I dont see this as dem or repub issue. I see it as a ‘big governemnt fails and Obama and Clinton want to just make it bigger’ issue. As I eluded to earlier. If it were repubs wanting to put healthcare under government management, I would count them as morons as well.
Care to back that up. I’d wager that under Republican control the size and cost of our federal government has grown. Further I’d wager that under Democratic control it has actually been controlled.
But hey what would I know. Wait a minute I’ve got these things called facts.
The PL guys engage in a fallacy of logic here, comparing apples and oranges:
Incarcerating our criminals and making sure the Rule of Law is observed is a proper function of our government (Remember the Constitution talks about enemies foreign and domestic...) but overseeing and managing our health care is not.
The reason one shouldn’t vote for DemocRats is because they believe that everything and everyone is the province of the government.
If anything, they are far worse on crime, due to their foolish beliefs that everyone’s a victim, including criminals, therefore they wish to shorten jail sentences and do away with the death penalty while making jails more “humane.”
If you want to see what that looks like, take a gander at Britain--it’s a mess!
Similarly, Britain has nationalized health care, too.
We shouldn’t vote for DemocRats because they’re Liberals, with all the nightmares and headaches to our great republic that implies.
Full stop.
The PL guys engage in a fallacy of logic here, comparing apples and oranges:
Incarcerating our criminals and making sure the Rule of Law is observed is a proper function of our government (Remember the Constitution talks about enemies foreign and domestic...) but overseeing and managing our health care is not.
The reason one shouldn’t vote for DemocRats is because they believe that everything and everyone is the province of the government.
If anything, they are far worse on crime, due to their foolish beliefs that everyone’s a victim, including criminals, therefore they wish to shorten jail sentences and do away with the death penalty while making jails more “humane.”
If you want to see what that looks like, take a gander at Britain--it’s a mess!
Similarly, Britain has nationalized health care, too.
We shouldn’t vote for DemocRats because they’re Liberals, with all the nightmares and headaches to our great republic that implies.
Full stop.
Hate to break this to you, but the current repubs in power are Liberals on spending and other issues as well. I know that facts like this arent something you can handle very well, but at least try for once.
Hate to break this to you, but the current repubs in power are Liberals on spending and other issues as well. I know that facts like this arent something you can handle very well, but at least try for once.
Maybe if you gave me some facts--especially ones that related to the topic of this thread--, I could handle them very well indeed.
I think the current crop of Republicans, including the President, have been pretty good on spending.
As for the “other issues,” who knows what you’re referring to?
While GOP politician incorporate certain Liberal (in the classic sense) values into their legislation, it’s nothing to the outright Leftism and Marxism that is embraced by today’s current DemocRat Party.
I think the current crop of Republicans, including the President, have been pretty good on spending.
Come on Jen:
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.....The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs.
So under Clinton they were more responsible than under Bush.
Which brings us full circle to the original statement. As I have pointed out, PL somehow blames the Democrats for the fiscal and irresponsible actions of Republicans.
Maybe she should go back and serve her time. There is the rule of law, and the consequences for breaking it. But it will always be a mystery to me, and probably to history itself, why Bush and Cheney are not occupying adjacent prison cells.
No organized Al-Qadea in Iraq prior to 9/11.
No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
U.N. weapons inspectors not kicked out by Saddam.
Bin Laden still on the loose.
No WMDs.
Maybe she should go back and serve her time. There is the rule of law, and the consequences for breaking it. But it will always be a mystery to me, and probably to history itself, why Bush and Cheney are not occupying adjacent prison cells.
No organized Al-Qadea in Iraq prior to 9/11.
No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
U.N. weapons inspectors not kicked out by Saddam.
Bin Laden still on the loose.
No WMDs.
4000 dead.
Support Our Truths.
I posted this elsewhere this morning:
I thought that we had got beyond all this nitpicking about Iraq.
I thought everyone understood that Iraq was all about our not being able to tolerate anyone hostile to us controlling that portion of the world’s oil supply that (sadly) happens to be in the Middle East.
We will have to have our Military in the region for as long as the region is like it is now, just as we will remain in Europe for as long as there is a Russian (Communist or otherwise) threat. Ditto Korea and Japan, and add China.
Does anyone else remember all the “Yankee Go Home” and the “Bring the Troops Home” agitation from the left during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s?
You lefties should stop quacking long enough to think about how much more difficult things would have been for us had Russia brought Western Europe into its orbit or would be now if we had allowed an unfriendly Iraq or Iran to control the oil spigot.
The lefties always act as though they are being touched them with a red hot poker when someone questions their patriotism. Well, the only other possibility is to question their intelligence
Maybe she should go back and serve her time. There is the rule of law, and the consequences for breaking it. But it will always be a mystery to me, and probably to history itself, why Bush and Cheney are not occupying adjacent prison cells.
