Who Supports the Troops?

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DTB,
Theres not that much difference in the two parties.The GOP fear machine has you believing such, but its just not true.Except that the fiscally responsible party in the last 15 years has been the progressive party-A.K.A. =the democrats.

Did you know that GERMANY has as many as 6 political parties that range from very left wing to centrists to very right wing?

As for who the" bad guys" may want too see elected-My answer is , I dont vote based on FEAR, you obviously do.
By the way- My candidatefor the office of President is a Republican. His name is Ron Paul and he is not afraid to say this is one dumb -ss war and he has said this since before we left for IRAQ.
Question for you- who has the foreign policy experience you seek from the boys on the right?
Roc

I see you avoided questions for the 4th time so will assume you have none--

Now to answer your question-directly

Can't see anyone from either party having a lot of hands on foreign policy experience--however each party has political tendencies which I look to in foreign affairs--These are qualities I will look for--you can judge which party qualifies.

I will vote for person who
-When homeland is attacked will not look other way and hope prob solves itself
--Whose timetables for troop withdrawels are based on victory not retreat.
--who when he makes commitment to country they can be sure he will not flop at 1st dissent.
--who lets situations dictate actions--not media and political orgs.

--would you like to go into economics position of pres candidate next?

 

[roc612]

DTB,
Since you or I cant interview the terrorists you can only theorize which party they would prefer.So I didnt bother answering.
With your question it is obvious You are insinuating that any non-GOP candidate is incapable of assessing a threat to our nation(WRONG). It's so talk radio BS-.Your afraid any non-GOP candidate will cause the collapse of this country.
The GOP will always get votes from you and those like you because you live in fear.The fear that they have sold you on is... that only they (the GOP) can protect you.You bought it , you live it and you breath it 24/7.
I will bet you this- the next president (dem or REP) will be listening to the people in the counter terrosim unit from day1.
If GWB had done that(had one meeting with Richard clark who headed the CI unit- and would schedule another even though Clarke tried repaetedly to do so on his end) Maybe we could have avoided 9-11.
for that dereliction of duty alone =GWB should be impeached.

 

[djv]

Wow DTB you have no one to vote for this time. None of these guys running give you what you want. Bush didn't either. I guess R Paul comes close just on his being honest. People in this country don't like that. They want the guys running to tell them what they want to here. More promises that won't be kept.

 

[roc612]

Continued...

will vote for person who
-When homeland is attacked will not look other way and hope prob solves itself- who on the democratic side has history of this-thats a BS statement
--Whose timetables for troop withdrawels are based on victory not retreat.Define Victory 1st-
--who when he makes commitment to country they can be sure he will not flop at 1st dissent.Which country are u speaking of
--who lets situations dictate actions--not media and political orgs.Maybe the next president will have exit strategy that is plausible.IsTen years longer in IRAQ acceptable you? is another 7500 soldiers sacrficied and another 40,000 injured okay as well

--would you like to go into economics position of pres candidate next?You cant go there. Clinton left GWB a surplus that is now deficit in the trillions with nothing to show for it.its a non-debate

 

[Jabberwocky]

I can't remember...did you ever answer my question about what an attorney in private practice taking the Saddam case has to do with the democrats? And what has the democratic party specifically done regarding any legal cases of detainees other than ask or expect proof of their being guilty or tied to any crimes against our country? I'm still waiting to hear why it is ok for the United States (which has a legal system, which sets it apart from the more animalistic entities in the world) to hold individuals for four years or more without showing proof of why they are being held.

I have no problem with proven animals being held, if simple proof is shown. I have no problems with those animals (bluntly) to be put to death if their acts (in my mind) warrant it. In fact, I support that. Hell, I ROOT for it in some cases. But to allow this administration the latitude of trust and believability to conduct their business because they tell us anything at this point is not what this country is all about, and should not be permitted.

You hide behind your semantics, Wayne, and wrap yourself in the flag when it helps your cause. And then you ignore and discredit the foundations of freedom and our country which set us apart from the animals. Which you even fought on behalf of. But that's secondary to political beliefs from time to time, and I just will never understand that. But please, address my question above, which is "before you."

you will never get an answer to this. Wayne just likes to spout rhetoric.

Like I said Chad.

