Democratic Infighting

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

While it can't be proven right now, the future will show us. I am basing that conclusion from looking at the past. We initially help Iran, we over throw Iran's leader, leaders who sponser terrorism take power, Iran now considers us an enemy. We help Saddam gain power, we help Saddam vs. Iran, we invade Iraq, then we remove Saddam and over throw his government, now we have a terrorism problem in Iraq. This shit keeps repeating itself and I am curious as to when we will take a step back and actually learn why it repeats and why people in that region have a foul impression of our country, or at least our government.

Based on history we have performed a serious misstep in Iraq.

I think it's too easy to pick a few failed attempts at international intervention, but what about the success stories? Sure, the Middle East has been a problem for us in our attempts to help them, but I think the cultural differences (and differences in their very backward and almost time-warped way of life) make that expected. But it seems as the years go on the people are welcoming westernization more and more. We have had far more intervention attempts in our international policy than just Iran or Iraq, and we should consider those as well. Are all of those failures?

Government expansion is not the ultimate goal of democrats. They do not say "I want more government, how do i do it". I will admit that government growth is occasionally a biproduct of their legislation at times. Though if you look at government growth during clinton's 8 years of presidency you will see it grew about 5%, significantly less than under bush's term. Some will say "well there was a republican congress/senate" but thats not really all that valid because the entire government has been republican until recently.

Perhaps Democrats don't have governman expansion as their main goal, but they see government expansion as a means to answer the world's problems. They have no problem saying 'oh, you're hungry? Let the government fix it' or 'oh, you need to be taken care of? Let the government do it'. That, I have a huge problem with. Their ability to think the government can solve every problem is beyond me. Their inability to let people be responsible for their own actions and take care of themselves baffles me.

I think it's easy to use the Clinton presidency as an example, as the most that happened during his presidency was a blow job. It's hard to compare a presidency like that to one of war. There was no expansion during those 8 yrs because he didn't even really need to do anything at all. In fact, there should have been NO government expansion whatsoever. Perhaps we should have seen government contraction.

The democrats are in pretty bad shape, but their qualms seem to be more along the lines of outspoken verbal disagreements within the party. The republicans are in far worse shape. Look at the 2008 candidates and look at the action, not the words, of the last 7 years. The only real conservative up there, Ron Paul, gets pooh pooh'd by the rest of the neoconservative panel.

I think both parties are in bad shape, and while the Repubicans have trouble finding someone who represents true conservative values, the Democrats have trouble finding what they truly represent.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think it's too easy to pick a few failed attempts at international intervention, but what about the success stories? Sure, the Middle East has been a problem for us in our attempts to help them, but I think the cultural differences (and differences in their very backward and almost time-warped way of life) make that expected. But it seems as the years go on the people are welcoming westernization more and more. We have had far more intervention attempts in our international policy than just Iran or Iraq, and we should consider those as well. Are all of those failures?

There are success stories but we also must consider the situation regarding those events and how things were carried out. Its not like every situation was done the same way, and some just happened to go bad. We handled some situations properly and they turned out fine for those people... better than what they had before. The middle east, we have just failed time and time again. The way we handle that policy and the most recent example (Iraq) are simply failures. As a result animosity for us has never been higher in that region which also happens to be the primary source for terrorism. After 9/11 we had the entire world behind us, including the Iranian people. We squandered that, and because of that I'd say that Iraq was arguable one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in the history of our country. We are worse off fiscally, worse off militarily, worse of in regards to security, and worse off as a nation in general as there have been few times where our country has been this divided.

Perhaps Democrats don't have governman expansion as their main goal, but they see government expansion as a means to answer the world's problems. They have no problem saying 'oh, you're hungry? Let the government fix it' or 'oh, you need to be taken care of? Let the government do it'. That, I have a huge problem with. Their ability to think the government can solve every problem is beyond me. Their inability to let people be responsible for their own actions and take care of themselves baffles me.

Personally I feel things like welfare and foot stamps, things like that are there for a resource for when things go south. I don't look at it like "oh don't worry about that job, i got it" but I look at it like "oh you just got screwed out of your job and in a bad way, here is some assistance to get on your feet". People end up abusing it and making excuses why they can't get rid of the help, but most people who use it are good people that don't abuse it. I won't punish the good majority because of a few bad minority. How to deal with the bad minority? I am not sure.

I think it's easy to use the Clinton presidency as an example, as the most that happened during his presidency was a blow job. It's hard to compare a presidency like that to one of war. There was no expansion during those 8 yrs because he didn't even really need to do anything at all. In fact, there should have been NO government expansion whatsoever. Perhaps we should have seen government contraction.

I recognize 9/11 was not a choice. The expansion and creation of the dept. of homeland security was a choice. Iraq was a choice. This 'war' could have been over and done with long, long ago if we had only focused on the root cause of our problem....Afghanistan/al qaeda's base and our middle east policy.

