You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I should be supporting Allen. Instead, I'm leaving the party.
- Thread starter james_bond_3rd
- Start date
Quote from ktmexc20:
AAAintheBeltway:
Wake-up man. Even hard-core conservatives are realizing reality.
Besides, why would you want to defend a total putz?
Are you 19 or something? AAA comes on here and gives a thoughtful and I'll add TRUE rebuttal and then you enlist a litany of nothingness. Is that your best intellectual response?
"Realizing reality....", "total putz...', do you care to offer detailed explanations providing backup to these statements?
I think you're right, but you need to change the political system from a two-party system. The biggest problem with the Democrats is that together with the Republican Party they know the power will go back and forth between the parties over time and as such has absolutely nothing to gain to make USA more democratic.Quote from ktmexc20:
We need another party.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Bush is not running. We are talking about the congress. Democrats have a long track record of underfunding the military and using it for social engineering. Anyway, we can argue these points indefinitely.
The fact is that the vast majority of the people in the military are republicans and despise the democrat agenda. If someone has all this love and admiration for those in the military, as this guy who wrote this article claims to, why would he want to put them under a democrat congress?
"Loving" the troops, the human beings in the military does not necessarily mean "loving" the military agenda that is being dictated at any particular point in time. I think it's unfair to label those who are not fans of the Irag invasion as being "against the troops". Perhaps those who prefer to not unilaterally start a war actually care more about keeping our troops alive and well, and prepared to keep the peace whenever possible.
Sure, we are there in Iraq, and hopefully something wise will come to someone's mind (someonoe in charge) to get us out of there, but until that happens, of course we support the troops. Get them what they need to win, try to mend the damage done diplomatically to our allies so that they may take up some of the slack.
We had a Republican congress for many years now, and for whatever reasons, we are in this mess. Will the Democrats be able to go back and change history, of course not. Will they be able to "fix" everything, of course not. Will we have true bi-partisan solutions being sought after the elections (doubtful), but we need to do something differently. Yes on troops, no on staying "this" course.
I searched for your latest plan, AAA, but didn't find it. Maybe PM me a copy if you have time.
c
Quote from cgroupman:
"Loving" the troops, the human beings in the military does not necessarily mean "loving" the military agenda that is being dictated at any particular point in time. I think it's unfair to label those who are not fans of the Irag invasion as being "against the troops". Perhaps those who prefer to not unilaterally start a war actually care more about keeping our troops alive and well, and prepared to keep the peace whenever possible.
Sure, we are there in Iraq, and hopefully something wise will come to someone's mind (someonoe in charge) to get us out of there, but until that happens, of course we support the troops. Get them what they need to win, try to mend the damage done diplomatically to our allies so that they may take up some of the slack.
We had a Republican congress for many years now, and for whatever reasons, we are in this mess. Will the Democrats be able to go back and change history, of course not. Will they be able to "fix" everything, of course not. Will we have true bi-partisan solutions being sought after the elections (doubtful), but we need to do something differently. Yes on troops, no on staying "this" course.
I searched for your latest plan, AAA, but didn't find it. Maybe PM me a copy if you have time.
c
I accept that reasonable people can differ about what is best for the military. My point was that the guy in the article made this big show of how much he admired the people in the military. If he did admire them, why would he want to force a democrat congress on them, when it is clear that the military is heavily republican and conservative.
Here's my new simplified plan for Iraq. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...121&highlight=my+new+simplified+plan+for+iraq
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I accept that reasonable people can differ about what is best for the military. My point was that the guy in the article made this big show of how much he admired the people in the military. If he did admire them, why would he want to force a democrat congress on them, when it is clear that the military is heavily republican and conservative.
Here's my new simplified plan for Iraq. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...121&highlight=my+new+simplified+plan+for+iraq
Maybe "because" the military is now more republican is a good reason to have the other party "in charge". Checks and balances has worked fairly well for a couple hundred years. Political sides shouldn't be a big part of the military in my opinion.
I have scanned your plan, and will review in more detail after the market closes. What I have seen so far is making some sense.
c
Quote from Jayford:
I left when they started spending like mad several years ago. So much for small gov. I'm a full on Indie now, voting person, not party.
I bailed three years ago. Here's why:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21757
(Note how I called fascism then, back before anyone was using the word yet.)
Welcome to the club.