Are Bush tax cuts only for the rich???

Aaron wrote:
Which means that 82 Democrats from the house and 29 Senators voted to authorize the use of force in Iran. Dems could have stopped the invasion had the had the backbone to. They didn't because they don't.

Democrats are taunted as weak because they are weak and Hillary knows it. She knows it from her own husband and his response to the first TC bombing and the USS Cole among other military responses. The only President weaker then Clinton in the past 50 years was Carter, another democrat.

That is why she made her statement about Iran. Of the 3, she is the one that scares me the most when it comes to using force. I would fear that she wouldn't want to appear weak to the rest of the world so she would send in troops quicker then the others.

If you want the candidate that will show the most restraint in future endevors, I believe that will be McCain. Those that have been know what it is like and aren't as quick to jump the gun.

You seriously don't see this as blind flamethrowing? How was Clinton weak? I have no vested interest in Bill or Bill's legacy, but your versions distort key facts...facts like the Bush Administration ignored explicit warnings about 9/11.....your statement is confusing because if Bush is "better" than Clinton..... surely then Bush must have obsessed about Bin Laden prior to 9/11. I mean, he saw how weak Clinton was right? He even had the benefit of knowing that the WTC had been struck before!

I think we all know that Bush did absolutely zero to thwart the attacks on the US.


You say the Dems could have stopped the war that BUSH WANTED but they are weak on Defense. Do you want them to be tough, like Republicans and authorize ill-begotten jingoistic wars of aggression? Or more like the "weak" Democrats who rightly opposed this war? Like my Congresswoman, Barbara Lee?

Craig, when the only tool one knows how to use is a hammer, one tends to look at every problem as a nail.

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:
Which means that 82 Democrats from the house and 29 Senators voted to authorize the use of force in Iran. Dems could have stopped the invasion had the had the backbone to. They didn't because they don't.

Democrats are taunted as weak because they are weak and Hillary knows it. She knows it from her own husband and his response to the first TC bombing and the USS Cole among other military responses. The only President weaker then Clinton in the past 50 years was Carter, another democrat.

That is why she made her statement about Iran. Of the 3, she is the one that scares me the most when it comes to using force. I would fear that she wouldn't want to appear weak to the rest of the world so she would send in troops quicker then the others.

If you want the candidate that will show the most restraint in future endevors, I believe that will be McCain. Those that have been know what it is like and aren't as quick to jump the gun.

You seriously don't see this as blind flamethrowing? How was Clinton weak? I have no vested interest in Bill or Bill's legacy, but your versions distort key facts...facts like the Bush Administration ignored explicit warnings about 9/11.....your statement is confusing because if Bush is "better" than Clinton..... surely then Bush must have obsessed about Bin Laden prior to 9/11. I mean, he saw how weak Clinton was right? He even had the benefit of knowing that the WTC had been struck before!

I think we all know that Bush did absolutely zero to thwart the attacks on the US.


You say the Dems could have stopped the war that BUSH WANTED but they are weak on Defense. Do you want them to be tough, like Republicans and authorize ill-begotten jingoistic wars of aggression? Or more like the "weak" Democrats who rightly opposed this war? Like my Congresswoman, Barbara Lee?

When a majority of democrat/liberals grow a backbone and arewilling to vote for what they think is right instead of poll chasing, then you might not be considered weak.

That didn't happen in 2003 did it? Yes, you could have prevented this needless war. And don't say it was because Republicans held the majority because that hasn't stopped Republicans from getting their agenda passed this past year when you guys voted to fund the war 3 or 4 times, has it. Hell, on the first go around when you had power, you sold out for $2.00/hour.

Yes this war is on your guys head. Not only could you have prevented it, you could have stopped it how many times over the past year but all you've done is cave.

And how is responding to a direct terrorist attack authorising "ill-begotten jingoistic wars of aggression?" When you respond as President Clinton did, it's weak.



Seems to me all you guys did is what you do best.

NOTHING!!!

So, how accountable are the Republicans who voted to authorize and preformed the cheerleading? Tell me now! Do you hold the Republicans and the Republican "tough, pro-war" philosophy responsible AT ALL?

