Bad News for Bush Haters

Sam,

Not to worry, Obama will win and he should be able to bring instability back to Sadr City.

It really is kind of sad that an entire party is better off if America is defeated. I don't understand why they can't stand up and say something like...

"Hey, we were wrong. The surge worked."

To me that would lead to turning the conversation to bringing troops home quicker then anything else.

Aaron,

As gently as I can, I need to say that I truly, and unfortunately, believe that many Democrats would rather win election than see success in Iraq, up to and including the removal of US troops in victory.

I agree 110% Mike and it's really, really sad.

Well bad as I hate to say it, and gently as I can, you guys are way off base.

I posted a challenge back on the old forum and no one accepted.

You guys claim republicans are patriotic and serve their country in the military but Dems don't.

So please post (if you can) what percentage of military recruits come from Republican families.

Or are you just blowing smoke?

Who steps up and pays the price?

There is nothing put out by either party Sherm and believe it or not, that's a question they don't ask you in the service. I was never ask in my 3 years. Not once.

I did find this which I believe to be accurate.

Historically, voting by the military has been between 65-75% Republican.

This varies.

As for the actual make up of the military there are no real offical records.

And if you Google military vote by party there are plenty of pages that speak of democrats going after the military vote, which implies that the military does historically vote Republican.

But what you are talking about and what Mike and I are saying are two completely things. I believe that the current democratic leadership led by Harry Reid and Nancy Reid have more to gain by Iraq going bad then they do success and their partisan hatred is so rampant that they would rather lose Iraq if it guaranteed them wining the white house while maintaining control of congress.

That has nothing do to do with political affiliation of service members but is the thinking of the current leadership. That is what I believe.

Sherm, no one's talking about the party affiliation of the military. You start out with one faulty assumption and then pile on several more. You make the assumption (not in your post above, but in the previous forum) that mostly economically lower-class rural people join the military, and as hardy country folk, therefore they must be good Democrats. I think you need to update your demography stats; rural people haven't voted Democrat in 30 years.

The bottom line is that men and women choose to join the military not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.

Well I can only say the big majority of families I know who have family in the military are democrats.

And the republican chicken hawks we read about do not.

So I thought there might be some solid scientific numbers.

How many democrats have died and how many republicans?

In Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, WWII?

If you don't know, I understand.

You are just blowing smoke.

If you do, and you have a legitimate source fine.

shermangeneral wrote:Yes. I do. And the Berlin wall, etc.

And America's will was being challenged.

And you and Mike claim that us Democrats are unpatriotic and won't defend freedom.

But like JFK said, we should never negotiate out of fear, but neither should we fear to negotiate.

This should be here.

Perhaps you can link the post where either Mike or myself said Democrats are unpatriotic and won't defend freedom? Can you do that Shermy?

And while you're at it, find the one we either of us said anything about which party served more or which one is more patriotic.

And since you stated it for fact, I'm sure you can provide the link that shows more democrats serve the Republicans do.

Hop to it Shermy!!!!!!!!!!

shermangeneral wrote:Well I can only say the big majority of families I know who have family in the military are democrats.

And the republican chicken hawks we read about do not.

DUH, ...... big majority?

Sherm, I would say 100%

I can't imagine you even talking to a Republican family.

.

Sherm,

You would do well to note the difference between "many Democrats" and "all Democrats." Re-read my post.

Similarly, I'm sure that SOME Republicans are all about sending others to war when they would never go themselves, just as MANY elected Democrats who drive SUVs or own more than one large home go on TV and tell me that I should be doing more for the environment.

I'm also sure that MANY Democrats are themselves noble patriots.

"Many", "most", "some", "all", "every", "none", these are all words that you should pay attention to, Sherm. They may be found on one of your relicensing tests one of these days.

Just as I thot.

You guys cant back it up.

First you hijack Jesus and then you wrap yourself in Old Glory.

Well I believe the dems have our proportional share of both Christians and Patriots.

Despite yall's claims.

You are the individual making unsubstantiated statements that you've yet to provide any type of proof for. The only person WRONG here is you my friend!!!

It really is kind of sad that an entire party is better off if America is defeated. I don't understand why they can't stand up and say something like...

Except that there are democrats that are against setting a time line and republicans that are for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

I submit that treating your government like a football game is a mistake.

Instead of demonizing one party, why not be honest and rail against the system that gave the American people such poor choices?

That's right... you actually think Bush Jr. was a good choice. Never mind.

Bush was the BEST choice available. democrats nominated about as poor a choice as they could in 2000 and as a result, Bush won. In 2004, they chose worse. democrats have no one to blame for Bush being President but democrats.

So did they learn from their lesson?

Bush was the BEST choice available. democrats nominated about as poor a choice as they could in 2000 and as a result, Bush won. In 2004, they chose worse. democrats have no one to blame for Bush being President but democrats.

So did they learn from their lesson?

I don't know, I'm not a democrat.

All I know that the fact that Bush was, in your opinion, the BEST choice available just makes my point about the idiocy of the two-part engine and the brainless cheerleaders that perpetuate it.

Partisan politics are tearing this country apart.

In one sense, yes. But there is good in partisan politics. As the founding fathers pointed out, it is the best way to prevent a majority rules system, which you wouldn't agree with based on your religious views.

