• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President hits new lows in poll

scottyz said:
Shouldn't military action be the least desirable of options?

You think the U.S. government isn't shady? Making up the Gulf of Tonkin incident and consequenty getting 50,000 americans killed was for the greater good? The lies, coverups and what have you are done to keep politicians and their buddies out of prison, not for the greater good of the people.

Desire has nothing to do with it. If it has to happen then so be it.

I believe I'm the one that made the statement about our government being shady, therefore, what was the sense in asking me if I thought the U.S. Government isn't shady? I think the U.S. government does what it does for the people in spite of their hindering and whining and what ever screw ups happen along the way is the price of doing business. Vietnam was a battle field against the spread of Soviet Communism. Do you even know anything about the war in Vietnam and why we were there or do you just allow yourself to get caught up in the bumper sticker slogans and hype?
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Desire has nothing to do with it. If it has to happen then so be it.

I believe I'm the one that made the statement about our government being shady, therefore, what was the sense in asking me if I thought the U.S. Government isn't shady? I think the U.S. government does what it does for the people in spite of their hindering and whining and what ever screw ups happen along the way is the price of doing business. Vietnam was a battle field against the spread of Soviet Communism. Do you even know anything about the war in Vietnam and why we were there or do you just allow yourself to get caught up in the bumper sticker slogans and hype?

And we lost it, and what happened? Nothing.

It's like the Korean war. What was the point of that? If we would have never fought it, what did we stand to lose? Kia?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And we lost it, and what happened? Nothing.

It's like the Korean war. What was the point of that? If we would have never fought it, what did we stand to lose? Kia?

In those days people thought Communism was the doctrine of Satan etc. Laughable when you look back on it. I believe California was preparing itself for a Soviet Invasion at one point. Crazy hysterical stuff.

The main reason why I though the Vietnam war was wrong because the majority of the South Vietnamese wanted to be communist. The Vietcong were made up of South Vietnamese, not North Vietnamese.
Also the Vietnam war SPREAD communism to Laos and Cambodia. Making it a defeat.

The war was lost because of the morale of the troops, Vietcong cunning and inventiveness, American complacency over her enemies and the media.

Sun Tsu - Know Thy Enemy

In some respects Iraq and Vietnam DO have some parallels.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And we lost it, and what happened? Nothing.

It's like the Korean war. What was the point of that? If we would have never fought it, what did we stand to lose? Kia?

Wow. Life's not just about you. I know liberals like to think that. Crack a book......

The lessons of Vietnam should be remembered and in some ways they have been. The Government learned that war should fall on the responsibility of the tactics and know how of the military, not the politics and the hinderence of Washington. The 'protestor' has evolved from "baby killer" to "Support the troop, not the war", which is merely a politically correct way of spitting, but it is nicer.

But the greatest lesson that should be learned is the notion of "roll back." This was a term that strategists used with regards to our fight against communism at the time. Because of the vast expansion of global communism, "Roll back" is not what occurred, rather than a hold back of communism. In fact, "roll back" was ahead of it's time; more suited for today's and tomorrow's fight against Fundamental Islam. (More on this at your request.)

Soviet Communism was not defeated by attacking Moscow. Instead it was combatted on battle fields like Korea and Vietnam. It was diplomatically backed off in Cuba. It was indirectly repelled in Afghanistan. It was held behind a cement wall with American troops stationed on the other side. Victory didn't come from a conventional surrender rather than an economic break down through several different levels of competition with the West.

Vietnam specifically....After their defeat after WWII, the Japanese withdrew back to Japan leaving a vacuume of power in Vietnam. The French returned to re-establish a colonial power and their war soon emerged. In 1954, the war was ended and Vietnam was divided into two by Geneva. The north (controlled by Ho Chi Minh) was communist and the south was non-communist. In 1956, the north, with the support of China and the Soviet Union, attacked into the south. Enter America's involvement to protect the non-communist portion of Vietnam. During America's involvement, the American soldier had to deal with abuses from his own countrymen and from his own government's politics. Traitors like Jane Fonda went to entertain the enemy as an apologetic voice of the mass of protesters to ensure that the Soviet and Chinese backed Cambodians (controlled by Pol-Pot) and the North Vietnamese understood that it was not they that stood between them and their goals of oppression. In the end, Vietnam was not won, but nor was it lost. With every battlefield won and an estimated 15 times the enemy deaths, America just simply left. Our restricting government and the dispicable acts of our citizens and their inescapable abilities to focus on sole tragedies given through reporters who sided with our civilian populace, effectively destroyed any chance the American soldier would have had otherwise.

