Nickolas, it's always a good thing when young people get involved and interested in politics. It's even better when they hear the truth instead of lies. I hope you might learn a few things, which is why I'm taking the time to write this when I should be working on a count book.

1. Let's take the 'list' first. There IS a list of gay Republican staffers circulating the halls of the capitol. At least ONE liberal (i.e. Democratic) blogger has gotten his hands on this list. In fact, he got it and publicly refused to post it or name any name on the list. He blogged about it to encourage others with access to the list to NOT release the names on it.

Who is circulating it? Who is threatening to release the information? Unless you visit right-wing sites the answer isn't democrats. So far it's right-wingers who are saying it's democrats. Here's a news article for you... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/05/pu...ry2065637.shtml

2. Let's deal with this "democrats are weak on defense" right off and look at it square in the eye.

Who led our fight in WWII? President Roosevelt...a Democrat.

Who dropped the atomic bomb on our enemies? Harry Truman, a Democrat.

Who faced down the Soviet Union when they tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? John F. Kennedy...a Democrat.

Who spent milions of dollars keeping Saddam Hussein boxed up and regularly ordered the bombing of his military when they tried to set up military sites that violated the peace treaty? Who regularly attacked Al-Quaeda and ordered several missile strikes and bombings of their facilities despite pressure not to do that? Who sought to invade Afghanistan to attack Osama BEFORE 9/11 occured? Who ordered the arming of Predator drones in the hope that they could be used to kill OBL from the air? Bill Clinton...a Democrat.

More later...

Nickolas, it's always a good thing when young people get involved and interested in politics. It's even better when they hear the truth instead of lies. I hope you might learn a few things, which is why I'm taking the time to write this when I should be working on a count book.

 

1. Let's take the 'list' first. There IS a list of gay Republican staffers circulating the halls of the capitol. At least ONE liberal (i.e. Democratic) blogger has gotten his hands on this list. In fact, he got it and publicly refused to post it or name any name on the list. He blogged about it to encourage others with access to the list to NOT release the names on it.

 

Who is circulating it? Who is threatening to release the information? Unless you visit right-wing sites the answer isn't democrats. So far it's right-wingers who are saying it's democrats. Here's a news article for you... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/05/pu...ry2065637.shtml

 

2. Let's deal with this "democrats are weak on defense" right off and look at it square in the eye.

 

Who led our fight in WWII? President Roosevelt...a Democrat.

 

Who dropped the atomic bomb on our enemies? Harry Truman, a Democrat.

 

Who faced down the Soviet Union when they tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? John F. Kennedy...a Democrat.

 

Who spent milions of dollars keeping Saddam Hussein boxed up and regularly ordered the bombing of his military when they tried to set up military sites that violated the peace treaty? Who regularly attacked Al-Quaeda and ordered several missile strikes and bombings of their facilities despite pressure not to do that? Who sought to invade Afghanistan to attack Osama BEFORE 9/11 occured? Who ordered the arming of Predator drones in the hope that they could be used to kill OBL from the air? Bill Clinton...a Democrat.

 

More later...

I havent read the article about the list of names, but I know better than to trust the word of a network that used phony documents to try to affect the outcome of a presidential election.

Now, onto the part about the weak Democrats:::::

The party you speak of is gone, Dan. They no longer have JFK or Truman or Roosevelt, or even that communist LBJ....what they have now is Ted Kennedy, a murderer and Al Gore, a loser who couldn't win an election against GWB because he was too arrogant to let Clinton campaign for him, and now he's a joke.

You also have John Murtha, who must be suffering from Alzhiemers because he had the nerve to accuse our troops of murder, when the truth is, they're fighting in a war!!! He's a joke, and everytime he talks, he makes the dems look like the weaklings they are.

Then there's Dick Durbin, who said our troops were Nazi's and compared them to Pol Pot's regime and to the communists of the USSR. That's the party that's going to defend us??? It's a joke, and deep down, you know it too. The only good democrat as far as defense goes is Joe Lieberman, and he's been essentially kicked out of your party.

It's sad, because if you look back over time, you can see that the dems were a strong party when it came to defense, but somehow, they were taken over by a bunch of weirdo's and now they're just a freak show that most people laugh at.

Nick,

With election approaching, your comments in this thread remind a little of me a long time back. Was I fifteen? Not sure; too young to vote, for sure. I'd received a small printing press on my previous birthday. I could set a few lines of rubber type and then run off copies.

The threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union had been on everyone's back burner. All the time. For years. My idea of fun that year: run off thousands of slips of paper reading

("RED" as in Red October), and then scatter them around the polling place on election day. It was politically correct but illegal . Great fun overall, I thought at the time.

What's the point of this?

km

It's sad, because if you look back over time, you can see that the dems were a strong party when it came to defense, but somehow, they were taken over by a bunch of weirdo's and now they're just a freak show that most people laugh at.

Hey man,

Your blog, your rules, but I can't be the only one that's noticed that whenever someone presents a logical dissenting argument, you never seem to 1) concede the point or 2) dispute it, you take a 90 degree turn to the right and make some loud and (often) obnoxious statement, changing the topic. You know who else uses that same tactic? Bill O'Reilly.

Just because a lot of people say that Democrats are weak on defense (and say it often and loud), it doesn't make it true. Clinton - the last Democrat in power - took what was handed to him and quickly became obsessed with terrorist activities in the middle east and at home, and no less than tripled spending on terrorist prevention while in office. He also was very effective in pre-emptively stopping a lot of activites that would have been front-page news had they been successful. Dead party from long ago? Try 6 years ago.

Personally I don't care who thinks what about defense because I almost always disagree with their actions anyway. I'm just pointing out that your arguments aren't very effective. You're smart. You can do better.

-Dez

I havent read the article about the list of names, but I know better than to trust the word of a network that used phony documents to try to affect the outcome of a presidential election.

Now, onto the part about the weak Democrats:::::

 

The party you speak of is gone, Dan. They no longer have JFK or Truman or Roosevelt, or even that communist LBJ....what they have now is Ted Kennedy, a murderer and Al Gore, a loser who couldn't win an election against GWB because he was too arrogant to let Clinton campaign for him, and now he's a joke.

You also have John Murtha, who must be suffering from Alzhiemers because he had the nerve to accuse our troops of murder, when the truth is, they're fighting in a war!!! He's a joke, and everytime he talks, he makes the dems look like the weaklings they are.

Then there's Dick Durbin, who said our troops were Nazi's and compared them to Pol Pot's regime and to the communists of the USSR. That's the party that's going to defend us??? It's a joke, and deep down, you know it too. The only good democrat as far as defense goes is Joe Lieberman, and he's been essentially kicked out of your party.

It's sad, because if you look back over time, you can see that the dems were a strong party when it came to defense, but somehow, they were taken over by a bunch of weirdo's and now they're just a freak show that most people laugh at.

Nick, I hate to have to ask this, but do you think about these things or just regurgitate what you've heard?

No political party is what it was...the Republicans were once the party of Lincoln, but his best ideals have long since been thrown to the wayside by modern day Republicans like Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and Rick Santorum.

BTW, it was Bill Frist who recently said we should give up the fight in Afghanistan and hand it over to the Taliban, not a Democrat.

Jack Murtha did accuse our soldiers of murder...probably BECAUSE THOSE TROOPS DID COMMIT MURDER. There are rules in warfare, rules our troops are expected to follow. They learn those rules in boot camp, just like I did when I served in the United States Navy. Why don't you go look them up and read them? They're available on the web. If you can find in there where it is permissible for soldiers to go into a house of civilians and murder them in cold blood, or to go and rape a woman before killing her and members of our family, I'll say I was wrong and join you in condemning Jack Murtha. So far several of the troops who have committed murder while in uniform are being brought to trial, some have pled guilty already, and others have been found guilty.

Guess what, Nickolas, war does not excuse murder, rape, or torture for that matter.

The majority of our troops, fortunately, do not behave in the manner above. They try to not harm civilians whenever possible while pursuing the enemy. Those that have committed murder, well they snapped. They snapped because they are in a hell of a war zone where it's impossible to tell friend from foe half the time and where nightmares walk the streets every day (oh and no, those Murtha referred to didn't kill the families in the heat of combat, they went back after combat was over and committed murder as an act of revenge). Most of the troops in Iraq are on the second or third ONE YEAR tour of duty...and it's causing so much stress on them that they are breaking.

Hmmm, I wonder who to blame for that? Let's see...it's been Bush and Rumsfeld who say we have more than enough troops to do the job...even though the job is not getting done and every damn day more soldiers die over there. They say we don't need more troops in uniform, even though half the people in Iraq have spent more time in Iraq the last three years than they have at home. These Republicans are breaking our Armed Forces and trying to pretend band aids will fix things.

