Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

erps - I'd say that makes you an independent, not a moderate.

cam - your example sounds more like hypocrisy, than moderation.

Near as I can figure out, a moderate is someone who will compromise their personal convictions, to stay in the middle on issues. Although, I still haven't figured out just where this elusive middle is.

[PBzeer]

After reading Biden's remarks from last night, I am somewhat confused. His claim, that the US is less secure and more isolated due to the Bush foreign policy of the past 8 years, leaves me wondering just how we can be more secure and less isolated.

Are we to return to the foreign policies of the Clinton years, that made 9/11 possible? Years of repeated attacks upon and against America? And if not, then what changes would be made?

How are we to become more secure, without further erosions of the personal freedoms that are already decried by these self-same people?

How are we to become less isolated, by withdrawing inward? But, more to the point, just who are we so isolated from?

What is their plan, and where is it?

Can it be the special jail cells built for their convention? Or arresting people for taking pictures they don't want seen? Is that part of their plan?

Do they believe that words will shield us from guns and bombs? Do they believe that the relentless and rabid fanaticism of radical Islam will be stilled by gestures, rather than deeds? That America, and the world will somehow be safer by appeasement, rather than by standing firm? Do they believe that a UN that is ignored at will, by those who wish us harm, should be our defense? Do they believe that some ethereal cloud of world approval is more important than the protection of our own interests? Are we to believe that it is the US that is the real threat to world peace? Are we to believe that the US stands on the same or lower moral ground than Iran, Zimbawia, or Mynamar?

[sck5]

It is very telling that Repubs seem to think that doing ANYTHING other than bombing or shooting someone is "appeasement". There is such a thing as diplomacy, and at times it can have very useful results - For example, it was very important to have a strong military ready to stop the USSR - but we never fought a war with them, instead using diplomacy until the day they collapsed.

The USA used to believe in diplomacy and had many allies who supported us both diplomatically and militarily. Since we abandoned it in favor of lying our way into "preemptive" wars we have lost our allies, bogged down our military and become less secure as a result.

[chucklesR]

Sck,
I've seen the Democrats version of "anything', mostly it looks like laying down and letting our troops get shot at.

I joined the military in 1978, Jimmy's era of talk and shuffle with head down and silly southern grin ruined the military and our image.
In 80 Regan came in and we had 12 years of 'don't mess with us' that brought down the USSR and ended most of the support for the over 200 little wars that we were not involved in overseas (read some world history) but that the USSR was supporting. The only mistake made then was not beating the crap out of Syria and Iran for their support of the Beriut bombing. We should have leveled them both.

Then 8 years of Clinton playing commander in chief and bombing aspirin factories and ignoring intelligence reports while cutting funding to our eyes and ears and military while my buddies died in Yemen, Mozambique and elsewhere.
Then Bush, and yeah - all the being wrong etc - and being wrong doesn't mean lying except to democrats who do it on purpose - and while we might be out and about looking for trouble it is the other guy who ducks his head and shuffles his feet, not America.

I prefer it that way. The bottom line is among our allies and friends in the world there isn't one or two we could not stand to lose. America first damn it, period.
You want to go back to the weak days of Clinton and Carter you go ahead. I prefer to make my way with a strong military backing me up with action not bad plans and poor direction from the top.
I don't support preemptive wars, I think they are against what America should stand for, but I highly encourage fighting in the other guys home, not ours. Which mall do you want to see attacked here in America to save a couple of lives/property damage elsewhere?

[sailingdog]

CP—

I see the meds are wearing off again...

[PBzeer]

Unfortunately for your example, it wasn't words that brought down the Iron Curtain, it was deeds. Deeds do not, nor need not, mean military action. In fact, those which are most effective, do not require the use of guns or bombs. They only require the sure and certain knowledge that they are available, IF NEEDED, and that we will not hesitate to use them, IF NEEDED.
Without that, then diplomacy only is, and only can be, appeasement. For if there is no line we will not allow to be crossed, there is no reason for anyone to stop short of it.

Diplomacy, is a fine and wonderous way to resolve differences between two parties willing to reach agreement. BUT, it does require two parties WILLING to reach agreement. It REQUIRES finding common ground, and it REQUIRES sincerity from both parties to seek and find common ground.

Show me where those conditions exist in Iran, or Russia. Tell me how common ground is found when one side ignores, flaunts, or totally disrespects the obligations they have agreed to, to pursue their own desired ends.

Tell me how diplomacy will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, when they have PROMISED, in defiance of UN resolution after resolution not to, that they will. And, are actively engaged in doing so.

Tell me how diplomacy will free Georgia from Russian occupation, when they have already agreed to leave, yet stay.

