Larry, your opinions aren't facts.
Please accept this as a respectful disagreement, but you are factually wrong on every single point.
Aside form the suicide bombing in Iraq yesterday (the death toll is now approaching 100) much of the touted decrease in violence ascribed to the Surge, is in fact due to the decrease in Iraqi population. Over three million Iraqis have fled their country. We are no closer to being able to turn things over to the Iraqis, in fact we are further away. The Shiite government of Iraq, if left to their own devices, would happily make partnership with Iran. The Republican President of the United States has just, in the current spending bill, said that despite Congress' wishes, PERMANENT bases are necessary in Iraq. Would anyone vote for a Republican if they said that our children and possibly our children's children will need to serve in Iraq?
This is your opinion. You *disagree* with Island Dog's conclusion but that doesn't make you right and him wrong.
I would say that the Surge is working. Violence is substantially down since the Surge started.
In addition, we have PERMANENT bases in Korea, Germany, Japan, UK, Kuwait, and many other places. The grandchildren of the World War II generation are still serving in Japan and Germany. So what exactly is your point?
If we are fighting Islamic terrorism, why did we just give $20 billion to Saudi Arabia, the main financial contributor to Hamas and Hezbollah? You know who says we are losing the war on terrorism? Our ambassador to the UN, who was appointed by President Bush. Speaking of our invasion of Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad said "It's helped Iran's relative position in the region, because Iraq was a rival of Iran ... and the balance there has disintegrated or weakened. And so one of the objectives of Iran, in my view, is to discourage a reemergence of Iraq as a balancer. And Afghanistan, too, the change was helpful to Iran." When a person that you have appointed says that you have screwed up, you probably have. Source:
Link
So you think Obama or Hilary are going to be more aggressive in fighting terrorism than say McCain? Really?
Nit picking what Bush does doesn't change the facts on the ground - would a Democrat prosecute the war on terror more vigorously (or even as vigorously) as Republican are likely to?
We have kept taxes low while increasing spending, by borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Singapore. Those are the countries that have bought billions of dollars in treasury bonds. Normally, I would insert a sarcastic "I for one welcome our new masters..." but the situation is really scary. Its not just the government. Big American companies, like Citibank, are being gobbled up. We should be scared about that.
And you think the Democrats are giong to spend less? There's lots to be critical of the the Republicans and Bush for. But the issue is whether the Democrats are going to CHANGE for the better any of these issues and the answer seems pretty obviously no.
Low unemployment? This morning the headline article on CNN reads "Why job market is even worse than you think" Let me quote from that "The number of long-term unemployed stood at a seasonally-adjusted 1.4 million in January, up about 21% from year-earlier levels and up 3% from the previous month. The full-year average for 2007 was 1.2 million long-term unemployed, nearly double the reading for 2000 - just before the last recession." Source
Link I am not one of those Liberals that thinks that Conservatives are unintelligent, but I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the unemployment rate, the foreclosure rate, the deficit and the balance of trade and still say "Everything is going just fine."
That really says more about the bias of CNN than anything else. Our unemployment rate is 5%. That's lower than it was for most of the Clinton administration which, notably, CNN would report how great it was to have unemployment of less than 6%.
Feel free to explain, using real facts, how everything isn't "just fine"? The bias in the media isn't a substitute for facts. Unemployment is about 5%. That's a fact. Are you going to argue that this is not fine?
Domestic terrorism was never the goal of Al Qaeda. The World Trade Center bombing and the bombings in London were statements, meant to show their power to their real constituents, Muslims in Arabia. Can you honestly say that you think there are less terrorists now than in 2001? The Hamas government in Palestine, the Hezbollah backed regime in Lebanon, the resurgent Taliban in Afganistan, all give lie to that. In 2001, the terrorists were, with the exceptions of Afghanistan and Iran, outside the governments in these countries. Now they ARE the governments. Our "ally" in Lebanon, Sinoria, has just dared Israel to try to stop the rocket attacks.
Are you going to argue that the Democrats would be more vigorous in protecting us? History seems to indicate differently.
We had 8 years of Clinton and we had multiple terrorist attacks against American targets and did nothing. Clinton had just left office when 9/11 occurred. Since then, nada.
And while I sympathize with Israel, do you think a Democrat would be a better ally of Israel? Do you?
