Democrat Security

[55CrushEm]

17499

[baja]

Finally some reason back in Washington...

[defenseman]

17499

ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ....outstanding.....!!!!!!!!!!!!...dmanLOL

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Can't read your comic book, what does it say?

[TailgateNut]

Can't read your comic book, what does it say?


It says "f*&% the Constitution and the Geneva Convention"!

Damn Creepublicans!

[defenseman]

It says "f*&% the Constitution and the Geneva Convention"!

Damn Creepublicans!

:rofl: You guys crack me up sometimes. Relax man, it's all good...:thumbs: ..dman

[bendog]

actually, the dems congressional plan calls for actually enacting the 9-11 commission's recomendations if they have the majority.

[enjolras]

It's more GOP crap that boils down "Dem Democrats sure are pussies."

*sighs*

It's the type of thing that appeals to the exceptionally dim. If the Democrats are so opposed to 'getting tough' with terrorists, then why does the action in Afghanistan continue to enjoy such widespread support from the left?

I will never get over the simple irony of this. The right consistently accuse the left of cowardice. Yet, the right is ready to toss away 230 years of American idealism in the name of security. Instead of rising to meet the challenge without sacrificing our values and ideals, our leadership has consistently tossed away our very identity out of fear of future attacks. That is the true definition of coward.

This cartoon speaks so clearly about the fundamental lack of vision on the right. We had an opportunity to set an example for the world. We had the chance to win hearts and minds and lead the world in fighting terrorism, all while demonstrating the true power of our republic by staying true to ourselves as Americans. Bush and the right has failed miserably in that regard, and the resulting 5 years have shown us over and over again WHY we came to value Americanism in the first place. We've literally had to re-learn thousands of years of lessons about the worth of human beings, the effectiveness of bullying and intimidation, and the dangers of pride.

If we want to win the war on terrorism, then we need measured thinkers. We need worldly leaders willing to engage the world in our fight, instead of threatening to break them if they don't. We need to fundamentally address our culture of aggression and militarism, and change it into a culture of building and progress. Being patriotic should be about building America into something, rather than destroying everyone else. The first step: sending a message to our leaders that they have a responsibility to rebuilding the values and ideals of the greatest nation on earth. We get our chance in November.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's more GOP crap that boils down "Dem Democrats sure are pussies."

*sighs*

It's the type of thing that appeals to the exceptionally dim. If the Democrats are so opposed to 'getting tough' with terrorists, then why does the action in Afghanistan continue to enjoy such widespread support from the left?

I will never get over the simple irony of this. The right consistently accuse the left of cowardice. Yet, the right is ready to toss away 230 years of American idealism in the name of security. Instead of rising to meet the challenge without sacrificing our values and ideals, our leadership has consistently tossed away our very identity out of fear of future attacks. That is the true definition of coward.

This cartoon speaks so clearly about the fundamental lack of vision on the right. We had an opportunity to set an example for the world. We had the chance to win hearts and minds and lead the world in fighting terrorism, all while demonstrating the true power of our republic by staying true to ourselves as Americans. Bush and the right has failed miserably in that regard, and the resulting 5 years have shown us over and over again WHY we came to value Americanism in the first place. We've literally had to re-learn thousands of years of lessons about the worth of human beings, the effectiveness of bullying and intimidation, and the dangers of pride.

If we want to win the war on terrorism, then we need measured thinkers. We need worldly leaders willing to engage the world in our fight, instead of threatening to break them if they don't. We need to fundamentally address our culture of aggression and militarism, and change it into a culture of building and progress. Being patriotic should be about building America into something, rather than destroying everyone else. The first step: sending a message to our leaders that they have a responsibility to rebuilding the values and ideals of the greatest nation on earth. We get our chance in November.


Nicely stated!!

On these points you and I are in lockstep. Leading by example is the only way to gather worldwide support and turn the tide against these religious fanatics, not threatening to piss on anyone who disagrees with us.

[TailgateNut]

:rofl: You guys crack me up sometimes. Relax man, it's all good...:thumbs: ..dman

I made that comment due to the clueless cartoon by 55. It has become painfully obvious that either he has no clue or he just regurgitates Rush and Co. talking points.

[defenseman]

I made that comment due to the clueless cartoon by 55. It has become painfully obvious that either he has no clue or he just regurgitates Rush and Co. talking points.

I don't care for Rush either to be honest. Way too far to the right. He brings up some interesting points occassionally , however, he blows it when his pendulum swings so far right with off the wall stuff, I change the radio station. Do that to the lefties that try that also. Extreme is not where it's at these days IMHO. Centrists have the gavel from where I sit...dman

[Rohirrim]

It's more GOP crap that boils down "Dem Democrats sure are pussies."

*sighs*

It's the type of thing that appeals to the exceptionally dim. If the Democrats are so opposed to 'getting tough' with terrorists, then why does the action in Afghanistan continue to enjoy such widespread support from the left?

I will never get over the simple irony of this. The right consistently accuse the left of cowardice. Yet, the right is ready to toss away 230 years of American idealism in the name of security. Instead of rising to meet the challenge without sacrificing our values and ideals, our leadership has consistently tossed away our very identity out of fear of future attacks. That is the true definition of coward.