 

[Jabberwocky]

dbl post

 

[Jabberwocky]

I will vote for person who
-When homeland is attacked will not look other way and hope prob solves itself

I guess one who invades the wrong country and mires us in an endless occupation and lets the real culprits go free qualifies as not looking the other way.

 

[roc612]

I am curious to hear the definition of Victory in Iraq from Wayne.Not even the big windbag Rush has a solid definition on "victory"

 

[Islington]

No, there is no hope that sane and honest people will be leading this country, because of the nature of the political process. The large majority of politicians are in it for personal gain and to satisfy their ego. Laws are made by ex-lawyers, who profited from the legal system which feeds on the
public, which is why we will always pay exorbitant rates for medical insurance. Does it really matter which party wins the elections? We have parasites on both sides of the fence.

I always thought that the mainstream media was extremely liberal, but I live in the northeast. Most of the news, TV shows and newspapers seem to have a bias against the conservatives. Of course there are highly conservative talk shows, but I am talking about the mainstream media ( NY Times, Time, major TV networks). Personally, I am not interested in ultra-conservatives or liberals, but we will probably elect one of the liberal imbeciles currently in the limelight as a backlash against Bush and Cheney.

A nation usually reaps what they sow.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wow DTB you have no one to vote for this time. None of these guys running give you what you want. Bush didn't either. I guess R Paul comes close just on his being honest. People in this country don't like that. They want the guys running to tell them what they want to here. More promises that won't be kept.

Have to agree somewhat DJV--I certainly do not have any clear choice--but choosing those to throwout is quite easy.

Sorry I missed your question Chad--What the ex dem attorney general has to do with democrats is he held one of the highest offices last admin in dem party--you can go farther and look at these judges making all these decisions against interrogation and survailience I have been putting up here-with notation who they were appointed by--

ROC to address some of your questions/statements

"The GOP will always get votes from you and those like you because you live in fear"

Hmm we have a code pinko telling a war vet who volunatarily extended his tour in hoslile environment- about living in fear??
Liberal logic at its finest.

"-When homeland is attacked will not look other way and hope prob solves itself- who on the democratic side has history of this-thats a BS statement

If your older than 14 you should remember the world trade was attacked with same intend but fewer deaths and destruction.
Not only did we do absolutely nothing--but refused to take UBL when offered on a platter.Duh Hello--anybody home

"--Whose timetables for troop withdrawels are based on victory not retreat.Define Victory 1st-
--who when he makes commitment to country they can be sure he will not flop at 1st dissent.Which country are u speaking of
--who lets situations dictate actions--not media and political orgs.Maybe the next president will have exit strategy that is plausible.IsTen years longer in IRAQ acceptable you? is another 7500 soldiers sacrficied and another 40,000 injured okay as well
--would you like to go into economics position of pres candidate next?You cant go there. Clinton left GWB a surplus that is now deficit in the trillions with nothing to show for it.its a non-debate"

Victory would be when we can the iraq's can handle things themselves with U.S. thee only in support and as deterance to outside invaders--has worked quite well in Kuwaitt and other areas--and would be nice to have continued presence there--is ten years too long--we been in Korea in support for 50? As far as soilders deaths--you evidently missed previous thread here showing we had more military deaths in 8 peace time years since 1980 than we have in worst year of collective deaths in iraq and afgan--so if you liberals had no prob with death rates then--I'll certainly can live with fewer deaths while fighting wars on 2 fronts in retaliation of worst civilian casualties by enemy on our home turf ever.

now on your economics--

"
"--would you like to go into economics position of pres candidate next?You cant go there. Clinton left GWB a surplus that is now deficit in the trillions with nothing to show for it.its a non-debate"

I'll try to make this simple as I am believing you may not have been around in 1993--

Hate to be the one to break the news to you--Clinton had a budget surplus--the gov was still trillions in debt when he left.

How did he get a surplus--he raised taxes and cut defence spending.

Now had he increased military spending dramtically--fighting 2 wars--and had the greatest expense ever on both man made (911) and natural (Katrina) disasters--do you think he'd had a surplus.

Heres a hint on your future eco 101 classes--
Bottom line is refected money taken in vs money spent.

