Originally Posted by cbwm

Perhaps the difference is, you feel the actions the government has taken to keep its people safe make it's leader a criminal, where as I see them as a logical response. I also believe you will see new and more permanent laws put into place to deal with this kind of enemy without so heavily stepping on the constitution.

I also think you ought to give the history books a read about how the U.S. dealt with citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Perhaps you would have called the President, elected from the Democratic Party a criminal for his actions at that time too.

I didn't say Bush was a criminal for suspending Habeas Corpus (a straw man argument). It doesn't mean it is not wrong to do so or that I can't disagree.

If it is proven that anyone has been subjected to torture by the U.S. and Bush authorized it, then that is criminal by U.S. and International law and he would be a criminal then. That can't happen while he is in office since he refused to turn over documents to Congress.

Detaining Japanese citizens was wrong. It was not criminal but wrong. I still hate to burst your and Nathand's bubbles but I don't follow any party or think any politician can do no wrong. You are speaking from what sounds like a perspective where everyone has to follow a party and a president that belongs to that party has to be defended like they do no wrong. I don't defend Clinton's actions when they were wrong and I don't think the current leadership of the Democratic party is doing the right thing. I would say my values are more in line with the platform of the Democratic party but the politicians do not follow through. I will be voting straight Democratic this coming election. I don't want to elect a party that pushs fundamentalist and anti-science beliefs.

Ouch. Ok man. O'Reilly is on. Cant miss that.

Originally Posted by joder

I still hate to burst your and Nathand's bubbles but I don't follow any party or think any politician can do no wrong. You are speaking from what sounds like a perspective where everyone has to follow a party and a president that belongs to that party has to be defended like they do no wrong. I don't defend Clinton's actions when they were wrong and I don't think the current leadership of the Democratic party is doing the right thing.

I feel the same way, I don't understand why people have to agree with everything a political party, politician, etc. believes in, then vote for them due to "Party loyalty" or whatever.

Originally Posted by joder

I will be voting straight Democratic this coming election. I don't want to elect a party that pushs fundamentalist and anti-science beliefs.

No matter which democratic candidate gets nominated?

So far, for me, the only candidate that has appealed to me is Ron Paul, and he's technically Republican.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I feel the same way, I don't understand why people have to agree with everything a political party, politician, etc. believes in, then vote for them due to "Party loyalty" or whatever.

For the same reason guy apologized to Dick for being shot in his face.
Limited imagination and inability to use their own brains plus ayatollah Bush said so.


fastreplies

Originally Posted by jamestl2

No matter which democratic candidate gets nominated?

So far, for me, the only candidate that has appealed to me is Ron Paul, and he's technically Republican.

Ron Paul has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. That's like saying Denise Kucinich has a chance at being the Democratic candidate

I agree with Paul on some issues, but not on others. I am not a Libertarian and don't agree with all of their economic policies. On some freedom issues I do agree with them but not on others. For example, Paul's proposal to eliminate the income tax and have tax's raised through excise taxes would create an undue tax burden on those who earn less.

So, yeah, if Paul was the Republican candidate, I would still vote Democrat. Now if Colin Powell had not gotten mixed up with Rumsfeld and Tenet and run, I might change my mind.

Now you see, thats funny. I'd vote for Hilary. Ron Paul is like a Blue Dog Democrat. He'd do better running as a Democrat or indy.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Limited imagination and inability to use their own brains plus ayatollah Bush said so.

Too funny

Originally Posted by joder

Ron Paul has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. That's like saying Denise Kucinich has a chance at being the Democratic candidate

Unfortunately, but isn't his internet popularity really high or something (don't quote me for truth about Paul here, I'm not exactly sure).

Originally Posted by joder

I agree with Paul on some issues, but not on others. I am not a Libertarian and don't agree with all of their economic policies. On some freedom issues I do agree with them but not on others. For example, Paul's proposal to eliminate the income tax and have tax's raised through excise taxes would create an undue tax burden on those who earn less.

