Given the recent US election results...

[financeguy]

...will the Republicans continue slandering the Democrats as terrorist appeasers?

 

[80sU2isBest]

...will the Republicans continue slandering the Democrats as terrorist appeasers?

Sure, we'll continue to point out that weakness of the Dems. Look at the "Election 2006" thread. I've already posted an article in which the Iraqi Al Qaeda leader rejoices over the fact that the Dems are in power; Al Qaeda definitely think the Dems will go softer on them.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am excited because it sets the stage for two people I would not mind being president getting in. Obama or McCain. Are we looking at the first African American President, or are we looking at the new Ronald Regan ala 1980 rescuing the party.

All good in my book.

 

[doctorwho]

...will the Republicans continue slandering the Democrats as terrorist appeasers?

Most definitely.

In fact, I also predict much worse. Note how the Republicans repeatedly went after Clinton again and again on items that the country really didn't care about. When Clinton was being impeached, the U.S. public supported him at an 80% approval rating!! So were the Republican *really* acting on behalf of their constituents? Hardly - they were acting in their own self-interest.

I find that there's probably enough evidence to impeach Bush, but the Democrats have wisely stated that this will not happen. What Bush did was far, far worse than lying about an affair.

However, now that the power has shifted in Congress, I fear 2 things:

1) The Republicans will attack like they haven't attacked in a decade;
2) The Democrats will not be united and screw things up again.

Item #2 happened after the '92 elections. The Democrats had Congress and the White House. Yet, instead of pushing through agendas and making a united front, they bickered amongst themselves, failed to support Clinton and were promptly booted out of office in '94. I hope they learned a lesson from that. Otherwise, come '08, we are back to a Republican regime. And I will say this - at least they stay united (for the most part - Arnold turning his back on Bush being the big exception).

 

[BVS]

That was answered quick.

Some people are still believing the lie...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Are those two votes for option 3 a joke? Or do two people here actually believe that?

 

[U2democrat]

Are those two votes for option 3 a joke? Or do two people here actually believe that?

That's what I'm wondering too.

 

[Diemen]

Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

Sure, we'll continue to point out that weakness of the Dems. Look at the "Election 2006" thread. I've already posted an article in which the Iraqi Al Qaeda leader rejoices over the fact that the Dems are in power; Al Qaeda definitely think the Dems will go softer on them.

I'm curious, what flavor koolaid did you get?

Simply because the Democrats aren't as zealous to send our military out on poorly planned missions without the proper equipment and a solid exit strategy, doesn't mean that they are weak or would go soft on terrorists.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

I'm curious, what flavor koolaid did you get?

Simply because the Democrats aren't as zealous to send our military out on poorly planned missions without the proper equipment and a solid exit strategy, doesn't mean that they are weak or would go soft on terrorists.

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

 

[STING2]

...will the Republicans continue slandering the Democrats as terrorist appeasers?

What wonderful options you have to choose from in your poll. The only thing interesting is that the results so far continue to show the huge imbalance in political or party affiliation in this forum.

 

[indra]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

Wow.

 

[verte76]

Here comes the Republican attack machine. It's going to be nasty.

 

[VertigoGal]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

are you joking?

 

[Varitek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

I would be but I'm too busy being and that this sentiment is serious and actually exists.

 

[Bono's shades]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

80's, please. You are a better and smarter person than this.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[verte76]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

Egads. I'm shocked.

 

[anitram]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

Democrats respect the rule of law. OMG. Let's vote them out!

How can anyone think this way is beyond me.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

Democrats respect the rule of law. OMG. Let's vote them out!

How can anyone think this way is beyond me.

Let me tell hwo people can think this way. The average American jury person and the average judge have no clue about issues of the military or about terrorism. That is why suspected terrorists should be subjected to military trials, not the American court system.

 

[Diemen]

Wow. Just...wow.

(1)Many Dems (not all) want to give terrorist suspects trials in the American court system rather than military trials.

(2)Dems do not want terrorists to be subjected to "waterboarding" even though Investigative Reporter Bob Ross discovered that it's actually bery effective in obtaining vital information.

Sounds pretty soft to me.

Let me rephrase those two points for you:

(1)Many Dems believe in the right to a fair trail regardless of who you are.

(2)Dems are against the torture of prisoners.







Boy, what outlandish positions!

 

[Diemen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

Let me tell hwo people can think this way. The average American jury person and the average judge have no clue about issues of the military or about terrorism. That is why suspected terrorists should be subjected to military trials, not the American court system.

Yes, but the average American jury person is more than capable of determining guilt or innocence if given the pertinent information in a trial. Are you saying that it's too difficult to determine innocence or guilt in a trial by jury system? And how is it more difficult to determine the guilt of a terrorist than say, an American murderer?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Re: Wow. Just...wow.