In conclusion I might add in the future you might be well served to frequent the liberal blogs where they do not confuse opinion with facts

 

[Jabberwocky]

I can't remember...did you ever answer my question about what an attorney in private practice taking the Saddam case has to do with the democrats? And what has the democratic party specifically done regarding any legal cases of detainees other than ask or expect proof of their being guilty or tied to any crimes against our country? I'm still waiting to hear why it is ok for the United States (which has a legal system, which sets it apart from the more animalistic entities in the world) to hold individuals for four years or more without showing proof of why they are being held.

I have no problem with proven animals being held, if simple proof is shown. I have no problems with those animals (bluntly) to be put to death if their acts (in my mind) warrant it. In fact, I support that. Hell, I ROOT for it in some cases. But to allow this administration the latitude of trust and believability to conduct their business because they tell us anything at this point is not what this country is all about, and should not be permitted.

You hide behind your semantics, Wayne, and wrap yourself in the flag when it helps your cause. And then you ignore and discredit the foundations of freedom and our country which set us apart from the animals. Which you even fought on behalf of. But that's secondary to political beliefs from time to time, and I just will never understand that. But please, address my question above, which is "before you."

no response at all.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Have to agree somewhat DJV--I certainly do not have any clear choice--but choosing those to throwout is quite easy.

Sorry I missed your question Chad--What the ex dem attorney general has to do with democrats is he held one of the highest offices last admin in dem party--you can go farther and look at these judges making all these decisions against interrogation and survailience I have been putting up here-with notation who they were appointed by--

ROC to address some of your questions/statements

"The GOP will always get votes from you and those like you because you live in fear"

Hmm we have a code pinko telling a war vet who volunatarily extended his tour in hoslile environment- about living in fear??
Liberal logic at its finest.

"-When homeland is attacked will not look other way and hope prob solves itself- who on the democratic side has history of this-thats a BS statement

If your older than 14 you should remember the world trade was attacked with same intend but fewer deaths and destruction.
Not only did we do absolutely nothing--but refused to take UBL when offered on a platter.Duh Hello--anybody home

"--Whose timetables for troop withdrawels are based on victory not retreat.Define Victory 1st-
--who when he makes commitment to country they can be sure he will not flop at 1st dissent.Which country are u speaking of
--who lets situations dictate actions--not media and political orgs.Maybe the next president will have exit strategy that is plausible.IsTen years longer in IRAQ acceptable you? is another 7500 soldiers sacrficied and another 40,000 injured okay as well
--would you like to go into economics position of pres candidate next?You cant go there. Clinton left GWB a surplus that is now deficit in the trillions with nothing to show for it.its a non-debate"

Victory would be when we can the iraq's can handle things themselves with U.S. thee only in support and as deterance to outside invaders--has worked quite well in Kuwaitt and other areas--and would be nice to have continued presence there--is ten years too long--we been in Korea in support for 50? As far as soilders deaths--you evidently missed previous thread here showing we had more military deaths in 8 peace time years since 1980 than we have in worst year of collective deaths in iraq and afgan--so if you liberals had no prob with death rates then--I'll certainly can live with fewer deaths while fighting wars on 2 fronts in retaliation of worst civilian casualties by enemy on our home turf ever.

now on your economics--

"
"--would you like to go into economics position of pres candidate next?You cant go there. Clinton left GWB a surplus that is now deficit in the trillions with nothing to show for it.its a non-debate"

I'll try to make this simple as I am believing you may not have been around in 1993--

Hate to be the one to break the news to you--Clinton had a budget surplus--the gov was still trillions in debt when he left.

How did he get a surplus--he raised taxes and cut defence spending.

Now had he increased military spending dramtically--fighting 2 wars--and had the greatest expense ever on both man made (911) and natural (Katrina) disasters--do you think he'd had a surplus.

Heres a hint on your future eco 101 classes--
Bottom line is refected money taken in vs money spent.

In conclusion I might add in the future you might be well served to frequent the liberal blogs where they do not confuse opinion with facts

code pinko, liberal blogs, Victory is when Iraq can stop the violence that has been plaguing the region since, well, I guess since before the world began according to your belief system, Clinton ran a budget surplus, but the government was still in debt (no shit? :banghead: )

When the expenditures of a government (its purchases of goods and services, plus its transfers (grants) to individuals and corporations) are greater than its tax revenues, it creates a deficit in the government budget. When tax revenues exceed government purchases and transfer payments, the government has a budget surplus.

