Democratic Bumper Stickers for 2008

[Guest Patriot]

I really hate this sort of thing. Opposition is not treason. If we manage to win and establish peace in Iraq it will be solely by the courage of the American soldier. The planning for and management of the occupation has been incompetent.

Treaty of Paris-September 1783. 7 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The planning for and the management of the occupation has been

incompetent" ?? This analysis coming from a former E-3 or E-4 ?? I don't

think that was in your job discription.

[Bryan]

If we're using the Dow as a measurement for successful economic policy a simple graph...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_miles...ustrial_Average

...would seem to show enormous growth during the Clinton administration and modest growth (except for 9/11 of course) since.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course. Clinton managed the economy fairly well (centrist Democrat, except for Hillarycare), and took advantage of the war dividend while cooperating with the welfare reform bill passed by the Republican congress (Democrats hated that). Clinton left to Bush an economy on the downturn (overvalued stock market the biggest cause) along with a depleted military (used tons of bombs in Bosnia, didn't buy many bombs).

Clinton's economy faced neither of the two major challenges that Bush has dealt with, namely the 9-11 attacks (check the Dow for that time frame) and the radically increased demand in China and India for fossil fuels (which drives up the market price worldwide).

So, what point did you wish to make? That Bush hasn't managed the economy well because the Dow did better during the Clinton years?

Do you think that's a logical inference?

[Guest Guest]

Very interesting how the defeatocrats will never acknowledge or even mention the term "world war on terrorism". While al Qaeda attacks are occuring around the globe, Bush is protecting the U.S. while taking the fight to the bad guys "over there". Does that make the defeatocrats happy ? Of course not ! They hate Bush too much to admit he's doing the right thing.  What would make the defeatocrats happy ?  A nice dirty bomb attack in the U.S. with a large loss of life would cause much glee and "high-fiving" among the defeatocrats. Reed and Pelosi would be in front of the cameras grinning and saying "we told you so", all the while joyfully thinking about how many defeatocratic votes the dirty bomb attack will mean in the next election. Would the defeatocrats care about how many people would die in a dirty bomb attack in this country ? They'd be too busy composing "Hate Bush" speeches and counting their votes to think about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a load of crap! Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda and Bush took him out, that's fighting terrorism how?

And two coalition countries have been attacked so it hasn't exactly been 100% effective at protecting the 'good guys' from terrorisyts, has it?

And Bush's own people are currently warning us of sleeper cells in the US and warning of a probable summer attack. And YOU say he's protecting us?

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

[Strife767]

Kudos to 2smart4u.  That's laying it on the line and telling it like it is,

    unfortunately for America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still think it'd be interesting to see if the IP addresses you two's posts are coming from match, or are at least coming from the same general physical area.

[Bryan]

Bryan,

I'm surprised. That's the weakest post from you I've ever read.

Apparently it conflicted with some of your erroneous beliefs.

You make a statement about communication between al Qaeda and Saddam that only Cheney believes at this point

Incorrect. Evidence of communications between Hussein's government and al Qaeda is well established.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

and go on with the parables about Stalin and Hitler but you don't offer one shred of evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam were cooperating.

Why should I need evidence that they were cooperating?

I was dealing with the claim that Hussein was an enemy of al Qaeda, with the implication that he would not have cooperated with the organization. Did you forget that, or were you deliberately trying to change the subject?

The fact is, they had no reason to cooperate. They had no reason to trust each other, even a little. How was what happened on 9/11 in Saddam's interest?

Hussein has called for terrorist attacks on the United States.

Iraq and its allies attempted a number of terrorist operations against the United States during the conflict, a few of which succeeded. Most attacks, however, were countered. Those that were carried out were the work of local extremists, not terrorism's heavy hitters. The highly lethal attacks that have been the hallmark of the professional Middle Eastern terrorist groups did not occur.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910709-terror.htm

Astana, Kazakstan -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad - - an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat.

Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year, but his statement was the second this month in which he has offered at least some support for Bush on Iraq.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...19/ai_n10973265

Those two articles (two among many I could have cited) establish Iraq's intent to strike at the United States.

Here is the motive for cooperation: Iraq's terrorists have been rank amateurs compared to al Qaeda.

Assistance to al Qaeda could enable a person like Hussein to achieve his goal of getting in a serious strike at the United States (al Qaeda professionalism) along with plausible deniability (they did it--not me).

How could you have overlooked this, other than by allowing your mind to be dominated by your ideology?