This cartoon speaks so clearly about the fundamental lack of vision on the right. We had an opportunity to set an example for the world. We had the chance to win hearts and minds and lead the world in fighting terrorism, all while demonstrating the true power of our republic by staying true to ourselves as Americans. Bush and the right has failed miserably in that regard, and the resulting 5 years have shown us over and over again WHY we came to value Americanism in the first place. We've literally had to re-learn thousands of years of lessons about the worth of human beings, the effectiveness of bullying and intimidation, and the dangers of pride.

If we want to win the war on terrorism, then we need measured thinkers. We need worldly leaders willing to engage the world in our fight, instead of threatening to break them if they don't. We need to fundamentally address our culture of aggression and militarism, and change it into a culture of building and progress. Being patriotic should be about building America into something, rather than destroying everyone else. The first step: sending a message to our leaders that they have a responsibility to rebuilding the values and ideals of the greatest nation on earth. We get our chance in November.

Excellent post! Rep.

Bill Moyers and Lou Dobbs had an interesting conversation about the stereotypical American leader last night. They pointed out the stoicism and strength in the face of adversity exuded by such leaders as FDR, Lincoln and Washington. Then, they talked about film icons that celebrated the ideas of American heroism like Bogart and John Wayne, etc. Then they compared it to the near hysterical rantings of Bush and his cabal of chicken littles. Not only have they violated our fundamental principles and our fundamental laws, they violate our peoples' traditional concept of leadership. Instead of standing up in the the face of fear, they panic and spread more fear. We have nothing to fear but ... just about everything! Run away! Run away!

[55CrushEm]

I made that comment due to the clueless cartoon by 55. It has become painfully obvious that either he has no clue or he just regurgitates Rush and Co. talking points.

LOL....... truth hurts, huh?

And who's Rush? Oh you must mean Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio host who I probably haven't listened to in over 15 years.

Unlike you libs, I think for myself.....just found this cartoon funny, cause it's true.

[Rohirrim]

LOL....... truth hurts, huh?

And who's Rush? Oh you must mean Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio host who I probably haven't listened to in over 15 years.

Unlike you libs, I think for myself.....just found this cartoon funny, cause it's true.

Actually. No, it's not.

[55CrushEm]

Which part of it is true exactly?

Uhhhh, for the most part that Dems are against the Patriot Act, against the death penalty, for terrorists having rights......shall I go on ?

[alkemical]

even false things are true.

[bendog]

hh, for the most part that Dems are against the Patriot Act, against the death penalty, for terrorists having rights......shall I go on ?

Goldwater and Dirksen would've been against 2 out of three. I think the gop has sort of left me behind. And, I don't like where they're going.

[Rohirrim]

Aww, he's just trying to change the subject. He doesn't want people focusing on the party of the Groping Old Pedophiles. ;D

[defenseman]

Aww, he's just trying to change the subject. He doesn't want people focusing on the party of the Groping Old Pedophiles. ;D

So if a Blond female sporting a 36 inch chest, with three children, robs a bank, should we then blanket all blonds sporting a 36 inch chest and 3 children as bank robbers? Politicizing again. Nice try. Cheap tricks make no long term money or investment potential..dman

[Rohirrim]

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/puzzles_toons/images/01tmate.gif

[TailgateNut]

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/puzzles_toons/images/01tmate.gif

Where did you find the pic of the typical "Creepublican"!

[55CrushEm]

I think the gop has sort of left me behind. And, I don't like where they're going.

I couldn't agree more, and I feel the same way.

That's precisely why I left the Republican party, and became an Independent.

I see the Republican party as the lesser of 2 evils.....nothing more. Unfortunately, both parties have shifted more and more to the left.

[alkemical]

So if a Blond female sporting a 36 inch chest, with three children, robs a bank, should we then blanket all blonds sporting a 36 inch chest and 3 children as bank robbers? Politicizing again. Nice try. Cheap tricks make no long term money or investment potential..dman

I will enlist to interrogate blonds with 36" chests if it came to that, i'd do my part to help out.

[55CrushEm]

So if a Blond female sporting a 36 inch chest, with three children, robs a bank, should we then blanket all blonds sporting a 36 inch chest and 3 children as bank robbers? Politicizing again. Nice try. Cheap tricks make no long term money or investment potential..dman

Exactly.....when Clinton was accused of rape, the GOP didn't call ALL Democrats rapists.....

I guess then if one member of a party is a pervert, then by default ALL the members are?

What a buffoon.

[Rohirrim]

Exactly.....when Clinton was accused of rape, the GOP didn't call ALL Democrats rapists.....

I guess then if one member of a party is a pervert, then by default ALL the members are?

What a buffoon.

I never said that. I never said they're all perverts! Don't put words in my mouth. I said there's one pervert. The rest are pervert enablers. ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Uhhhh, for the most part that Dems are against the Patriot Act, against the death penalty, for terrorists having rights......shall I go on ?
Neocon propaganda, nothing more than that but it does seem to work on a percentage of the Republicans.

