Dems inching to a Supermajority in Senate

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
We were denied by every insurance in the state. My wife, a 25 year old, 5'7 weighing 135 pounds has a "syndrome" that she doesn't take medication for, and has no symptoms but no one would cover her(in 20+ years she might have symptoms). I have back/neck problems, allergies, and "ibs." I am 6 feet and 185.

So none of that "just lose weight and you'll get insurance" nonsense.

Did you read that the insurance companies "group" are backing down on the no existing medical conditions as long as everyone has insurance.

They figure that if all the healthy people are paying their $20 a week that will help cover the cost of all you sick people who are driving up costs.

I think the best solution to our problem involves expanding insurance coverage to all Americans by driving down costs and using tax credits etc. I don't have insurance myself because it would cost me nearly $1000 a year, far more than I would spend on anything other than some catastrophic emergency. Now let's say the government gave me a tax credit for that $1000 then I would get insurance since it would essentially be 'free.' That was the idea behind McCain's health plan.

People like you are one of the problems with healthcare costs. By refusing to address the risk of a catastrophe, you spread the risk across everyone. All the while you have the nerve to claim that the profit from others assuming your risk amounts to your own fiscal responsibility.

:thumbsup:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?

No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.

Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?

John Kerry =/= all (D)'s

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor
Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.

Nobody's abandoned the research. They've merely stopped federal funding for it, even if its voodoo science.

Coming from the party that thinks evolution is voodoo science that's hardly an insult

At least they keep that theory within their small towns rather than make it national policy.

Yeah like RvW. :roll:

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I've addresses this fallacious view many times here. The fallacy lies in equating 'Republican' and Deocrat'and wanting to appply the same rules to each.
<snip>

It's not a fallacy. No matter how much BS you want to spin, the reality is that both parties consist of humans, and humans have weaknesses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter which party. Don't give me this BS about one party having the "right" ideals etc, that's a bunch of baloney. Both parties have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to do whatever is needed to enrich themselves, without any regard for the country.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?

No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.

Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?

John Kerry =/= all (D)'s

Ok, between him, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, looks like you have 3 out of 4 national candidates from 00 and 04 covered.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor
Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.

Nobody's abandoned the research. They've merely stopped federal funding for it, even if its voodoo science.

Coming from the party that thinks evolution is voodoo science that's hardly an insult

At least they keep that theory within their small towns rather than make it national policy.

Yeah like RvW. :roll:

Say what? The GOP is only trying to ban abortion in a few states; its the lefties making a national policy.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the lefts delusion that democrats wont commit the same mistakes of the republicans under Bush. That somehow the Blue Dogs will put a leash on the president and Pelosi + Reid. It is going to be fun as hell watching them eat crow.

I love how the right assumes because their party was proven brain dead morons they assume the opposition will do the same.

Yeah, 'cause history is so full of examples showing that only one side of the political spectrum is subject to doing dumb things and getting corrupted by power :roll:

When the Dems start a war on BS evidence and hold back scientific research in the medical arena let me know.

Are you being sarcastic or just stupid? The Vietnam war was started on JFK and LBJ's watch. Speaking of BS evidence, perhaps you've heard of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that got the escalation in the war started in earnest?

Geez, get over your partisan zealotry and realize that both parties have -- time and time again -- shown themselves to be quite capable of doing stupid things of all kinds, and getting corrupted by power. You can't just conveniently look only at the last 8 years and say "see, only the republicans have done stupid things!".

I'm not saying the (D)'s never made mistakes and I'm talking about the upcoming administration, not those of 40 years ago. If their 'reign of power' with full control is as bad as it was under 6 years of GWB&Co I'll be shocked.

Also, I'd love to see all of the 2004 presidential election votes of righties who are so concerned about the (D)'s having full control. I wonder how many voted (D) to maintain a balance...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
You can spin Bush's ban of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research all you want. Anyone with half a brain knows it held back research and the reasoning was moronic.

There is no spin. The private sector has been free to do what they want in this area. However the dirty secret is this area of research isnt turning up much to report. Unless you want to celebrate cancer in rats from embryonic stem cells. I guess since this area of research is failing to deliver the goods and the private sector is washing their hands of it, this is a perfect govt program right? Waste resources on a failure.

Well gosh since we haven't beaten cancer or MS or Alzheimers yet maybe we should just quit trying? Why waste resources on failure, right?

If they are quitting it is because it isnt showing any signs that it is viable. It is showing signs of 'causing' cancer in rats. Curing something is a pipedream. They would probably be happy just to have it not kill the rats.

Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.

Here is the difference. When people started experiementing in creating a car their initial failings showed promise that a car could eventually work. And it didnt take them years of failures either. The basics for a car were already there. First and foremost the wheel, which was invented thousands of years ago. Secondly steam engines were already a proven technology.

If your compairson had any validity the steam engine wouldnt have been invented nor working before the first car was produced. The above wasnt a matter of not working in so much as the technology needed to catch up. Embryonic stem cells appear to have a biologic trait which makes them a bad candidate for further development.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?

No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.

Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?

John Kerry =/= all (D)'s

Ok, between him, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, looks like you have 3 out of 4 national candidates from 00 and 04 covered.

So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111
Ok, between him, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, looks like you have 3 out of 4 national candidates from 00 and 04 covered.

So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

A majority of the leaders of the party did, and a majority of the Democrats voted in favor of the war resolution.

Or was John Kerry not the leader of the party in 2004?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor
Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.