Let me rephrase those two points for you:

(1)Many Dems believe in the right to a fair trail regardless of who you are.

And a military trial is unfair in what way? What would be a miscarriage of justice would be to have a suspected terrorist be judged and sentenced by average Americans who have no clue about military issues.

(2)Dems are against the torture of prisoners.

Dems are against making a terrorist think that he's about to die so that we can get info from him that could save innocent lives.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

Democrats respect the rule of law. OMG. Let's vote them out!

How can anyone think this way is beyond me.

I didn't say "no trial", I said "military trials", and that IS the rule of law in the states. We've been doing that for a very long time.

 

[trevster2k]

I think the key word which keeps popping up here is "suspected" which means we don't know for sure if they are or not. Hence, the trial to determine their guilt. A trial in which the evidence is not withheld from the accused and their defense. A trial which is open and where the accuser, judge and jury aren't the same entity.

Guantanamo has released many "suspected" terrorists over the years along with the jails in Iraq run by the US because they realized the people they rounded up were not "suspected" terrorists after all. So hopefully, none of those people were subjected to waterboarding since apparently they were innocent. But then again, lawsuits are pending.

 

[Diemen]

Re: Re: Wow. Just...wow.

Dems are against making a terrorist think that he's about to die

There are alot more than just Democrats who are against that. And as someone who is so vehemently pro-life I'm more than a little shocked that you're ok with this. Pro-life/pro-torture seems an unlikely coupling, no?

so that we can get info from him that could save innocent lives.

Key word "could." As in, it could possibly save innocent lives, or it could possibly be a lie said out of desperation to stop the torture. And that is what it is, make no mistake about it. You can rationalize it all you want, but in the end you are condoning torture.

You don't find any problem reconciling your Christian faith with your pro-torture stance? I am honestly baffled how ANYBODY could so easily condone torture and even pretend to walk the Christian path. More than that, I'm a bit baffled that one could be ok with such outstanding cruelty to another human being and then dare to point out someone else's allegedly "sinful" behavior that harms no one.

 

[indra]

Re: Re: Re: Wow. Just...wow.

There are alot more than just Democrats who are against that. And as someone who is so vehemently pro-life I'm more than a little shocked that you're ok with this. Pro-life/pro-torture seems an unlikely coupling, no?



Key word "could." As in, it could possibly save innocent lives, or it could possibly be a lie said out of desperation to stop the torture. And that is what it is, make no mistake about it. You can rationalize it all you want, but in the end you are condoning torture.

You don't find any problem reconciling your Christian faith with your pro-torture stance? I am honestly baffled how ANYBODY could so easily condone torture and even pretend to walk the Christian path. More than that, I'm a bit baffled that one could be ok with such outstanding cruelty to another human being and then dare to point out someone else's allegedly "sinful" behavior that harms no one.

No fucking kidding.

Absolutely spot on post.

 

[BVS]

Great post Diemen!!!

80's your generalizations and projections are absolutely appalling...

 

[the rockin edge]

Re: Re: Re: Wow. Just...wow.

There are alot more than just Democrats who are against that. And as someone who is so vehemently pro-life I'm more than a little shocked that you're ok with this. Pro-life/pro-torture seems an unlikely coupling, no?




Key word "could." As in, it could possibly save innocent lives, or it could possibly be a lie said out of desperation to stop the torture. And that is what it is, make no mistake about it. You can rationalize it all you want, but in the end you are condoning torture.

You don't find any problem reconciling your Christian faith with your pro-torture stance? I am honestly baffled how ANYBODY could so easily condone torture and even pretend to walk the Christian path. More than that, I'm a bit baffled that one could be ok with such outstanding cruelty to another human being and then dare to point out someone else's allegedly "sinful" behavior that harms no one.

excellent post Diemen!

 

[Ormus]

Are we looking at the first African American President, or are we looking at the new Ronald Regan ala 1980 rescuing the party.

No, we're looking at John McCain becoming president. He'll use his pseudo-maverick status to become president and ultimately be as ineffectively duplicitous as you'd expect from a Republican president.

I've lost an awful lot of respect for him over the last six years. He strikes me as all image and no substance.

 

[Ormus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Given the recent US election results...

I didn't say "no trial", I said "military trials", and that IS the rule of law in the states. We've been doing that for a very long time.

Yes, and FDR loved military tribunals because they assured guilty verdicts.

 

[martha]

Re: Re: Re: Wow. Just...wow.

You don't find any problem reconciling your Christian faith with your pro-torture stance? I am honestly baffled how ANYBODY could so easily condone torture and even pretend to walk the Christian path. More than that, I'm a bit baffled that one could be ok with such outstanding cruelty to another human being and then dare to point out someone else's allegedly "sinful" behavior that harms no one.

Eagerly awaiting an answer to this one.