If you want to blame anyone for how the choices we have, you can start with the liberal media, which is responsible for many qualified people from running for office and serving.

When ask why he would not run, Colin Powell said he wouln't subject his family to the likes of 'you', referring to the media. As a result, the GWB's, Al Gores, and John Kerry's of the world are what we are left with.

If you want to blame anyone for how the choices we have, you can start with the liberal media, which is responsible for many qualified people from running for office and serving.

When ask why he would not run, Colin Powell said he wouln't subject his family to the likes of 'you', referring to the media. As a result, the GWB's, Al Gores, and John Kerry's of the world are what we are left with.

Why can't I blame the laziness and intellectual poverty of the American public that allows themselves to be spoon fed this crap?

After all, we have allowed this to happen. Should we be responsible for our mistakes instead of blaming the "media" and wiping out hands of it?

You can blame whoever you want Terry.

Perhaps we should have voters test. Make the masses pass a test to prove they are not 'lazy or intectually poor' before they can vote. Would that work for you Terry?

shermangeneral wrote:Just as I thot.

You guys cant back it up.

First you hijack Jesus and then you wrap yourself in Old Glory.

Well I believe the dems have our proportional share of both Christians and Patriots.

Despite yall's claims.

Sherm,

I've never doubted that there are both Christians and Patriots in both the Democratic electorate as well as in the Democratic-controlled Congress. I also believe that there are very evil elements in the Democratic Party that are putting success ahead of principal. I've never said that all Democrats are that way and I've never accused anyone on this forum of being that way.

Since we do not have at our disposal the resources with which to figure the proportion of Democrats in the military, it's not an argument that can be had empirically. We could look to the states that produce military people and find them to be primarily red ones (except California), but that proves nothing if the soldiers come from blue parts of the red states. It has been demonstrated that the military vote tends to favor the Republicans, as evidenced by Gore's attempts in 2000 to block overseas military ballots. This though is not proof either because it only takes into account the soldiers who actually vote rather than all of the soldiers (just as a particular election, be it 2000 or 2006, does not necessarily represent the will of the people).

Perhaps we should have voters test. Make the masses pass a test to prove they are not 'lazy or intectually poor' before they can vote. Would that work for you Terry?

Sure. I don't think everyone above 17 should be allowed to vote. The founding fathers didn't, either.

Do you deny that most people don't bother to dive into issues any farther than FOX news, Rush or CNN?

The media is to blame and not the Americans that lap it up?

TerryRC wrote:If you want to blame anyone for how the choices we have, you can start with the liberal media, which is responsible for many qualified people from running for office and serving.

When ask why he would not run, Colin Powell said he wouln't subject his family to the likes of 'you', referring to the media. As a result, the GWB's, Al Gores, and John Kerry's of the world are what we are left with.

Why can't I blame the laziness and intellectual poverty of the American public that allows themselves to be spoon fed this crap?

After all, we have allowed this to happen. Should we be responsible for our mistakes instead of blaming the "media" and wiping out hands of it?

Hi Terry,

I think the problem starts with the primaries, and the lack of voters who show up to them. When we end up with Obama/McCain, there is just no way to win (although I still say this is a good year to make a third party/none of the above statement). We are going to end up with one or the other. It's like going into a brothel.....

I still dislike the Dems more than the Republicans, and I still say that many (not all and not Sherman) are up to a fair amount of evil in this. But ultimately, I would rather that both parties look at themselves and really consider what they want to stand for and then stand for it. I consider that there is a lack of conviction on both sides. Parties in the US have not really been "responsible" lately (such as taking out clear policy positions and then disciplining wayward members), but it has come to the point in which there is so little conviction (and so little attention paid by the public) that these people don't apparently stand for much of anything. If the Dems were honest pacifists or even honest "just war" theorists, I might be happy to listen to them. But many of them have turned this war into a propaganda tool. I NEVER hear on the tv or on the internet (mostly the internet these days as I don't have cable and live 70 miles out of Chicago) a serious discussion of exactly when it is wise to go to war. If the Dems would set a standard (that might very well have excluded bombing Serbia and sending troops to Haiti) and then stick to it, they would be doing well. However, all they seem to be doing is making tired attacks on Bush without ever considering their own complicity in the matter as well as how such a situation can be prevented in the future.

If I could summarize my position. I've never favored this war and the way in which it has been fought. Hussein could have been overthrown by a well placed assassin or a few well placed bombs. While it may sound harsh, far fewer innocents would have died in either situation. Now that we are there, however, we should either go "all in" or we should go "all out." Do or do not, but none of this half way crap. If you must go through hell, then go straight through with everything you have (I forget whoever said that but he was right!). If you needn't stay in hell, the what the devil are the Democrats doing keeping the troops there (with their appropriations) if not using the soldiers as shameful collateral to get other things they want (like increased domestic spending)

What I find even worse than this ground occupation is the desire of many Democrats to score points off of it rather than make political sacrifices to end it. Their behavior in all of this is shameful and if we put such people into office, we will learn quickly what empty rhetoric translates into in the real life. Despite all of this, I would rather the US come home in victory than defeat. I wish more elected Democrats more regularly would use words like that.