great post. there are a couple types of emotion driven liberals. those who would like to convince others or themselves that they are good people by pretending to care about silly emotional issues, and those who don't think much and trust the others to be sincere. women, being emotional, often fall into one of those categories. i think the worst sort of politician is the demagogue who preaches values he knows to be stupid to people he knows he can trick in order to get power. there are lots and lots of this sort of politician, on both sides of the current political spectrum. in my mind you are super cool if you have an illegitimate black daughter. i think this is obvious to everyone, including red, he is just a one man squad for now and he feels like he must play some devil's advocate. it is definitely sleazy to use your basically un-criticizable status of the mother of a dead soldier to further your own attention grabbing ends. and even i can almost excuse it if i believe that tragedy has brought on insanity, which would be perfectly understandable. but i dont think that is the case here. we understand the false dichotomy. we all accept that death of son is terrible, and that war in general is terrible. that doesnt mean this war is unjustified, it just means that horrible things happen sometimes and it is really really terrible and there is nothing you can do about it. so sheehan leaves us in the cheap shot argument position of appearing to favor killing innocent young soldiers like her son if we favor a necessary war. thats a very very cheap shot and i do not like people who do that.
Interesting little side note. When I logged on to the internet a minute ago and the Top Story on the netscape page read "Grim Milestone: American Deaths in Iraq Reach 2,500 Mark".
hahahaha:rofl: this thread is hilarious First of all Cindy Sheehan's family didn't feel the same way she did. Thats why they are now divorced if thats true. My brother was in Desert Storm, and if something happened to him I would want it NOT to be for a failure, Vietnam, whatever you want to call it. We better win at all costs Damit, If I had to drop the A bomb on every middle eastern country I would so you better not call a Jihad with me as president. Just the opposite of the leftist wacko nuts such as Dick Durbin, The Kennedys and Cindy, Cindy get an education. Mythical? You Democrats and moderates will look so rediculous if its proven other wise. You, didn't hear the coalition news conference today when they said Zarqawi was already in Iraq at the time the Taliban fell. Yes there were terrorist camps in Iraq and I don't really know if Saddam knew about it and neither do I care if he did. Whats John McCain having an illegitimate black daughter have anything to do about it, you are slandering him if you can't prove it!:dis: Are you saying Rove leaked a CIA agent? That was never proven. There are bad people on both sides but the Democrats take the cake. William Jefferson!:shock: :dis: Casualties are a thing that happens during war, it has always happened when a country goes to war. How many did we lose on D-Day? By the way we are at 2500 and I blame Bush for not having a better plan but I blame the anti-war pro Vietnam left, Dick Durban, Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy and anybody else who was irresponsible by parading themselves in front of the media. Let's remember General Giap's memoirs stated that they were losing but their resolve grew because of the news coverage and protests in America. Let's not forget that those protestors, one of which was John F Kerry who I still can't believe ran for president not to mention almost won. This could only happen in America folks!:lol: :rofl:gotta love it:rofl:
Watch enough of these elections and you will realize that statement is ridiculous. Republicans control the executive, judicial, and legislative branches right now. The Democrats can't do anything until they are back in power, at which point they will be responsible for not screwing it up and there will be little that the Republicans can do. It has always worked this way, neither party holds onto power forever before the people demand a change. And this process is driven from both sides, anyone can see it.
You say the statement is ridiculous, and then you say the same thing I said - that democrats aren't able to screw up and they will get back in power because people demand a change...? The democrats didn't do anything to deserve it. They offer no real plan for change, they are just the only other option.
This is how politics work, amigo. It ain't about "deserve". If it was then you could just as easily say that the republicans haven't done anything to deserve retaining power. It's about timing. The Democrats are not promoting their plans because the republicans in charge are shooting themselves in the foot on every front right now and the looking really bad in the process. The democrats are going to sit back and let them self-destruct. The polls are showing that the republicans are in trouble in the fall and again in 2008, barring some surprise. Why should the Democrats put up their plans prematurely and let the republicans shoot at them for the next two years? They want the voters to focus on the guys in charge for the next two years and hold them responsible for the messes they created. You won't see major democratic policy announcements until well into the 2008 Presidential campaign. The same thing happened in 1992 and many times previously (I know you don't remember). Bush 41 was personally popular after the Gulf war, but his "trickle-down" economic policy was not working and Bush was perceived as not addressing public concerns. The Democrats did not push a new agenda in the middle of a Republican administration, but waited until the election year. Bill Clinton came out of nowhere with a plan that appealed to the voters and defeated a popular incumbent president. Mostly because they let the economic dissatisfaction with the President's policies simmer until the time was right to introduce their own. Election time.
As bad as Bush's poll numbers are, Congress' poll numbers are much worse. It'll be interesting to see if voters truly revolt against incumbents or if they'll just re-elect the same old tired politicians. I think the fall elections are more important for the dems. If they can't take control of the House after what the reps have done (or not done), it'll send a loud message to the dems that voters don't think they have any better solutions than the reps. And that'll make it tough for them to win in '08.
Do a little research. Far more Republicans officials and associates have been investigated, indicted, and convicted in bribery and money laundering than Democrats. You keep harping on Jefferson but you forget or don't know about Republican governors Ernie Fletcher (indicted) and Bob Taft(convicted. You never mention the indictments of Republican Congressmen Tom Delay (indicted) Duke Cunningham (convicted). To compare an apple to an apple I could site John Doolittle R California, Jerry Lewis R California or Bob Ney R Ohio who are all being investigated for bribery. In total 58 Republican congressmen, governors, and their associates are being investigated, have been indicted or convicted. In the same time span only 6 Democrats have been investigated, indicted are convicted. Maybe if you'd turn off Fox news for a few minutes you'd see that party affiliation has little to do with being sleeze. Based on the facts I've presented I would not make the claim that the Republicans take the cake, but that both Republicans and Democrats are all dirty bastards.
