Good for America/Bad for Democrats
Why Democrats Are Stuck
The democrats are stuck in the middle. They are beholden to leftist organizations because that's where the money is coming from, but it comes with a price. Whatever these organizations want, is what the Dem's have to follow. This 06 midterm election is viewed as a mandate for ending the war, but if it truly was a mandate. Then why are they not following through with what they promised? If congress has the constitutional right to end funding for the war against "terrorism" then why don't they just cut the funding? If they claim to have a mandate then there should be no problem pushing it through. Instead, they wrote an emergency funding bill laden with nearly 24 billion dollars of pork ( which I believe to be coercion to get others to vote for the bill) and a deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq. As far as I know there has never been a deadline for ending a war as if you were trying to meet a project deadline at, say, your job. When you win, then you leave. The pork written into this bill would amount to one of the highest tax increases in US history. Now I am not an economics major by far. But, as a trucker I have noticed the difference between the money I made during Clinton's 8 year term and what is happening right now. Bush had to overcome a recession brought on by Clinton's paper economics, the 911 event, and all within the first 6 months of his first term. The very basic understanding of how economics work, seems to be forgotten by the average liberal. Is it any surprise though? Unless you are a hardcore consumer of news, the average Joe will regurgitate what he heard on CNN or msnbc. Why is it that when positive numbers come out from the fed, that the so called "experts"are "surprised at the resiliency of the economy, by all accounts the tax breaks should be hurting the economy not strengthening it. Why is it that tax receipts to the government have never been higher and the deficit is dropping faster than the the fed predicted? Bottom line, the more money one gets to keep, the more money they get to spend. Government is not in the business of making money. They don't manufacture products, they don't sell goods. All they are, are an alligator in your pocket. The Dem's like that though, because along with money comes power, even at the risk of your or my safety. As long as they maintain the power they could care less about the little people like you or me. The democrats are so mired in their undermining of and hatred for President Bush (who by the way I'm not too happy with, but for different reasons than a liberals) that if there is even a hint of progress in the war on terrorism, their past stance on the conflict would doom them for good. This is why they cannot afford for the war effort to show signs of success. How can Democrats in good conscience vote unanimously for a man like Gen Patraeus knowing full well that his strategy would be to increase troop strength to clear and hold, then turnaround and try to end the war while there is promise in the new strategy. Here is where the Dem's become stuck, you know what they want to do, the left knows what they want to do. but they also know that they can't push for the the end because if and when the troops leave before it's time and the Vietnam killing fields occur again. They know they will have to take the blame and basically be finished as a party for the next 40 years. Once again. I leave you with this question. Who do you want in charge to secure us from the enemy? Bush who recognizes the danger and doesn't care about polls? Or the Democrats, who are more worried about their political power or world opinion?
Published by Slasher
Immigrant from Romania since 1969. Hungarian by birth. American by choice. Ex-Marine 78-82. Currently Trucker for past 24 years. But love to write. View profile
- Senator Barack Obama: Will He Run for President and What Will Hillary Clinton Do A...Who is Barack Obama? He is maybe our next President, if one believes certain, swooning pundits. He is certainly a big headache for another next President of the United States.
- Cindy Sheehan Quits AmericaCindy Sheehan blames everyone, but herself for her move to resign from the peace movement. In it, she basically says that America is the reason for all her troubles and that it is not the country she loves.
- Corrupt Politicians in AmericaAre our morally and criminally corrupt politicians individual bad apples, or a worsening trend on Capital Hill?
- Voting for Obama, and not Clinton, Does Not Make You a Chauvinist PigIs it just me or is NOW (the National Organization for Women) trying to make a candidate's sex more important than the issues themselves?
The Evils of Lesser Evil VotingThe deadly decline of American democracy results in large measure from lesser evil voters electing lesser evil politicians. We will only get the best government by voting for t...