We never should have gone into Iraq, and at this point there's very little we can do there that will restore order. We're about to lose Afghanistan as well with the Taliban resurging in strength. If we 'stay the course' we'll see epic defeat in both countries, and you damn well better believe they'll be over here next, because Bush and Rumsfeld are INCAPABLE of stopping them over there.

So far, there isn't a Republican on the field who can take them on and win. For one reason we don't have enough soldiers. For another, we've ignored the non-military aspects of handling terrorism. We won't win this war by the strength of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, or the Air Force. They are tools in the war, but they are not the path to victory. No Republican I've heard yet seems to grasp that fact.

Want another bitter pill of truth? We need to drastically increase the size of our Army. Last year when they weren't getting enough recruits, the Army DECREASED their quotas for new recruits so the news would report that they were meeting their quotas. Guess what the end result is...a smaller Army. If we can't get recruits to volunteer, it might be time for a draft (again, an issue only DEMOCRATS have even been willing to consider because Republicans prefer to Hear No Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil - hence the whole Foley problem they're experiencing...it's just another example of how the Republicans approach to things is a losing methodology).

Joe Lieberman isn't a good democrat and you sound like the pages of REDSTATE spouting off about him. I hate to say it...but the Republicans were right about Joe in 2000...he is a sore loser. The democratic voters of his state have spoken, and they chose someone other than him. He lost the election fair and square and he's throwing a pouting fit. The only reason Republicans say that he's 'good' on defense is because he has his nose so far up George Bush's butt it's hard not to mistake them for a gay love affair. (No wonder they turned a blind eye to Foley).

Edit to add this:

In regards to the leaking of gay Republican staffers, every article/entry I've seen about it reads a lot like this:

According to unconfirmed reports posted by bloggers, an ad hoc group of conservative Christians affiliated with the Republican Party planned to release a list of closeted gay Republican staff members on Capitol Hill, saying the gay staffers did a disservice to Hastert and enabled Foley’s behavior.

Source: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelate...fm?blog_id=9471

As a Democrat, I'd like to request an apology for the insult that it's Democrats seeking to out gay staffers for political gain when evidence at this time indicates that it is Republicans and Republican allies who are planning to do this...

Hey DK,

nice try to bring Nick to rational thinking !

IMO it is vain.

But I hope that they are a lot of other people, who have the right to vote, who read your blogs and comments, and who can use them to strengthen their opinions.

Good work Dan !

Old bob

Bob, I disagree. Nickolas is a smart young man with passion and opinions. That's a good thing. Remember I was a Republican until 1992 and that awful convention convinced me there was no hope for that party.

Now I'm a very liberal socially, moderate fiscally Democrat who doesn't like being called a wuss when it comes to defending this country just because I belong to the Democratic Party.

Bob, I disagree. Nickolas is a smart young man with passion and opinions. That's a good thing. Remember I was a Republican until 1992 and that awful convention convinced me there was no hope for that party.

 

Now I'm a very liberal socially, moderate fiscally Democrat who doesn't like being called a wuss when it comes to defending this country just because I belong to the Democratic Party.

I suppose you are right .

Its funny to see the differences between the writer with so good stories and the soon being voter with his passionate opinion. I would like to meet him and to ask him why he is so peremptory in his comments. If perhaps he reads this, we could talk in the chat ?

BTW, I have nothing against people who change their mind . Its always a sign of sincerity and some times of cleverness. I did it often, and may be I will concerning Nickolas.

Cheerily,

Old Bob

 

 

2. Let's deal with this "democrats are weak on defense" right off and look at it square in the eye.

 

Who led our fight in WWII? President Roosevelt...a Democrat.

 

Who dropped the atomic bomb on our enemies? Harry Truman, a Democrat.

 

Who faced down the Soviet Union when they tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? John F. Kennedy...a Democrat.

 

 

 

More later...

Yeah, and these guys are spinning in their graves, everytime they hear Madeline Albright, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, start talking about how to deal with terrorists, and any other country, or faction, that might be considered a threat to this country.

I believe Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read "The buck stops here", but with Bill Clinton, the sign read "The buck stops on whoevers name the spinning bottle points at".

Oh, you forgot about the guy that brought down the Berlin wall, and caused the U.S.S.R. to collapse.

Was this a history lesson, or a current events exercize?

It's sad, because if you look back over time, you can see that the dems were a strong party when it came to defense, but somehow, they were taken over by a bunch of weirdo's and now they're just a freak show that most people laugh at.

 

Hey man,

 

Your blog, your rules, but I can't be the only one that's noticed that whenever someone presents a logical dissenting argument, you never seem to 1) concede the point or 2) dispute it, you take a 90 degree turn to the right and make some loud and (often) obnoxious statement, changing the topic. You know who else uses that same tactic? Bill O'Reilly.

