17 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisI don't know what to think either. But if I did, I am sure it would be about something other than what you have suggested above.
What do you guys think about US democrats saying that good news in Iraq is bad for them? How can we expect progress in the US congress, where power is all that matters, if it means that one party must lose face over good outcomes?
17 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisIt's really pretty simple: The Democrats are the party that advocates surrender and the Republicans are the party that wants to win in Iraq. In the old days, many in the Democratic leadership, as well as Sean Penn, would have been tried and hung for sedition. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush uses kid gloves on the enemies of the United States. These are dangerous people that need a very big book thrown at them.
What do you guys think about US democrats saying that good news in Iraq is bad for them? How can we expect progress in the US congress, where power is all that matters, if it means that one party must lose face over good outcomes?
17 Aug 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat is the point of a post like this? Are you some kind of clumsy satirist, ridiculing the views you espouse?
It's really pretty simple: The Democrats are the party that advocates surrender and the Republicans are the party that wants to win in Iraq. In the old days, many in the Democratic leadership, as well as Sean Penn, would have been tried and hung for sedition. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush uses kid gloves on the enemies of the United States. These are dangerous people that need a very big book thrown at them.
17 Aug 07
Originally posted by FMFNo. However, I suspect that for all your traipsing around the world, you remain very ignorant of the laws, history and culture of the United States. Everything I said is true – the Democrats are the party of surrender while the Republicans want to win in Iraq. What's more, people like Nancy Pelosi, the highest ranking Democrat, is guilty of sedition. When she visited Syria to conduct her own foreign diplomacy, she violated many of our laws. Even worse, she sent our enemies the mixed message that there are two foreign policies: one for the President and one for the Democrats. The president would have been fully justified in having her brought up on charges of sedition.
What is the point of a post like this? Are you some kind of clumsy satirist, ridiculing the views you espouse?
17 Aug 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSurrender of what? To who?
It's really pretty simple: The Democrats are the party that advocates surrender and the Republicans are the party that wants to win in Iraq. In the old days, many in the Democratic leadership, as well as Sean Penn, would have been tried and hung for sedition. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush uses kid gloves on the enemies of the United States. These are dangerous people that need a very big book thrown at them.
We don't own Iraq, so we can't surrender it. We have no enemy who can surrender; we just have harassment from irregulars.
17 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lepomisThe point, Mr. Pyle, is that the American voter is thought of, both within US political circles and by the rest of the world in general, as idiots.
What do you guys think about US democrats saying that good news in Iraq is bad for them? How can we expect progress in the US congress, where power is all that matters, if it means that one party must lose face over good outcomes?
The thinking goes that the typical American voter only looks at outcomes of decisions rather than the relative merit of the decision itself.
Americans will judge Iraq by how many of your troops are killed rather than by whether or not going there in the first place was the right thing to do. Americans tend to take a wait and see approach to decisions made by their leaders before they make up their mind. In essence, the outcome of the event makes it easy for Americans to make up their mind so they don't have to think too hard.
"Thousands of troop deaths? No end in sight? More terrorists now than before? Ok, uh bad decision then!"
"Violence starting to end? Troops coming home? No more terrorists? Ok, uh good decision then!"
Americans can't seem to judge a decision at the beginning to figure out if it was the right thing to do even if it turned out badly, or if it was the wrong thing to do even if it turned out ok.
For Americans, the ends justify the means but for most of the rest of the western world the Means justify the Ends....
So if the war goes well, Americans vote Republican...if the war goes badly, Americans vote Democrat next time.
17 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisI suspect slander. I've seen no evidence that that comment was ever made.
What do you guys think about US democrats saying that good news in Iraq is bad for them? How can we expect progress in the US congress, where power is all that matters, if it means that one party must lose face over good outcomes?
17 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungcome on man, it's same as when a sitting president who has a low approval rating and all the TV pundits start musing about a potential war on a country to raise his approval rating.
So this accusation cannot be supported with fact?
Slander.
They all said the same thing when Bush was thinking of attacking Iraq. You'd never hear a politician say war was good for their party but you def hear the TV guys talk about it.
I'd be surprised if a Democrat actually said it, and it'd be interesting to see if lepomis can actually post it because I doubt anyone did. But it doesn't take away from the fact that both Dems and Rep's know it to be true because it is true!
I'd actually give the Dems some credit for saying it because it's only stating the obvious....although it's not politically wise to admit such a thing in the US.
The yanks seem to be "shocked, SHOCKED by the obviousness of the truth in that statement" 😉