Republicans: Democrats don't have a plan. Republican Plan: Stay the course!

and what is the Repub plan on the war on terror invade country that nothing to do with 9/11 and then let bin laden run around making videos?

umm how about get out of iraq,

try to stop stop politcial corrupt ie, people like jack abramoff,

Stop giving free money to oil companies

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/

Gee that was right on the website.

MarRome could you please explain?

http://news.com.com/Democrats+lose+House+vote+on+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6065465.html

If I reading this correctly them democrats where trying to do the opposite of what you just said? am I reading it wrong?

 

You still want to cede Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon to the islamists? so that is the democrat foreign policy. Sounds like a winner to me! I think that IS the typical democrat position after all though. At least you are honest

making videos, this is what you are worried about? If you read the bush doctrine, it says to go after countries that support terrorism; Iraq was one of those countries. Clearly part of the war on terror. You can't even post what the democrat position is, anyways. Just attack the republican plan. Which is the norm. I can't find anything that makes me think the democrats even want to win it. They've consistently been against every measure used to fight terrorism.

Fine. But I think people blowing us up is only slightly more important than few politicians taking money Happens on both sides of the aisle too, so voting D is not going to stop it from happening.

Wonderful. No problem here. But alternative fuels are decades away from use. Its a long term deal. What about now? Are they up for opening ANWR or drilling in the gulf? to get us off foregin oil? Nah. Lip service - that's all it is. Dem's get donations from the same people

Yes. You do good at posting meaningless platitudes from a website. Tripe. Can you post an actual HOW on this is gonna happen?

I fail to see a leadership platform in anything you've posted. Got more? I mean, if this is best platform the dems have got, its pretty sad.

 

cede? they are there own countries, its not our job to try to run them. Lebanon is the only real democracy in the middle east.

Not clearly, not even close. What terrorist were being supported by saddam?

What options are there in Iraq , stay or go?, pull our troops to the border, and let them kill each other?

Again because people want the president and our government to follow the rule of law, does not mean they don't want them to fight terrorism

Actually they are not, there are people who want you think that alternative energy is fantasy, and that it can't happen for decades, but thats not true.

look willy nelson is out there selling biodeisel

http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/, probably not ready to replace all the gas but its a start

look brazil started 30 years ago and now they are energy independent

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm

When are we going to start?

 

And again; please show me 1 thing about the war on terror supported by democrats. Name one. Do they support using international bank records to track funds transfers (NO), do they support tracking phone calls to Al Qaida (NO), do they support profiling (NO). Its far easier to name things that democrats don't think we should do to fight thugs than things they'd like us to see. the only time democrats even talk about terrorists is when they blame Bush, or al qaida puts out a tape that echoes their own talking points.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/02/video-fahrenheit-911-in-the-code-of-silence/

At best, biodeisel can replace maybe 15% of oil usage. And that is if 100% of corn grown in the US will be used for it. That is hardly becoming self dependent. again ANWR? Drilling in the Gulf? Opening florida straights? Gimme something realistic. Willie Nelson is not it.

As I said. decades. When the market wants to is when we start.

Saddam was supported Palestinian terrorists (paying suicide bombers). Al qaida had training facilities inside the country. It was also in breach of about a dozen UN resolutions, including the ones that ended the first Gulf War.

And let the islamists take control of the country. Yes; that seems to be what you'd like to see. That would be the end result.

For a guy so adamant against republicans, you do a really crappy job at supporting the other side. Your grasp of issues seems tenuous, at best.

 

Production is slowing down (for many reasons that I can name), and it's likely to run-out...although I would bite my tounge from saying it is or when that's going to happen.

I don't know about the second part (about the enviroment), I think that's more of a debate rather than a fact. The context of the global heating....

So why not drill domestically? We need time to make changes, we can't wholly depend on SA, Ven, Iran, Mexico, Russia, et al. Any degree of independence is good, wouldn't you agree? You don't want us to live with a day where we wholly depend on foreign sources of oil, do you? It's coming, but with the oil offshores we have a good 20-30 years of time before we shift gears into other assets and technologies.

Time...all I'm asking for is time.