Just because a lot of people say that Democrats are weak on defense (and say it often and loud), it doesn't make it true. Clinton - the last Democrat in power - took what was handed to him and quickly became obsessed with terrorist activities in the middle east and at home, and no less than tripled spending on terrorist prevention while in office. He also was very effective in pre-emptively stopping a lot of activites that would have been front-page news had they been successful. Dead party from long ago? Try 6 years ago.

 

Personally I don't care who thinks what about defense because I almost always disagree with their actions anyway. I'm just pointing out that your arguments aren't very effective. You're smart. You can do better.

 

-Dez

On your first point, you're right...it is my blog, and I set the rules. Second point, why would I cincede a point if I don't agree with the point being made? Most of the points people make are along the lines of, "you'r a republican" or "the president wants to take away our rights." Neither one of those points are true, and I'm not going to conceed them Third, Clinton had a chance to get Osama bin Laden and he passed on him. That's a fact. Fourth, you say I say loud, obmoxious things, but I have to wonder what statements you're talking about?? Are they the statements that you don't agree with?? The ones that don't fit your political veiws?? You haven't been specific. In fact, it seems like you did the same thing in your post that you accused me of doing. Finally, Please don't compare me to Bill o'Rielly. I haven't compared you to Al Gore or Dick Durbin. I find Bill O' Rielly to be disgusting, and not for his political views, but for the way he treats women as objects (kind of like Bill Clinton does).

You say my arguments arent effective, yet you feel the need to come and try to dispute them......maybe they're more effective than you think

Hey DK,

nice try to bring Nick to rational thinking !

IMO it is vain.

But I hope that they are a lot of other people, who have the right to vote, who read your blogs and comments, and who can use them to strengthen their opinions.

Good work Dan !

Old bob

Old Bob, with all due respect, you have no idea how rationally I think. If you ever want to have a debate in chat, I'll break my own promise not to go back in there, and one on one, you and I can debate any topic you'd like. In fact, I'll say that to anyone who wants to debate me, one on one. Not a four on one hit job, but a one on one debate between me and Old Bob, DK or even Dezlboi Any takers???

 

Joe Lieberman isn't a good democrat and you sound like the pages of REDSTATE spouting off about him. I hate to say it...but the Republicans were right about Joe in 2000...he is a sore loser. The democratic voters of his state have spoken, and they chose someone other than him. He lost the election fair and square and he's throwing a pouting fit. The only reason Republicans say that he's 'good' on defense is because he has his nose so far up George Bush's butt it's hard not to mistake them for a gay love affair. (No wonder they turned a blind eye to Foley).

 

Edit to add this:

 

In regards to the leaking of gay Republican staffers, every article/entry I've seen about it reads a lot like this:

Source: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelate...fm?blog_id=9471

 

As a Democrat, I'd like to request an apology for the insult that it's Democrats seeking to out gay staffers for political gain when evidence at this time indicates that it is Republicans and Republican allies who are planning to do this...

On the point about Joe Leiberman, that's for you guys to decide for yourselves. I just think it's funny that you guys all worked to boot him out as a Democrat when it's going to end up costing you that seat. He's going to win it as an independant, and that could mean the difference between winning the senate and not winning it for you guys.

As for the the statement about the republicans being right, I'm never going to let you forget that you said it It could even wind up in a tagline or a signature at some point

As far as the appology, no way....the gay blade isn't exactly a very balanced newpaper, and I'm not taking anything they say seriously. In fact, the only democrat who's spoken out against the outing of gay republicans is Nancy Pelosi, and good for her. Now the rest of them need to follow her lead. In the meanwhile, go read a real gay newsletter, like the Gay Patriot.

Nick,

 

With election approaching, your comments in this thread remind a little of me a long time back. Was I fifteen? Not sure; too young to vote, for sure. I'd received a small printing press on my previous birthday. I could set a few lines of rubber type and then run off copies.

 

The threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union had been on everyone's back burner. All the time. For years. My idea of fun that year: run off thousands of slips of paper reading

BETTER DEAD THAN RED

("RED" as in Red October), and then scatter them around the polling place on election day. It was politically correct but illegal . Great fun overall, I thought at the time.

 

What's the point of this?

 

km

We're still under the threat of a nuclear war...I think we ought to hit first, personally, but maybe that's why I'm not fit to be president....I'd push the button and end the war in Iraq once and for all