Oh yeah, remember the South Vietnamese, who we went to save in the first place? The South Vietnamese Army could not cope with the North Vietnamese forces once the bulk of the American troops had pulled out. The North Vietnamese changed their tactics by launching a full scale attack against the South which all but wilted under the onslaught. In 1973, all sides agreed to a cease fire during which the remaining American troops would have to be withdrawn and all POW's would have to be released. It was agreed that Vietnam would be "eventually reunited". By the end of 1973, America was completely out of Vietnam. The ceasefire lasted no time at all and the North attacked what was left of the South's army. By April 1975, Saigon, the capitol of South Vietnam was renamed Ho-Chi Minh City. Pol-Pot went on to declare 'Year Zero' and directed a ruthless program to "purify" Cambodian society of capitalism, Western culture, religion and all foreign influences in favor of an isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state. He went on to work or starve to death, and just plain slaughter around 3 million in Cambodia.

People ignorantly call our Vietnam war veterans and the war a disgrace and parade around that they "lost" it as if it was some protester achievement. Well, they are right about their achievement. The only thing that was a disgrace was what the South Vietnames and Cambodians were subjected to after the American protestor gave the Soviet Union, China, Pol-Pot, and Ho-Chi Minh their victory.
 
Last edited:
GarzaUK said:
In those days people thought Communism was the doctrine of Satan etc. Laughable when you look back on it. I believe California was preparing itself for a Soviet Invasion at one point. Crazy hysterical stuff.

The main reason why I though the Vietnam war was wrong because the majority of the South Vietnamese wanted to be communist. The Vietcong were made up of South Vietnamese, not North Vietnamese.
Also the Vietnam war SPREAD communism to Laos and Cambodia. Making it a defeat.

The war was lost because of the morale of the troops, Vietcong cunning and inventiveness, American complacency over her enemies and the media.

Sun Tsu - Know Thy Enemy

In some respects Iraq and Vietnam DO have some parallels.

You should crack a book too....

It's extremely laughable to a person that didn't have to suffer under a communist regime, isn't it. I bet Naziism was a hoot to the masses that weren't burned alive either. The majority of South Vietnam did not "want" communism and the majority of Iraq do not want militant oppresive Islamic rule. You are speaking for the insurgency of foreign fighters and the fraction of Sunni locals who used to support the Baathist Party. Of course the spread of militant Islam doesn't effect Europe, so I'm sure that's funny too.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Wow. Life's not just about you. I know liberals like to think that. Crack a book......

The lessons of Vietnam should be remembered and in some ways they have been. The Government learned that war should fall on the responsibility of the tactics and know how of the military, not the politics and the hinderence of Washington. The 'protestor' has evolved from "baby killer" to "Support the troop, not the war", which is merely a politically correct way of spitting, but it is nicer.

But the greatest lesson that should be learned is the notion of "roll back." This was a term that strategists used with regards to our fight against communism at the time. Because of the vast expansion of global communism, "Roll back" is not what occurred, rather than a hold back of communism. In fact, "roll back" was ahead of it's time; more suited for today's and tomorrow's fight against Fundamental Islam. (More on this at your request.)

Soviet Communism was not defeated by attacking Moscow. Instead it was combatted on battle fields like Korea and Vietnam. It was diplomatically backed off in Cuba. It was indirectly repelled in Afghanistan. It was held behind a cement wall with American troops stationed on the other side. Victory didn't come from a conventional surrender rather than an economic break down through several different levels of competition with the West.

