Another reason to vote against republicans

[michaelskis]

the insurgents are only there because we are there.

Are you kidding me? Oh now I have heard it all. I suppose crime only exists in the US because we have wealthy people for them to steal from.

You know what... your right. If we had never gone there, the insurgency would not be there. That is because Saddam would still be in power and he already had the market cornered in Iraq for terrorizing the people. But you know what, the fall of Saddam sparked an alarm that democracy was moving in, and the terrorist are out to destroy that and take control of the country.

If they are only there because we are there, then why do they also target Iraqi military? Or what about suicide bombers walking onto buses that are full of Iraqi citizens, is that too because there might be an American on the bus?

[runawayjim]

Are you kidding me? Oh now I have heard it all. I suppose crime only exists in the US because we have wealthy people for them to steal from.

You know what... your right. If we had never gone there, the insurgency would not be there. That is because Saddam would still be in power and he already had the market cornered in Iraq for terrorizing the people. But you know what, the fall of Saddam sparked an alarm that democracy was moving in, and the terrorist are out to destroy that and take control of the country.

If they are only there because we are there, then why do they also target Iraqi military? Or what about suicide bombers walking onto buses that are full of Iraqi citizens, is that too because there might be an American on the bus?

they do not consider the iraqi army to be iraqi. they consider it to be american. let's not forget the fact that wherever the iraqi army is, the americans are right there with them because they don't have the ability to lead themselves.

you also cannot compare the insurgency to crime in the US. it's completely different. i can't believe you really believe that if we stay there long enough, the government will last after we go. or do you think we belong there forever to be the police and military force for iraq?

[cinco]

i promised myself i would not rant about this presidents short-sightedness... but, this guy continues to make one disasterous wrong turn after another. even within his own party, republicans are breaking rank (chuck hagel, just today). IMO, the only positive to come out of his political tenure, is the fact that he hasn't gotten HIS way on a number of issues. thankfully, there are a few brave republicans who don't always prostlyze themselves to bush. i just wish they had stood up more often and with louder voices. the fact is, president bush has not been a good republican. fiscal conservative... laughable.

his foreign policy has cost, and will continue to cost many innocent lives - not just americans. while the worlds attention is on isreal/lebanon - hugo chavez from venezuela is forming alliances with belarus, russia, and iran. not too mention we got n. korea brewing under the surface. now, these countries are the fringe examples, many others who are our traditional allies have become increasingly skeptical of bush's (america) policies. there comes a time when you have to ask yourself what you can do to help the situations of the world other than act aggressively or blame everyone else. bush said that history will judge him... i will take that further and say it will show he was the biggest presidential failure of our time. "was" can't come soon enough.

the best thing the republicans can do is distance themselves from him, the fanatical christian right, and get back to the basic republican values of less government and fiscal responsability.

[monsoon]

An insurgent, by definition, is a citizen who rebels against civil government. Until recently it was an obscure term where the better known words such as rebel or revolutionist were commonly used. The very people who founded this country, i.e. the founding fathers, were insurgents in the eyes of the British crown.

The use of the word insurgent is another attempt to confuse people into thinking these citizens of Iraq, who are protesting the USA puppet government there are terrorists. They are not, but it is indicative of a Presidency who takes every opportunity that he has to use the events of 9/11 to justify every single unjust action tht he has taken since that date. Insurgent also sounds a lot better than calling them rebels because we were led to believe that Iraqis would be throwing roses at our feet for throwing out Saddam. The idea of the people rebelling against the goverment is completly counter to this wrong assumption and claim, and using the word insurgent gets around this due to its obscurity.

Iraq is not falling apart because of terrorists, Al Queda, Iran, people who hate democracy, etc etc. It is falling apart because it was destroyed by GW Bush's war mongering, and there was absolutely no plan for putting together the pieces aftewards. And 3+ years later, there is still no plan. This is why there are insurgents, i.e. rebels there fighting against our occupation and our puppet government.

If Americans want Iraq fixed, they will vote out this bunch of doublespeaking disingenious Republicans from congress.

[Snowguy716]

The country is shifting to the left as the parties shift to the right. People say the democrats have no unified voice? Look at the Republicans... Kansas is a good example.