So, yeah, if Paul was the Republican candidate, I would still vote Democrat. Now if Colin Powell had not gotten mixed up with Rumsfeld and Tenet and run, I might change my mind.

I wasn't implying you should "Support Ron Paul! He's the best!" or anything, I was just stating who I favored. I was just asking if no matter who the Democrats nominated, you'd vote for them?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Ron Paul is like a Blue Dog Democrat. He'd do better running as a Democrat or indy.

What makes you say that?

His ideas don't fit in with the mainstream of where his party is at. Most republicans consider an isolationist foreign policy idiocy (IMO.. I haven't actually taken a survey).

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I wasn't implying you should "Support Ron Paul! He's the best!" or anything, I was just stating who I favored. I was just asking if no matter who the Democrats nominated, you'd vote for them?
What makes you say that?

No. I wasn't suggesting you were saying that. But since you mentioned him. I was pointing out where I disagree with him.

I would vote for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, over Paul or any of the other Republican candidates, so that covers "no matter which one"

Originally Posted by cbwm

Most republicans consider an isolationist foreign policy idiocy (IMO.. I haven't actually taken a survey).

Give it some time and soon enough your landlord will be little Chinese man


fastreplies

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Give it some time and soon enough your landlord will be little Chinese man


fastreplies

Hahaha, I don't rent. But I'd be happy to sell a little chinese man some of my property with his fine foreign currency.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Hahaha, I don't rent. But I'd be happy to sell a little chinese man some of my property with his fine foreign currency.

There is nothing you have to sell, not anymore because little Chinese man
already owns your sorry *ss but you too ****** to realize that


fastreplies

Originally Posted by fastreplies

There is nothing you have to sell, not anymore because little Chinese man already owns your sorry *ss but you too ****** to realize that

fastreplies

Now that sounds like a flame, or wishfull thinking. Did you have anything to support your claim like... I don't know.... evidence?

It would seem here that the original question has been overshadowed by a lot of rhetoric all around. That original question: How dare the Democrats attach riders to troop funding to push their agenda? The answer is simple: That's how our government to date works. If they're not doing the will of their constituents they will be voted out. The Democrats are not alone in using funding to push an agenda: Remember the Contract with America?

As to the title of the thread, I'll not paint with broad brush strokes; both parties have their merits and demerits, in the broader sense:

Tax and Spend
Don't get sidetracked by this rhetoric. Republicans and Democrats both do this; the question is whom they tax and what they spend on. Republicans tend to tax the lower middle class and spend heavily on defense and corporate welfare, Democrats tend to tax the upper middle class and above and spend on social programs. But who taxes and spends more? Read on.

The National Debt
Let's face it, Carter is a far better ex-president than he ever was a president. His foreign policy stunk and his domestic policy did nothing to bring us out of a severe recession. No one can deny that under Reagan the economy improved drastically. But at what cost? The only reason taxes didn't go up was heavy borrowing. Reagan was like the next FDR. The federal debt quadrupled under Reagan and Bush, and spending was on military and social programs, about equally if you really look at the numbers.

That debt looms over us and will be the cause of a depression if we are not careful. Clinton did pay back about ten percent of that debt, but that's a bit too fast, IMHO. And he did balance the budget. But under the current Bush admin we're right back to deficit spending and adding to our already massive debt. And, as has already been stated, the executive branch makes the initial budget, which is then reviewed by Congress, then goes back to be ratified by the president.

Impeachment
It's well established that ol' Billy was and is a womanizer. But he was impeached for lying to Congress about his affair when asked. The question here is, though: What business did Congress have asking in the first place? Republicans had nothing else to pin on him, so they started this show. But Clinton did lie, and he has been disbarred for that. He was not, OTOH, removed from office.