[defenseman]

I never said that. I never said they're all perverts! Don't put words in my mouth. I said there's one pervert. The rest are pervert enablers. ;D

Nice dodge. But the spirit of the take appears otherwise to me anyway. I'm thinking others may feel the same , ...but..there you go....dman

[enjolras]

Man... I promised myself I wouldn't get drug into these things anymore, but I just can't help it. Idiocy is just so frusturating. Lets take the cartoon point by point:

Guy1: "We will pass tougher laws to fight terrorism!"
Guy2: "We're against the patriot act, no profiling"

This is such a logically inconsistent (which we'll be a theme throughout this) panel. The suggestion here is that the Patriot act is somehow the ONLY law that we could possibly pass that would be 'tough on terrorism'. Of course, anyone with one kernel of a brain knows that is not true. The argument isn't over the need to be vigilant and prepared to deal with terrorists, it's over whether or not we need to sacrifice fundamental tenents of American idealism to achieve that goal. Democrats are not against the Patriot act because they are against tough terrorism laws, they are against it because it is a VERY VERY VERY bad law. Why do we need to fundamentally suspend civil liberties in order to fight terrorism? Why should we provide nearly unlimited power to the executive branch and effectively remove checks and balances on that power from the Judiciary? Should we be allowed to detain people with no right to due process and without even telling them WHY they are being held? The fundamental question is can we fight terrorism and still be Americans? Democrats would say yes, Patriot act supporters would have to say no.

In short: Being against a bad law is hardly the same as being against any law.

Guy1: "Uh... then we'll use ADVANCED technologies to listen in on terrorist plans"
Guy2: "We're against the NSA program"
Guy3: "Ditton on bank transfer"

Another logical fallacy (2 for 2!!!!). Democrats are largely (by a clear majority) wiretaps on terrorists targets and scrutinizing bank transfers. What they are against is (again) giving the executive branch carte blanche to excercise those rights with near impunity. Its a fundamental question about due process: Should the executive really be able to violate privacy with no accountability for doing so?

Our constitution was written by a group of people who largely distrusted central and unlimited authority. The wiretapping fight is not about whether or not we should listen in on terrorists, but rather about how much power the executive branch should have over it's people. It's literally a fight over the checks and balances system so central to American government.

So yes, the Democrats are against a specific program. Again, hardly the same as being against 'listening in on terrorists.'

Guy1: "Then we'll capture terrorists and make them talk"
Guy2: "Absolutely not!"
Guy3: "Terrorists have rights too"

Nearly the same as above. Here the battle ground is over fundamental human rights. Thomas Jefferson famously said "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." He beleived that those rights are not born out of the constitution, but rather are a preexisting and fundamental right of man. That the governments job is to defend those fundamental rights on all fronts.

Democrats are not against interrogating terrorists, but rather against torturing human beings. They are against reverting the Geneva Convention and opening the door for a whole new generation of incredible atrocities against human life. They argue that if we allow ourslves to become a nation of torturers, that we bring ourselves down to the level of some of the most gruesome regimes the world has known. Democrats seem to think we're better than that.

So for a third time we find that this cartoon is logically idiotic. Democrats are all for capturing terrorists. They are all for getting information from them. What they are against is using torture to do it.

Even on a more practical level, Democrats question just how effective torture really is. We know from history that torture is a really effective means to extract what you WANT to hear, not what is true.

So we are now 3 for 3... since being against torture is hardly being against capturing terrorists and interrogating them.

Guy1: "Then we'll find a special place to lock them away forever"
Guy2: "Sorry no gitmo"
Guy3: "Habeas Corpus"

You will find VERY few Democrats who don't want to lock terrorists away. However, they recognize (remember the whole 'fundamental rights of man thing') that giving the Executive branch the power to designate people as a terrorist and then simply locking them away is insanity. How do we even KNOW that those are terrorists being detained at Gitmo? We have all read the accounts of prisoners being shipped to Gitmo simply because a neighbor wanted their land and decided to peg them as a terrorist. We've heard accounts of one man being nabbed by mistake and then spending more than a year hemmed up in Gitmo, with only a vigilant news report saving him. The democrats are not against 'Gitmo', they are against denying human beings due process of law. Why does Bush resist a fair and complete trial for these people? If they are POW's, they should be treated as such. If they are criminals they should be given the chance to defend themselves in a fair and impartial court. If we can prove that they are terrorists, they should be locked away until they no longer pose a threat to anyone else (and that likely means until they die).

How is supporting fundamental rights of due process the same thing as being 'against locking away terrorists'? I'll help you out: it's not.

Guy1: "We'll kill Bin Laden?"
Guy2: "We're against the death penalty"
Guy3: "Maybe we could dress him up like a fetus"

I think everyone would much rather find and arrest Bin Laden, rather than turn him into a battelfield martyr. By putting Bin Laden on the stand in a very public trial we could strip away the myth of Bin Laden and reduce him to the lunatic that he is. Capturing and putting Bin Laden on trial is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb in the fight on terrorism.