Kansas really has three parties. They have the democratic party, then they have the moderate republicans, and the cultural conservatives that will fight to the death in primaries to get their candidates in.. This happened in their gubernatorial election 4 years ago, and the democrat got elected.

This will happen in the republican party nationally, as it already mostly has. The far right neo-con Christians will take hold of the party and the moderates will leave, leaving the Republicans with about 25% of the population.

If the democratic party can appeal to these moderate republicans, we may have the Grand New Party, and the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs and the Democratic-Republicans.

[Charlotte_native]

God what I would give for a good, viable, real third party...

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Speaking of hate. For me the biggest problems with the Democrats are that they preach a hate of: whites (Affirmative Action. race based programs), people with money (soak the rich), and men (feminism). They also have this guilt complex, which I don't understand. Why would anyone feel guilty about having money, and being sucessful?

Since I am white, own a few businesses, and am a straight male, I can't really ever vote for such a party, it has NOTHING for me. Abortion - I'm against it - is another issue, but a little less important. I don't really care if the gays can marry, but I'm not against it - that issue is far down the list in importance for me.

The Republican party has been partially hijacked by the neocons, but it looks like their influence is waning. They (the neocons) are calling for more cowboy diplomacy but the leadership has been avoiding that. We would have attacked Iran by now if the neocons still had a strong enough voice. The deficit is decreasing while GDP increases, and this next election should shake some sense into the republicans on immigration as the survival of their very party rests on keeping the country mostly white and christian. Republicans are already starting to the distance themselves from the president, which is good, I don't like the president's "compassionate conservatism" and that shouldn't be policy.

I predict a slip in the Republican numbers but they won't lose the houses of congress. If they do lose a house, they will reclaim it the following election cycle.

I've changed my position on this issue many times, even throughout this thread. I'm not afraid to change my position as I learn new things and think about the issues. I'll probably vote republican, though I could be convinced to vote for something else.

As for the war, here are some numbers comparing the first six months of 2006 with the first six months of 2005:

U.S. Fatalities -13.2%

U.S. Casualties -15.0%

Iraqi Military & Police Deaths -10.6%

Attacks on Oil & Gas Pipelines, Installations, and Personnel -50.8%

Car Bombs -34.8%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._lieberman.html

It looks like we are seeing a decrease in attacks and deaths across the board. I still don't support the war, but it looks like it is improving.

[Gusterfell]

Speaking of hate. For me the biggest problems with the Democrats are that they preach a hate of: whites (Affirmative Action. race based programs), people with money (soak the rich), and men (feminism). They also have this guilt complex, which I don't understand. Why would anyone feel guilty about having money, and being sucessful?

You're right. Rich white men have a long, painful history of being oppressed.

Seeking to offer a helping hand to the disadvantaged does not equal hatred toward the priviledged. Isn't it the single most important aspect of that Christianity thing the conservatives like to flaunt?

[runawayjim]

As for the war, here are some numbers comparing the first six months of 2006 with the first six months of 2005:

U.S. Fatalities -13.2%

U.S. Casualties -15.0%

Iraqi Military & Police Deaths -10.6%

Attacks on Oil & Gas Pipelines, Installations, and Personnel -50.8%

Car Bombs -34.8%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._lieberman.html

It looks like we are seeing a decrease in attacks and deaths across the board. I still don't support the war, but it looks like it is improving.

the worthy improvement would look something like this:

U.S. Fatalities -100%

U.S. Casualties -100%

Iraqi Military & Police Deaths -100%

Attacks on Oil & Gas Pipelines, Installations, and Personnel -100%

Car Bombs -100%

unfortunately, that will never be completely acheived, but we'd be much closer to acheiving that if the americans pull out.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I'm not saying that they have a history of being oppressed, but I don't want to vote for someone that is has it out for my way of life, someone that hates who I am.

Injuring someone to help someone isn't morally acceptable. Everyone should be free to make their own way. I should be free to make millions if I so choose (without hurting anyone of course), no ceiling needs to be put in place so a single mother failure can watch TV.

As for charity and altruism, people are free to help others if they choose to. Helping others shouldn't be a policy of the government. I give to charities that are acceptable, giving to planned parenthood is not something I would do (but the government does so).

[runawayjim]

I'm not saying that they have a history of being oppressed, but I don't want to vote for someone that is has it out for my way of life, someone that hates who I am.