Nixon would have been, had he not resigned before impeachment proceedings began. And his administration was guilty of criminal activity, which made him culpable. Why else would Ford have given him a blanket pardon?

The Current War
It's Congress who has the Constitutional right to declare war. Presidents of both political parties have abused their power and gone against that with "police actions". Personally I think we should have used tactical nukes on al Qaeda and ended the whole thing quickly. Neither my wife, a staunch Republican, nor I, a moderate Democrat, thinks that we have any business in Iraq. Hussein and bin Laden were both trained by the CIA, and that's come back to bite us in the collective posterior, but had we tapped our oil reserves we could have easily brought any Middle Eastern opposition to its knees.

So, in the broader sense (which depends, of course, on how broad you want to take it) who really has the best interests of this country in hand? I'll admit that I'm a moderate Democrat that will vote and has voted Republican if the individual's a better candidate. I'm sure the slant is obvious. I'm interested in seeing the answers on both sides. Is there any more doubt that we're a deeply polarized culture?

Well said Tim. You can always spot a true moderate (Or a cleverly disguised partisan) when you don't see a list of talking points posted practically cut and paste from move-on.org or Ann Coultier's site . I'm not saying I disagree with you on the Impeachment of Clinton, but I do know any President/CEO who stained the dress of an intern would not still have his job once the investigation started. Couldn't he find someone outside of the workplace to nail? Too say congress didn't have a right to ask, is to endorse that kind of behavior, or is to say that the president is held to a different standard than a president of a private sector company. It is there that I don't think I have truly formed an opinion, though it seems fairly obvious the standard should be the same.

On Iraq, you and your wife may be right about us not having any business there originally, but less than 23% of our nation feels that withdrawing immediately and completely would be in our country's best interest, and over 30% feel it would be disastrous. I definitely fall into the latter category.

I also agree with you on the debt. It may be the most singularly threatening thing to the U.S. at the current moment. I'm no economist, but the financial impact of the stock market crash of 2001, the destruction of the twin towers in one of our financial capitals, the bailout of the airline industry after the 911 attack, the rampant spending by the Bush administration, the bursting of the housing bubble, the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage sector, and the run on the US dollar may all prove a bit much for the U.S. economy to absorb. While most point the finger for the whole problem directly at the Bush administration, and maybe that is where the blame belongs, most seem to ignore the fact that countries like China, Argentina, Iran, and Russia are actively working to devalue the US dollar.

On tactical nukes, I would have been 100% behind the use of nukes if I thought it would have helped. Unfortunately, trying to kill terrorists with nuclear weapons is like trying to kill cockroaches in your house with a sledgehammer. Not very effective, and leaves a place where nobody wants to live. What needs to happen is that the US needs to quit being the world's police. Terrorism is a threat to every country with respect for an individual and personal freedom. Many countries fall into that category, even France. If these countries had per capita as many troops in Afghanistan, there would be no resurgence of the Taliban. That kind of unity could be used to take a firm stance with countries like Iran and Pakistan, to send a clear message. "Clean up your cockroach problem, or expect to have your regime changed to someone who is willing to". Unfortunately, that unity does not exist, and will not exist until something happens to create it.

At least with our next president be it Guiliani, or Hilary, the candidate will be much more moderate and therefore less polarizing. Perhaps the US will experience some long needed unity.

Two good posts in a row

For those who aren't aware Franklin Roosevelt had a mistress in the White House. And other presidents had mistresses too. It's only because of the rise of U.S. fundamentalism in the Republican party that it was an issue during Clinton's term in office. Guilliani had one while mayor of New York.

Congress assigned Kenneth Starr to investigate Whitewater, not who had sex with the President.

Our earliest presidents had slaves/endorsed slave ownership. Sexual relationships in the workplace between employer and employee used to be fairly common as well. As indicated by the recent ousting of the Red Cross CEO, it is no longer acceptable. Tort attorneys make millions prosecuting sexual harassment suits every year. Not saying I'm a big fan of political correctness, but it is what it is. One standard, not two.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Now that sounds like a flame, or wishfull thinking. Did you have anything to support your claim like... I don't know.... evidence?