That said, I don't know very many on the left who would shed a tear if he was killed in battle. The real goal is remove the threat of Bin Laden.. alive is better, but no one would be to upset if he turned up dead either.

The whole comic is one laughable logical fallacy. To show such contempt for logic would be funny, if the subject matter wasn't so deadly serious.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Man... I promised myself I wouldn't get drug into these things anymore, but I just can't help it. Idiocy is just so frusturating. Lets take the cartoon point by point:

Another excellent post!!! But I fear it's over the head of some here.

[defenseman]

Another excellent post!!! But I fear it's over the head of some here.

LOL ROFL! You better duck dude!!!!LOL ROFL! Just having a little fun. relax.....dman

[TailgateNut]

All of the republican talking points will dominate the next few weeks. It's just too bad for the Creepublican party, that they (Foley and enablers) have alienated the "focus on family" party.
I'll just sit back and watch them stab each other int he back for a week or two.
I love watching the "damage control" by all of the righty shows yesterday. The party of Corruption realizes time is running out!

[Traveler]

Uhhhh, for the most part that Dems are against the Patriot Act, against the death penalty, for terrorists having rights......shall I go on ?

Please do. More specifically, elaborate on the close to 500 "so-called" terrorists at GITMO. How in the world do we actually know they are terrorist?

No one there has been tried or convicted. No evidence provided by this administration as proof of terrorists activities. No one other than Moussaui (sp) or the 14 other just sent to GITMO, have proven evidence of terrorist activities. Everyone has rights, no matter how despicable they might be.

[Rohirrim]

Another great post, enjolras! Although this guy is just a troll, it's tough not to bite.

[Rohirrim]

Please do. More specifically, elaborate on the close to 500 "so-called" terrorists at GITMO. How in the world do we actually know they are terrorist?

No one there has been tried or convicted. No evidence provided by this administration as proof of terrorists activities. No one other than Moussaui (sp) or the 14 other just sent to GITMO, have proven evidence of terrorist activities. Everyone has rights, no matter how despicable they might be.

And for some more hypocrisy: This AM I'm listening to NPR. It seems that a few European countries have been attacking the U.S. over the GITMO detentions. The other day, the U.S. State Dept. decided that numerous detainees could be released now, many who held citizenship in European countries. All of the European countries refused to accept them! I guess the message from Europe is, "We don't want them, but you can't lock them up."

[freak6]

Since when are the republicans tough on terrorism.

"I didn't feel a sense of urgency"... Littlehorn Bush

"I didn't know that was part of the responsibilities of my job" - Rice about why she didn't do anything as National Security Advisor to stop terrorist attacks in this country, after being warned of the incoming attacks.

It wasn't in the job description apparently, but hello, it's in the JOB TITLE you fkn stupid btch. National Security Advisor...duh...

Then they jump into a war over WMDs, crying "Saddam won't let the inspectors in, we gave him chances"

<b>When the inspectors were in the country at that EXACT time, saying, there are no WMDS</b>

15 more dead American military So far this October...


BAAA....BAAA....BAAA.... go the sheep, led right off the fkn cliff and all they can do is BAAA....

[bendog]

I couldn't agree more, and I feel the same way.

That's precisely why I left the Republican party, and became an Independent.

I see the Republican party as the lesser of 2 evils.....nothing more. Unfortunately, both parties have shifted more and more to the left.

Well, I've got problems with the Dims nationally, on affrim action/voting rights and social issues concerning children praying in school and getting abortions But hey they're not trying to limit access to the morning after pill, so I guess it cuts both ways.

However, on natl security I'm leaning towards the Dims, or at least listening.

1. Neocolonialism is not Reagan and BushI. In fact, it's a stark departure from Snowcroft and Poppy. So the gop's calls of 'who do ya trust more' ring hollow to me.

2. Compare what Gore said on nalt sec in 2000 to what Bushii said, and I think not only was Gore was better suited to what actually happened but also Bushii was lying his ass off about not wanting to nation build. He was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.

3. The Gop's current natl defense policy isn't working. Iraq's both in the crapper and counterproductive in having fewer terrorists.

4. I'll listen

[Spider]

seems like the ole saying .Republicans hate a Abortion cause that might be a piece of ass they are missing out on is true .........
Dems = I think the Chinia status should be revoked , no way in hell does those rice eating Communist bastards deserve MFNS .......
NAFTA= what in the hell good is this doing ? Imagration is worse now then ever .....
Rebuild the middle class , make unions strong again , Bring back Married with Children ......
Reps = Please stop cornholing young boys , this is a problem and a serious one .....

[Spider]

as for Iraq ....... What a cluster **** .......where is Rambo when we need him ?
we are where we are , Choice is simple vote for those that got us in this mess , or vote for someone willing to try somthing Different .......... I SAY WILLIE NELSON FOR PRESIDENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Toby Kieth VP , Tim McGraw Speaker of the house .......Kinky Friedman secratary of state .......

[55CrushEm]

Well, I've got problems with the Dims nationally, on affrim action/voting rights and social issues concerning children praying in school and getting abortions But hey they're not trying to limit access to the morning after pill, so I guess it cuts both ways.