You seem to say that Bush and the Republicans chose to embroil us in this war, misuse the troops and somehow the Democrats are to blame for this brigandage?

How can you have it both ways?

Republicans aren't trying to run from their vote simply becasue polls and the American opinion changed.

You guys were for the war before you were against it and everyone knows that if public opinion swayed back to support for the war, you'd be for it again. Carful jumping that fence. One of these days you're going to de-nut yourself.

Democrats should have rescued the Republican Bush administration from its ill-founded detrmination to, come hell or high water, to go to war in Iraq.

Republicans cannot help themselves from their own politically genetic warmongering vices. So its the Democrats' fault for not blocking the Republican agenda, don't you see?

So you democrats couldn't have stopped the war at any time, huh Zig???

Aaron wrote:Republicans aren't trying to run from their vote simply becasue polls and the American opinion changed.

You guys were for the war before you were against it and everyone knows that if public opinion swayed back to support for the war, you'd be for it again. Carful jumping that fence. One of these days you're going to de-nut yourself.

I protested the war several times before it began. I marched with a million in Manhattan immediately before the war. I marched in SF several times before the war. You? You were cheerleading, and voting for those who manufactured it. I'M RESPONSIBLE? WTF?

Aaron wrote:So you democrats couldn't have stopped the war at any time, huh Zig???

I told 'em so- that it was just Bush's folly. But they wouldn't listen to me any more than they listened to you. You did tell 'em so too, right?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you democrats couldn't have stopped the war at any time, huh Zig???

I told 'em so- that it was just Bush's folly. But they wouldn't listen to me any more than they listened to you. You did tell 'em so too, right?

He did so, by voting for the architects of the war....all the while defending his vote for Bush as better than the alternatives.


I'd say those who voted for Bush voted for the war.

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:Republicans aren't trying to run from their vote simply becasue polls and the American opinion changed.

You guys were for the war before you were against it and everyone knows that if public opinion swayed back to support for the war, you'd be for it again. Carful jumping that fence. One of these days you're going to de-nut yourself.

I protested the war several times before it began. I marched with a million in Manhattan immediately before the war. I marched in SF several times before the war.

Good for you. You want a cookie?

SFCraig wrote:You? You were cheerleading, and voting for those who manufactured it. I'M RESPONSIBLE? WTF?

democrats are JUST as responsible for Iraq as Republicans, that is a fact. You are a democrat. That's WTF!!!

I'm not a republican and I was against the war from the get go.

SFCraig wrote:Hillary Clinton is a socialist. So isn't Obama. Obama is sinking in the polls among likely Democratic voters because of things his minister says. Hillary can't control what her husband says yet Barack is supposed to get a grip on his pastor? Obama calls some Pennsylvanians bitter, Hitlery threatens to obliterate the Iranian people and his numbers sink while hers rise.

Give me a break. The Democrats are absolutely no better than the Rhinos and neocons and the people who are voting for and supporting them are no less sheep than those rallying behind "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain.

This country has become a nation of sheep. The top 3 contenders for the Oval Office are little more than shepherds wishing to lead them to economic slaughter while they irradicate any remaining bit of personal liberty and national sovereignty.


First of all, let me say without criticizing, that unless there is a new definition I am unaware of the term you want is RINO, "Republican In Name Only".

Secondly, how can you all cheer Zig when he says we've been reduced to sound bytes, then summarize the candidates as the generic sound bytes sent by talking points memos and reverberating throughout the political echo chamber? Aren't you then part of the problem?

I agree with you re: Hillary, if what you are saying is that she got a free ride on what is possibly the most reprehensible and illogical pandering of the campaign. Obama should not be affected by what his pastor any more than Terry's should be guilty of what he says. (Couldn't resist!)

Also, why can you allow for some good Republicans, while treating all Democrats as the same. Do you have a category you refer to as DINOs? If so, what does that mean?


If you believe that America's military is misused by greedy corporations and crooked politicians, why would you not see at least something in common with the anti-war left, or the Democrats that refused to go along with the Bush administration's foolish war? The fact that so few Republicans opposed it while many Democrats did?