Ok, I have said this before, this time I mean it. I officially give up on the inanity of DTB.

You and Marine really should just exchange stick figures.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

ya "no shit"--however had to explain that to your liberal commrade. re-read post.

However I might have to go back on issue of liberal media and Aljazeera--as I see today they do print some good news of Iraq that I can't seem to find anywhere in liberal media


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D7AF0F54-6B0D-4DC5-8B8E-0AB45097960B.htm

Iraq oil output 'highest in years'

Iraqi oil output has risen to its highest level in more than three and a half years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has revealed.

Production levels rose to 2.32 million barrels a day in November, the highest since the 2003 US-led invasion, the Paris based agency said, citing improved security as the reason for the new levels.

Iraq's oil industry has suffered since the 2003 invasion and ensuing fighting, which has targeted oil refining facilities and pipelines, and political infighting.

Iraq has also repaid a $471m loan with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ahead of schedule.

Attacks concern

After the invasion, Iraqi production had slumped to between 1.7 million and two million barrels a day, the IEA said.

"While few would have predicted such an improvement in Iraqi security and output since September, the additional oil has been as welcome for the international market as it has been for Iraqi finances," the report said.

The report also said that production levels could be sustained or may even rise in the next few months, howver it said attacks on oil facilities could still pose a threat to oil output.

"Though the increase has been dramatic, the market continues to recognise the propensity for ongoing security issues and output volatility," it said.

Al Jazeera's John Cookson in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, also said that the figure had to be put in perspective, as Iraq has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, which nonetheless manages to pump more than nine million barrels a day.

However, he said the effect of this increased production was being felt economically on the streets of Baghdad, where Iraqis are increasingly exchanging the US dollar for Iraqi dinars.

Loan repaid

Meanwhile, the IMF said on Saturday that Iraq had cleared ahead of schedule a $471m loan granted to the nation after the US-led invasion.

The Iraqi government repaid the loan ahead of an IMF meeting on Wednesday to discuss the country's new loan requests.

"Iraq's ability to repay the IMF ahead of schedule reflects its strong international reserve position against a background of high oil prices," Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF managing director, was quoted by AFP as saying.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
by the way Hilliary-Obama-Edwards and crew are on record as being against the surge---
too bad for the terrorist they weren't in power

 

[roc612]

"so if you liberals had no prob with death rates then--I'll certainly can live with fewer deaths while fighting wars on 2 fronts in retaliation of worst civilian casualties by enemy on our home turf ever"

DTB,
Just goes to show what a Bvllshitter you truly are. Iraq never attacked the US-PERIOD.
British intelligence (the Downing st report) has confirmed our manufactured BS reasons for attacking IRAQ .(they werent even considering striking us-and al queada was not holed up in IRAQ either
It has recently come to light that when Colin Powell gave his speech to the UN the evidence we based going into Iraq over was based on German intelligence and a single low-level IRAQ defector who refused to be interrogated by the CIA or DOD officials.
Sell that to the families of those that lost a loved one for nothing but gasoline at 3.25 a gallon.
At least confirm a source.(I believe that's a dereliction of duty by this administration that calls for impeachment)
DTB,Thanks for your service to our country, But re-enlisting doesnt prove you dont live in FEAR.
the GOP at some point after the primaries will preach day in and day out how they and only they can protect this country and its citizens- its a message to create FEAR and guess what, it works. Your living proof of it.
Did you know the demographic that the GOP must have to win inthe next election. Married women voters 30 to 55 yrs old.
Single women and newly married women vote heavily democratic. When they become Mom,s many of those democratic women voters vote the GOP ticket.
WHY?-The reason given is they feel safer with a GOP candidate.(Safer for their babies-its maternal instinct)
Its manufactured fear and it works for the GOP like a charm.Its BS nonetheless,
-but I give credit were its due. wake up people!

 

[Chadman]

Sorry I missed your question Chad--What the ex dem attorney general has to do with democrats is he held one of the highest offices last admin in dem party--you can go farther and look at these judges making all these decisions against interrogation and survailience I have been putting up here-with notation who they were appointed by--

A couple of clarifications before I go on - what ex dem attorney general are you speaking of, so I'm sure.