However, on natl security I'm leaning towards the Dims, or at least listening.

1. Neocolonialism is not Reagan and BushI. In fact, it's a stark departure from Snowcroft and Poppy. So the gop's calls of 'who do ya trust more' ring hollow to me.

2. Compare what Gore said on nalt sec in 2000 to what Bushii said, and I think not only was Gore was better suited to what actually happened but also Bushii was lying his ass off about not wanting to nation build. He was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.

3. The Gop's current natl defense policy isn't working. Iraq's both in the crapper and counterproductive in having fewer terrorists.

4. I'll listen

Hey, I'll listen to anyone too.....as I say, I'm a conservative Independent. Unfortunately, the Republicans deserted conservatism, a while ago.....

Bush and Kerry are both liberals.....Bush just less so. It's really discouraging when you have to hold your nose, every time you go and vote.

I don't totally agreee that our nat'l defense policy isn't working.....true, Iraq is ugly, but we haven't had another 9/11, have we? No one can be totally sure of the cause/effect relationship here.....but hey, I'll always prefer taking the fight to them....rather than having another disaster over here. But yes, this nation building crap has to stop.....it's not what our soldiers are "built" for....or supposed to do.

[55CrushEm]

I SAY WILLIE NELSON FOR PRESIDENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Toby Kieth VP , Tim McGraw Speaker of the house .......Kinky Friedman secratary of state .......

LOL.....you're allright, Spider....for a liberal.....;D

[Spider]

I don't totally agreee that our nat'l defense policy isn't working.....true, Iraq is ugly, but we haven't had another 9/11, have we? No one can be totally sure of the cause/effect relationship here.....but hey, I'll always prefer taking the fight to them....rather than having another disaster over here. But yes, this nation building crap has to stop.....it's not what our soldiers are "built" for....or supposed to do.

Then going by this , Clinton was a Top Dog vs Terrorism ....... From 93 , to 2001 8 years inbetween attacks ...... ...Cole , towers happened on foriegn soil .......taking the fight to them is a great Idea , we did it in Afghanistan ..... Iraq wasnt where the fight was

[Spider]

LOL.....you're allright, Spider....for a liberal.....;D

:rofl: But i am not a tree hugging Liberal Hate Peta .........

[Spider]

I love ole Willie , Back in the 90's he told a Judge in New Jersey , Pot is a way of life get used to it , Judge told Willie get used to jail time .. Willie has had everything taken from him , and yet he keeps getting back on top ....... I dont agree with Willie on Pot , but Willie can do his own thing , but you knock him down he gets back up .........we need more of that here in America

[55CrushEm]

:rofl: But i am not a tree hugging Liberal Hate Peta .........

Didn't I already tell you ? I'm a member of PETA......hard to believe?

People Eating Tasty Animals......

[55CrushEm]

:rofl: But i am not a tree hugging Liberal Hate Peta .........

Yes, so what you're saying is that you consider yourself a liberal, but disagree with some party-line ideas and perhaps some people in your party.

Likewise, although it's hard for many of the circle-jerk liberals here to believe.....many Republicans (and ex-ones, including myself) are NOT Bush-supporting Republicans.....

(Gasp) You can actually be a member of a party, and NOT support everyone in it......

Case in point, when I was a Repub....I disliked (still do) Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Trent Lott, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter....and to a lesser extent, John McCain........all of them are RINO's......

[bendog]

Didn't I already tell you ? I'm a member of PETA......hard to believe?

People Eating Tasty Animals......

Bumper sticker: Vegetarians taste better (-:

[Spider]

Yes, so what you're saying is that you consider yourself a liberal, but disagree with some party-line ideas and perhaps some people in your party.

Likewise, although it's hard for many of the circle-jerk liberals here to believe.....many Republicans (and ex-ones, including myself) are NOT Bush-supporting Republicans.....

(Gasp) You can actually be a member of a party, and NOT support everyone in it......

Case in point, when I was a Repub....I disliked (still do) Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Trent Lott, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter....and to a lesser extent, John McCain........all of them are RINO's......

I am not a liberal per say , But i am a Democrat , I belong to the FDR , Trueman, JFK , Party , we are not hippies , hard ass labor union types ......

[Spider]

Bumper sticker: Vegetarians taste better (-:
Vegetarian = Old west word for realy bad hunter

[ScottXray]

I couldn't agree more, and I feel the same way.

That's precisely why I left the Republican party, and became an Independent.

I see the Republican party as the lesser of 2 evils.....nothing more. Unfortunately, both parties have shifted more and more to the left.


I am a republican...but the people in charge of the party I am registered as have nothing in common with me and most people around me.

Republicans shifted LEFT? ....What reality do you live in? It can't be this one, in which the Republican party is the party of BIG Business...so much so that we may as well re-label it the FASCIST party. While they may be more to the LEFT in that they want ever MORE rules and government, they are doing it because they want ever more power and control over people in general.. They are not doing it to Protect us, but to get us under their thumbs..for once and for all. They would love to establish a government that is totally under the control of large business interests, with no or little regard for common people, or small business.

