Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08

[roxy]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The democrats are busy designing their sales pitch for the upcoming election.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051212/D8EED4K00.html

To hear Democrats tell it, an anxious and isolated public craves a sense of national community and would galvanize behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the greater good. John Edwards says he's that leader.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has commissioned confidential polling and analysis that suggest candidates in 2006 and 2008 should frame their policies - and attacks on Republicans - around the context of community.


[/FONT]

 

[moreluck]

"What's happening in this country is we're losing our sense of common purpose," Vilsack told Florida Democrats."

He's got the right words, only mixed up a bit. We are losing "common sense" in this country.

I consider John Edwards a rather dangerous and ruthless man. I think, barring any scandals, Hillary will be the candidate to beat. JMHO

I'm not ready for a woman president if it has to be Billary.

 

[ok2bclever]

We got bush casually stating 30,000 Iraq dead counting those killed when he invaded and since and two thousand plus and counting of our own soldiers dead (he didn't mention all the permanently crippled on both sides), the 911 commission has given the government an friend on national security terrorist prevention, our national debt is at world record level and Edwards is who you think is ruthless and dangerous!?!

 

[wkmac]

Oh Thank God!

Things are getting back to normal again!

 

[tieguy]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has commissioned confidential polling and analysis that suggest candidates in 2006 and 2008 should frame their policies - and attacks on Republicans - around the context of community.[/FONT]

Its an interesting position . The democratic leader in making his case often attacks the evil influence of the conservative right on society.

Surely an oxy-maroon of perspective. As if our churchs are ruining america. And yet I would think small town america meeting for moral guidance in our churchs and helping the poor through our churchs is the true strength of our society.

In order to allow society the ability to become totally immoral you have to attack the moral restraints that keep us in check. You then find an almost comical attack on morality as being immoral.

Many of todays democrats have tried to therefore tread a fine line of attacking the religous right while at the same time popping into the high visibility black church sermons on sunday in an effort to appeal to the members that make up the so called religous right. Kerry and Clinton are two that have tried to adopt this tactic. Clinton pulled it off because he looked very believable in the church setting and let Hillary fight the battle againt the "evil right wing conspiracy". Kerry was never convincing in this role. Hillary will have to soften up her image quite a bit to have any chance in the upcoming elections. An image as a hard charging who fights against the 'right wing conspiracy" will not get her elected.

As the last presidential election revealed you cannot address the issue of community without addressing the main core of the community that being americans worshipping and uniting around the church as an integral part of their community. The red / Blue state voting results I think show the divison between your traditional small town communities that build their communities around the church and the larger urban areas that have drifted away from this type of community. The democratic president will have to find a way to align him/ herself with the religous community without alienating those in the democratic party who feel the church and its teaching are too stifling.

The republican candidate on the other hand assumes this religous power base and only has to adopt a few liberal mindsets into his platform to give the appearance of being mainstream in perspective.

I personally think Bush is actually one of the most mainstream republican presidents we have had in some time. But yet he has somehow adopted a image of being much more hard right then what he actually has demonstrated. I think his spending record overall has actually shown him to possess more of the big spending liberal personna then the tight fisted conservative republican.

Its what makes politics interesting , I think.

 

[tieguy]

"Equating the GOP agenda for Social Security, public school vouchers and Medicare with "social Darwinsim," Obama said the key to the nation's success is striking a balance between individual and collective responsibility."

Another point I think where the democrats are out of touch with the public. Americans like choice. They do not like one vendor systems. They do not like Government sponsered concepts where they are told what schools they have to put their kids in and given only one retirement option.

 

[tieguy]

We got bush casually stating 30,000 Iraq dead counting those killed when he invaded and since and two thousand plus and counting of our own soldiers dead (he didn't mention all the permanently crippled on both sides), the 911 commission has given the government an friend on national security terrorist prevention, our national debt is at world record level and Edwards is who you think is ruthless and dangerous!?!

You and Suzie have done a terrific job of pointing out the negatives of this campaign. I have no problem with the dialogue. But one point niether of you have ever answered straight on is at what point do we go in? How many millions does Saddaam have to kill before you feel we are justified to go in. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people do you feel need to be tortured, maimed , raped , crippled , jailed and in many other ways brutally oppressed before you feel we should use our might to correct this wrong. Whats the magic number?

 

[ok2bclever]

Just to be sure, as the figure was 30,000 Iraqi dead since bush invaded (doesn't count what the bad guys have done) did you mean how many before we leave?

If the decision to invade is now (rather than WMD) going to hinge on how many are killed in another country do we go by percentages or just physical totals and exactly what manner of death do we use as the yardstick?

It would appear Africa would qualify ahead of Iraq possibly for any yardstick.

But then Russia and China probably are up there also and who really knows how many North Korea or Iran, etc are actually doing away with.

Perhaps we should just invade them all to play safe.

There is a huge difference between trying to share the responsibility to police the worst of the world as part of an officially world recognized organization and playing solo decider of who gets invaded and why.

bush crossed a line.

That was why he had to use a lie to get the country to agree to it.

He stuck to the lie months and months after it became clear, friendrom his own investigators that it was a lie.

Now, we went in because it was the morally right thing to do.

What a crock.

 

[over9five]

Roxy = Susiedriver

 

[tieguy]

If the decision to invade is now (rather than WMD) going to hinge on how many are killed in another country do we go by percentages or just physical totals and exactly what manner of death do we use as the yardstick?