And, can you specifically cite decisions against interrogation and surveillance other than those being done without FISA approval. You know, the illegal ones that ignored our constitution and broke the law? I'm sure you can probably find some fringe judgments somewhere, but I'm interested in the specific ones of basic interrogation of those shown with proof to have committed crimes and surveillance done using constitutional means.

Thanks.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

That would Billy's former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark--

I've read your 2nd quetion twice Chad--and still not sure what your asking--could you rephrase please-thanks

 

[Chadman]

That would Billy's former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark--

I've read your 2nd quetion twice Chad--and still not sure what your asking--could you rephrase please-thanks

That's who I thought you meant. Which really puzzles me. What exactly does Clark have to do with Bill Clinton? What exactly does Clark have to do with pretty much anything mainstream regarding the democratic party? Clark was definitely a dubious character, essentially getting his job as Atty. Gen. from Johnson who did that to enable him to replace Clark's father on the supreme court with a black man - political gamesmanship. Clark and his career legal hookups are pretty much considered problematic for most DEMOCRATS, including myself. The only thing I can find relating to Bill Clinton was the fact that Clark named Clinton as a part of his lawsuit against the U.S. regarding Iraq in the early problem years (after the Bush cabal was done prepping him to cause problems that we are still dealing with today, by the way).

Maybe you can play with words and fool some of the faithful around here, but to tie Clinton to Clark is probably the most ridiculous attempt to discredit Clinton I've seen yet. Clark was a supporter of Jesse Jackson, for crying out loud, and has not been a player in the democratic party for a long time - if he ever was other than political enhancement for LBJ's image back when that was a big thing.

What again does Clark have to do with Clinton, besides, um, nothing?

For the clarity on the second question, I will simplify. What have the democrats done or attempted to do against legal surveillance and legal interrogation tactics?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I stand corrected Chad--He was not affiliated with Clinton--have been in error in thinking he was-
Thank you for pointing that out to me.


He is however undoubtedly a liberal leader of the code pink groupies such as--founder of the International Action Center. It holds significant overlapping membership with the Workers' World Party.[citation needed] Clark and the IAC helped found the protest organization A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).[citation needed]

On the 2nd part of your question--Dems have been against survailance tactics and interrogation--and believe whether they are legal or not is part of the ongoing dispute beteeen Rebs and Dems on how far we should go to protect us.

--any comments on the dems wanting to give those in combat against us attorneys--and not wanting to humiliate or embarrass those captured?

to put things into perspective--we have liberal media plus Algazeera running front page stories because our troops were humiliating prisoners--an advocating same legal rights for these as U.S. citizens--

By BRADLEY BROOKS, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers found mass graves north of Baghdad next to a torture center where chains were attached to blood-spattered walls and a metal bed frame was still connected to an electrical shock system, the military said Thursday.

Separately, at least 13 Iraqis were killed when a suicide bomber targeted a group of people who had gathered around U.S. soldiers handing out holiday gifts, local authorities said. It was not immediately known if any soldiers were killed or wounded.

The grisly discoveries of the mass graves and torture center near Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, came during a Dec. 8-11 operation.

The torture center, which the U.S. military said it suspected was run by al-Qaida in Iraq, was found based on tips from Iraqis in the area, where the al-Qaida insurgents are very active. Graves containing 26 bodies were found nearby.

"We discovered several (weapons) caches, a torture facility that had chains, a bed ? an iron bed that was still connected to a battery ? knives and swords that were still covered in blood as we went in to go after the terrorists in that area," said Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq.

 

[Chadman]

I'll try to be quick for once, Wayne...

I'm certainly not defending the makeup of Clark, he is one dubiously connected character, and reflects some of the worst (IMO) factions that support liberal politics.

As for the surveillance and interrogation, I don't think there is a difference, personally, I think the dems problems deal specifically with illegal methods of both - i.e. not getting a FISA warrant (even after the fact) and using methods our country has long since taken a stance against. As I mentioned, as long as someone can be proven to be a bad guy within a fairly reasonable time, then he deserves pretty much all he gets, and I support that. It's the eternal holding of people, and saying outright that the U.S. doesn't have to show proof at all why, that I think is wrong. And if dems are saying these people deserve an attorney to get that accomplished, I don't have a problem with that. And neither would our allies that we need so badly in future world events and scenarios.

Sorry, it wasn't that quick...