They spout about family values and moral high ground , while advocating
" pre-emptive"" war using false data to justify it. (Iraq had no WMD's and no nuclear program). In most nations books that translates as the word AGGRESSOR.

And, in case you have forgotten, we USED to be respected as a nation others looked up to, to protect the weak and help those who needed it, not one that you had to avoid offending or that might bomb you "back to the stoneage". We are now considered, by a good percentage of the world community, to be the greatest threat to peace in the world. I am now ASHAMED of my government. I do love my country, still.

They advocate using torture to get intelligence information and have created an insurgency in Iraq because of their heavy handed and irrational policy there. They leave our troops there and don't supply them with the materials they need to accomplish their missions. That turns our soldiers into one thing...targets! They just passed a bill which allows the President or his designates to arrest and hold persons, and even torture them. say goodbye to the bill of rights....

They talk about Moral values while the leadership has hidden its knowledge of abnormal sexual predatory behavior by one of their own for at least three years and , probably at least SEVEN years. The reason for this.....possibly because Foley made LARGE contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee, campaign coffers for Republicans in congress who didn't have the money he does?

You can start at A {Abramov} and got to at least S or T and find a Republican who has a name that is linked to some scandal or other. You can do the same with Democrats. The difference is that all the Republicans will have been named within the last 10 years. When it comes to "ëvil" they are decidedly NOT the Lesser of the two.

[ScottXray]

Man... I promised myself I wouldn't get drug into these things anymore, but I just can't help it. Idiocy is just so frusturating. Lets take the cartoon point by point:



This is such a logically inconsistent (which we'll be a theme throughout this) panel. The suggestion here is that the Patriot act is somehow the ONLY law that we could possibly pass that would be 'tough on terrorism'. Of course, anyone with one kernel of a brain knows that is not true. The argument isn't over the need to be vigilant and prepared to deal with terrorists, it's over whether or not we need to sacrifice fundamental tenents of American idealism to achieve that goal. Democrats are not against the Patriot act because they are against tough terrorism laws, they are against it because it is a VERY VERY VERY bad law. Why do we need to fundamentally suspend civil liberties in order to fight terrorism? Why should we provide nearly unlimited power to the executive branch and effectively remove checks and balances on that power from the Judiciary? Should we be allowed to detain people with no right to due process and without even telling them WHY they are being held? The fundamental question is can we fight terrorism and still be Americans? Democrats would say yes, Patriot act supporters would have to say no.

In short: Being against a bad law is hardly the same as being against any law.



Another logical fallacy (2 for 2!!!!). Democrats are largely (by a clear majority) wiretaps on terrorists targets and scrutinizing bank transfers. What they are against is (again) giving the executive branch carte blanche to excercise those rights with near impunity. Its a fundamental question about due process: Should the executive really be able to violate privacy with no accountability for doing so?

Our constitution was written by a group of people who largely distrusted central and unlimited authority. The wiretapping fight is not about whether or not we should listen in on terrorists, but rather about how much power the executive branch should have over it's people. It's literally a fight over the checks and balances system so central to American government.

So yes, the Democrats are against a specific program. Again, hardly the same as being against 'listening in on terrorists.'



Nearly the same as above. Here the battle ground is over fundamental human rights. Thomas Jefferson famously said "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." He beleived that those rights are not born out of the constitution, but rather are a preexisting and fundamental right of man. That the governments job is to defend those fundamental rights on all fronts.

Democrats are not against interrogating terrorists, but rather against torturing human beings. They are against reverting the Geneva Convention and opening the door for a whole new generation of incredible atrocities against human life. They argue that if we allow ourslves to become a nation of torturers, that we bring ourselves down to the level of some of the most gruesome regimes the world has known. Democrats seem to think we're better than that.

So for a third time we find that this cartoon is logically idiotic. Democrats are all for capturing terrorists. They are all for getting information from them. What they are against is using torture to do it.

Even on a more practical level, Democrats question just how effective torture really is. We know from history that torture is a really effective means to extract what you WANT to hear, not what is true.

So we are now 3 for 3... since being against torture is hardly being against capturing terrorists and interrogating them.



You will find VERY few Democrats who don't want to lock terrorists away. However, they recognize (remember the whole 'fundamental rights of man thing') that giving the Executive branch the power to designate people as a terrorist and then simply locking them away is insanity. How do we even KNOW that those are terrorists being detained at Gitmo? We have all read the accounts of prisoners being shipped to Gitmo simply because a neighbor wanted their land and decided to peg them as a terrorist. We've heard accounts of one man being nabbed by mistake and then spending more than a year hemmed up in Gitmo, with only a vigilant news report saving him. The democrats are not against 'Gitmo', they are against denying human beings due process of law. Why does Bush resist a fair and complete trial for these people? If they are POW's, they should be treated as such. If they are criminals they should be given the chance to defend themselves in a fair and impartial court. If we can prove that they are terrorists, they should be locked away until they no longer pose a threat to anyone else (and that likely means until they die).

