Do Democrats have a plan for the future?

[libertarian_knight]

I served with guys who were my age, married, and had TWO children already, what do you call that??

ohh ohh, pick me pick me! I know pick me...........



PATTYCAKE

 

[Caine]

ohh ohh, pick me pick me! I know pick me...........



PATTYCAKE

LOL.....

Actually you know what I call this?

A conserative trying to twist the truth to make his point..

Sorry, didn't work.

 

[libertarian_knight]

LOL.....

Actually you know what I call this?

A conserative trying to twist the truth to make his point..

Sorry, didn't work.

Shh. Careful. Navy Pride called it pattycake. I call it f***ing (or making sweet sweet love).

"You don't always have to F*** her hard
and some times that just not right
to do.
Sometimes you've got to make some love
and give her some f***ing smooches too"

 

[Navy Pride]

What's more old fashion that 10,000 year old cave drawing depicting what people were doing for 10,000 year before that, and longer? People have sex, some people have it often too. It's one of the benefits of being alive. She wasn't stupid, or niave. Can't really be those and expect to serve in the White House can you (unless of course, you're the current preisdent).

Like i said, what's your preference, I'll see if we can arrange something (and NO, not you and I, that's a deal breaker). Not for money either, free.

If you had a 21 year old daughter would you have a problem with her having sex with a 55 year old married man?

 

[libertarian_knight]

If you had a 21 year old daughter would you have a problem with her having sex with a 55 year old married man?

Depends on the man. I'm not a bigot like SOME people.

 

[Navy Pride]

How is it possible for her to be getting it on with slick willie when she was 21, when she did not know him and was not working in Washington yet.

She did not move to Washington until 1995, after she received her degree from a university in Oregon. But, you are right in one case... since Clinton was filmed giving Lewinsky a hug at a fundraising event in 1996, it could be believe that it happened sometime between 1995 and 1996, which would make her 22 or 23 years old.

Not 21.

I see you didn't bother to mention anyone that you knew in the common era who is a grandparent at 27 years old..... so you admit you were wrong????

A lot closer then that then 34 since she is 32 now..Not even close......

 

[Caine]

If you had a 21 year old daughter would you have a problem with her having sex with a 55 year old married man?

There you are again...... where do you get this 21 from???

And, if she were over the age of 18, it is not my responsibility to tell her who and who not to give head to. I may not have to like the man she is with, but its none of my business who she blows, especially if its just something on the side and none of my business.

 

[libertarian_knight]

A lot closer then that then 34 since she is 32 now..Not even close......

Now she's getting old, her youth and vitality are beinging to fade. But she can always look back on some fond memories of how she gave such great head, people were talking about it ten years later.

Has there ever been a more discussed dick sucker on earth?

 

[Caine]

A lot closer then that then 34 since she is 32 now..Not even close......

Who mentioned 34?????

 

[libertarian_knight]

Who mentioned 34?????

Maybe he meant 69 ...

 

[Navy Pride]

Dude... did you think about what you were saying????????
Lewinsky is 32..... Clinton is 59... thats a difference of.... 27..

Do you know any 27 year old men who are grandparents??????

Thats the most ignorant statement Ive ever heard.
Lewinsky was between 22 years old and 26 years old when this happened, I don't remember.... which means she was NOT barely old enough to vote.
You do not know what you are talking about..
So be quiet.

That is there age now, not what it was when he was getting BJs in the oval office..........

 

[Caine]

That is there age now, not what it was when he was getting BJs in the oval office..........

Okay, well, you havn't been reading my other posts, until you do I refuse to comment anymore on your twist.

Again... how many 59 year old men do you know who have 32 year old granddaughters?????????????

The difference in age is 27, which means that Clinton would had to have a granddaughter (not daughter) at the age of 27......
Let see... if Clinton had a child at 14...and his child had a child at 14.. it could be possible.... but that is NOT common, and nearly impossible odds.
So, your claim of her being young enough to be his grand-daughter is a stretch of the truth and normalicy.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Okay, well, you havn't been reading my other posts, until you do I refuse to comment anymore on your twist.

Again... how many 59 year old men do you know who have 32 year old granddaughters?????????????

The difference in age is 27, which means that Clinton would had to have a granddaughter (not daughter) at the age of 27......
Let see... if Clinton had a child at 14...and his child had a child at 14.. it could be possible.... but that is NOT common, and nearly impossible odds.
So, your claim of her being young enough to be his grand-daughter is a stretch of the truth and normalicy.