Vietnam specifically....After their defeat after WWII, the Japanese withdrew back to Japan leaving a vacuume of power in Vietnam. The French returned to re-establish a colonial power and their war soon emerged. In 1954, the war was ended and Vietnam was divided into two by Geneva. The north (controlled by Ho Chi Minh) was communist and the south was non-communist. In 1956, the north, with the support of China and the Soviet Union, attacked into the south. Enter America's involvement to protect the non-communist portion of Vietnam. During America's involvement, the American soldier had to deal with abuses from his own countrymen and from his own government's politics. Traitors like Jane Fonda went to entertain the enemy as an apologetic voice of the mass of protesters to ensure that the Soviet and Chinese backed Cambodians (controlled by Pol-Pot) and the North Vietnamese understood that it was not they that stood between them and their goals of oppression. In the end, Vietnam was not won, but nor was it lost. With every battlefield won and an estimated 15 times the enemy deaths, America just simply left. Our restricting government and the dispicable acts of our citizens and their inescapable abilities to focus on sole tragedies given through reporters who sided with our civilian populace, effectively destroyed any chance the American soldier would have had otherwise.

Oh yeah, remember the South Vietnamese, who we went to save in the first place? The South Vietnamese Army could not cope with the North Vietnamese forces once the bulk of the American troops had pulled out. The North Vietnamese changed their tactics by launching a full scale attack against the South which all but wilted under the onslaught. In 1973, all sides agreed to a cease fire during which the remaining American troops would have to be withdrawn and all POW's would have to be released. It was agreed that Vietnam would be "eventually reunited". By the end of 1973, America was completely out of Vietnam. The ceasefire lasted no time at all and the North attacked what was left of the South's army. By April 1975, Saigon, the capitol of South Vietnam was renamed Ho-Chi Minh City. Pol-Pot went on to declare 'Year Zero' and directed a ruthless program to "purify" Cambodian society of capitalism, Western culture, religion and all foreign influences in favor of an isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state. He went on to work or starve to death, and just plain slaughter around 3 million in Cambodia.

People ignorantly call our Vietnam war veterans and the war a disgrace and parade around that they "lost" it as if it was some protester achievement. Well, they are right about their achievement. The only thing that was a disgrace was what the South Vietnames and Cambodians were subjected to after the American protestor gave the Soviet Union, China, Pol-Pot, and Ho-Chi Minh their victory.

See I thought Communism was defeated by the fact that it does not work. More than anything, like all empires it was good old economics that was the Soviet Unions down fall.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
See I thought Communism was defeated by the fact that it does not work. More than anything, like all empires it was good old economics that was the Soviet Unions down fall.

Like I said...."Victory didn't come from a conventional surrender rather than an economic break down through several different levels of competition with the West."

This means constanly having to support it's wars against the west while they attempted to spread and trying to support an internal government that was widely corrupt.
 
GySgt said:
Desire has nothing to do with it. If it has to happen then so be it.

I believe I'm the one that made the statement about our government being shady, therefore, what was the sense in asking me if I thought the U.S. Government isn't shady? I think the U.S. government does what it does for the people in spite of their hindering and whining and what ever screw ups happen along the way is the price of doing business. Vietnam was a battle field against the spread of Soviet Communism. Do you even know anything about the war in Vietnam and why we were there or do you just allow yourself to get caught up in the bumper sticker slogans and hype?
So the government has a right to be shady because that's the price of doing business? :rofl :rofl Screw ups like thousands of dead americans is just the acceptable price of lies and coverups to save a few politicians asses? You sound like Stalin.

Bumper sticker slogan and hype? :rofl :rofl Typical cop out.
 
GySgt said:
Like I said...."Victory didn't come from a conventional surrender rather than an economic break down through several different levels of competition with the West."

This means constanly having to support it's wars against the west while they attempted to spread and trying to support an internal government that was widely corrupt.

Oh, and:

I am not a liberal, at least not nearly as liberal as most liberals especially in terms of economics.

I love history and I read a lot and I find that when it comes to ignorance of history, nothing tops most of the radical right.
 
scottyz said:
So the government has a right to be shady because that's the price of doing business? :rofl :rofl Screw ups like thousands of dead americans is just the acceptable price of lies and coverups to save a few politicians asses? You sound like Stalin.