How is supporting fundamental rights of due process the same thing as being 'against locking away terrorists'? I'll help you out: it's not.



I think everyone would much rather find and arrest Bin Laden, rather than turn him into a battelfield martyr. By putting Bin Laden on the stand in a very public trial we could strip away the myth of Bin Laden and reduce him to the lunatic that he is. Capturing and putting Bin Laden on trial is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb in the fight on terrorism.

That said, I don't know very many on the left who would shed a tear if he was killed in battle. The real goal is remove the threat of Bin Laden.. alive is better, but no one would be to upset if he turned up dead either.

The whole comic is one laughable logical fallacy. To show such contempt for logic would be funny, if the subject matter wasn't so deadly serious.

Excellent Post ...You put my thoughts into words much better than I did.

My thought is that we have this election and possibly the 2008 one as the LAST chances to maintain this country as a democratic republic. If we fail to reverse the abdication of the Legislative branches powers by replacing the current congress with a group that actually believes in the constitution and the reasons it was formulated, there is little chance that democracy will be any more real in the USA than the elections in the Soviet Union were during the 1950s.

[Spider]

I am a republican...but the people in charge of the party I am registered as have nothing in common with me and most people around me.

Republicans shifted LEFT? ....What reality do you live in? It can't be this one, in which the Republican party is the party of BIG Business...so much so that we may as well re-label it the FASCIST party. While they may be more to the LEFT in that they want ever MORE rules and government, they are doing it because they want ever more power and control over people in general.. They are not doing it to Protect us, but to get us under their thumbs..for once and for all. They would love to establish a government that is totally under the control of large business interests, with no or little regard for common people, or small business.

They spout about family values and moral high ground , while advocating
" pre-emptive"" war using false data to justify it. (Iraq had no WMD's and no nuclear program). In most nations books that translates as the word AGGRESSOR.

And, in case you have forgotten, we USED to be respected as a nation others looked up to, to protect the weak and help those who needed it, not one that you had to avoid offending or that might bomb you "back to the stoneage". We are now considered, by a good percentage of the world community, to be the greatest threat to peace in the world. I am now ASHAMED of my government. I do love my country, still.

They advocate using torture to get intelligence information and have created an insurgency in Iraq because of their heavy handed and irrational policy there. They leave our troops there and don't supply them with the materials they need to accomplish their missions. That turns our soldiers into one thing...targets! They just passed a bill which allows the President or his designates to arrest and hold persons, and even torture them. say goodbye to the bill of rights....

They talk about Moral values while the leadership has hidden its knowledge of abnormal sexual predatory behavior by one of their own for at least three years and , probably at least SEVEN years. The reason for this.....possibly because Foley made LARGE contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee, campaign coffers for Republicans in congress who didn't have the money he does?

You can start at A {Abramov} and got to at least S or T and find a Republican who has a name that is linked to some scandal or other. You can do the same with Democrats. The difference is that all the Republicans will have been named within the last 10 years. When it comes to "ëvil" they are decidedly NOT the Lesser of the two.

Ideal situation 210 Dems ,210 Reps ,25 indies .....
in the senate
40 Dems 40 Reps 10 indies .......I am a Dem but I dont want the Dems to have control no more then i want Reps to have control ...... Bad things happen when either party runs the show .......
I am also split on the Secratary of State being of the oppist party ..... Seems like a good Idea , but I am sure there are some things I dont know ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Republicans shifted LEFT? ....What reality do you live in?

:laugh:

The same reality Tinker Bell inhabits.

Keep in mind, Scott, that 55crush is the same MENSA candidate who was on this board not too long ago arguing that high gas prices were a sign that the economy was doing well.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They would love to establish a government that is totally under the control of large business interests, with no or little regard for common people, or small business.

You mean they haven't accomplished this already? ;)

[ScottXray]

You mean they haven't accomplished this already? ;)


I mean PERMANENT...and as of right now we can still undo the damage...maybe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I mean PERMANENT...and as of right now we can still undo the damage...maybe.

I sure hope so.

Anyway, this is why people should vote for Democrats next month - even if they don't like the Democratic Party.

Checks and balances.

[Spider]

we need big Business , we need a middle class also ........somthing can be worked out ...... Like universal health care get companies off the workmans comp and Bennies like healthcare ............

[ScottXray]

Ideal situation 210 Dems ,210 Reps ,25 indies .....
in the senate
40 Dems 40 Reps 10 indies .......I am a Dem but I dont want the Dems to have control no more then i want Reps to have control ...... Bad things happen when either party runs the show .......
I am also split on the Secratary of State being of the oppist party ..... Seems like a good Idea , but I am sure there are some things I dont know ;D


Ideally yes...but the problem is the Executive branch. When the same party controls the Executive and Legislative branches then the potential for great damage to our liberty is the highest, because the executive also appoints the judges. Once they load the bases so to speak, then they get to appoint the umpires. This is the situation we now are in.

