• 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.

Veterans are Democrats

Yeah thats the new Democrat strategy and I think it will work. I feel a bit conflicted though because, as much as I hate the Republicans, I don't think we will ever see any positive changes under the Democrat regime when they, inevitably come into power. Ah well I guess thats the way the ball rolls.
 
That link posted above said:
Ed Patru, an NRCC spokesman, "The fact is that Democrat war veterans are being influenced by the national Democratic Party's surrender message, and the lack of resolve on defense issues that has become institutionalized in the Democrat Party," he told AFP.
I like it how Eddie here throws out a disjointed downplay on the lack of Republican veteran candidates. 'Yeah, we'd have more of 'em on our side, if the Democrats weren't a bunch of weak *** ******s.'
 
Che said:
Just thought this was an interesting article. It talks about the fact that most Iraq war veterans who are running for congress are democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060217/wl_afp/usiraqvotemilitary

It's a pattern I've noticed through out time.

Republican President sends us to war.

Soldiers come back, vote Democrat.

Democrat President gets economy back to what is should be while making the people well off.

Soldiers' rich kids vote Republican.

Republican President sends us to war.

Etc. Etc. Etc.
 
Saboteur said:
It's a pattern I've noticed through out time.
Republican President sends us to war.
Througout time?

Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson?

So much for that.
 
Goobieman said:
Througout time?

Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson?

So much for that.

Well it was worth a shot. Actually I was thinking of Reagan, Bush, Bush.
 
Saboteur said:
Well it was worth a shot. Actually I was thinking of Reagan, Bush, Bush.
You mean you were talking out your a$$.

Also note that Reagan and Bush 43 were elected at the beginning of recessions and brought the country out of them.

In other words -- your post was all show and no go.

Good try though -- I'm sure the liberal democrats were juming up and down, high-fiving one another when they read it.
 
Goobieman said:
Good try though -- I'm sure the liberal democrats were juming up and down, high-fiving one another when they read it.

I wasn't.

Nice try though. LOL :lol:
 
Goobieman said:
You mean you were talking out your a$$.

Also note that Reagan and Bush 43 were elected at the beginning of recessions and brought the country out of them.

In other words -- your post was all show and no go.

Good try though -- I'm sure the liberal democrats were juming up and down, high-fiving one another when they read it.

What a bunch of lies this is. Reaganomics put us in a recession, Bush senior couldn't get us out of it. Clinton did and left us with a surplus. Bush Jr. came in then 9/11 happened and the recession came back.

Continuing to insist that this economy is strong just shows the despiration of feeble republican minds.

And you're going on my Hatecoated Hatemongers With Hate Filling Thread.:2razz:
 
Saboteur said:
What a bunch of lies this is. Reaganomics put us in a recession,
Talk about lies.
I suggest you check the quarterly growth rates from 1983-1991.

Bush senior couldn't get us out of it.
Talk about lies.
I suggest you check the quarterly growth rates from 1991-1993
The Bush41 "recession", such as it was, was over before the 1992 election - an election that Clinton won because he lied about the economy.

Clinton did and left us with a surplus.
Talk about lies.
Clinton rode the wave of growth set in motion before he came into office. Nothng more.

Bush Jr. came in then 9/11 happened and the recession came back.
Talk about lies.
The "Bush43" recession began before he took office and ended in the 4th quarter of 2001, just after 9/11.

Continuing to insist that this economy is strong just shows the despiration of feeble republican minds.
Continuing to insist that the economy sucks illustrates the severe disconnect liberals have with reality.

And you're going on my Hatecoated Hatemongers With Hate Filling Thread.:2razz:
It does not surprise me that you hate people that speak truth to your lies.
 
Goobieman said:
Talk about lies.
I suggest you check the quarterly growth rates from 1983-1991.


Talk about lies.
I suggest you check the quarterly growth rates from 1991-1993
The Bush41 "recession", such as it was, was over before the 1992 election - an election that Clinton won because he lied about the economy.


Talk about lies.
Clinton rode the wave of growth set in motion before he came into office. Nothng more.


Talk about lies.
The "Bush43" recession began before he took office and ended in the 4th quarter of 2001, just after 9/11.


Continuing to insist that the economy sucks illustrates the severe disconnect liberals have with reality.


It does not surprise me that you hate people that speak truth to your lies.

Bullshit Mr. Wallstreet Bullshit.
 
Saboteur said:
Bullshit Mr. Wallstreet Bullshit.
LOL
Why dont you specifically cite the parts of my post and then show me how they're bullshit.
 
Goobieman said:
LOL
Why dont you specifically cite the parts of my post and then show me how they're bullshit.


I'd be happy too. But first you post links to the financial information you have cited as evidence.;)
 
Goobieman said:
It does not surprise me that you hate people that speak truth to your lies.

Truth?

You are so blind with hatred for people who care about this country, it's people and the air we breath more than your wallet and morals you and your slimeball friends wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ***!
 
Saboteur said:
Truth?

You are so blind with hatred for people who care about this country, it's people and the air we breath more than your wallet and morals you and your slimeball friends wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ***!


Wow, you're in a mood today aren't you?

And come on, you can't tell me that there are people on your side that aren't blind with hatred for people who care about this country, too...
 
Iraq veterans running for political office are overwhelming Democrats and it's driving Republicans crazy (I know short drive..lol). They don't have an answer, but if the past is any indication, you can be sure the smear machine is warming up. ;)

Here is a site listing those veterans.

Band of Brothers 2006
 
Chris Matthews had 3 Iraq veterans on his show this week that are running for Congress. 2 of them are republicans. He asked them (the repubs) if they thought that their service in Iraq made them a better candidate. They both said, "Ohhhhhhhh yes." He then asked them if they then voted for John Kerry since he served in Vietnam whereas Bush did not. It was hilarious seeing them try to scramble for an answer. Neither man answered the question and, instead, talked about themselves (to hide the ball). What a joke.