Tell me how diplomacy will stop the persistent attacks on Israel, when their every concession is met with violence and further demands.

The unending attempt to equate standing firm, with a desire for war, is as obnoxious and disengenious now as it was 50 years ago. And no more valid now, then it was then.

But now though, let us move on to security. Just how is it we are less secure now, then we were before 9/11? What has changed in the world to make us more threatened? And, just who is it we are less secure from?

And who are these "allies" we have lost, that make us less secure? And who were they protecting us from?

[PBzeer]

First it's having reporters arrested, and now it's trying to silence anyone they don't agree with, as in this from the Chicago Tribune .....

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.


"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

Is this a further view of their idea of free speech? To condemn, without even waiting to hear what is said? Is there nothing that can be said which might be critical of Obama that is allowable?

[sailaway21]

Juan Williams of NPR and Fox News is a reliable liberal on most issues and his go-arounds with Brit Hume on Sunday mornings make Hume's retirement all the more a loss. But Williams is hardly the reflexive liberal we've come to expect from the likes of NPR particularly on matters of race.

If his appearance in Janks Morton's illuminating DVD What Black Men Think along with Shelby Steele and Alvin Poussiant was not enough to get the attention of the racial establishment his book, Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-end Movements, and Culture of Failure that are Undermining Black America--and what we can do about it., surely enraged the monolithic race-baiting professional black grievance criers. Mr. Williams is apparently unafraid to speak truth to black power.

Speaking out has it's price. It comes as somewhat of a shock to me that the senior political correspondent for NPR cannot get an interview with Senator Obama for instance. Hmmm. What's up with that?

Now comes Mr. Williams direct confrontation with Mr. Obama on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. In polite society, of which Mr. Williams is a card-carrying member, this is how you call out essentially one of your own. The words may not seem strident or inflammatory but that makes them no less deadly serious. Obama Needs to Take a Stand on Race and Other Issues - WSJ.com

On Glen Beck's radio show today Williams said that education, specifically the issue of education vouchers and charter schools, is the premiere civil-rights issue of our time. And he wasn't complacent about alluding to Senator Obama's subservience to the teacher's unions by overlooking the travesty that is inner city education affecting largely black children. On the anniversary of the Rev ML King's "I have a Dream" speech it is a lonely Juan Williams who cries out at the soft racism that condemns black children to a future holding little more than ignorance and poverty. The potentially first president of color stands silent. How can the candidacy that purports to bridge some of the final racial divides, that claims the mantle of the civil-rights movement as it's progenitor, that features a man most professionally noted for being a community organizer within that self-same community be willing to sweep this issue under the rug for the gain of support from the vast teachers union? Apparently another principle conveniently brushed aside in the pursuit of political ambition. Is it unreasonable to question the candidate on what other principles he might find convenient to forget in a Faustian bargain for power? Because the voters will have to--Obama HQ is not answering the phone calls from a certain NPR reporter.

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by sck5

It is very telling that Repubs seem to think that doing ANYTHING other than bombing or shooting someone is "appeasement". There is such a thing as diplomacy, and at times it can have very useful results - For example, it was very important to have a strong military ready to stop the USSR - but we never fought a war with them, instead using diplomacy until the day they collapsed.

The USA used to believe in diplomacy and had many allies who supported us both diplomatically and militarily. Since we abandoned it in favor of lying our way into "preemptive" wars we have lost our allies, bogged down our military and become less secure as a result.

Are we to use "diplomacy" to pacify every jihadist out there? Perhaps Bush should have sent Colin Powell into Afghanistan so he could meet with Bin Laden and ask him to please don't blow anything else up. Hussein did everything in his power to convince the world that he had WMD's, and seems to have succeeded. Send in Colin Powell again. "Please mister Saddam, could you get rid of any WMD's? We're afraid of what might happen if al Queda happens upon them. They promised not to hurt us any more, but just in case...."

There is no diplomacy for terrorist groups. That's what bullets are for. Countries that harbor terrorists get a brand new government. The alternative is to let the terrorist groups become bold enough to pull off a 9-11 type of attack. Something that Bill Clinton was a master of.

Could you list for me the countries with which we are no longer allied as a result of the Iraq war?

[poopdeckpappy]

Could you list for me the countries with which we are no longer allied as a result of the Iraq war?

I asked the same question months ago......never got a answer


sck5, why do the Dems ( or Dims depending on pov ) think peace & prosperity only comes from cut & running or ignoring the problem, didn't work for Clinton in his 8 yrs, about all his P&P got us was the US embassy bombings Salaam & Nairobi, the Cole Attack, Humiliation in Somalia and the loss of 3000 and the twin towers