I don't think energy companies should be subsidized, but I don't think they should be 'red-taped' to hell, either. There's truely millions of ways where we can save energy. I actually like how California did it,...they made mandatory rules on light-bulbs (in refrigerators), which has saved quite a bit of power. The government should promote and display all viable alternatives. The should give great unbiased information on all of them, and if they really think they should financially help one (which I don't necessarily prefer), they should have as many qualified scientist (in unbiased manner) judge which one is best to finance....although that's always difficult.

Did I every assert that we should get rid of legal immigration?....These talking points are ten times more important than any of the given issues.

I explain this to each an ever time, but I'll do it again. Mass immigration is a matter of numbers and quality (and other factors I'll explain). A million uneducated individuals is less of a benefit than a 100k doctor, teachers, scientists.

In 65' we had legislation that alteedr immigration gravely. It favored family immigration, rather than economic demands: Chain Immigration. That takes a bulk of our immigration, and thus I refer to it as bulk or mass immigration...because it's all from one region and it's mostly a political scheme.

I wouldn't complain if we had educated individuals coming to our country in fields we had high demand in. But it must be a science,...it must have reason...it can't be for overt political reasons.

What makes it mass immigration is the concept that we're vacating whole areas of latin america, we're not solving any problems for our southern neighbor or our own. Through these legal means we're keeping the extreme left alive. As I said before, 80% of legal latin immigrants vote left. So essentially immigration law is formented as a form political subsidization of votes.

I think our policy toward China is probably more important in the long-run. I do think Iraq was a mistake, but you can't take it back.

I did say 'for good or worse', didn't I? That area of the world has always been that way,...you know that. Saddam, as dictator, just kept everyone in line. What I referring to in Democracy is the limited movement of political change in the below countries:

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050307175448.ighb4ji7.html

'Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates took unprecedented steps toward democratization in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq to topple dictator Saddam Hussein.'

Speak of the devil....

It's like I'm a repub, and I have to explain for it. Repubs are a very mixed-up party, very much like dems. There's different interest groups. Some are real conservatives, and others are corporate belly-lickers....and then there's a real and false sense that a massive military is needed. I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but I can make statements as to what I want for the budget....

Sadly we only have two choses....maybe it's just our method....hhhmmmm

How many times do you hear me just take an anti-position without a position? Not often, because I think it's mandatory to have a perspective of direction before you think somethings wrong.

As far as borrowing goes...as a trend, I don't like it. Although I'm not going to kid myself,...as long as we have this sort of bank system, we'll have this form of borrowing. It's meant for politics.

Thanks...I'll look this over. Curious....you think dems aren't corrupt at all or is a matter of degree of corruption?

I happen to think power corrupts. Limiting powers on government officials is an almost god-like mentality to me....no matter the party.

Two greatest limits: money and power.

 

Well, that depends on technology. Some suggest we can get it cheap with biobutanol. BP and Dupont are going to do a test run of this in Britain.

http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/facts/BiobutanolFactSheet.html

The advantages of a suggested techonology are numerous. There's more energy in butanol than ethanol (ie it's similiar to regular gas), and there's not need to change the piping infrastructure for transfers... the suggest tech is suppose take any bio-waste and convert it to energy, and it can be used in any regular car. They suggest the price will be similiar... *shrug*

Corn is a stupid campaign by ford...switch grass is extremely fast at growing, and produce far more energy per the area. Although this is a limited perspective of the above idea.

I'm hopeful (because it's a big company suggesting a change), but I think the best ways are multi-driven. We need to focus on petro as well, as you seem to feel. It's just practical.

 

lol I really didn't mean to leave this thread for this long. I knew this would happen. All the Republicans would ignore the fact that stay the course is not a plan and keep repeating Republican talking points like the Democrats don't have a plan.

AGAIN..... the plan is to change the course not stay the course. Use diplomacy to get the world back on our side and get some help in Iraq while we begin a slow withdrawal and force the Iraqi government to step up and be a government and not sit around trying to figure out how they'er gonna run the country wehn we finally leave (read how they're going to abuse their power and make things like they were before we arrived). I'm willing to bet money. The moment we elect Democrats back into power and Bush finally steps down our support around the world from our former allies (now bystanders) in the war on terror will increase exponentially.