It would appear Africa would qualify ahead of Iraq possibly for any yardstick.

It's really a simple question that you once again appeared to evade answering. How many millions does the guy have to kill before you feel its justified to go in?

Which country in Africa or any of the others has demonstrated they have WMD's by actually using them to kill up to a hundred thousand of their own people?

 

[tieguy]

Roxy = Susiedriver

Lol. Cheryl, do the IP addresses match?

 

[dannyboy]

What is really funny is on another thread, a poster posts, then 17 minutes later she posts stating that "so that someone will respond to your thread...."

Yet she does not appear on line at any time? Aint it funny? Bet there are several more that are un-registered and registered that are actually Susie. Kinda like UPS girl.

BTW, some of girl's alter egos are still showing active. Does that mean just part of her was banned? IF so, which part? The knocked up 16 year old, the devil worshiper, the poor victim of family abuse????? The UPS driver that got her pregnant? All these parts played by.....

d

 

[wkmac]

tie vs. ok2bc or ok2bc vs. tie =

Lovers in the night, do, do, be, do, do!
Lovers in the night.........

OK, so I can't sing but you get the point. Someone told me the new movie Brokenback Mountian is a male/male love story based loosely on the ok/tie relationship!

Sorry guys but you 2 kill me!!!!!!!!!!!

Over9five said:

Roxy=Susiedriver

Crosscheck the IP address but I don't think susie is that dumb. But like Dennis Miller said, "That's my opinion but I could be wrong!"

 

[susiedriver]

Thanks mac (i think),

Cheryl, while you are confirming that I haven't signed in under any other user names, could you also check tie's IP for any other user names? Thank You.

 

[wkmac]

BTW, some of girl's alter egos are still showing active. Does that mean just part of her was banned? IF so, which part? The knocked up 16 year old, the devil worshiper, the poor victim of family abuse????? The UPS driver that got her pregnant? All these parts played by.....

d

With all those multiple personalities she should go to Hollywood as she'd be a big star. She'd fit right in. I love it when stars one year say they came up in the purest of households and then 3 years later it's in vogue to claim both your parents raped and molested you on a daily basis. Sure, these things sadly happen but the flip flopping stories reminds me of a championship wrestler who one week is the champion of the people good guy and exudes the best of virtures and the next week he's seen the dark side and becomes the icon of all evil and then at some point go back to being good! Oh it's the script you say! You mean the same thing an actor/actress uses everyday? OH I SEE! Maybe UPSGirl should call WWE!

 

[wkmac]

No problem Susie. And I don't think you are that dumb. You and I may disagree on many subjects relating to how people and societies should work and I do think at times you are your own worst enemy but I don't think you're dumb.

BTW: Here's a piece you might find of interest. Yeah it's written by one of my evil libertarian friends but read it anyway. Besides, you may find something in it to trash me with and I know you like that.

It's OK, you can admit it! Consider it free therapy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne61.html

 

[cheryl]

let's play musical ip addresses

Lol. Cheryl, do the IP addresses match?

Cheryl, while you are confirming that I haven't signed in under any other user names, could you also check tie's IP for any other user names? Thank You.

Nope, no other usernames have posted with any of the ip's either one of you have used...

By the way susie, I don't appreciate your using that picture in your profile. It has been removed.

 

[wily_old_vet]

Susie-Missed you babe. I see the self exile didn't work out for you. How'd the sale of those millions of doolars of stock go?

 

[sendagain]

back to subject at hand

The weakness of the democratic position is to continually criticize the war, the administration and the president in particular, with no evidence of any workable plan on their own part. Their plan only seems to be, "Your plan has failed." What this mindset does to encourage the enemies of democracy is reason enough to criticize it; all your efforts are directed against your own team. It is like the defense on a football team shouting insults at their offense while they attempt to score against their opponent. This action would only make the other team play with greater energy, realizing victory must be in their grasp.

What is happening in Iraq is proof enough that there really is an enemy who plans to murder en masse, totally immune to any moral conscience that holds societies in any cohesive peace. They plan to exterminate anyone who disagrees with the most violent and oppressive tenents of Islam. How people think that withdrawing from engagement with this kind of foe will somehow make the world more peaceful is beyond me. A withdrawal from Iraq would lead to absolute chaos in that country; Iran and Syria, with every religious zealot from the entire middle east, would quickly capitalize on the defeat of democracy, possibly even moving their own armies into Iraq. Any resistance to extreme Islam would be removed, leaving these zealots the same free reign that was afforded to Pol Pot. Our efforts in Afghanistan would quickly be overturned into the same game that has been played in Iraq. Pakistan would also turn into the same mess, allowing extremists access to nucleur weapons; all the while Iran would continue on her course to the same. Israel would be left to herself and might well have to use a nucleur arsenal to defend herself.

All this talk of losing this war is a nightmare that we cannot afford to entertain.

 

[tieguy]

It's really a simple question that you once again appeared to evade answering OK. How many millions does the guy have to kill before you feel its justified to go in?

Which country in Africa or any of the others has demonstrated they have WMD's by actually using them to kill up to a hundred thousand of their own people?

Again Ok if either you or Suzie could answer the question. Perhaps even compare the brutality of Iraq to the Bosnia situation which did appear to meet some type of criteria allowing that particular conflict to be approved by your lot.