Don't you think that there is the slightest possibility that Libya just got tired of being bad boys and being economically boycotted all these years?

Sure it's possible. But that's not a good enough reason to entirely discount the strong action brought against Iraq as a motivating factor. It's more likely that Ghadafi saw what happened with Hussein and didn't want to go that route.

If anything, Libya makes an argument that had we continued to sanction Iraq, Saddam would have eventually come around.

Uh--no. You make that argument if Ghadafi gave up his weapons programs before we ousted Hussein.

What Libya shows is that sanctions weren't keeping Libya from making substantial progress in acquiring WMD. It is from Libya that we discovered the connection with a Pakistani scientist to the proliferation of nuclear secrets.

Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior administration official said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/20/libya.main/

Suspicions that Libya’s nuclear technology and designs came from Pakistan were confirmed in January 2004 when Libya and Iran provided proof that both countries had received assistance from Pakistani scientists including Abdul Qadeer Khan and Mohammed Farooq.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/...a/libya-nuc.htm

Are you going to tell me that Qaddafi is somehow a better player than Saddam?

Yes.

Saddam was like a mafia don who controled with an iron fist. Qaddafi was/is no different.  Their motivation is power and money, not religion.

Ghadafi is still in power. Hussein is not.

Obvious, no?

Ghadafi spent untold millions building up his arsenal ... and just kissed it good-bye.

[Autonomous]

"The planning for and the management of the occupation has been

    incompetent" ??  This analysis coming from a former E-3 or E-4 ??  I don't

    think that was in your job discription.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought I wasn't in at all according to you?

[Autonomous]

Of course.  Clinton managed the economy fairly well (centrist Democrat, except for Hillarycare), and took advantage of the war dividend while cooperating with the welfare reform bill passed by the Republican congress (Democrats hated that).  Clinton left to Bush an economy on the downturn (overvalued stock market the biggest cause) along with a depleted military (used tons of bombs in Bosnia, didn't buy many bombs).

Clinton's economy faced neither of the two major challenges that Bush has dealt with, namely the 9-11 attacks (check the Dow for that time frame) and the radically increased demand in China and India for fossil fuels (which drives up the market price worldwide).

So, what point did you wish to make?  That Bush hasn't managed the economy well because the Dow did better during the Clinton years?

Do you think that's a logical inference?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that you can't produce one single fact and expect it to prove your point. The economy is chugging along as it always does-for now. The national debt is likely to hurt that in the long run-but both parties are to blame for that. Democrats haven't exactly been pushing for a balanced budget either.

[Guest BushBacker]

What a load of crap!  Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda and Bush took him out, that's fighting terrorism how?

And two coalition countries have been attacked so it hasn't exactly been 100% effective at protecting  the 'good guys' from terrorisyts, has it?

And Bush's own people are currently warning us of sleeper cells in the US and warning of a probable summer attack.  And YOU say he's protecting us?

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just proved the previous post by 2smart4u to be exactly right. Sounds

like you're hoping for an attack just to "prove" Bush is not protecting us.

[Guest Guest]

"The planning for and the management of the occupation has been

    incompetent" ??  This analysis coming from a former E-3 or E-4 ??  I don't

    think that was in your job discription.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's in the job description of every American citizen to keep an eye on the president and with this one a blind man could see the incompetence.

[Guest Keith-Marhsall,Mo]

You just proved the previous post by 2smart4u to be exactly right.  Sounds

    like you're hoping for an attack just to "prove" Bush is not protecting us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Man, that's a terrible thing to say. I've been coming to this site for quite a while now and I can't think of anyone here who would want that that happen.

You should really be ashamed of yourself.

You are a sad,sad person.

[Guest Guest]

You just proved the previous post by 2smart4u to be exactly right.  Sounds

    like you're hoping for an attack just to "prove" Bush is not protecting us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only thing I proved is that 2Dumb4Words is almost as big an idiot as you.

9/11 proved Bush is not protecting us.

[Guest BushBacker]

Man, that's a terrible thing to say. I've been coming to this site for quite a while now and I can't think of anyone here who would want that that happen.

You should really be ashamed of yourself.

You are a sad,sad person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.

I am sad. I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.

One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.

    I am sad.  I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.

    One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yes I forgot. It always "someone elses" fault, isn't it?

[Guest Radagast]

>>Incorrect.  Evidence of communications between Hussein's government and al Qaeda is well established.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/<<

You really should read your links .. like the part about Saddam not taking bin Laden's phone call was the best! Lots of talk ... no proof.