Bumper sticker slogan and hype? :rofl :rofl Typical cop out.


It's a fact of life. When you die of old age, you will look around and see that nothing's changed and you'll look back and reflect on the freedom and securities it provided you your whole life.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Oh, and:

I am not a liberal, at least not nearly as liberal as most liberals especially in terms of economics.

I love history and I read a lot and I find that when it comes to ignorance of history, nothing tops most of the radical right.


Not a liberal? Funny, your posts suggest otherwise.

Radical right? I'm radical military. Whatever that means to you.

I am also a big fan of history. And not just what is written in text books.
 
GySgt said:
Not a liberal? Funny, your posts suggest otherwise.

Radical right? I'm radical military. Whatever that means to you.

I am also a big fan of history. And not just what is written in text books.

Which post suggest that I have a liberal ideology?

I never suggested you were ultra-right wing. I just said that I think that most liberals are better students of history than those ultra-right wingers who make claims like "We declared war on germany in World War II" or "JFK was soft on defense" or "JFK was a conservative" or "FDR was a communist". Basically repeating the Ann Coulter talking points without ever having picked up a history book in their life.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Which post suggest that I have a liberal ideology?

I never suggested you were ultra-right wing. I just said that I think that most liberals are better students of history than those ultra-right wingers who make claims like "We declared war on germany in World War II" or "JFK was soft on defense" or "JFK was a conservative" or "FDR was a communist". Basically repeating the Ann Coulter talking points without ever having picked up a history book in their life.

"we declared war on Germany" is a twist of ideology of what the parties used to stand for.

FDR was a communist? Who said that?

JFK was a conservative? Who said this?
 
GySgt said:
"we declared war on Germany" is a twist of ideology of what the parties used to stand for.

FDR was a communist? Who said that?

JFK was a conservative? Who said this?

I have heard conservative movement conservatives make those arguments many times. I can't think of how many times I have heard right wingers say that we declared war on Germany even though Germany did not attack us. When in fact, we declared war on Japan, and Japan's ally, Germany, then declared war on the United States.

FDR's social programs were designed to socially combat communist movements in America. Had FDR not have pushed through such a progressive agenda, we had a strong possibility of a communist revolution in America during the great depression. And JFK was strong on defense, but was more liberal than any Democratic President other than LBJ on almost every other issue, since the time he was in office.

Anytime you get ultra-libs or ultra-conservatives, you are going to get revisionist versions of history (and in the case of ultra-cons, a lot of times u get junk science as well)
 
The link is broken therefore I can't verify what areas of the country were polled.

I wouldn't be surprised if these polls were exclusive to the coastal states.

I don't put much stock in poles anyway.

73 percent of all statistics are made up you know.
 
KidRocks said:
It's actually quite scary how most of the military have become dependents of the Republican Party. They have been whipped into a frenzy by the mentality of "you are either with us or against us" which is of course, technically, a false dilemma logical fallacy in order order to polarize situations and force the issue.

Hitler might have used such tactics to beat the opposition into submission I believe.

As for that one Marine, well, he is instantly labeled as "un-American".

It is called brainwashing. Hitler was very good at it and the military has adopted his strategy very well.
 
Old and wise said:
It is called brainwashing. Hitler was very good at it and the military has adopted his strategy very well.
Godwin's law is alive and well...
 
GySgt said:
The lessons of Vietnam should be remembered and in some ways they have been. The Government learned that war should fall on the responsibility of the tactics and know how of the military, not the politics and the hinderence of Washington. The 'protestor' has evolved from "baby killer" to "Support the troop, not the war", which is merely a politically correct way of spitting, but it is nicer.

But the greatest lesson that should be learned is the notion of "roll back." This was a term that strategists used with regards to our fight against communism at the time. Because of the vast expansion of global communism, "Roll back" is not what occurred, rather than a hold back of communism. In fact, "roll back" was ahead of it's time; more suited for today's and tomorrow's fight against Fundamental Islam. (More on this at your request.)