Way over 500 billion dollars trade deficit...
Please make my day and tell me that I'm wrong


fastreplies

Originally Posted by fastreplies

There is nothing you have to sell, not anymore because little Chinese man already owns your sorry *ss but you too ****** to realize that

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Way over 500 billion dollars trade deficit...
Please make my day and tell me that I'm wrong

fastreplies

U.S. Trade deficit to China = little Chinese man owns my ***. I think you left out a few steps in proving your case. Or perhaps I'm just too stupid to figure it out.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm not saying I disagree with you on the Impeachment of Clinton, but I do know any President/CEO who stained the dress of an intern would not still have his job once the investigation started. Couldn't he find someone outside of the workplace to nail? Too say congress didn't have a right to ask, is to endorse that kind of behavior, or is to say that the president is held to a different standard than a president of a private sector company. It is there that I don't think I have truly formed an opinion, though it seems fairly obvious the standard should be the same.

Though I won't dwell on this issue, I will say that this was the first time a US President's personal affairs (no pun intended) had been scrutinized in this manner. Keep in mind, too, that the investigators should have been held to a higher standard. Instead, when they couldn't find sufficient evidence in the initial investigation they started what amounts to a witch trial. I'm not saying I condone Mr. Bill's actions, I am saying that prior to Nixon this kind of political grandstanding would not have taken place, and did not.

Originally Posted by cbwm

On Iraq, you and your wife may be right about us not having any business there originally, but less than 23% of our nation feels that withdrawing immediately and completely would be in our country's best interest, and over 30% feel it would be disastrous. I definitely fall into the latter category.

At this point I agree that a complete withdrawal would not be in our best interests. But, also much like FDR, the Bush administration did have prior knowledge of an attack by al Qaeda, and did lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a diversionary tactic. Why? Because he knew the real war was in Afghanistan and he did not believe we could win it. To do so, we would have had to do something completely unprecedented: declare war on a regime rather than a specific country. Had we done so, we could have used tactical nukes (thermonuclear capable bunker busters, not convential nukes) when al Qaeda was still hiding out. And with Iraq, we could have easily frozen him out economically, and a coup would have eventually taken place without our direct presence. But both of those ships have sailed. And yes, I do believe that is directly because Bush and his administration botched it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I also agree with you on the debt. It may be the most singularly threatening thing to the U.S. at the current moment. I'm no economist, but the financial impact of the stock market crash of 2001, the destruction of the twin towers in one of our financial capitals, the bailout of the airline industry after the 911 attack, the rampant spending by the Bush administration, the bursting of the housing bubble, the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage sector, and the run on the US dollar may all prove a bit much for the U.S. economy to absorb. While most point the finger for the whole problem directly at the Bush administration, and maybe that is where the blame belongs, most seem to ignore the fact that countries like China, Argentina, Iran, and Russia are actively working to devalue the US dollar.

The value of the dollar, though, is largely devalued because of the trade deficit, which is a separate issue from the debt. Both stand to cripple us, to be sure.

Originally Posted by cbwm

What needs to happen is that the US needs to quit being the world's police. Terrorism is a threat to every country with respect for an individual and personal freedom. Many countries fall into that category, even France. If these countries had per capita as many troops in Afghanistan, there would be no resurgence of the Taliban.

I agree that other countries should be called upon for troop commitments, but I doubt that it will happen, nor do I believe that those increased commitments would rout al Qaeda. Had ground troops been sent in to supplement a surgical strike, then maybe. But, as I said, that ship has sailed.

Originally Posted by cbwm

At least with our next president be it Guiliani, or Hilary, the candidate will be much more moderate and therefore less polarizing. Perhaps the US will experience some long needed unity.

Dare we hope?