- Ten Reasons Amnesty is a Bad Idea for America Discussed in 2006
- Minimum Wage Workers in America Due for a Raise
- The Need for Immediate Withdrawal of Forces From Iraq by Bush Administration
- Liberal America Looks for Wishes to Become Reality
- The Incredible Shrinking Integrity of Democrats ... Part One... Stay Tuned for Par...
- Suggestions for a New Political Party
- Why I Hope the GOP Nominates Condi Rice for President in 2008
22 Comments
Post a CommentMeredith, thank you. These people don't realize that we live in safety because of the military.
is going exactly where it needs to be going...military personnel did not get one raise while Clinton was in office. I hate to see what will happen to them if another Democrat takes office...or me for that matter since the Democrats feel Bush's tax cuts are so unfair and want to go back to lining the pockets of the wealthy.
You know what this war is for democrats? A way to fan an imaginary controversy to make the republicans look bad. Democrats are famous for this tactic. I wanted to laugh as John Kerry was grilling President Bush in the last election over this war--and I wonder why Bush didn't do more to highlight the fact that Kerry voted for the war along with everyone else, Democrat and Republican alike! Now they're saying, let's get our troops out of there--so we can leave that country in worse shape than it was when this started? Bush has a plan and that plan is to be there for as long as it takes to stabilize that country's government. Democrats are blind to the fact that this does not happen overnight. As far as our economy goes, I hear small businesses griping because Bush's policies have hung them out to dry; meanwhile, military personnel get a raise EVERY January and I personally get a nice check at the end of the tax year because of my low income and my two children. I'd say the money
Not "class envy", dear Slasher. Rather the right has been waging class warfare against an unsuspecting enemy, the American public. Your analogy with the fire only works in a different configuration. See, the fire produces heat or terrorists. The fuel is the society, and the oxygen in this case is an invading force called the coalition of the willing.
Mikah, oh I mean Micah I kan korrekt you. It sounds tome like class envy. "Micah, no" meant theat deez is right that about terroists spreading. All the more reason to stay and fight. You need three things to keep a fire going; fuel, heat and oxygen. We are the heat, terrorism is the fuel and terrorists are oxygen. Remove the oxygen and the fire goes out, and I'm spent.
Right on, Bobby. It's been a long time since the label of conservative actually translated into smaller government. Now it's a code-word for massive spending on useless crap, like a "new" missile defense shield and sprawling desert bases and massive intelligence gathering. Elite conservatives are waging class warfare.
To oppose the way the current war in Iraq is going does NOT make one a Democrat. Just ask Presidential candidate Ron Paul. We are spending a trillion dollars a year trying to build Iraq into a democracy. Is it working? You say you don't like big government, but that's exactly what you're supporting with this war, with the new Department of Homeland Security, and with the general idea that, instead of fighting terrorists, we should attack large nations like Iraq and single-handedly try to change them into a Western democracy.
To the next window, you mean? Nope I'll hang for a bit, if you do mind. And "Micah, no"? I think you meant to say "Micah, yes". Don't correkt me, if I'm not wrong. I don't have a mission of negativity. I want to rebuild this country to withstand fkn Peak Oil and asteroids. You heard that NASA plans to take out any earth-bound asteroids with a few nukes, right? So retarded, that idea of "strength". It begs the question. How many Hollywood movies do you have to watch, before you know how to save the world? The answer is simple: You can't put out the fire with gasoline.
Micah, no its perfectly true, but we disagree on why and how to handle the issue. I say kick their f'n ass, and you and deez want us to cut and run. These a'holes in the middle east understand only one thing, and that's "strength". That's why iran was quiet during saddam's reign. Be a peacenik I really don't care. Oh and as for putting on lipstick, my fav is plum, goes good with grey hair. As Deez puts it, thank you, please drive thru.
Slasher...Is it "typical left-wing rhetoric" for Deez to say that "our enemies are spreading all over the globe"? Sounds more like Bush rhetoric to me.
Lay down your guns and put on some lipstick.