| Author | Message | ||
     Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 1027 Registered: 10-2005  |
Will people please stop repeating this? I'm very tired of hearing it. I'm exasperated at how self-depricating the Democratic party and its constituents are. I hear lots of plans. True, there's diversity, but it's not like there are just a bunch of babbling idiots out there. (For the most part.) Besides, there are plenty of Republicans who aren't down with the plan set out by this white house. Let's play offence, I say. How can we play offence with no game plan, you say? Fake it till you make it, I say. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 117 Registered: 4-2006 |
Dems have no plan - I repeated it. Also, in a WSJ article on a release of economic news today saying that the poverty rate stayed steady for the first time since 2000 and that median household income is rising. Only the Associated Depressed could find some Bush-hating bureaucrat to spin these two pieces of good news into an anti-Bush statement. Note that only the interal quotes were in the article and thus represent what the quotee actually said. The rest 'With the poverty rate steady but median household income rising' and the latter part of the sentence 'between the wealthy and the poor' is a pseudo-quote by the author. "With the poverty rate steady but median household income rising, "that could represent an increase in inequality" between the wealthy and the poor, said David Johnson, chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division of the Census Bureau." | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7787 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dems to have a plan and Rumsfeld said it best today in Utah. "It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among western democracies; when those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and Nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored, indeed in the decades before WWII a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated." Democrats plan on doing that all over again... | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2150 Registered: 2-2005  |
 Joseph Raymond McCarthy [R] | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7788 Registered: 10-2001 |
You're getting your time periods in American history screwed up. Either that, or you took a very simple route in order to explain Democrats refusal to fight terrorism. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5669 Registered: 5-2001 |
Does it ever bother you that you have to fall back on misrepresentations and half-truths to make your point? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 973 Registered: 1-2006 |
Rummie had it right this time. jd | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2151 Registered: 2-2005 |
There's enough threat in the world to choose from without having to make •••• up. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12523 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, hate to break it to you but it was the Republicans who wanted to ignore Nazism, or even support it because the movement was anti-communist and pro-business. While there is a sub-set of the Democratic party (well represented here on MOL I often think) that doesn't view Islamoterrorism as a threat, most Democrats do recognize the issue. The issue is how to do this and how many personal freedoms have to be abandoned to accomplish security. A lot of Dems are more concerned with port and border security than they are with kicking ••• and taking names in Iraq, which a majority of the country now believes to have been a strategic blunder. | ||
| Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 1029 Registered: 10-2005 |
Bob k is absolutely right. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism--that is, before we went in there. Ender, as for those stats, I question the levels at which one places poverty. A study of New Jersey said that in Essex county, the poverty level for a family of 4 should be $36,000, NOT $18,850. The number of those in SO CALLED poverty dropping a tenth of a percent does not impress me in the least. Certainly refusing to make minimum wage a living wage is more a Republican agenda than a democratic one. Get real. Strawberry, Rumsfeld beating the drums of fear, again. He's so damned predictable, it's pathetic. The Republican plan: scare everyone into not questioning the self-serving power mongers by raising the spectre of Nazism. I'm actually not surprised YOU think that's a good plan. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1993 Registered: 10-2004  |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060829/ts_nm/life_usa_poverty_dc Interesting those poverty stats. The WSJ is extremely pro republican and especially pro Bush administration so its not surprising they would spin the poverty stats as good news but according to this article the rates is flat but that is the first time since Bush took over that the rate has not increased. The last time we had a decrease was in Bill Clintons administation. It also claims that the middle class is indeed shrinking. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5670 Registered: 5-2001 |
What Rumsfeld is doing of course is conflating 9/11 with Iraq. Dems are all for taking the fight to al Qaeda, but feel the war in Iraq was irrelevant and a terrible mistake. But Rumsfeld, Rove et al refuse to allow any light to appear between the two issues. Despite Bush's lame response at last week's press conference that Iraq had nothing to do with it, his minions are continually reinforcing it. Bush's lame response by the way was designed to allow an out. He said Saddam "didn't order" the 9/11 attacks. "Ordering" the attacks is of course a small subset of any kind of possible involvement. Leaving open the implications that he may have financed, recruited, trained or whatever the perpetrators. It's a way of lying while still telling the literal truth. He might as well have replied, "no one said Saddam flew one of the airplanes." A non-answer. And we don't have to go back to the 1930s to find Republicans being lax about external threats. Every move Clinton made against al Qaeda or Saddam was immediately denounced by Republicans on the very very important mission of smearing Clinton's reputation. While bin Laden was plotting 9/11, Clinton was in sending cruise missiles but Republicans in Washington were trying to get pictures of his penis published in the newspaper. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1525 Registered: 4-2006 |
It is more like a Christmas wish list, actually. Still waiting for Reid and Pelosi to give us a real policy on global terrorism. As a recovering democrat the problem I see is that they always rely on Bush screwing up instead of taking some damn initiative and developing policies that 3/4 of the country can buy into. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5672 Registered: 5-2001 |
well we're seldom disappointed. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1769 Registered: 9-2004 |
Shanabana, you have it backwards. Actually its the Bush Crime Family that has no plan. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5677 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm trying to get away from huge cut-and-paste jobs, but the Rude Pundit is on to something here that warrants some consideration as to what the Bush "plan" is. Edited a little for concision:
| ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1771 Registered: 9-2004 |
My apologies, they do have a plan. Its called the Enron Plan. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 282 Registered: 12-2005 |
Ahh, the WWII analogies again. If we're fighting a similar threat, as Rummy and the neo-cons always say, why did we take our eye off Afghanistan (controlled by the Taliban, which gave support and a place to train to those who attacked us on 9/11) and why do we only have 130,000 troops in Iraq, the supposed "central front in the war on terror"? Why do we continue in our support of Saudi Arabia, the biggest supporter and sponsor of radical Islam? Why have we made the Middle East a place where Iran now has much more influence? Why do they continually say we're presently facing the biggest threat since Nazi Germany but don't act like it. Let's roll back the tax cuts, raise taxes, re-institute the draft, ration gas and other necessities, etc. Everybody sacrifices, not just the National Guard and our overstrained military. If this is the greatest threat to our democratic way of life, we need a much greater effort and sacrifice from all. As I said before, on 9/11 we were made aware of this threat. On 9/12 Bush told us to go shopping and to Disney. Let's slowly roll through Afghanistan and Iraq from south to north, rebuilding, and try to foster two stable democracies. It will take twenty plus years and a trillion dollars. That is the only way to fix this mess and the only way this has a chance to work. Go all out against the dire threat or get out. If not willing to do that, stop the WWII analogies and just "stay the course" to nowhere. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5838 Registered: 8-2003 |
We haven't taken our eye of Afghanistan at all. In fact, our wonderful allies -- those same people Kerry said he had a special way with -- our running the show just as some of Bush's detractors would have it. Those same detractors claim that the war has escalated there as a sign of poor leadership. In fact, what is happening is that the fight in a more systematic way has been taken to the south and other far away provinces to secure them in the way that Kabul and Herat have been, and to a lesser extent Kandahar. The fascination with Bin Laden's lack of capture is transparent. Perhaps we should shell an aspirin factory again and hope we get lucky. Bush could get Bin Laden as he got Zarqawi, and we just know what the next cry from the Left would be. To buckle down the entire US society and economy isn't necessary and if we did do that, the terrorists could claim a bit of a victory there. As it stands, we have airport hassles and lines into and out of the country. Let's strap ourselves down and show them what for? Why? Go fill up your tank and sacrifice, except don't complain next time. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5695 Registered: 5-2001 |
um, just would the next cry from the left be? Mullah Omar? So be it. But if you're saying that Bush isn't focusing on bin Laden because then we'll just want something else -- isn't that a wee bit petulant? The fascination with Bin Laden's capture is about as transparent as the fascination with catching Hitler or capturing Tokyo -- becaue it represents vindication and victory; and leaving them loose represents defeat. The right's un-fascination is equally transparent: If Gore were president, Fox would be running a constant bug at the bottom of their screen, "Bin Laden At Large, Day 1,572." And they'd have a really good point. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5840 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm not saying at all that Bush isn't pursuing Osama Bin Laden. The Left's fascintion with victory on any national security front is interesting, though, and unusual. |