>>Why should I need evidence that they were cooperating?

I was dealing with the claim that Hussein was an enemy of al Qaeda, with the implication that he would not have cooperated with the organization.  Did you forget that, or were you deliberately trying to change the subject?

Hussein has called for terrorist attacks on the United States.

Iraq and its allies attempted a number of terrorist operations against the United States during the conflict, a few of which succeeded. Most attacks, however, were countered. Those that were carried out were the work of local extremists, not terrorism's heavy hitters. The highly lethal attacks that have been the hallmark of the professional Middle Eastern terrorist groups did not occur.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910709-terror.htm<<

You use quotes from a right wing Congressional Republican hack from MI in a long winded speech in the House as proof? Come on Bryan..

>>Astana, Kazakstan -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad - - an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat.

Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year, but his statement was the second this month in which he has offered at least some support for Bush on Iraq.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...19/ai_n10973265<<

and now you use the words of Vladimir Putin as proof! He would like nothing more than having the USA pee all it's resourses away in Iraq..and, it's qualified with all that 'but it's only an unproven report' gobble-di-goop like our fearless Homeland Security Department issues all the time .. it was a report ...but not verified.

>>Those two articles (two among many I could have cited) establish Iraq's intent to strike at the United States.<<

Try again ... this is truly poor on your part.

>>Here is the motive for cooperation:  Iraq's terrorists have been rank amateurs compared to al Qaeda.

Assistance to al Qaeda could enable a person like Hussein to achieve his goal of getting in a serious strike at the United States (al Qaeda professionalism) along with plausible deniability (they did it--not me).

That would sound good, however, as i stated, Saddam had no motive to attack the United States.

How could you have overlooked this, other than by allowing your mind to be dominated by your ideology?<<

oooh yeah ... MY mind is dominated...

>>Sure it's possible.  But that's not a good enough reason to entirely discount the strong action brought against Iraq as a motivating factor.  It's more likely that Ghadafi saw what happened with Hussein and didn't want to go that route.<<

To each his own. IMHO, money and power are always the motivating factor when it come to thugs.

>>Uh--no.  You make that argument if Ghadafi gave up his weapons programs before we ousted Hussein. 

What Libya shows is that sanctions weren't keeping Libya from making substantial progress in acquiring WMD.  It is from Libya that we discovered the connection with a Pakistani scientist to the proliferation of nuclear secrets.<<

Likely all part of Quadafi's game. Because of 9/11, he was in a position to move in a direction he was not able before.

>>Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior administration official said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/20/libya.main/

Suspicions that Libya’s nuclear technology and designs came from Pakistan were confirmed in January 2004 when Libya and Iran provided proof that both countries had received assistance from Pakistani scientists including Abdul Qadeer Khan and Mohammed Farooq.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/...a/libya-nuc.htm<<

I've read enough about Libya's nuclear adventure. Did you ever read 'The Mouse That Roared"? They were years away from a bomb if, indeed, that is what they wanted.... I like my 'Mouse That Roared' theory better.

>>Yes.

Ghadafi is still in power.  Hussein is not.

Obvious, no?

Ghadafi spent untold millions building up his arsenal ... and just kissed it good-bye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<<

The only thing obvious is that the United States did not spend a trillion bucks taking him out.

[Bryan]

No, that you can't produce one single fact and expect it to prove your point.

Could I support my point with a single fact?

What if I put two together?

The economy is chugging along as it always does-for now.

No recollection of the Carter years, eh?

Have you ever read about the Great Depression? Know anything about inflation cycles? About how human expectations play a huge role in the economy?

The national debt is likely to hurt that in the long run-but both parties are to blame for that.

The national debt is quite manageable. It's best measured as a percentage of GDP. Of course, government policies that shrink the GDP (such as tax increases that hamper business investment) could grow that percentage in no time at all, especially if combined with new government expenses.

Democrats haven't exactly been pushing for a balanced budget either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The GOP is adopting that as part of its platform, as I understand it (though skepticism regarding their ability to pull it off is justified).

The GOP also pushed for a balanced budget amendment in the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budg..._budget_surplus

[Guest Guest]

I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.

    I am sad.  I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.

    One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody criricizes the country, they criticize the bumbling, incompetent, ideologue that nitwits like you worship.

It's idiots like you who try to place the blame for the Iraq debacle everywhere except where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of your hero, The Shrub.

Stumble back to your barstool and have another drink

[Guest Guest]

I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.

    I am sad.  I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.

    One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, it's good thing we had a Republican in charge during WWII, right? What a moron.