Injuring someone to help someone isn't morally acceptable. Everyone should be free to make their own way. I should be free to make millions if I so choose (without hurting anyone of course), no ceiling needs to be put in place so a single mother failure can watch TV.

As for charity and altruism, people are free to help others if they choose to. Helping others shouldn't be a policy of the government. I give to charities that are acceptable, giving to planned parenthood is not something I would do (but the government does so).

do you truly believe the rich white men running for office hate you and your way of life just because they're democrats?

they aren't injuring someone to help others. the programs put in place are there to help pull traditionally disadvantaged members of society out of a rut, not take from the rich and give to the poor. the system does need to be fixed so that it can't be abused, but it's not there for the purpose which you seem to think.

the problem i have with the republicans and their biggest supporters is just how "christian" they are. in my mind christians believe in helping others before themselves. that just doesn't happen very often. i have already stated my other issues in previous posts regarding abortion and the death penalty and those who support the death penalty yet call themselves pro-life.

oh, and the government also gives to anti-abortion folks and supports anti-contraceptive education in their abstinence only programs, which are known by those in the medical field to not work anywhere near as effectively as teaching about contraception.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

oh, and the government also gives to anti-abortion folks and supports anti-contraceptive education in their abstinence only programs, which are known by those in the medical field to not work anywhere near as effectively as teaching about contraception.

It shouldn't give to them either.

The rich men running for office that are democrats are usually trust fund rich, but there are exceptions. Again, rich democrats have this guilt (possibly just a charade) that I find to be obnoxious. Also there are many ways to get rich on the doll of the government and because of government, not in-spite of it. Lawyers come to mind... I find that (making money off the government) to be morally unacceptable and believe that small government would clamp down on that. I know many republicans also get rich through the government (defense contractors especially), but it's the lesser of two evils thing.

I'm interested in generating wealth, not moving it about.

Welfare is, at its core, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Raising taxes injures me, and makes me save, invest, and spend less.

As for the Christian part, I'm not a practicing Christian, and I don't think that the country is founded on Christian principles of selflessness and altruism. It was founded on the idea that wealth can be created and should be.

I don't support the death penalty and I don't support Abortion. My other beliefs are surely not as consistent though.

[Snowguy716]

You're right Moonshield.. helping others shouldn't be a policy of the government.. so we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. We should stop aid to all countries, including Israel.

We shouldn't have aided the English in WWII or the French/English in WWI.. we should have refrained from helping..

If charities want to go in and aid the Iraqis, then they should be able to do so.. but only those deemed acceptable by narrow-minded, white Christian republican men.

[Snowguy716]

A single mother failure watching TV?

I know a lot of single mothers that work their butts off to try and make a good future for their children.. and you're all up in a fuss because they can buy milk, eggs, and cereal on the government dime?

I know what you'll say "I support helping those who want to help themselves.. it's jsut the lazy ones I don't like"

Where are these lazy ones? What makes someone like Dick Cheney better than the working single mother whose husband had a mid-life crisis and took off for some other half-his-age woman?

Dick Cheney is the fat, lazy, SOB having a heart attack every other day because he can't put down the fork who made his money off of relatively little actual work.. and he's the one we should be praising? Not he back breaking workers in this country that scrape pennies to give their children a better future?

Those are the ones that democrats want to help. Those that are disadvantaged... the ones, who with a little extra help and a nudge, could make themselves into greats and give their children a good future...

But no, Dick Cheney deserves it, and the single mother failure watching TV can just go to hell.

[Gusterfell]

I know many republicans also get rich through the government (defense contractors especially), but it's the lesser of two evils thing.

Those who abuse welfare are poor to begin with, and at most cheat the American people out of thousands of dollars. The Defense contractors and other Republican cronies are fabulously wealthy to begin with and cheat the American people out of billions of dollars. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Oh, and that "guilt" you keep saying rich Democrats have? It's called compassion and a lack of greed.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

A single mother failure watching TV?

I know a lot of single mothers that work their butts off to try and make a good future for their children.. and you're all up in a fuss because they can buy milk, eggs, and cereal on the government dime?

I know what you'll say "I support helping those who want to help themselves.. it's jsut the lazy ones I don't like"

Where are these lazy ones? What makes someone like Dick Cheney better than the working single mother whose husband had a mid-life crisis and took off for some other half-his-age woman?