Soviet Communism was not defeated by attacking Moscow. Instead it was combatted on battle fields like Korea and Vietnam. It was diplomatically backed off in Cuba. It was indirectly repelled in Afghanistan. It was held behind a cement wall with American troops stationed on the other side. Victory didn't come from a conventional surrender rather than an economic break down through several different levels of competition with the West.

Vietnam specifically....After their defeat after WWII, the Japanese withdrew back to Japan leaving a vacuume of power in Vietnam. The French returned to re-establish a colonial power and their war soon emerged. In 1954, the war was ended and Vietnam was divided into two by Geneva. The north (controlled by Ho Chi Minh) was communist and the south was non-communist. In 1956, the north, with the support of China and the Soviet Union, attacked into the south. Enter America's involvement to protect the non-communist portion of Vietnam. During America's involvement, the American soldier had to deal with abuses from his own countrymen and from his own government's politics. Traitors like Jane Fonda went to entertain the enemy as an apologetic voice of the mass of protesters to ensure that the Soviet and Chinese backed Cambodians (controlled by Pol-Pot) and the North Vietnamese understood that it was not they that stood between them and their goals of oppression. In the end, Vietnam was not won, but nor was it lost. With every battlefield won and an estimated 15 times the enemy deaths, America just simply left. Our restricting government and the dispicable acts of our citizens and their inescapable abilities to focus on sole tragedies given through reporters who sided with our civilian populace, effectively destroyed any chance the American soldier would have had otherwise.

Oh yeah, remember the South Vietnamese, who we went to save in the first place? The South Vietnamese Army could not cope with the North Vietnamese forces once the bulk of the American troops had pulled out. The North Vietnamese changed their tactics by launching a full scale attack against the South which all but wilted under the onslaught. In 1973, all sides agreed to a cease fire during which the remaining American troops would have to be withdrawn and all POW's would have to be released. It was agreed that Vietnam would be "eventually reunited". By the end of 1973, America was completely out of Vietnam. The ceasefire lasted no time at all and the North attacked what was left of the South's army. By April 1975, Saigon, the capitol of South Vietnam was renamed Ho-Chi Minh City. Pol-Pot went on to declare 'Year Zero' and directed a ruthless program to "purify" Cambodian society of capitalism, Western culture, religion and all foreign influences in favor of an isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state. He went on to work or starve to death, and just plain slaughter around 3 million in Cambodia.

People ignorantly call our Vietnam war veterans and the war a disgrace and parade around that they "lost" it as if it was some protester achievement. Well, they are right about their achievement. The only thing that was a disgrace was what the South Vietnames and Cambodians were subjected to after the American protestor gave the Soviet Union, China, Pol-Pot, and Ho-Chi Minh their victory.

Good summary Gunny!
 
kal-el said:
Yes, the last poll I seen had him pegged at 36% I believe. O man, Nixon's was at 39% at the height of the Watertgate Scandal. That should tell you something.

Interesting piece of knowledge :mrgreen:
 
GySgt said:
You should crack a book too....

It's extremely laughable to a person that didn't have to suffer under a communist regime, isn't it. I bet Naziism was a hoot to the masses that weren't burned alive either. The majority of South Vietnam did not "want" communism and the majority of Iraq do not want militant oppresive Islamic rule. You are speaking for the insurgency of foreign fighters and the fraction of Sunni locals who used to support the Baathist Party. Of course the spread of militant Islam doesn't effect Europe, so I'm sure that's funny too.

We're talking about Vietnam and you attack me about Iraq? Did I mention Iraq?

If the people of South Vietnam were so pro-capitalist, why did the US install a puppet dictator instead of a democracy? Why did the Vietcong get so much support from the locals?
I know some US schools still teach "it was a draw" and "we would have won if..", but come on seriously. It is a noble thing to admit when you are beaten.

If the Vietnam War was about freedom and against opression, installing puppet dictators is a bit hypocritical.

Don't get me wrong a respect the sacrifice those men did in that war and those men did not deserve the treatment they got when they got home for what a few uncouth soldiers did. But unfortunate your worst enemy was your own government.
 
GarzaUK said:
We're talking about Vietnam and you attack me about Iraq? Did I mention Iraq?

If the people of South Vietnam were so pro-capitalist, why did the US install a puppet dictator instead of a democracy? Why did the Vietcong get so much support from the locals?
I know some US schools still teach "it was a draw" and "we would have won if..", but come on seriously. It is a noble thing to admit when you are beaten.

If the Vietnam War was about freedom and against opression, installing puppet dictators is a bit hypocritical.

Don't get me wrong a respect the sacrifice those men did in that war and those men did not deserve the treatment they got when they got home for what a few uncouth soldiers did. But unfortunate your worst enemy was your own government.

"In some respects Iraq and Vietnam DO have some parallels." As you can see..you did mention Iraq.

There was no puppet dictator. This is an "opinion" based on what you heard or on what fits the popular sentiment. Denying the facts of what happened, because it fits into your views on American tyranny does not do you service. The American Government and the political strings being pulled by protesters was our worst enemy. They inadvertasntly sided with the VC.

The People's Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF), more popularly known as the Viet Cong (VC), was the military arm of the National Liberation Front (NLF). Established at the end of 1960, the VC was created by the North Vietnamese communists to escalate the armed struggle in South Vietnam. The Viet Cong were organized into three levels: regular forces operating under the command of the southern communist leadership, full time guerrillas organized into companies serving under provincial leadership and finally, a part time self-defense militia, composed of units organized into squads and platoons used primarily for village defense. Primarily, the VC were guerrillas, and it has been said that no one has ever developed an adequate defense against guerrilla warfare. They wore no uniforms, dressed in the same type of clothing as the local peasants, and blended into the landscape when their mission was complete. The VC would periodically launch hit-and-run attacks on government installations, military outposts and even district towns in the South. Its most celebrated victory was at the village of Ap Bac in early 1963, when VC soldiers inflicted heavy casualties on the Southern Vietnamese units. The VC also played a primary role in the Tet offensive in early 1968, where they attacked villages, towns and cities in the South.

The south was lost, because Americans didn't back the mission and we simply left. Unless we can stabilize that country beforte the next two years, the same thing is quite possibly going to happen to the Iraqis. Like I said...crack a book.
 
obviously, you two have never been in the military and don't know what you are talking about.
 
The south was lost, because Americans didn't back the mission and we simply left. Unless we can stabilize that country beforte the next two years, the same thing is quite possibly going to happen to the Iraqis. Like I said...crack a book.[/QUOTE]

Does this mean you'd support bring our guys home if things don't improve over the next two years? It'd be good to have you on our side, better late than never.
 
GySgt said:
"In some respects Iraq and Vietnam DO have some parallels." As you can see..you did mention Iraq.

There was no puppet dictator. This is an "opinion" based on what you heard or on what fits the popular sentiment. Denying the facts of what happened, because it fits into your views on American tyranny does not do you service. The American Government and the political strings being pulled by protesters was our worst enemy. They inadvertasntly sided with the VC.

The People's Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF), more popularly known as the Viet Cong (VC), was the military arm of the National Liberation Front (NLF). Established at the end of 1960, the VC was created by the North Vietnamese communists to escalate the armed struggle in South Vietnam. The Viet Cong were organized into three levels: regular forces operating under the command of the southern communist leadership, full time guerrillas organized into companies serving under provincial leadership and finally, a part time self-defense militia, composed of units organized into squads and platoons used primarily for village defense. Primarily, the VC were guerrillas, and it has been said that no one has ever developed an adequate defense against guerrilla warfare. They wore no uniforms, dressed in the same type of clothing as the local peasants, and blended into the landscape when their mission was complete. The VC would periodically launch hit-and-run attacks on government installations, military outposts and even district towns in the South. Its most celebrated victory was at the village of Ap Bac in early 1963, when VC soldiers inflicted heavy casualties on the Southern Vietnamese units. The VC also played a primary role in the Tet offensive in early 1968, where they attacked villages, towns and cities in the South.

The south was lost, because Americans didn't back the mission and we simply left. Unless we can stabilize that country beforte the next two years, the same thing is quite possibly going to happen to the Iraqis. Like I said...crack a book.

I would argue that there are a lot more parallels between the war in Iraq, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan, than there are between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, they just didnt see how that affected anyone but his wife and kid.

When will you right wingers get it. Joe Blow American just wants his beer on sunday, a strong economy and the government out of his bedroom. Thats it.





No.....that is NOT correct! Average Joe Blow is sick of the leftwing media's fabricated crackpot conspiracy stories, the Bush bashing every minute, the liberal whackos who believe in appeasement, pacifism, the blame America first mentality, race pandering for votes, victim mentality, the homosexual agenda, & the liberal courts!

That is why the DNC has only mustered 1-democratic president since Jimmy Carter. Of course Clinton being a strait faced liar in pretending to be a centrist did pay some dividends.

The truth is, & has always been "liberals" really can NEVER campaign on "who" they really are, ..or "what" they really represent & expect to win.

One cannot even be a regular democrat anymore, & expect to win because regular democrats have been told to STFU & go to the back of the bus, as their liberal whacko bossess give them NO voice.

Liberals LOVE polls, & plan their lives around them accordingly as they believe that things like morality, decency, & traditional values should not ever be "absolute", ..& forever be always changing that best represents what "they" call freedom, & rights!

And.....don't we all know what they are by now too:

Mainstreaming homosexuality as normal but different, calling the murder of developing babies "Family Planning", loving appeasement & pacifism, despising your own government & military IF in charge by anybody BUT them, embracing socialistic doctrine, excusing crime by way of socio/economic conditions, creating phoney focus groups to pander to for votes, the constant race baiting, & developing of class envy.

AND, the successful use of their long time liberal media friends to help establish the forever on going conspiritorial theories, & creating the nonsensical fear of everybody losing their rights hogwash.

"They" assume quite incorrectly that "they" speak for the majority; & that also explains why ''THEY" keep losing elections.

When will leftwingers "ever" get it, ..."THEY" do not represent the majority, & in fact NEVER did & NEVER will! :smile:

But of course "Their" explanation for election losses has to involve more conspiratorial theories like fixed elections, ..cause' they are much too arrogant to concede that their ideology is much too f-ed up to ever be appealing to the mainstream majority.

"They" just want people to "THINK" that they are the mainstream, ...but NOTHING could ever be so far from the truth.

The mainstream majority of America does "get it", ..& that is WHY liberals control damn little in the house, the senate, & the presidency anymore.

This does not mean that they are happy in all that Bush & the republicans do, ...its just that they know it is far more preferrable than what the liberal agenda has to offer!

Once the liberal whackos whom are filled with hate & rage are thrown out from the DNC leadership roles, & they adopt some serious platforms that can appeal to the "average american" perhaps the average Joe Blow will help make the democratic party as great as it "ONCE" was.

Until the democratic party gets out of its "denial" mode, ..it will be shyte outta luck, & the poll numbers translate into diddly squat as Bush is not running for any office.

What on earth will the DNC do, or say AFTER they lose the 08' election, ..& they WILL!

I can almost hear it now, "The RNC fixed another election"!

Know why..? because its all they have anymore, this continued assault on their opposition through the kook websites, the leftwing news bias, ..or by helping to create some new hackneyed "scandal" meant to destroy a republican presidency.

The once great democratic party does not exist anymore, courtesy of the imbeciles who allowed the liberal crackpots to take it over.

If liberals truly want to help mankind & humanity, ...they should get the F--- out of politics, hit the streets with clean up gear & police the highways of litter, clean up the streams, monitor the air quality, go to Africa, & third world countries & help the poor, start feeding programs for "THE REAL POOR" overseas. Petition "REAL" oppresive societies & governments OVERSEAS that offer damn few human rights, or none whatsoever. Perhaps even opt for emptying bed pans at a local hospital; ....at least they would learn some real f-ing humility, & be more genuine in their own belief system.

Taking Jimmy Carter with them would be a big boon to them as well, ..rather than leaving him here in America to stir up his half as.sed notions on whom the poor, & exploited really are! :2razz:

Poor Jimmy, ..he really never could get it right back in the liberal glory years either!

He stayed in denial after Reagen destroyed him by voter mandate in the 80' election. Know what...? Poor Jimmy remains in denial too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom