posted on August 2, 2007 10:16:31 AM new
coach, I vote as an independent also. Sometimes for Democrats (though not recently), sometimes for Republicans, sometimes for Independents. I just don't see the liberal view. I can't understand it. Probably my age and upbringing. If you were born and brought up in the great deprression (it wasn't so great), you learn to be independent and not to count on your government to do everything for you. I was a Texas Democrat (wasn't everybody in Texas at one time), before the great Demo downfall here. At that time the Democratic Party was the party for the people, but they went sadly wrong. It became the party of the hangers on, the welfare happy, and the "you can't give me enough" voters. In Texas we are independent, and just want the government to stay out of our lives.
Hey, we reserved the right to break into 5 states when we joined the union. We were an independent nation. That still stands. Maybe we should do that, just think, 10 senators instead of two.
Wouldn't the libs go crazy!!
[ edited by etexbill on Aug 2, 2007 10:18 AM ]
posted on August 2, 2007 10:16:39 AM new
CC - you're just repeating what you have previously posted. No need to do so, I 'got' it the first time.
But with ALL sincerity on my part...this is exactly what you do/say each and every time I ask you a question and you don't wish to address it.
I have 'called' you on not answering questions and you have continued to deny that is true. And YET each question I ask of you...you continue to use this same excuse.
As I said, I understand. You can't/don't want to answer most questions put to you. But you expect me to answer all yours.
That's what I am again pointing out about your interaction/lack thereof when asked any question.
posted on August 2, 2007 10:27:49 AM new
Some of reactions from the dem leaders are starting to filter out...giving their reaction about obama's statement on Pakistan.
And they're NOT supportive. lol
==============
relivant snippets from the article:
Democratic Opponents Slam Barack Obama For Speech on Pakistan
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic presidential rivals slammed him Wednesday, calling it a sign of inexperience to suggest sending GIs to Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda terrorists, declaring that, "if President Musharraf won't act, we will."
"Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
He [obama] offered harsh words to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who has been the target of assassination attempts for his efforts to aid the United States in rooting out terrorist havens in the northwestern region of his country.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Obama said he would place heavy conditions on the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid if Pakistan isn't up to the task of combating terrorists.
"Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," he said.
Obama's critics said being confrontational toward Pakistan doesn't help fight the War on Terror.
Hunting down Usama bin Laden and stopping terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons is a priority, Dodd said. "But I will not declare my intentions for specific military action to the media in the context of a political campaign."
"My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, another 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.
Sen. Joe Biden said he wrote the recently passed law that conditions aid to Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"Before writing the law, Biden wrote to President Musharraf and Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice making clear his intent to do so," a statement from Biden's campaign reads.
The statement then went on to ridicule Obama for not asking Amb. John Negroponte at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in January anything about Afghanistan or the Taliban, and quoted him discussing the “stunning level of mercury in fish.”
“It’s good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership.” said Biden campaign manager Luis Navarro.
-----
Bush has said he would order military action if intelligence showed top terror leaders were hiding in Afghanistan, but the relationship with Musharraf has been friendly and cooperative.
---
White House spokesman Tony Snow said none of the administration's policies about keeping military options open to respond to actionable intelligence precludes working with the Pakistanis. He cited the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an example of an important joint operation that yielded successful results.
"Our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government," he said.
---
She [hillary] called his foreign policy views last week naive and has continued to build a growing lead in the polls amid increasingly vocal concerns among Democratic voters about Obama's relative lack of experience.
---
While she [hillary] and other Democrats say the United States is safer since Sept. 11, 2001, Obama continues to disagree.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 2, 2007 10:34:26 AM new
"Bush has said he would order military action if intelligence showed top terror leaders were hiding in Afghanistan, but the relationship with Musharraf has been friendly and cooperative."
Just to PROVE that this discussion does NOT require one giving a 'knee jerk reaction'. As it's been part of the debate between both parties for a VERY long time.
Should we go into that part of Pakistan or not. This is NOT a 'new' subject/issue. Just a HUGE surprise statement coming from a most liberal, dem party candidate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 2, 2007 10:42:20 AM new
His statements in the last weeks almost guarantee that he will not be nominated. His lack of experience has gotten him into a rut that he cannot escape.
If he were president, and invaded Pakistan without their approval, as he says he would, think of the consequences. As everyone else knows, you don't invade countries with nuclear weapons, that would be oh, so happy, to use them. Their president is already in trouble and his attackers are just waiting for a chance to overthrow him and place a religious backed government in power. What is Obama thinking??
[ edited by etexbill on Aug 2, 2007 10:44 AM ]
posted on August 2, 2007 10:53:03 AM new
etexbill, I was born after the depression,(a baby boomer) but sure heard about it from my parents. My father, one of 6 kids of a widowed mother, had to quit school after 8th grade to help support the family. That was a shame, because he found out in the army that he had a near genius IQ. He taught himself algebra, geometry, trig and many other things, got a job with a future after WWII and was quite successful. My mom's parents ran a little grocery store and managed to stay open during the depression. They had food, shelter and little else, but let everyone in the neighborhood--Brooklyn, NY-- have a tab at the store so they would not starve. They helped each other in those days and most everyone worked at whatever job they could get.
It is too bad we can't work together in that manner. We only seem to manage it during disasters. I don't deny that the government sometimes makes it easy to be on the dole, but I'd rather that, than have truly needy people suffer. I learned a long time ago that no politican, so far in my lifetime, is a knight in shining armor who will lead us to utopia. Even if a president had those qualities, it would be very difficult to implement anything due to the state of politics.
Wow! Sorry for this stream of consciousness, lengthy post. Been feeling sentimental lately.
posted on August 2, 2007 10:53:38 AM new
I agree. He's digging his own political grave.
You know, I've never understood the dem/lib position that we should stop fighting the terrorists and terrorists nations that are funding the war in Iraq. Basically RUN away as quickly as we can - leaving the ME under the control of terrorist nations like Iran...but then they turn around and call for our sending troops into places like Dufar and now, obama's call for going into Pakistan. I believe it was kennedy or kerry who was calling for re-deployment of our troops to Europe.
Like...just get out and allow the terrorists to gain more strength/control in the ME. And then there's Africa also. No mention from them about fighting the terrorists there that we have been.
It's like they want to/suggest sending troops anywhere in the world....except where they're MOST needed.
Imo, it's they're hoping to make some voters think they CAN be strong on threats....but then they don't really want to act.
I was very surprised by obama's call to invade Pakistan....as you say, especially since they HAVE nuclear weapons. Like he thinks they won't USE them if we did what he's proposing? Sorry but that's so sad it IS laughable. And the left HERE has continued to blame this sort of action on this administration's desire to start WWIII.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 2, 2007 11:03 AM ]
posted on August 2, 2007 11:00:37 AM new
"It is too bad we can't work together in that manner."
We could. We did. BEFORE the dems starting giving all sorts of entitlement benefits to all their supportive 'special interest' groups. And they continue doing so every chance they get.
That has done little but CAUSE more gov. dependence by more and more. Taken away the 'helping hand' people used to give to one another - freely - without gov. intervention. The more they do this the less families are expected to care for their own....to donate to charitable causes that have long dealt with these issues that the libs have now forced into the hands of the taxpayers....sometimes for generations.
And it's getting worse.
That is one of the biggest problems I have with the liberal party. They just can't see that. And each and everytime there is ANY problem that needs to be dealt with...their FIRST reaction is to turn to MORE gov. aid/entitlements.
posted on August 2, 2007 11:03:15 AM new
"Just to PROVE that this discussion does NOT require one giving a 'knee jerk reaction'. As it's been part of the debate between both parties for a VERY long time."
Sorry, Linda. I am not going to answer your question, just because you demand one. I don't have to prove anything. Think what you want--doesn't matter. You may have all the time in the world to read your blogs, boards and such, but I do not. I am caretaker to a family member with Alzheimer's and work and sell on eBay. This is just an outlet to relax when I have time. In the scheme of my life, answering you is just not that important.
posted on August 2, 2007 12:42:08 PM new
"Even if a president had those qualities, it would be very difficult to implement anything due to the state of politics.
Wow! Sorry for this stream of consciousness, lengthy post. Been feeling sentimental lately"
Thanks, coach. I wish that we could all get together with discussion like this.
I believe that you are right. The country is so divided (apparently divided in two) that noone will ever be able to accomplish anything. In my opinion it is time for term limits (which will probably never happen) and a strong and viable third party. In fact, I can't believe that some personable and charismatic person hasn't already started a third party. Would probably get my vote.
BTW, my father also had to quit school after the 8th grade. We sometimes wondered where the next meal would come from, but it was always there thanks to him. If the same thing happened in our country today, there would be an uprising of people demanding things from the government that they could not provide. Food, and employment, etc.
[ edited by etexbill on Aug 2, 2007 12:47 PM ]
posted on August 2, 2007 01:16:04 PM new
""Linda_K
posted on August 2, 2007 10:16:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC - you're just repeating what you have previously posted. No need to do so, I 'got' it the first time.
But with ALL sincerity on my part...this is exactly what you do/say each and every time I ask you a question and you don't wish to address it.
I have 'called' you on not answering questions and you have continued to deny that is true. And YET each question I ask of you...you continue to use this same excuse.
As I said, I understand. You can't/don't want to answer most questions put to you. But you expect me to answer all yours.
That's what I am again pointing out about your interaction/lack thereof when asked any question."""
There, Coincoach, is you answer to trying to "discuss" anything with linduh.
posted on August 2, 2007 02:16:29 PM new
Yep, it used to be that way here more often, UNTIL mingotree/crowfarm/sybil arrived on the scene. It's never been the same since then...and imo, why MOST posters have left the premises.
=======================
The rule here used to be that one only used ONE userid here...so there was no confusion about who was whom. But recently a Vendio rep., Nathan, arrived on the scene to inform me that a user can use as many userids as they have different accounts. So....there are three or four who use more than one userid as sybil does as her mood changes. lol
Rusty/shagmiod or whatever says he uses his ebay selling id because it's too much trouble to 'switch' over to his normal posting id here.
Just think....kiara could be one person posting under the mingotree userid...since she's so supportive of him/her and agrees with him/her all the time.
posted on August 2, 2007 04:22:38 PM new
etexbill--I like term limits and think a third party just might help our stagnant government. What do you know? There are some things on which we agree.
posted on August 2, 2007 05:32:48 PM new
"Thought it was a good idea to change my ID. Feel more comfortable with the new one."
But coach, you are using them both, right??
Whatever? I just didn't realize that a poster could have more than one ID.
Maybe I'll get another and come back as a lib. What a hoot that would be. Who knows, some of these posters may be conservative Republicans in lib's clothing, just stirring the pot.