Clinton's from the south, it's more less likely odds, than near impossible.

Now, if Clinton had a kid at 9, and that kid had a kid at 9, and that kid had a kid at 9, clinton could be a great gandfather 27 years later (or so), and THAT would be rare.

There are plenty of people who were grandparent by age thirty, generally Irish Catholic or Hillbilly.

In reality, Monica was old enough to be Clinton's Grand Daughter's somewhat older friend (twice removed on her he brother's other sister's second father side of course)

 

[Navy Pride]

Okay, well, you havn't been reading my other posts, until you do I refuse to comment anymore on your twist.

Again... how many 59 year old men do you know who have 32 year old granddaughters?????????????

The difference in age is 27, which means that Clinton would had to have a granddaughter (not daughter) at the age of 27......
Let see... if Clinton had a child at 14...and his child had a child at 14.. it could be possible.... but that is NOT common, and nearly impossible odds.
So, your claim of her being young enough to be his grand-daughter is a stretch of the truth and normalicy.

Clinton is 59 now............not then........Man your to dense I give up on you........

 

[libertarian_knight]

Clinton is 59 now............not then........Man your to dense I give up on you........

So between then and now, did the difference in age between monica and clinton change? Did she age faster or slower than he did?

 

[Navy Pride]

Stop the smoke and mirrors and tell me what the dems plans are..........

 

[Caine]

So between then and now, did the difference in age between monica and clinton change? Did she age faster or slower than he did?

I dont think he gets it....

 

[libertarian_knight]

Stop the smoke and mirrors and tell me what the dems plans are..........

listen to you, so cute when you're bossy. "Tell me!" Tell you or WHAT? you'll have a hissy fit?

"Momma, tell me where babies come from! Tell me now, or I'll whoop dat a$$. TELL ME TELL ME TELL ME."

http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

Here is a pacifier. Now use the brain God tried to give you.

(Mind you, of course, it's not a good plan. Government plans usually are never Good. F.A. Hayek warned us about Governmnet plans. Rep Plan, Dem Plan, Same plan. The "F*** America Plan"

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If you had a 21 year old daughter would you have a problem with her having sex with a 55 year old married man?

No, I wouldn't have a problem with that. He'd have a problem with me.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

Whew! I thought I was going to have to go back and post that again for you.

How the Democrats plan to screw America...er the Dems Plans to get power back:

Keeping America Safe at Home
A bunch of nonsense about a "fair" immigration reform. Whatever that is. The necessary immigration reform involves issuing temporary work visas only to persons with active sponsorship from a US employer, and they can only be issued in the persons nation of origin to applicants providing the application in person in that nation. The reform will include jailing and fining employers of illegals, it will include mining the principle border crossing points, it will include RPV patrols, helicopter patrols, streamlined kick-em back policies along the lines of "not a citizen? adios". And "anchor babies" will become a curiously archaic term instead of a horrid reality.

Neither political party has what it takes to halt the invasion and repair the immigration policy. That's why America will soon face riots like France and Australia enjoyed recently.


Strength Overseas
Our strength overseas will not be enhanced by kissing France's butt, or any other European socialist failure.

And following the Democrats plan of cutting and running from Iraq will ensure for decades our reputation as a half-assed cowardly nation that won't stand for it's ideals or fight it's enemies.

Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families
Let's see what happens when the obvious happens. The market based way of increasing enlistment rates is to raise the pay and benefits of the enlistee. That ain't gonna happen from either side.

Frankly, the Democrats have a 100% negative credibility when it comes to responding to the needs of servicemen or supporting the mission of defending the United States. Let'em spend two decades purging themselves of the traitors currently leading the party and actively supporting real reforms, then we can reconsider this assessment of their sincerity.

(Note: I know damn good and well about Bush's cutting of veteran's benefits also, what I say against Democrats is not automatically supportive of the other socialist party)

A Strong Economy
A strong economy can't be had so long as the producers of wealth are viewed as criminals suitable for excessive taxation. I have a plecostamus that's learned to suck the slime coat off my koi. He's turned into a parasite, just like the Democrats. The plecostamus's days are numbered. Too bad the same can't be said about the Democrat ideals.

Market forces determine if wages are "high" or not, not Demcrats. People that think otherwise think printing presses create money.