[bheld]

The infighting is a result of what happens when you have a bunch of people in this country too stupid to pay attention to what is going on.

The congressional Democrats represent a huge ideological swath because that is what is necessary to cull enough votes to balance people whose political participation is the definition of dereliction of their intellectual responsibility to our democracy. There are too many out there that equate their politics to religion and as such not subject to question, logic, or anything else that will cause them to think for one minute more about what their views actually are or what they mean.

You have to have "Blue Dog" Dems to draw enough votes from independents so that you can balance out the 25% of morons in this country that still approve of the current administration and would vote for Genghis Khan if he had an R next to his name. Is there any wonder there's so much back and forth?

The congressional leadership needs to either start fighting back in congress or fight back in the media. They can't be weak in both areas and expect to keep their support from people that actually pay attention.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think it's too easy to pick a few failed attempts at international intervention, but what about the success stories?

If Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003 who thinks they did it out of kindness and not concern over the protection of their military and governing power? Lybia was very open about the message.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

If Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003 who thinks they did it out of kindness and not concern over the protection of their military and governing power? Lybia was very open about the message.

I wonder what happened in 2003 that would make them want to change their public policy towards nuclear weapons...

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Perhaps Democrats don't have governman expansion as their main goal, but they see government expansion as a means to answer the world's problems. They have no problem saying 'oh, you're hungry? Let the government fix it' or 'oh, you need to be taken care of? Let the government do it'. That, I have a huge problem with. Their ability to think the government can solve every problem is beyond me. Their inability to let people be responsible for their own actions and take care of themselves baffles me.

As I watched the end of the Democrat Debate the other day I heard Dodd say he wanted people to have more time to spend with their families. How nice! It did not take me long to figure out what he meant. More unfunded government mandates on employers for paid family leave. That means less productivity, workers who don't have families doing the work of the absent, higher costs for consumers, and a larger financial burden on employers to hire new workers. But why the hell do Democrats care? They are too busy doing good things at the expense of somebody else. People they will never thank. People they will blame a greedy and the cause of all our problems.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I wonder what happened in 2003 that would make them want to change their public policy towards nuclear weapons...

Because Ahmadinejad is just a nice man who really want just the government of Israel to change internally on their own and then live in peace with the people of Israel thereafter?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Because Ahmadinejad is just a nice man who really want just the government of Israel to change internally on their own and then live in peace with the people of Israel thereafter?

He's a madman who will use nukes if he gets them!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

He's a madman who will use nukes if he gets them!

I have no idea. About the use of nukes I should say. I don't even know that he would have the power to even do that on his own? I do not doubt he is the very same terrorist thug who took Americans hostage. I would rather not push the limit of what he is capable of doing given the chance. They do have a religious prophecy that the destruction of Israel marks the new world for Islam. If people want to believe that I can't say it is more insane than some other religious beliefs. But when a people might place themselves as the instrument of prophecy I will fear that. How many wars have we had on this earth over irrational thinking? Almost all of them!

That is the problem with you liberals. You think you can reach everyone on a rational basis. "All we are saying is give peace a chance." The real world does not work that way and never has.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I have no idea. About the use of nukes I should say. I don't even know that he would have the power to even do that on his own? I do not doubt he is the very same terrorist thug who took Americans hostage. I would rather not push the limit of what he is capable of doing given the chance. They do have a religious prophecy that the destruction of Israel marks the new world for Islam. If people want to believe that I can't say it is more insane than some other religious beliefs. But when a people might place themselves as the instrument of prophecy I will fear that. How many wars have we had on this earth over irrational thinking? Almost all of them!

That is the problem with you liberals. You think you can reach everyone on a rational basis. "All we are saying is give peace a chance." The real world does not work that way and never has.

Considering the future generations of that country favor the U.S. plus the positioning of Iran pertaining to the oil trade in that region, I'd say those advocating diplomacy and against any military action are the ones in the 'real world'.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Considering the future generations of that country favor the U.S. plus the positioning of Iran pertaining to the oil trade in that region, I'd say those advocating diplomacy and against any military action are the ones in the 'real world'.

Who the hell said I want military action and not diplomacy?

I am just saying don't be stupid with blind trust.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I have no idea. About the use of nukes I should say. I don't even know that he would have the power to even do that on his own? I do not doubt he is the very same terrorist thug who took Americans hostage. I would rather not push the limit of what he is capable of doing given the chance. They do have a religious prophecy that the destruction of Israel marks the new world for Islam. If people want to believe that I can't say it is more insane than some other religious beliefs. But when a people might place themselves as the instrument of prophecy I will fear that. How many wars have we had on this earth over irrational thinking? Almost all of them!

That is the problem with you liberals. You think you can reach everyone on a rational basis. "All we are saying is give peace a chance." The real world does not work that way and never has.

We have a problem? And what you think is wrong with us is that we think other human beings look out for their own best interest?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We have a problem?

Everyone has problems.