Dick Cheney is the fat, lazy, SOB having a heart attack every other day because he can't put down the fork who made his money off of relatively little actual work.. and he's the one we should be praising? Not he back breaking workers in this country that scrape pennies to give their children a better future?

Those are the ones that democrats want to help. Those that are disadvantaged... the ones, who with a little extra help and a nudge, could make themselves into greats and give their children a good future...

But no, Dick Cheney deserves it, and the single mother failure watching TV can just go to hell.

Cheney wasn't (isn't?) lazy. He didn't come from a wealthy family. He used his brains do make himself money, though I don't like how he made it. Money does grow on the proverbial tree, you just need to look for it.

And by single mothers I mean the ones who kids when they were 18. Not the ones late in the life that didn't understand savings and investments.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a Marxist bone in me.

I'm also sorry this discussion has veered towards my greediness and away from the Republican party and why everyone hates it but it still gets the majority of the votes.

[cinco]

It shouldn't give to them either.

The rich men running for office that are democrats are usually trust fund rich, but there are exceptions. Again, rich democrats have this guilt (possibly just a charade) that I find to be obnoxious. Also there are many ways to get rich on the doll of the government and because of government, not in-spite of it. Lawyers come to mind... I find that (making money off the government) to be morally unacceptable and believe that small government would clamp down on that. I know many republicans also get rich through the government (defense contractors especially), but it's the lesser of two evils thing.

I'm interested in generating wealth, not moving it about.

Welfare is, at its core, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Raising taxes injures me, and makes me save, invest, and spend less.

are you implying that a majority of democrats in office are trust fund rich opposed to republicans - who are not? while i wouldn't even begin to pretend to know that statistic... it sounds like a farce. you say that you are opposed to making money off the government...then you obviously support lobbying reform, corporate kickback reform, and the de-privatization of military contracts? all, of which are the opposite of republican mainstays. when it comes to milking the government for money... do you honestly believe there IS a lesser of two evils. i do not.

however, socially there is. the democrats have stood the platform for the most momumental social reforms of the last 100 years. things that seem abstract... like civil rights, womens rights, working class. while the dems ain't perfect... sometimes they play patsy to Political Correctness and i wish they would take a more vocal stance of support for gays, they seem to try.

i am somewhat fiscally conservative, and i don't think republicans hold this torch anymore. people whine that clinton had a surplus and our taxes were a little higher... do those same people think its OK for taxes to be cut while we run up a historical defecit... who do you think pays for bush's plan? future generations? @ least with clinton's plan we knew who was paying the tab... and rightfully so.

as for welfare... i'll have you know the last major reform was under clintons watch. i will also leave you with this, as i do for others who don't believe welfare... i hope your life never throws you a curveball in which you might find yourself in need of governmental help.

[monsoon]

As for the war, here are some numbers comparing the first six months of 2006 with the first six months of 2005:

U.S. Fatalities -13.2%

U.S. Casualties -15.0%

Iraqi Military & Police Deaths -10.6%

Attacks on Oil & Gas Pipelines, Installations, and Personnel -50.8%

Car Bombs -34.8%

It's interesting you left the real numbers out from that article. We have this from that article

2006: (1st 6 months)

U.S. Fatalities 356

U.S. Casualties 2,433

Iraqi Military & Police Deaths 1,021

Attacks on Oil & Gas Pipelines, Installations, and Personnel 30

Car Bombs 232

A 13% decrease sounds good until you realize that 352 Americans have died during this period and and almost 2500 more were seriously injured. All for nothing.

It is deplorable that we are seeing this magnitude of carnage on the 3rd anniversary of our occupation. It is not good news at all and this is an example of how just listing percentages does not tell the entire story. The reason that US Fatalities are down is because the US Military is hunkered down in compounds and does not go out into the public anymore. That is why the country is decending into pure anarchy.

This is more telling.

American Deaths updated 7/30/2006

• Since war began (3/19/03): 2577

• Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 2440

• Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 2112

• Since Handover (6/29/04): 1717

• Since Election (1/31/05): 1144

• American Wounded - Official 18988

• American Wounded- Un Official 20000 - 48100

Iraqi's have a government, their former dictator is in jail, they have a constitution, and they are sitting on the 3-4th largest oil wealth in the world. There is no reason for us to be there anymore. Vote for the democrats to send our military boys and girls home.

[monsoon]

And while we are at it, the UN reports the following for civilian casualities in Iraq.

2006 Iraqi Civilian Death Count

• 1,778 civilians were killed in January 2006

• 2,165 in February

• 2,378 in March

• 2,284 in April

• 2,669 in May

• 3,149 in June

Maybe I am missing something here, but I can't think of anywhere in the world where it is this bad. And this in a country where we have 137,000 troops and more on the way.

This does not sound like the country we were promised that result from our conquering of Iraq. Its a bad situation and one the USA is helpless to fix.

[cinco]

.... the Republican party and why everyone hates it but it still gets the majority of the votes.

hopefully it's just a momentary lapse of reason and not the dumbing down of the U.S.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

A 13% decrease sounds good until you realize that 352 Americans have died during this period and and almost 2500 more were seriously injured. All for nothing.

It is deplorable that we are seeing this magnitude of carnage on the 3rd anniversary of our occupation. It is not good news at all and this is an example of how just listing percentages does not tell the entire story. The reason that US Fatalities are down is because the US Military is hunkered down in compounds and does not go out into the public anymore. That is why the country is decending into pure anarchy.

You're right on that count. I didn't try to hide or fudge the numbers, but since IVPB doesn't have a table feature it's rather difficult to post info like that. I'm just saying it's getting better from a losses standpoint (though not by much), I don't think we should have ever gone in there in the first place and our precense abroad hinders OUR peace and costs lots of money. We shouldn't be supporting Israel's aggression either, but the Democratic leadership (I may have misinterpreted their comments) is just as for it as Bush and his cronies.

[monsoon]

I'm also sorry this discussion has veered towards my greediness and away from the Republican party and why everyone hates it but it still gets the majority of the votes.

Actually the Democrats have won the Popular Vote in 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Actually the Democrats have won the Popular Vote in 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections.

Yes, but the houses of congress tell a different story and are what is up for vote this year.

It very well may change, but I don't think it will. We shall see. Certainly though, the Democrats won't get enough seats to hold impeachment votes as has been suggested.

[monsoon]

Impeachment or accusation only requires a simply majority vote in the House of Representatives. The Senate then decides if the impeachment is valid or not. This is more difficult at is requires 67 votes in the current senate.

Clinton was impeached because Republicans felt that lying about an affair, which was discovered after a taxpayer funded $90M witchhunt that lasted 4 years, was worthy of spending the congress's time on. Fortunately the Senate in this case, acquited him of the charges.

When Clinton Lied Nobody Died.

[Charlotte_native]

It very well may change, but I don't think it will. We shall see. Certainly though, the Democrats won't get enough seats to hold impeachment votes as has been suggested.

Oh but it would be nice. If a blow-job is worth impeachment, the list of constitutional infringements, geneva convention "slips", and lying to Congress should. Funny how you almost acknowledge that impeachment might be an option if only the party in power weren't holding it back. I would respect republicans so much if they would show some backbone against this president. The only reason true investigations have not happened is they are blocked. Can you be proud of that? Everyone that supports Bush says they don't mind wiretapping because they aren't doing anything -- hypocrites -- if that that is the case, then he/they should gladly welcome inquiries and REAL investigations to prove they are doing nothing. In reality they block any and all oversight, and i would presume that is because of what would be found. This is always the have it both ways administration.

We are all delighted you make a lot of money and didn't need any goverment help. I also make a lot of money and did require help. My mother is single (from divorce, she wasn't a horrible welfare un-wed monster, oops, i mean mother) and I am an only child. She was a secretary who never took welfare in her life. I got federal money for college and charity money growing up for sports, camps, and other activities rich kids did. I own three businesses and have done well with the public's funds. I happily give back privately and I also don't begrudge taxes since they helped me, since they protect me, since i use interstate highways, and since i am part of this great society. I have always felt sorry for those that make plenty for themselves and only want to horde it to get more. My lifestyle is great but I don't mind sharing -- that is something my single mother taught me.

Oh, and I am also a white male and feel no guilt for my income. As stated earlier by someone else, you mistake guilt for compassion and the very essense of sharing.