Democrats had every opportunity to show their budget sensitivity in the years since Reagan got elected. They have every opportunity, every year, to vote against what is now Republican pork and waste. They don't. They make speeches against it in the media, they vote for it on the floors of the House and Senate.

The word is "free" trade, not "fair" trade. The Dems could try learning the difference.

Education
Dems are against education because they support public schools. Socialists are always opposed to true education. A truly educated man can see the lies of socialism.

Retirement Security
If the Dems supported security in retirement, they'd work to get the government out of the retirement business. What the Dems are after is senior dependency as a source of a secure voting block.

Responsibility
The Dems let Clinton off the impeachment hook. They have no concept about reponsibility. Their recent history is all about dodging responsibility.

So much for them.

I wonder if any Repubs posted their "plan" on the parallel thread?

 

[Caine]

Whew! I thought I was going to have to go back and post that again for you.

How the Democrats plan to screw America...er the Dems Plans to get power back:

Keeping America Safe at Home
A bunch of nonsense about a "fair" immigration reform. Whatever that is. The necessary immigration reform involves issuing temporary work visas only to persons with active sponsorship from a US employer, and they can only be issued in the persons nation of origin to applicants providing the application in person in that nation. The reform will include jailing and fining employers of illegals, it will include mining the principle border crossing points, it will include RPV patrols, helicopter patrols, streamlined kick-em back policies along the lines of "not a citizen? adios". And "anchor babies" will become a curiously archaic term instead of a horrid reality.

Neither political party has what it takes to halt the invasion and repair the immigration policy. That's why America will soon face riots like France and Australia enjoyed recently.


Strength Overseas
Our strength overseas will not be enhanced by kissing France's butt, or any other European socialist failure.

And following the Democrats plan of cutting and running from Iraq will ensure for decades our reputation as a half-assed cowardly nation that won't stand for it's ideals or fight it's enemies.

Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families
Let's see what happens when the obvious happens. The market based way of increasing enlistment rates is to raise the pay and benefits of the enlistee. That ain't gonna happen from either side.

Frankly, the Democrats have a 100% negative credibility when it comes to responding to the needs of servicemen or supporting the mission of defending the United States. Let'em spend two decades purging themselves of the traitors currently leading the party and actively supporting real reforms, then we can reconsider this assessment of their sincerity.

(Note: I know damn good and well about Bush's cutting of veteran's benefits also, what I say against Democrats is not automatically supportive of the other socialist party)

A Strong Economy
A strong economy can't be had so long as the producers of wealth are viewed as criminals suitable for excessive taxation. I have a plecostamus that's learned to suck the slime coat off my koi. He's turned into a parasite, just like the Democrats. The plecostamus's days are numbered. Too bad the same can't be said about the Democrat ideals.

Market forces determine if wages are "high" or not, not Demcrats. People that think otherwise think printing presses create money.

Democrats had every opportunity to show their budget sensitivity in the years since Reagan got elected. They have every opportunity, every year, to vote against what is now Republican pork and waste. They don't. They make speeches against it in the media, they vote for it on the floors of the House and Senate.

The word is "free" trade, not "fair" trade. The Dems could try learning the difference.

Education
Dems are against education because they support public schools. Socialists are always opposed to true education. A truly educated man can see the lies of socialism.

Retirement Security
If the Dems supported security in retirement, they'd work to get the government out of the retirement business. What the Dems are after is senior dependency as a source of a secure voting block.

Responsibility
The Dems let Clinton off the impeachment hook. They have no concept about reponsibility. Their recent history is all about dodging responsibility.

So much for them.

I wonder if any Repubs posted their "plan" on the parallel thread?

Wow... Genius Just Genuis

So whats YOUR plan for Education???
Whats YOUR plan to increase Military Enlistment?
Whats YOUR plan for Social Security... which I think I already know, and in that case, Whats YOUR plan to control poverty?

Clinton WAS Impeached... or did you know? He wasn't removed from office is all.

On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

So....... The Dems did it? 10 Republicans voted NOT GUILTY.... for the Article 1 charges... I don't have any info on specifics but, its obvious they didn't vote on party lines for Article 3 either.

 

[Caine]

ALLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Akbar......

Whats YOUR plan for the Economy?
Tell me when a Democrat specifically used the words, "Cut and Run".... thats more ignorant conservative rhetoric, and thus, bears no weight in this debate. Its just a mind control tactic.

Democrats believe that strong international alliances are the cornerstone of our foreign policy.

And your un-informed and brainwashed interpretation of that equals.....

Our strength overseas will not be enhanced by kissing France's butt, or any other European socialist failure.

'Nuff Said on your Conservative Rhetoric Controled Mind.

 

[ptsdkid]

ALLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Akbar......

Whats YOUR plan for the Economy?
Tell me when a Democrat specifically used the words, "Cut and Run".... thats more ignorant conservative rhetoric, and thus, bears no weight in this debate. Its just a mind control tactic.

And your un-informed and brainwashed interpretation of that equals.....


'Nuff Said on your Conservative Rhetoric Controled Mind.

The reason you hear conservatives use the term 'cut and run' because we need to put the liberal words into their proper perspective. The liberal intent has been to fool the American people by placing fear and impatient demands on any Republican administration. The opposite of what the Dems say of cut and run is to stay and fight--a strategy that Bush has outlined from day one. Murtha says we must cut and run and Dean says we can't win the war. Stop playing semantics here McCaine, tell it like it is. The liberal exit strategy (that they've been harping on for months/years) is to cut and run. Bush's exit strategy (as is the case in every war) is to win the war. How many times does he have to outline his strategy in order for you liberals to get the message that he won't cut and run like you defeatists?

 

[Stace]

The reason you hear conservatives use the term 'cut and run' because we need to put the liberal words into their proper perspective. The liberal intent has been to fool the American people by placing fear and impatient demands on any Republican administration. The opposite of what the Dems say of cut and run is to stay and fight--a strategy that Bush has outlined from day one. Murtha says we must cut and run and Dean says we can't win the war. Stop playing semantics here McCaine, tell it like it is. The liberal exit strategy (that they've been harping on for months/years) is to cut and run. Bush's exit strategy (as is the case in every war) is to win the war. How many times does he have to outline his strategy in order for you liberals to get the message that he won't cut and run like you defeatists?

How about, instead of trying to twist around what people say, you listen to the words that actually come out of their mouth and take them at face value? I have not heard one single Democrat suggest that we pull our troops out tomorrow. They just want a reasonable estimation of when we can expect to start withdrawing the troops. That's not too much to ask.

The Dems use fear tactics????? That's funny. That's really funny.

Bush's strategy is to win the war? And which war is that, exactly? Because we already know that his excuses for invading Iraq were false. So remind me why we're there again? And there's also that War on Terror, and let's not forget Afghanistan, either. So could you be a little more specific?

 

[Caine]

The reason you hear conservatives use the term 'cut and run' because we need to put the liberal words into their proper perspective. The liberal intent has been to fool the American people by placing fear and impatient demands on any Republican administration. The opposite of what the Dems say of cut and run is to stay and fight--a strategy that Bush has outlined from day one. Murtha says we must cut and run and Dean says we can't win the war. Stop playing semantics here McCaine, tell it like it is. The liberal exit strategy (that they've been harping on for months/years) is to cut and run. Bush's exit strategy (as is the case in every war) is to win the war. How many times does he have to outline his strategy in order for you liberals to get the message that he won't cut and run like you defeatists?

Hmm.. since you tried to pick up questions directed at Akhbar........

Tell me one Democrat who specifically said "We want to cut and run."

You can't, cause they didn't say it, "Cut and Run" is a term coined by the Conservatives in order to make the Democrats look like defeatists. (like you in the VA benefits issue).
The Democrats are looking for an outline of a plan. A plan on ending this conflict. The war is not winnable... BY OUR MILITARY. The only way that we can declare victory in this conflict is if the Iraqi government get set up and they are able to defend themselves without our assistant. This has nothing to do with our military, as they are not the ones who run the Iraqi government/elections etc.

This "cut and run" term is something created by the Republicans, not the Democrats. They want an exit strategy.... they want to be able to tell America that thier sons and daughters aren't going to be in Iraq until a date TBD. If we stay forever, we will be there forever. The Terrorist Ideology will NOT DIE OUT. The only way they will be defeated is if a government is set up and thier defense forces are stable. THAT is the plan they are asking for, they want to know that we have goals set up for obtaining the proper Iraqi troop levels, etc. This "cut and run" propaganda was created by Republicans.

Defeatist.... Thats you because you have refused to respond to some of messages in other threads.