 

Right, somehow, someway, democrats have a plan to get the *world* to go in and do the dirty work of taking care of terrorists. Wishful thinking, the usual democrat plan

 

So a strategy that cowboy politics couldn't possibly understand or ever achieve is wishful thinking these days huh?

Running low on catch phrases?

 

Inaction is the best course of action, always

 

That's nice now answer the question

 

I did, you just didn't like it. Tissue?

 

Ok I'm gonna assume all this is stalling till you can come up with a solid response. I'll wait.

 

You asked such a serious question and you've patiently waited all this time for my answer:

I know how important that question was to you and it was very insthensthitive of me to overlook it. After all, to most, it would just seem like another wise crack, but to you, it's all business. So, that all important question to the answer you seek is...get ready now, it's a doosie...block buster...and the final answer is...no, I'm not running low on catch phrases!

Did you have some more important questions to make assumptions about?

 

Isn't this where the blind loyalist would post...

*Crickets*

If the shoe were on the other foot? hehe

 

It's the eyes man. They start to go bad after 50 or so.

 

Good to know, I'll be sure and make an eye appointment in nine years

You thought that was a serious question? Is that the best reply you have to:

 

Democrats were not against any of those things, they just wanted them to be done legally, with warrents. Profiling is considered ineffective by most security experts, and mostly rednecks and pundits are then ones who suggest using it, not security professionals.

Please, we only get like 15-20% of oil from the mid-est , we replace that and we can leave all those people to kill each other. Also as rick said corn is BS switchgrass , soybeans give much better yeilds, and there are algaes that beat them all

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

There is even people feeding the algae with emmissions from coal burning plants

For one that is if you hink the US can only innovate as fast as a third wold country, and even so when should start , once the oil is gone.Should start in 10 years, its definitely not starting while bush is in office

for one I don't think Palestinian terrorists our our problem, secondly the training facilities were not Al Quida

Islamist already have control of the country, the islamist groups have seats in the parliment , they militias are the ones in control of the country

 

What's funny is that I do not hear a single democrat utter this policy when it comes to Iraq. In fact, in your original post; you claim the the democrats have a plan, but do not know how to make it come across. Which is it? Do they have this plan or not?

Ferret seems to think the democrat plan is to withdraw all forces from Iraq and let the country be damned. And I think this is far closer to their plan than you'd like to admit.

But let's take your opinion at face value. Given that you want a more international force in Iraq to take control (even though you have yet to show a single example of a UN force making piece, but that's neither here nor there right now); you at least see the value of us winning there correct? You'd find it a terrible move to withdraw and let the Islamists take over. Am I correct in this assumption?

If so, let's say you are wrong and Ferret's concept (withdraw, to hell with them) is what the democrats come up with. Is that acceptable to you? Since they (as you said) cannot spit out their plan, ferret's idea could be their plan or your plan could be their plan. Who's to say, really?

Would you support this? Total withdrawal, to hell with Iraq? We all hear this more often than not from democrat leadership.

They are against those things. Please. There is precedent of NOT requiring warrants for intelligence gathering uses, which is what the NSA program is for. This was surprisingly admitted from the judge who made this decision. But her involvement with the ACLU (which puts judicial bias on the table) is there and questions her whole ruling. There is also congressional oversight, and not a single case of improper use has ever been brought up. Yet, still opposed.

I know! I never hear anything about alternative fuels or independence from foregin oil right now! Never. The market is driving this. If people want to be independent and buy those things, it'll happen. Not before.

At least you can admit those training facilities were there. It's a step further than most will believe. Congrats! It makes no matter if they were Al Qaida or not. He WAS supporting terrorists and that made him part of the war on terror. It makes no difference now, anyways. We ARE there and that is the situation at hand. I know you think the should be just be damned to violence, but this is incapatible with a positive longterm outcome for the US, or its allies.

I think you are exaggerating the problem, trying to make your point. Perhaps your beliefs are an honest mistake, but I find it hard to believe that you think they have control over the country and the Iraqi's are not taking more control all the time.

 

ferret you you do bring up excellent points, and you are quite the debater.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

looks to me like they(the dems) were voting for Net Neutrality

take care