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

The problem comes in here, that I've heard 2 versions of net neutrality.

One version says that broadband provides cannot "teir" the internet. Pay for play, in essence. Google and others support this.

Another version I've heard aims to make the net "neutral" - meaning that if your site has controversial (or opinionated content) then government can step in and force you to provide space for the opposing viewpoint on your domain.

 

And what is the alternative stay there spending 9 billion a month , trying to keep the civil war at bay, for how long another year, another 5 years, another 10 years?

Ok I don't know if you can understand this, but when we subsidize oil companies by using the military to guard oil tankers and oil platforms, and hand out money to them. It interfers with the free market, if gas really cost what it costs, then beleive me, people would be switching sooner. Instead of paying at the pump we pay out of the defense budget

The world is filled with violent assholes, some are our problem , but most are not. Hell we even have some "terrorist" on the US payroll. We have supported various death squads around the world at different times, its business as usual.

The thing you don't understand is that the insurgents are the police, the insurgents are the military, the insugents have seats in the paraliment

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-08-14-mahdi-army_x.htm

 

That is the position that George B. thinks the democrats have. Stay (with a more international force) until the job is done. He thinks that is the democrat position. If your position is that we should withdraw immediately, it confounds me that both you are (probably) poised to vote for the same people, but wanting 2 completely different outcomes. Perhaps before trying to lead the country, ya'll should figure out what the position is first. Correct?

 

We get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada. And to some level that's a lot better of a policy. I'd rather make our neighbors rich than Russia or the middle east any day.

lmao at the bold. I'm thinking many conservatives and liberals share a similiar view point on that...only if. I'd say one of the major goals of the US SHOULD be to make petro economically less valueable (or obselete), so that the middle east and all oil countries have to rely more on production rather than simple petro. There's far too many corrupt oil economies.

That's probably one of the virtues of America, in that we can produce less oil, and we're still productive giants.

 

In my mind, and increasingly in the mind of more and more observers and people who are involved in the war in Iraq, the administration has NO PLAN, or, an ill defined plan, or a plan that isn't or can't work, or a very poorly executed plan.

Over time conditions in Iraq are worsening. Deaths within the country rose dramatically this year through July. There may be a change on volume of killing, based on bringing more American soldiers into Bahgdad, but if that is the case it flies in the face of one of the recent administration descriptions of the "plan" which was to "step down American involvement as Iraqi government involvement got more effective.

What has that led to? A new definition of "the PLAN". Now we are
"reacting" and "adjusting" to conditions. (different from "staying the course") and of course there is a newer plan--we are fighting neo-fascism Islamic terrorism. This is different from removing weapons of mass destruction and a threat from Saddam Hussein, and many other "plans" from the past.

On the other hand, none of the people who disagree with the administration have a definitive "plan". That doesn't make those who disagree with Bush evil, weak, or any other negative term. They are not happy with current conditions.

All of which is a shame. The administration doesn't seem to beleive this though. Their political strategy is to always label those who disagree with them as "cut and run", weak, etc. That sort of worked until recently when the number and variety of folks who disagreed with them has dramatically increased including Conservatives and Republicans. Some of them are politicians, so they sort of don't count, since they are running for office and say what they need to to get elected. Others are independant commentators who are a different breed.

All in all there isn't a well defined "plan" IMHO because conditions s*ck. Frankly, in view of these conditions and the poor results by the Israeli's in fighting Hezbollah I think the West needs to drastically rethink its positions and actions and dramatically work to increase our "intelligence" with regard to fighting Islamic terrorists.

But I would like to see a change in the make up of the Congress, enough to force rethinking on current conditions.

Dave

Frankly, from the Western perspective, this war is a difficult f**k-up!

 

I agree with most of what you say. I think the choses are poor, and there needs to be a lot more detail in 'the plan' on both sides.

 

The democrat plan is to use hind sight. Wait for someone else to do something, and if the result is good, take credit for it. If it is bad, blame Republicans.

 

And here I thought this was the democrat plan! Maybe this? I'll get it eventually, I think.

I totally agree. Personally, I hope the democrats take the House in november. Probably for not the same reasons. But I think its a wonderful idea. Its one thing to say you want to let the terrorists win (either by tying our hands and make it next to impossible to find them; or undermine us abroad or both); its another one to make it a policy position. Hurray for policy!

 

It looks like the dem plan is to copy the republican plan:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I guess they (democrats) really don't have any new plans.

 

I think you missed the point Gtech. Instead of actually fighting for freedom or american values; democrats will write harshly worded letters to terrorists everywhere! I think the letter IS the new position. Harshly worded memos (with double and triple exclamation points) have worked so well for the UN, its time to copy it

Something along the lines of:

Osama Bin Laden has killed thousands of Americans. He makes us less safe as Americans. Thefore we demand he step down, immediately !!!

TRIPLE EXCLAMATION POINT!

 

Oh no, not the UN inspired, harshly worded letters! But they are so effective!

Ah, the exclamation points!!!!!!! Yes, I've made reference to them quite some time back when defining BDS. It's amazing how these things keep croping up

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This is the Dem plan?

Ferret, I've missed your insanity. I'm going to have to start finding more time to stumble through this lala land known as the political threads again.

Good times!

 

Arn't you the dummy who is so brainwashed that the other day you were saying that bin laden doesn't matter?

So what is the repub plan, fill us in? Stay in Iraq for the the next 10 years?

 

Did we miss a post?

 

No. I said killing bin laden didn't matter because killing him will not stop terrorism. The only thing it'll do is make people (like you) say - well, the war is over. We got him. But, apparently, you don't even care if the war is won or not, as you want to pull out of Iraq and let it go to hell. But oh well.

 

Actually here is what you said,

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1066171&postcount=229

bush says it

and you believe it without question

 

Yes. As I said Ferret. Thanks for making my point for me again I liked the way I worded it the first time a ton better!

Democrats seem to have the same plan as Republicans. As I posted previously, your plan wants us to leave immediately (to hell with Iraq). Other dems here want us to have a timetable. I find it amazing that people voting for the same people want dramatically different outcomes. Ya'll should try and get a message that the whole party can support, before trying to lead a country.

Seems the democrat position is: hey, we aren't Bush! Only thing that is missing is the "cha cha cha"

 

did you miss the

Part?

 

I know your predilection to reading half of sentences, but do read the rest. OR try. Or post a cartoon, whichever you are able to comprehend

 

yeah unfortunately this is totally untrue