RE: Bill's military follies. While I was not opposed to intervention in the former Yugoslavia, you'll find that most on the left do not approve of Clinton's military adventures. Michael Franti, lefty musician of the Bay Area says this in his song:

Well politicians got lipstick on the collar
the whole media started to holler
but I don’t give a fuck who they screwin’ in private
I wanna know who they screwin’ in public
robbin’, cheatin’, stealin’
white collar criminal
McDonald eatin, you deserve a beatin’
send you home a weepin’, with a fat bill for your Caribbean weekend
for just about anything they can bust us
false advertising sayin’ “Halls of Justice”
you tellin’ the youth don’t be so violent
then you drop bombs on every single continent



Hardly a ringing endorsement...besides, Bill was a moderate Republican. Those without blinders can surely see that.

I know the term coined is "RINO". I say and print "Rhino" frequently because the people most frequently referred to as "RINO's" use their power and wealth as a weapon to pork the rest of us. Sort of the way a rhino uses that big horn to attack anything in its way. It's a sort of a joke between my husband and I.

I cheer Ziggy because all they are is sound bytes. There is no substance there. Let's take a look at Senator Clinton for just a moment. This particular ubra-liberal is now pandering to the masses with talk of temporarily suspending federal taxes on gas and diesel. She's promising to help all the poor working slobs like my husband. Now why would Hillary Clinton, given her stance on carbon emissions etc make it easier for po' folks like my husband to take a Sunday drive? Why should I believe for a minute that she is going to make it more affordable for to drive my old, but reliable Volvo that gets around 22 miles to the gallon? She doesn't mean it. She doesn't have a "plan". She is pandering.

Of course there are "good Democrats". I actually happen to be very well acquainted with a handful of extraordinary individuals holding public office in RI who are liberals. I don't necessarily agree with them all that frequently, but they work hard, actually think about things, and they have integrity.

You want a "national" name......I think Joe Biden is a good public servant. I don't agree with him very often, but he is both thoughtful and diligent. Rep Kucinich.....he's a little odd, but he's hard working and in some respects fearless. At least he isn't a sheep.

I see very little good in "the left". I am an anti-war conservative. I don't see very many Democrats seeking to chart a new course on foreign policy. Of course, I don't see a whole lot of anybody offering any genuine leadership on foreign policy, or monetary policy, or trade policy. This country is now governed by the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations and other private, secretive, exclusive, groups with power and wealth and accountability to no one.

Bill Clinton is treated like the messiah by most of the party loyals. Not only don't they care about the stain on Monica's dress, they don't care about his military exploits, the pardons he sold, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, or the theft of White House trinkets and treasures on their way out the door. They buy his books, pay huge sums to hear him speak and hang on his every word.

Franti......geeesh.....the 60's had Dylan & Lennon & Donovan. I think I'll leave it at that.

SFCraig wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you democrats couldn't have stopped the war at any time, huh Zig???

I told 'em so- that it was just Bush's folly. But they wouldn't listen to me any more than they listened to you. You did tell 'em so too, right?

He did so, by voting for the architects of the war....all the while defending his vote for Bush as better than the alternatives.


I'd say those who voted for Bush voted for the war.

As did those who voted for Hillary and Edwards and Obama and how many other democrats that either voted for the resolution of have voted for continued funding.

The difference between most Republicans and democrats is that most Republicans are not hypocrites and didn't trade their vote for $2.00 an hour.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you democrats couldn't have stopped the war at any time, huh Zig???

I told 'em so- that it was just Bush's folly. But they wouldn't listen to me any more than they listened to you. You did tell 'em so too, right?

I disagreed not becasuse I don't believe in war or am afraid to fight. What I don't believe in is throwing your weight around. I have no problem responding to those who do. "Pre-emptative strike" was and is BS.

Aaron,

It's been a long day, and tomorrow is another long day, I'm not sure when I'll get to read your response but I'm dying to know........

Does Mrs. "Creamy White Thighs" threatening to "obliterate" Iran constitute "throwing weight around"?

Ali is adorable, btw. He's no Runny mind you....but he's a cutie pie.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

It's been a long day, and tomorrow is another long day, I'm not sure when I'll get to read your response but I'm dying to know........

Does Mrs. "Creamy White Thighs" threatening to "obliterate" Iran constitute "throwing weight around"?

Ali is adorable, btw. He's no Runny mind you....but he's a cutie pie.

Mrs. CWT scares the hell out of me the more I think about her with that type of power.



And you don't get the full effect until you see him in person with his one blue eye and one brown eye and the way he just looks at you. He would melt the grinch's heart in a nano-second.

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:Republicans aren't trying to run from their vote simply becasue polls and the American opinion changed.

You guys were for the war before you were against it and everyone knows that if public opinion swayed back to support for the war, you'd be for it again. Carful jumping that fence. One of these days you're going to de-nut yourself.

I protested the war several times before it began. I marched with a million in Manhattan immediately before the war. I marched in SF several times before the war. You? You were cheerleading, and voting for those who manufactured it. I'M RESPONSIBLE? WTF?

Did you also protest the bombing of Serbia? US military presence in Haiti and Somalia? Did you protest the US bombing of Iraq during the Clinton administration?

I believe you to be a principled fellow, dear Craig, and you may well have protested the above. At the same time, I find it inescapable that the Democrats are neither pacifists nor isolationists (military or fiscal). If you are looking at wars and unfair trade as condemnable actions, you find that the Democrats and Republicans are both practitioners. The difference is that the Democrats pretend not to be, and convince many people. Machiavelli would be proud of them.

Same ole, same ole, .......... after Lee Iacocca's quote and Zig's followup ......... it didn't take you all very long to get back on "Democrats vrs. Republicans" ........ which doesn't mean diddly shidt in the grand scheme of things.

Lee Iacocca said a mouthfull of truths ........ and he never mentioned Party affilation one time.

The US is mirred in a cess pool and sinking to the bottom ...... and the cause of that is neither the Democrat or the Republican Party.

The fault lies with the elected Members of those Parties, ......... but moreso with the voters that elect those Members based on Party affilation rather than the abilities of the candidates themselves.

A "winning" or "loseing" sports team ......... does not "win" or "lose" ....... because of its name.

The "winning" team "wins" because the owners/managers ....... selected the "best bunch of players" ......... to play for that team.

The United States is "loseing" ........ because the owners/voters are selecting the Political Players based on their "name" ...... rather than their abilities to "play".

.

SheikBen wrote:

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:Republicans aren't trying to run from their vote simply becasue polls and the American opinion changed.

You guys were for the war before you were against it and everyone knows that if public opinion swayed back to support for the war, you'd be for it again. Carful jumping that fence. One of these days you're going to de-nut yourself.

I protested the war several times before it began. I marched with a million in Manhattan immediately before the war. I marched in SF several times before the war. You? You were cheerleading, and voting for those who manufactured it. I'M RESPONSIBLE? WTF?

Did you also protest the bombing of Serbia? US military presence in Haiti and Somalia? Did you protest the US bombing of Iraq during the Clinton administration?

I believe you to be a principled fellow, dear Craig, and you may well have protested the above. At the same time, I find it inescapable that the Democrats are neither pacifists nor isolationists (military or fiscal). If you are looking at wars and unfair trade as condemnable actions, you find that the Democrats and Republicans are both practitioners. The difference is that the Democrats pretend not to be, and convince many people. Machiavelli would be proud of them.

I wasn't much of a protester back then, but I have been morally consistent. I was even opposed to the 1st Persian Gulf War, and I was embarrassed by Clinton blaming the Islamic bogey man Bin Laden (which I guess I was wrong about). Yugoslavia made some sense to me, in that pretty nasty wars have begun there, and the ethnic cleansing that was ongoing. Afghanistan was one of the few places that I believe the left was on board for military action. Even prior to 9/11, I think liberals were angry about the Taliban's treatment of women, and the destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues.

But, you'll find no shortage of criticism on the left of Clinton's or any Democrat's jingoism. I know that many liberals were very critical of Clark's bombing campaigns.

Green Party presidential candidate hopeful Cynthia McKinney calls the Iraq War the " Bush - Pelosi War ".

Looking at the past 18 months or so, that says it pretty well.

The Good Book says if a man knows to do right but fails to do so it is Sin.

The Republicans could argue ignorance.

But the Democrats cannot.

(in this instance)