Republicans used to criticize Democrats for presiding over wars. Never mind that Democrats presided over the two wars of the 20th century in which we were justifiably involved. Now that we are mired in an unjustified and unwinnable war, BushBacker is all for it. You can't hold an intelligent discussion with people like that.

[Guest Guest]

I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.

    I am sad.  I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.

    One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nurse Ratchett really needs to remeber that when she puts you loonies to bed that she needs to lock up the computers.

[Stixx3969]

I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.

    I am sad.  I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.

    One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Comparing WWII to Iraq is apples and oranges.

[Guest Patriot]

Gee, it's good thing we had a Republican in charge during WWII, right? What a moron.

Republicans used to criticize Democrats for presiding over wars. Never mind that Democrats presided over the two wars of the 20th century in which we were justifiably involved. Now that we are mired in an unjustified and unwinnable war, BushBacker is all for it. You can't hold an intelligent discussion with people like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Unwinnable" !! Don't you just love the defeatocrats.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Gee, it's good thing we had a Republican in charge during WWII, right? What a moron.

Republicans used to criticize Democrats for presiding over wars. Never mind that Democrats presided over the two wars of the 20th century in which we were justifiably involved. Now that we are mired in an unjustified and unwinnable war, BushBacker is all for it. You can't hold an intelligent discussion with people like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you're new here so I won't criticize your ignorance. BushBacker referred to the "defeatocrats", otherwise known as the Kool-aid drinking radical left. Roosevelt was of course a democrat, quite different from a defeatocrat.

[Autonomous]

Could I support my point with a single fact?

What if I put two together? 

No recollection of the Carter years, eh?

Have you ever read about the Great Depression?  Know anything about inflation cycles?  About how human expectations play a huge role in the economy?

I don't recall the Carter years-I was born in 1976. I should have said 'usually.'

The national debt is quite manageable.  It's best measured as a percentage of GDP.  Of course, government policies that shrink the GDP (such as tax increases that hamper business investment) could grow that percentage in no time at all, especially if combined with new government expenses.

The GOP is adopting that as part of its platform, as I understand it (though skepticism regarding their ability to pull it off is justified).

The GOP also pushed for a balanced budget amendment in the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budg..._budget_surplus

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not much of an economist. If it doesn't directly impact my business there is a good chance I don't know about it. My wife, however, has a degree in accounting. We (as a nation) pay a LOT on just the interest on the debt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that isn't a good thing. The fact that so much of our debt is owned by foreign investors is not a pleasing thought to me.

I know the GOP used to want to balance the budget. I predict they'll take over again in 2008, and I'll give them yet another chance to do it. Like usual, I'd be very surprised if the government does anything before it becomes an emergency.

[Bryan]

I'm not much of an economist. If it doesn't directly impact my business there is a good chance I don't know about it. My wife, however, has a degree in accounting. We (as a nation) pay a LOT on just the interest on the debt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that isn't a good thing.

It shouldn't take much though to realize that it isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.

You're a business owner? Have you ever taken out a loan that took you a long time to repay? You paid a "LOT" of interest, correct? Does it take a rocket scientist to realize that you made a mistake?

National debt is a good analog to personal or business borrowing. There are many instances where borrowing is very good even if you're paying interest on the loan. If you're a business owner then chances are you can think of your own examples.

The fact that so much of our debt is owned by foreign investors is not a pleasing thought to me.

Why not?

Let's suppose that China owned half of the United states in terms of businesses and real estate. Would it be in their best interests to attack us?

I know the GOP used to want to balance the budget. I predict they'll take over again in 2008, and I'll give them yet another chance to do it. Like usual, I'd be very surprised if the government does anything before it becomes an emergency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It isn't likely to turn into an emergency with fiscal responsibility exercised at the federal level.

Watch out for the Democrats, though. Their policies are bad for the economy even aside from the conservation and global warming wings. You'll be hearing anti-growth messages expressed explicitly from within the DNC within 20 years if it's not already happening.

How will the government pay for stuff when it needs more revenue from a shrinking economy? There aren't too many options.

[Guest Guest]

Maybe you're new here so I won't criticize your ignorance. BushBacker referred to the "defeatocrats", otherwise known as the Kool-aid drinking radical left.  Roosevelt was of course a democrat, quite different from a defeatocrat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As Lincoln was a Republican, quite different from the narrow minded, tunnel visoned, bumbling, incompetent neoNaxi-con Rethuglican ideologue we suffer with now.