We have been so misinformed (the Bush administration has acknowledged that they withheld information about these weapons on Mass Destruction too) about the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, t hat it is hard to know what is going on. My current understanding is that the dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is currently withholding crucial parts as a chip to assure that the US doesn't oppose him. Not to worry, we have nothing to fear from an ex-KGB guy like him. President Bush told me so, he had looked into Putin's eyes and thats all we need. BUT...did anybody notice that Egypt announced that they are developing nuclear weapons? According to the Conservative website The Heritage Foundation, Egypt has had a clandestine program for thirty years, but has stepped up the pace to keep up with Iran. Quoting from that article "during a Sino-Egyptian summit two years ago, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak signed a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with China. That same year, press reports indicated that China (also nuclear-capable) was helping Egypt mine uranium in the Sinai desert." By the way, the head of the UN program to monitor nuclear activity is Mohammed El Baradei, an Egyptian. Of course we also know how stable Pakistan is and how much they love us. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has started a nuclear program. The thing is that the Arab world certainly thinks that Iran is close to nuclear weapons and so the Sunnis feel that they must also have nuclear bombs.
Again: I hate to say this Larry but you really are behaving like a typical liberal here. Complaining about what others are DO-ing is not a solution. I'll grant you all the complaints above and simply ask:
DO you think Hilary or Obama are likely to CHANGE any of this for the better?
Actually, the Republican position on Mexicans and South Americans is to KEEP them a welfare class and to prevent them ever from becoming anything but. Its just fine if they work at Wal-Mart or pick lettuce, but to become contributing (as in educated and tax-paying) members of American society? Uh uh, can't have that. My point about the Republicans targeting Mexicans and South Americans also addresses domestic terrorism. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has formed an alliance with the Republican party. CAIR has terrorist roots, but has been called by the Bush Administration a "moderate" group. (As compared to say Al Qaeda?) Here is an interesting stat for you: Muslim immigration to the U.S. is rising as in 2005 alone more people from Islamic countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades. In my area, the wealthy owner of a restaurant chain who came to the US from Lebanon was found to have been funneling money back to Hezbollah. He returned to Lebanon when he wished and spoke at public rallies. It wasn't until the story broke in local papers that the State department said yes, he was a terrorist and probably we shouldn't have let him in.
This is a load of crap. Who is the party that likes to create a constiuency of welfare recipients? The Democrats. If Republicans had their way, there'd be no welfare class at all.
Secondly, Republicans generally want to keep illegal aliens out.
And once again: Do you really think Hilary or Obama are going to make CHANGES that makes it tougher on illegal aliens? The Democrats are generally the open borders crowd.
The Socialist thing...is this about health coverage? This issue is so fraught with emotion for Republicans that logic doesn't come into play. Never mind that universal health coverage would lower costs and deliver better service. Never mind that major corporations like General Motors (are they Socialists, too?) see it as an economic necessity. Source:
Link For most Republicans, logic doesn't come into play. You do know that fairly recently in terms of history, Fire Departments were private. They would show up at your house and "negotiate" a fee for putting out a fire. Should we also return to those "good old days?" How about police? Don't you think the government providing that kind of service is Socialism? And education...all those teachers are Liberals anyway. Lets get rid of that too.
Socialist thing?
Socialism in one sentence: From those according to their ability to those according to their need.
One listen to the Democratic debates and it's pretty clear that yes, Obama and Hilary are socialists. They believe that the richest should be taxed further in order to give that money directly to other citizens based on need.
That a major US corporation would like to see the government pay for their workers goodies does not make it not socialist. Companies that make minimal profits and are minimal in growth are always likely to take hand outs from the government in one way or the other. Remember Atlas Shrugged? GM is a lot closer to a Jim Taggart company than a Hank Rearden company.
Do you think that the opposition to universal health coverage is in any way tied to Big Pharma? You do know that the late and unlamented candidate Rudy Giuliani owns a PR firm that counts Purdue Pharma as their largest client? He is defending the safety record of, you guessed it, OxyContin. See, Purdue Pharma said that OxyContin was safe and not addictive. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was of a different opinion and declared that OxyContin had caused or contributed to 465 deaths in two years. Purdue Pharma was not worried. Michael Friedman, Purdue Pharma's chief operating officer, said "The management experience, law enforcement background, leadership and integrity of Giuliani Partners and its CEO Rudolph W. Giuliani are tremendous assets to our company." This speaks to universal health coverage because if the Federal government was the single health care provider, they would negotiate the lowest rates (as happens in "Socialist" countries like Canada and Sweden) and the boom times for companies that make "safe" drugs like OxyContin and Vioxx and Celebrex would be over.
I oppose universal health care. Am I tied to "Big Pharma" too? Why is it that liberals think that anyone who opposes them is somehow corrupt? Oh, you don't buy into global warming? You must be bought off by big oil. Oh, you don't support minimum wage? You must be a Walmart goon.
How about this: It is not the place of the federal government of the United States to be mommy to its citizens.
It is not my job to work in order to pay for pills for other people.
Historically, money is exchanged for goods and services. But not with Democrats. Now, money is confiscated at the point of a gun to be handed over to political constituencies who say they "need" it more than I do.
Obama and Clinton are most definitely socialists in the classic sense. Which isn't surprising since they've never actually produced anything in their lives.