I love people who say something but don't mean it. Yeah, they'll be great politicians!

MATTHEWS: John Kerry—I‘m going to ask you about consistency. John Kerry fought in the Vietnam War, George Bush didn‘t. Who‘d you vote for?

TAYLOR: I voted for George Bush.

MATTHEWS: But you just said that a person who has served in military combat is better than one who didn‘t. Why did you change that rule in that case?

TAYLOR: That‘s a great question, Chris. And speaking for myself, people are excited about my candidacy not just because of my service in Iraq but they are also excited to support Van Taylor and log onto my Web site, vantaylor.com.

MATTHEWS: Right, but get to my question here. Why did you vote for Bush, who didn‘t serve in Vietnam against Kerry who did, if the principle you just espoused is the fighting man is a better politician?

TAYLOR: It‘s that, but it‘s also my experience as a businessman, as a business leader and it‘s also providing the right policies for our country. Cut and run is not a way to keep America safe and secure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11345791/

LMAO!
 
Last edited:
Unlike you arguing against me, I can back up my claims and illustrate your lies:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N
Table 1.1.1
Goobieman said:
I suggest you check the quarterly growth rates from 1983-1991.
I suggest you check the quarterly growth rates from 1991-1993
The Bush41 "recession", such as it was, was over before the 1992 election - an election that Clinton won because he lied about the economy.
The "recession" cause by Reaganomics:
Quarterly growth GDP
1983
+5.0 +9.3 +8.1 +8.4
1984
+8.1 +7.1 +3.9 +3.3
1985
+3.8 +3.5 +6.4 +3.1
1986
+3.9 +1.6 +3.9 +2.0
1987
+2.7 +4.5 +3.7 +7.2
1988
+2.0 +5.2 +2.1 +5.4

Regarding the Bush41 recession
1989
+4.1 +2.6 +2.9 +1.0
1990
+4.7 +1.0 0.0 -3.0 (this is the Bush 41 "recession")
1991
-2.0 2.6 1.9 1.9
1992
+4.2 +3.9 +4.0 +4.5

1992 was billed as the "worst economy in 50 years" by the Clinton/Gore campaign. 1992 had better growth that almost the entire Clinton administration.

The "Bush43" recession began before he took office and ended in the 4th quarter of 2001, just after 9/11.
Quarterly growth GDP
2000
+1.0 +6.4 -0.5 +2.1 ("recession" starts III/2000)
2001
-0.5 +1.2 -1.4 +1.6 ("recession" ends III/2000)
2002
+2.7 +2.2 +2.4 +0.2
2003
+3.7 +7.2 +3.6 +4.3
2004
+3.5 +4.0 +3.3 +3.8
2005
+3.3 +4.1 +1.1

And thus:
Continuing to insist that the economy sucks illustrates the severe disconnect liberals have with reality.
 
Last edited:
Saboteur said:
Truth?
You are so blind with hatred for people who care about this country, it's people and the air we breath more than your wallet and morals you and your slimeball friends wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ***!

Your hate for people who dare to prove you a liar is self-evident.
 
Goobieman said:
Unlike you arguing against me, I can back up my claims and illustrate your lies:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N
Table 1.1.1

The "recession" cause by Reaganomics:
Quarterly growth GDP
1983
+5.0 +9.3 +8.1 +8.4
1984
+8.1 +7.1 +3.9 +3.3
1985
+3.8 +3.5 +6.4 +3.1
1986
+3.9 +1.6 +3.9 +2.0
1987
+2.7 +4.5 +3.7 +7.2
1988
+2.0 +5.2 +2.1 +5.4

Regarding the Bush41 recession
1989
+4.1 +2.6 +2.9 +1.0
1990
+4.7 +1.0 0.0 -3.0 (this is the Bush 41 "recession")
1991
-2.0 2.6 1.9 1.9
1992
+4.2 +3.9 +4.0 +4.5

1992 was billed as the "worst economy in 50 years" by the Clinton/Gore campaign. 1992 had better growth that almost the entire Clinton administration.


Quarterly growth GDP
2000
+1.0 +6.4 -0.5 +2.1 ("recession" starts III/2000)
2001
-0.5 +1.2 -1.4 +1.6 ("recession" ends III/2000)
2002
+2.7 +2.2 +2.4 +0.2
2003
+3.7 +7.2 +3.6 +4.3
2004
+3.5 +4.0 +3.3 +3.8
2005
+3.3 +4.1 +1.1

And thus:
Continuing to insist that the economy sucks illustrates the severe disconnect liberals have with reality.


Uh-oh. Someone knows what they are talking about.
 
GySgt said:
Uh-oh. Someone knows what they are talking about.
And the crowd goes silent...
 
Goobieman said:
And the crowd goes silent...

Considering that Saboteur isn't online right now, I wouldn't be patting myself on the back if I were you. :cool:
 
aps said:
Considering that Saboteur isn't online right now, I wouldn't be patting myself on the back if I were you. :cool:

Thats OK - you can do it for me!

"Wow, Goob, I guess you flattened him"

You know - something like that.
 
aps said:
Considering that Saboteur isn't online right now, I wouldn't be patting myself on the back if I were you. :cool:


Why not? Glorifying oneself in the absence of the opposition is always best right after the burn.
 
Goobieman said:
Thats OK - you can do it for me!

"Wow, Goob, I guess you flattened him"

You know - something like that.

I must admit that it seems like an impressive answer. :2wave:

He's back online. Let's see if he comes in here. Shhhhhhhhhhhh
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom