|
|
Post by bolverk on May 29, 2008 16:35:52 GMT -5
Just as a side note, Gallup has congressional approval at 18%, still way lower then Bush. However, it matches the lowest approval rating they ever recorded for congress in the years 1992 and 2007. Both of those congresses were Democratically controlled as well.
1992:
Senate: 57 D, 43 R
House: 270 D, 164 R, 1 I
2007:
Senate: 49 D, 49 R, 2 I (Supporting Democrats)
House: 232 D, 201 R
Seems Americans really don't approve of the policies that Democrats pass while in congress. To bad they never remember that at election time, and allow blow hards, like yourself, to influence them based on the actions of one person, the President. The simple fact is, Americans have traditionally been happier with Republican controlled government, even if they do not remember it at election time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 29, 2008 19:24:11 GMT -5
TNG, I'm glad that Bush instills so much confidence in you when he speaks to the military. Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words and the fact is that he and the Republicans couldn't care less about our veterans. Want proof? www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808838,00.html yet again you are talking out of your butt here. the deep concern that dems have for vets can be evidence by all the visits they make to the troops in the combat zone, right? yeah, right. obama cares so much that he's made the trip ONCE for two days and that was almost 3 years ago. wow, he sure must have a good handle on how things are going there, eh? Obama is the chairman of the subcommittee that has oversight in Afghanistan, but has never once been to that country to meet with our troops. Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has the oversight of what's going on in Afghanistan. He has not held one single hearing on Afghanistan where young Americans are in harm's way as we speak. obama says he will meet with achmedinijad without preconditions (regardless of what he says now, he even wrote it in his blueprint for america) but won't meet with Gen. Petraeus. he wouldn't meet with vets when they visited his office ( www.vetsforfreedom.org/multimedia/details.aspx?id=278) why is obama so willing to meet with the people who hate america but unwilling to meet with those who love america? seems to me that obama either doesn't give a rat's ass about our vets or he is too much of a chicken shit to make the trip. of course, it could also be that he knows his welcome will be less than warm. if you want a true measure of who the troops really appreciate all you have to do is see how they respond when republicans and democrats pay them a visit. [img src=" ![]() i109.photobucket.com/albums/n56/mrglenn/_39538064_bush203ap.jpg"][/img] [img src=" ![]() i109.photobucket.com/albums/n56/mrglenn/afghan5.jpg"][/img] sorry, i couldn't find any photos of obama there. i can't wait to see your article and respond but the link is no good. can you try it again, please? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 29, 2008 21:00:33 GMT -5
President Carter did what had to be done. The whole world knows the US has backed Israel with support and arms....what's new? If we expect other countries to disarm, then we must as well, no? President Carter should go back and do what he does best. Sit on his porch sipping iced tea or lemonade and watch his peanuts grow. Is and always will be incompetent. Plain and simple. Get that man a Billy Beer. This needed to be said and Israel can no longer portray itself as the victim. Who knows, maybe someday we will be at war with them and it will be our own weapons used against us .....again. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 13:55:28 GMT -5
War with Israel? Yeah, if we abandon them to the despots that wish to drive them into the sea. Heck, that event just came closer, thanks to Carter.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 30, 2008 18:06:47 GMT -5
One ally in the entire Middle East & Mink thinks we should let Iran nuke them.
Is it brain damage,a desire for suicide or does she just hate the Jews?
Like Hitler
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 30, 2008 19:30:05 GMT -5
Expecting one's enemy to graciously disarm 'cuz you did is called suicide.
In the real world the enemy disarms 'cuz they were defeated, humbled & humiliated.
It's called victory for us & unconditional surrender for them.
Did history start yesterday for you people?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 30, 2008 19:50:47 GMT -5
ok, saunterelle, with some effort i got your link to time magazine to work. here's a couple of passages you may have missed:
Republicans unhappy with the Democrats' add-ons joined with anti-war lawmakers to defeat it. (why? because dems typically load an otherwise good bill with a bunch of bullshit pork)
"Our troops deserve better than having essential war time resources held hostage to billions in unrelated spending," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "Congress should pass a clean war funding bill when they return from Memorial Day recess." (dems wouldn't know a clean bill if it slapped them in the face)
|
|
|
|
Post by saintjoeeric on Jun 2, 2008 1:47:52 GMT -5
You forgot his saying that there are 57 states, Bolverk. Not to mention his lack of grasp of the duties of the several branches of the federal government. And of the limits the Constitution places on the feds. Or, if he does understand, then his utter disregard for the Constitution, and his willingness to destroy it in order to further his socialist agenda. Can you or anyone else specify the role Obama played in helping Al Gore invent the Internet?  |
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on Jun 2, 2008 10:42:10 GMT -5
HarpMan-
I think that some people believe that history is of no consequence. It's apparent in some of our discussions here and more aggregiously so in the CA school system. When I moved to CA from IL in 1998, I was appalled by the lack of knowledge my fellow SRHS students had about US history. One student only had this to say about Abraham Lincoln when asked about him:
"Uhh... He's the guy on the penny, right?"
Further, I find it frustrating when people who do know history think that learning from history means looking at historical decisions they disagree with and then recommend the complete opposite course of action to deal with a similar contempory problem. The Vietnam/Iraq comparison comes to mind...
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 2, 2008 14:20:56 GMT -5
Iraqvet, I know what you mean about local youth not knowing their history. It is pretty scary to say the least. When we don't know our history we are bound to repeat our mistakes.
But the Vietnam/Iraq comparison is a perfect example of this. We should have learned from our experience in Vietnam, which was considered by many to be a "quagmire," that going into Iraq would have a similar outcome. Cheney said so himself in 1994.
If you watch Robert McNamara in "Fog of War" he is the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld. Many of the mistakes he admits to making were repeated in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rumsfeld in his own "Fog of War" in the future, after this war has a chance to be judged in its historical context.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 2, 2008 17:35:41 GMT -5
You are right saunterelle, we should have learned from Vietnam. Generals are better at fighting wars then the citizens back home. Public opinion has no place in a war, once it has been decided that a war will indeed be declared. Had we not followed public opinion in the Vietnam war, it is quite likely we would have won. Just like we already did in Iraq. But hey, capturing the leader seems to be of no consequence in this action. Now insurgents are seen as the same enemy, when in fact they are from other countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 2, 2008 17:39:16 GMT -5
And, by the way, I believe it is the responsibility of this democracy to help others find their way to freedom and democracy. Perhaps you like buying goods from slave drivers who exploit their people, but you are better at saying the words against them then standing behind them. Some commitments require a greater sacrifice. Had we listened to people who think like you in the 1700's, rather then people like Thomas Paine, we would still be colonies. Thank God our forefathers had more balls and intestinal fortitude then you do.
|
|