No organized Al-Qadea in Iraq prior to 9/11.
No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
U.N. weapons inspectors not kicked out by Saddam.
Bin Laden still on the loose.
No WMDs.
4000 dead.
Support Our Truths.
I posted this elsewhere this morning:
I thought that we had got beyond all this nitpicking about Iraq.
I thought everyone understood that Iraq was all about our not being able to tolerate anyone hostile to us controlling that portion of the world’s oil supply that (sadly) happens to be in the Middle East.
We will have to have our Military in the region for as long as the region is like it is now, just as we will remain in Europe for as long as there is a Russian (Communist or otherwise) threat. Ditto Korea and Japan, and add China.
Does anyone else remember all the “Yankee Go Home” and the “Bring the Troops Home” agitation from the left during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s?
You lefties should stop quacking long enough to think about how much more difficult things would have been for us had Russia brought Western Europe into its orbit or would be now if we had allowed an unfriendly Iraq or Iran to control the oil spigot.
The lefties always act as though they are being touched them with a red hot poker when someone questions their patriotism. Well, the only other possibility is to question their intelligence
Too bad for you: most of my Repub & independent friends are dialed into the historical facts: 4000 dead because of Bush’s hubris. No WMDs. Deal with it. You took military advice from a silver-spoon East-coast Andover cheerleader.
Nope.
They’re dead because they were killed by IslamoFascist killers.
We killed a lot more of them.
No WMDs.
We would have never known this if we hadn’t invaded.
Saddam had them, we do know that.
And would have gotten more.
Deal with it.
You took military advice from a silver-spoon East-coast Andover cheerleader.
Uh, no.
We took military advice from the Pentagon, as did our Commander-in-Chief.
We won the war, have practically stopped AQ in its tracks, and kept America safe.
BTW, in addition to going to Andover, President Bush graduated from Yale and has an MBA from Harvard.
And also, don’t forget that Congress voted on and approved of the Iraq war.
Deal with that.
BTW, your little anti-Bush rant has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Nope.
They’re dead because they were killed by IslamoFascist killers.
We killed a lot more of them.
No WMDs.
We would have never known this if we hadn’t invaded.
Saddam had them, we do know that.
And would have gotten more.
Deal with it.
You took military advice from a silver-spoon East-coast Andover cheerleader.
Uh, no.
We took military advice from the Pentagon, as did our Commander-in-Chief.
We won the war, have practically stopped AQ in its tracks, and kept America safe.
Looks like Jen is quite OK with the notion of putting 4000 soldiers in the line of fire to find out something isn’t there. She’d revel at the prospect of sitting down with the families of 4000 dead, convincing them that Bush was just acting on the advice of the Pentagon and hadn’t heard voices from God telling him to go to war. Maybe she’d be able to squeeze a little tear out.
Maybe she can lead the charge to North Korea. Or Canada. Another 4000 dead to find out nothing’s there.
“Saddam had them, we do know that.” Right. What did Colin Powell say...how did he put it...something about a “stain on his career.” I guess Jen’s military intel sources are better than Colin Powell’s.
I’m guessing Jen hasn’t done any military service. “Other priorities”, no doubt.
IDP says, “How much do you wanna bet: When this hag is finally released from prison, she’ll become a political celeb in Minnesota...Hell, the local Dems might even tap her to run for a house seat or something. There are districts in this state that she would win.”
I’ll bet a lot. She will be radioactive. She apparently had a number of friends here who might forgive her and welcome her back, but she is a killer, and in Minnesota, no politician will associate with her publicly.
IDP says, “How much do you wanna bet: When this hag is finally released from prison, she’ll become a political celeb in Minnesota...Hell, the local Dems might even tap her to run for a house seat or something. There are districts in this state that she would win.”
I’ll bet a lot. She will be radioactive. She apparently had a number of friends here who might forgive her and welcome her back, but she is a killer, and in Minnesota, no politician will associate with her publicly.
A district that elected garbage that protested in support of cop killers, would welcome this terrorist with open arms.
Hawk, I don’t follow your reference here; “A district that elected garbage that protested in support of cop killers, would welcome this terrorist with open arms.”
MnHawk, I am well-aware that Ellison was a big Sara Jane supporter when she was arrested. He was a dolt then and appears to continue as a dolt. When she was arrested, though, all sorts of people assumed she was innocent. (There is even a constitutional hook on that one.) I know someone who knew her rather well and she was absolutely astonished to learn that this nice St. Paul mom was accused of murder.
That begs the question. My point was that Sara Jane Olson is now radioactive. No politician will appear with her. She is a convicted murderer. She conspired to kill cops. The notion that she could become a public figure or an elected official is just ridiculous. That was what I was saying. Your Ellison Derangement Syndrome got the better of you, I think.
