We cannot let another Vietnam happen, where the entire war was for naught due to the North's destruction of the South immediately after withdrawal. Plus, with the rise of the Khmer Rouge afterwards (somewhat akin to the present situation in the neighboring muslim nations, though nowhere near on the level of destruction), for the overall stability of the area we have no choice but to remain in Iraq. The Dems would be smart to find someone with the rhetorical prowess of Nixon, without his crippling character flaws. Remember that before Watergate, and before a series of childish, standoff-ish speeches, Nixon almost singlehandedly made a nation understand the necessity of remaining in Vietnam with just a single speech. And this was after the overwhelming failure of Johnson's administration (aka Bush's now) to show progress in the war, leading to their removal from party in the first place. I'd go longer, but i'm at work. Just a brief summation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The Democrats were swept into office because of two reasons: 1). the current regime was responsible for the failed or created intelligence leading up to the war, and 2). the current regime did not have, and still does not have, any plan on what we are doing. Since we are stuck in Iraq civil war just like we were stuck in Vietnam's, we must remain there indefinitely until a populous that does not want democracy either grudgingly accepts it or is destroyed by its conflicting elements. We cannot let another Vietnam happen, where the entire war was for naught due to the North's destruction of the South immediately after withdrawal. Plus, with the rise of the Khmer Rouge afterwards (somewhat akin to the present situation in the neighboring muslim nations, though nowhere near on the level of destruction), for the overall stability of the area we have no choice but to remain in Iraq. The Dems would be smart to find someone with the rhetorical prowess of Nixon, without his crippling character flaws. Remember that before Watergate, and before a series of childish, standoff-ish speeches, Nixon almost singlehandedly made a nation understand the necessity of remaining in Vietnam with just a single speech. And this was after the overwhelming failure of Johnson's administration (aka Bush's now) to show progress in the war, leading to their removal from party in the first place. I'd go longer, but i'm at work. Just a brief summation. Thanks, Sean. But, what is the Democratic party's plan for dealing with the Iraq war? I mean, all of the Democratic politicians I either saw on TV or heard on the radio said they had a plan for Iraq. None of them stated what this plan was. Politics is just so confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Thanks, Sean. But, what is the Democratic party's plan for dealing with the Iraq war? I mean, all of the Democratic politicians I either saw on TV or heard on the radio said they had a plan for Iraq. None of them stated what this plan was. Politics is just so confusing. Yep. No plan at all. I hope they can think of one soon because bashing Bush is officially over as a Democratic strategy- Bush is now a lamer duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hory Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think the democrats will latch on to the soon-to-be released bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report, which has two simple catchphrases "Redeploy and Contain" & "Stability First". Will it work? Probably not, but it's a more realistic & pragmatic approach than "Stay the course" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yep. No plan at all. I hope they can think of one soon because bashing Bush is officially over as a Democratic strategy- Bush is now a lamer duck. They never had a plan?!? How stupid! And people actually believed it. :loser: This country's in worse shape than I thought it was. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee4Life Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Hory you were not kidding, you are really into this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tywiggins Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 By the way, What is Bush's plan in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think the democrats will latch on to the soon-to-be released bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report, which has two simple catchphrases "Redeploy and Contain" & "Stability First". Will it work? Probably not, but it's a more realistic & pragmatic approach than "Stay the course" We're tired of catchphrases, we want results. This three-phase war is getting too much out of countrol. Phase 1: Get rid of Saddam regime - Phase 2: Get rid of insurgents- Phase 3: Stop sectarian violence- Those last 2 parts are what the military is working on right now and it doesnt seem like there is much getting done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think the democrats will latch on to the soon-to-be released bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report, which has two simple catchphrases "Redeploy and Contain" & "Stability First". Will it work? Probably not, but it's a more realistic & pragmatic approach than "Stay the course" To me, "Redploy & Contain" seems like the best way to go. Iran isn't viewed in very favorable light these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 They never had a plan?!? How stupid! And people actually believed it. :loser: This country's in worse shape than I thought it was. :cry:wait, and you suddenly automatically believe him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 wait, and you suddenly automatically believe him? He's the first one that responded to my question about the Democrat's plan. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion. Are you saying that they DO have a plan? If so, what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Do you guys know who actually runs the war? CENTCOM- Central Command! And the multinational forces on the ground... Ultimately, its the generals and the military on the ground that will decide the outcome of this war, NOT Bush or the secretary of Defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The Democrats want accountability for the actions and money spent in Iraq. Beyond that, I'm really not sure what their plan is. Even Howard Dean said earlier this week that there won't be a drawdown of troops anytime soon. Bush seems to finally be getting ahead of the curve. He's booted Rumsfeld (before the Senate could call him before hearings and get those sound bites) and his replaced him with someone from Baker's panel. He can say that 'I've enacted the Baker reports suggestions before Democrats even took office'. Whether the people buy it or that it works, who knows. We're going to see a whole lot of status quo going on in this country for atleast 4 more years. The 'gains' Democrats picked up in this past election were 'social conservative' Democrats. Hell, the guy who won in Pennsylvania's father was one of this countries biggest 'anti-abortion' proponents we've ever had. The wiped out moderate republicans with moderate democrats and appointed liberal democrats to power positions. And this is all before we even know the outcome in Virginia. As I type this, the gap has shrunk below 7,000. There is going to be a recount, and word is that there are a lot of provisional ballots at military bases in Virginia who never recieved their real ballots that need to be counted. Those could sway the vote one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Some good points by HL. However, this whole "conservative" Democrat movement is a joke. I know all these guys are just a bunch of liberals. They try to appear moderate because they know most Americans are in fact, conservative, and not left-wing extremists like Howard Dean and Pelosi. And Joe Lieberman can't even get elected unless he runs as an Independent. I saw how Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee was trying to be some Bible-quoting, gun lovin, conservative. LOL. I really like Ford, but come on. He was just pretending to be conservative to get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hory Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Do you guys know who actually runs the war? CENTCOM- Central Command! And the multinational forces on the ground... Ultimately, its the generals and the military on the ground that will decide the outcome of this war, NOT Bush or the secretary of Defense. So that "Commander-in-Chief" title the president has is just ceremonial then? And there I was thinking that the military commanders along with the secretary of defence served at the pleasure of the president. [sarcasm]I guess I must be wrong and you are right, the United States is not a representative democracy and is actually a military dictatorship. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 damn lemmings, they claim they have a plan. But it is not like they can give out the details in the press as it might get troops KILLED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 He's booted Rumsfeld (before the Senate could call him before hearings and get those sound bites) That is still coming, I see Rummy, Shrub, and shotgun Cheney all getting subpoenas in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tywiggins Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 That is still coming, I see Rummy, Shrub, and shotgun Cheney all getting subpoenas in the near future. Who is Shrub? lol at shotgun Cheney :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hory Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Some good points by HL. However, this whole "conservative" Democrat movement is a joke. I know all these guys are just a bunch of liberals. They try to appear moderate because they know most Americans are in fact, conservative, and not left-wing extremists like Howard Dean and Pelosi. And Joe Lieberman can't even get elected unless he runs as an Independent. I saw how Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee was trying to be some Bible-quoting, gun lovin, conservative. LOL. I really like Ford, but come on. He was just pretending to be conservative to get elected. I can only assume you are being ironic in a Stephen Colbert-like fashion or you are just plain ignorant. Harold Ford is actually a "Bible-quoting, gun lovin, conservative" he's also anti-abortion & anti-gay, yet there are many Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator John McCain & Rudy Giuliani who are more 'liberal' on many issues than Harold Ford & Senator-elect Casey are, yet they are members of the Republican Party. The United States for better or for worse has an entrenched two-party system, and yet the two party's positions on the political spectrum vary wildly from state to state, a Californian Republican would never be elected as a Democrat, let alone a Republican, in Alabama and vice versa. It's very easy for people who know very little and like to see the world in black & white, to label all Democrats "liberals" (as if that's a bad thing) or all Republicans "neo-conservatives" but it's just not true. Reality is much more nuanced than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 He's the first one that responded to my question about the Democrat's plan. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion. Are you saying that they DO have a plan? If so, what is it?well, let's put it this way: it's hard to figure out what exactly what to do, but they do have a rough plan, and even if it isn't much, i can tell you that it'll be much much better than what the republicans would do. the democrats will at least look at this in a reasonable way AND actually try to do something about it. The republicans probably have either no plan at all, or a plan destined to implode and help only the big companies. btw, no one's still answered my question... should i take it that bush hasn't done anything to help the working class? hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Who is Shrub? lol at shotgun Cheney A shrub is a bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I saw how Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee was trying to be some Bible-quoting, gun lovin, conservative.wait, even you admit that republicans are gun-loving? and is that a charecteristic we should look for in a good politician, or anybody for that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.