Yeah you watched the news and come out left on every issue.........anti-Bush. I don't care what your stances are on guns or taxes. You are all anti-Bush no matter what happens. You 3 are the gang of 3. Three that look at a every decision in hindsight but none of you have the guts to say what you would do with any particular issue. The war: Red: Get out of Iraq and sit and watch Iran and Korea. Just like the Dems do........that way, no matter what actually happens, you're always right. I liken what a Dem is to what happened to Bush #1 and Iraq. None of the Dem's wanted to go in the first place but they went along with it. We won in 100 hours...Dem's say they were all for the war to start with....while Bush and colleagues debate about going to Baghdad, Dem's are saying get out now. Bush gets out. Saddam stays in power and spends the rest of the next 12 years breaking the sanctions against him. Then Dem's are on TV saying we should have gotten him out to start with. Bush #2 comes in, deals with Iraq......Dem's: "If Bush #1 had gotten him out we wouldn't have to do this. If Bush #1 had finished the job.......blah, blah, blah." That's the art of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Same thing on Social Security reform: Clinton and Pelosi were arm in arm in the late 90's on reforming social security....mainly by raising taxes and to divert attention from Lewenski. Nothing got done cause all Clinton ever was was big talk.......do nothing controversial. Next Bush wants to do something and says he is willing to listen to all ideas. He presents a plan and still asks for all ideas. What happens: Dem's offer no plan, criticize his and say everything is fine with Social Security. That way, no matter what happens, they win. But see, nothing ever gets fixed unless they do it through some sort of "Great Society" benefit.
That ain't the consensus, Calco. Hillary is widely considered to be a moderate. So was Bill, they are both populists. It's what got him elected over the last Bush. Hillary is not a Kennedy democrat. The far left of the party has less influence over Hillary than it did over Bill, which wasn't much. The sky is sometimes orange, amigo. And there are some smart people at Auburn. Both of them suport Hillary. :grin: Incidently, I do not. But I do recognize that she is a moderate democrat.
I'm not making anything up. Bush took a bad political beating over trying to privatize Social Security. Do you even read the newspapers? It was major news. Bush went on a six-week tour promoting his SS agenda and couldn't convince anybody. People are interested in more security in retirement, not more risk. The Administration fell on its face over Social Securtiy reform and lost some credibility with the citizens. Do a little research. Business Week: Bush's Blunder on Social Security Washington Post: Bush's Misplayed Hand
Give me a break. I've elaborated at length here about any position I've taken. That story just won't wash. People around here know that I'm not shy about supporting my issues with my reasoning and my suggestions. I also try to provide some supporting documentation and references. There are definitely some posters here who are 100% rhetoric, but I ain't one of them. Some folks just don't like anybody who cares to believe something different. And they can't stand somebody who is articulate and convincing about it. So instead of attacking the message, they attack the messenger. Karl Rove 101.
You don't have any issues Red. Bush's messes and Rove leaked the name. That's all you have.....nothing about what should be done or what you believe in. And you can't hide it anymore.
Follow this kiddie: 1. Bush had a plan for social security. 2. He asked for any other ideas from Congress. 3. The Dem's offered nothing but criticism. 4. He couldn't get support for his plan. 5. The Dem's offered no solutions and said everything is fine.
LSUCraig does make a good point about the democrats failing to offer solutions to problems, which is why Kerry couldn't win a race against a three legged horse back in November. He was critical of everything Bush had to offer, but could offer no viable solutions to any issues on the table (unless you consider his "I have a plan to win the peace" with nothing to back it up a viable solution). Kerry surrounded himself with clueless idiots, which of course proved he was and is a clueless idiot himself, and lost the election. So far, it appears the democrats have failed to learn from this, at least the ones controlling the party (the ones Rex and the like blindly follow), and are still attempting to thrive and regain power through negative politics. My guess, the person who comes in and offers solutions to problems, even though they may be flawed solutions (as all are to some extent), will find favor with voters and win the election, regardless of what party they happen to be from. The toughest battle for that person will be making it through the primaries and surviving the attacks from his own party (I say that with the belief that person won't be Hillary or Condi, therefore no need to add herself).
That's how things have to be given to you........spoon-fed with a rubber spoon. Or else you come back with some gibberish with no answers because you have no legitimate responses. I've looked........you have not one legitimate post on this board.
This is not how a discussion works. 1. Why not talk about what you think and not about what you imagine I think? I'll speak for my side. 2. Why not tell us what you think should be done. Don't complain that I haven't done so when you never do. Look, I've got thousands of posts here. Do you really think I haven't stated my beliefs? You just don't read them. Do I have to link them all for you? Ask SabanFan, marc, js, or martin. Hell, ask anybody. Do a search and be surprised. Again, instead of addressing the issue, you resort to lame attempts to discredit your opponent. You sometimes make good arguments on issues you are concerned about about, but I fail to understand why you keep losing your temper if somebody disagrees with you. This is a forum for political discussion. The only reason to post here is to debate issues with those who take the other side. Why do you get so annoyed if somebody does that? Surely you understand that there is another side? I don't mind heated debates, but if you can't stick to the issues without getting personally critical of others, then I will just start ignoring you.