As long as we have the reality of a two party system controlling the government we MUST try to achieve having at least a split of the executive and legislative branches. Having one party with a small majority in one or both houses in Congress, while the other party has control of the executive is the best solution. The Executive can veto BAD bills passed by the Legislative branch, and the small majority will not override the veto. On the other hand the two branches have to work bipartisan to accomplish anything.

Personally the Senate is where I would like to see democrats gain control..because the purse strings are there. It's about time we had some idea where all the billions are really going, since they don't seem to be accomplishing anything at all..

[Spider]

Ideally yes...but the problem is the Executive branch. When the same party controls the Executive and Legislative branches then the potential for great damage to our liberty is the highest, because the executive also appoints the judges. Once they load the bases so to speak, then they get to appoint the umpires. This is the situation we now are in.

As long as we have the reality of a two party system controlling the government we MUST try to achieve having at least a split of the executive and legislative branches. Having one party with a small majority in one or both houses in Congress, while the other party has control of the executive is the best solution. The Executive can veto BAD bills passed by the Legislative branch, and the small majority will not override the veto. On the other hand the two branches have to work bipartisan to accomplish anything.

Personally the Senate is where I would like to see democrats gain control..because the purse strings are there. It's about time we had some idea where all the billions are really going, since they don't seem to be accomplishing anything at all..

hm meditate on this I must ..............Ok lousy Yoda but your post is fair ........

[55CrushEm]

I am a republican...

Maybe so.....but by your speak, you don't seem to be conservative. Sounds like you joined the wrong party.....Republicans USED to be conservative.

the people in charge of the party I am registered as have nothing in common with me and most people around me.

Me neither.....that's why I left the party.

Republicans shifted LEFT?

Yes, they've shifted left.....if you think the Republican party has shifted to the right, they you sir, don't live in any reality that I know of. The party has become the party of BIG government....Bush spends more than a drunken liberal.....it wasn't until this year that he vetoed his first bill, for Christ's sake.....not to mention, they don't care about cracking down on illegal immigration.

McCain, Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Specter, et. al are RINO's.......

[55CrushEm]

Ideally yes...but the problem is the Executive branch. When the same party controls the Executive and Legislative branches then the potential for great damage to our liberty is the highest, because the executive also appoints the judges. Once they load the bases so to speak, then they get to appoint the umpires. This is the situation we now are in.

So if the Dems take control of the House and Senate, are you implying that the Republicans should keep control of the White House? I didn't think so....

As long as we have the reality of a two party system controlling the government we MUST try to achieve having at least a split of the executive and legislative branches. Having one party with a small majority in one or both houses in Congress, while the other party has control of the executive is the best solution. The Executive can veto BAD bills passed by the Legislative branch, and the small majority will not override the veto. On the other hand the two branches have to work bipartisan to accomplish anything.

Therein lies the problem.....the 2 parties have developed such a blind hatred for one another, nothing gets done. It's gotten to the point where if one party proposes a bill, the other will shoot it down, just because it was the "other guys" who proposed it.....but if their own party had proposed the exact same thing, they'd support it.......sad and infuriating.

Personally the Senate is where I would like to see democrats gain control..because the purse strings are there. It's about time we had some idea where all the billions are really going, since they don't seem to be accomplishing anything at all..

LOL.....since when have the Democrats ever been fiscally responsible? Not that the neocons are any better.....

[Rohirrim]

The House holds the purse strings.

[defenseman]

The House holds the purse strings.

very true. And if the house goes democratic, it will get interesting in DC for sure...dman

[Rohirrim]

very true. And if the house goes democratic, it will get interesting in DC for sure...dman

Don't expect too much out them, whoever takes control. The U.S. government is in hock up to its eyeballs. I doubt there will be too much new spending. This country has to pull in its belt and start working to get out of debt. Plus we have to get ourselves untangled from the Sauds and the Chinese. Lots of work to do. Bush has trashed the U.S. Now it's time for everybody to pick up a broom.

[baja]

I am very concerned the worse is yet to come relative to the economy. Instead of a broom we will need a back hoe to dig out Ro.

[ScottXray]

So if the Dems take control of the House and Senate, are you implying that the Republicans should keep control of the White House? I didn't think so....

YES, I 'm saying that the best way to avoid having our government involved in all things is to have two parties in opposition controlling the two branches, so we don't end up with one party so dominant that it can trash the constitution, the economy and our rights. All governments try to expand their own powers...It is up to the people to try to control them.. This is the only way that our current system can be kept in check. I advocate voting Democratic in THIS election because the President ISN'T being elected.
If the Dems win both houses I'll prefer another Rep President in 08.

Therein lies the problem.....the 2 parties have developed such a blind hatred for one another, nothing gets done. It's gotten to the point where if one party proposes a bill, the other will shoot it down, just because it was the "other guys" who proposed it.....but if their own party had proposed the exact same thing, they'd support it.......sad and infuriating.

Exactly why it is good to have the split. Nothing gets done that doesn't have bi-partisan support. In the current situation the REPS pass ANY bill because the Dems have NO control, and the Dems can't get anything at all through. It limits congress' power if they are split.

LOL.....since when have the Democrats ever been fiscally responsible? Not that the neocons are any better.....

No argument.