Nobody's abandoned the research. They've merely stopped federal funding for it, even if its voodoo science.

Coming from the party that thinks evolution is voodoo science that's hardly an insult

At least they keep that theory within their small towns rather than make it national policy.

Yeah like RvW. :roll:

Say what? The GOP is only trying to ban abortion in a few states; its the lefties making a national policy.

Riiiiiight. Even you don't believe that one.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?

No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.

Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?

John Kerry =/= all (D)'s

Ok, between him, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, looks like you have 3 out of 4 national candidates from 00 and 04 covered.

So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

Did they not read the same intelligence reports as the administration?
Oh wait, Clinton has even admitted to not reading them before voting.

At worst they knew full well what the intelligence briefings said. At worst they voted blindly. Either way they are responsible for their own votes. They cant blame a republican for casting a vote for war.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor
So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

Not only "would" they, they DID vote to support it, knowing just like most of us (myself included) did at the time that the 9/11 ties were a sham and that WMD claims were dubious at best. They did what all the politicians did, they covered their butts.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor
I'm not saying the (D)'s never made mistakes and I'm talking about the upcoming administration, not those of 40 years ago. If their 'reign of power' with full control is as bad as it was under 6 years of GWB&Co I'll be shocked.

Also, I'd love to see all of the 2004 presidential election votes of righties who are so concerned about the (D)'s having full control. I wonder how many voted (D) to maintain a balance...

At no point did the R's have full control -- presidency, super majority in the senate and full house control. Even then, we saw how easy it was for hubris to set in. My point was that both parties do stupid things, history is pretty clear on that. Given that fact, having one party with absolute power with no checks or balances is a bad thing, no matter which party you support. Only zealots who think their party is perfect and only the "other guys" do bad things relish the thought of their party having absolute control.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd say the same thing, just as I was very unhappy when the repubs were discussing the "nuclear option" to remove the "obstruction" of the dems.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.

Here is the difference. When people started experiementing in creating a car their initial failings showed promise that a car could eventually work. And it didnt take them years of failures either. The basics for a car were already there. First and foremost the wheel, which was invented thousands of years ago. Secondly steam engines were already a proven technology.

If your compairson had any validity the steam engine wouldnt have been invented nor working before the first car was produced. The above wasnt a matter of not working in so much as the technology needed to catch up. Embryonic stem cells appear to have a biologic trait which makes them a bad candidate for further development.

Of course, building a car is not the same as fighting a disease. My point is you have to start somewhere and embryonic stem cells have (from what I've read) the most potential to result in 'miracle' cures.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?

No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.

Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?

John Kerry =/= all (D)'s

Ok, between him, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, looks like you have 3 out of 4 national candidates from 00 and 04 covered.

So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

Did they not read the same intelligence reports as the administration?
Oh wait, Clinton has even admitted to not reading them before voting.

At worst they knew full well what the intelligence briefings said. At worst they voted blindly. Either way they are responsible for their own votes. They cant blame a republican for casting a vote for war.

No but they can blame an administration that made a case for war rather than presenting an objective view. How many former GWB&Co officials have come out and said exactly that? Are they all lying or is there truth to it? I'm guessing the latter.

 

[winnar111]

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234

I've addresses this fallacious view many times here. The fallacy lies in equating 'Republican' and Deocrat'and wanting to appply the same rules to each.
<snip>

It's not a fallacy. No matter how much BS you want to spin, the reality is that both parties consist of humans, and humans have weaknesses.

It is a fallacy, and you enlarge it with this argument. Your argument here, seemingly indisuptable - 'they are humans' and 'humans have weaknesses' - would have the misleading, and wrong effect of saying that Adolf Hitler and Linus Pauling were similar; that John Kennedy and Stalin were similar; that your grandmother and Charles Manson are similar. You fail to account for the real differences, much less the cultural and systemic things that are important.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter which party.

Like the OP, you misquote this valuable but hardly exact quotation - it said not that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that it tends to.

You need to look at more than a saying to understand the issue.

What, exactly, causes corruption? We can compare the government of Mugabi with that of America; we can compare periods of more and less corruption in the US. It matters, not all periods are the same. Few have wielded more power than FDR during WWII - and however wrong his excessive measures to protect from Japanese-Americans, overall, how would you say that he fulfilled the massive corruption predicted by the saying? On the other hand, Nixon had less power, yet was far more corrupt.

If you had any understandingof the issue of corruption in our current system, you would be quoting and responding to the other part of my post on the danger that does exist as the powerful in America - the source of corruption, concentrated power and wealth - target the Democratic Party more, and why to try to prevent that corruption, but recognizing why giving the less corrupted - the Democrats now - power now without 'balance from the corrupt, the Republicans now.

Don't give me this BS about one party having the "right" ideals etc, that's a bunch of baloney.

Trying to talk to you feels like trying to teach my dog to meow.. You spew blind ideology and show no rationality.

You are a horse led to the water that the parties have different ideologies and agendas in contradiction to your blind ideology, and you refuse to drink, claiming water is sand.

You really need a clue as you are 'part of the problem' now only *encouraging* corruption twith the misplaced cynicism and ignorance.

Both parties have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to do whatever is needed to enrich themselves, without any regard for the country.

You say things that are not true. How has Obama, who passed up a very enriching law career for community activism and public service, enriched himself withoiut any regard for the country? How has Joe Biden, perhaps the least wealthy Senator, does whatever it takes to enrich himself without any regard for the country? How have leading Democrats like Ted Kennedy or John Kerry enriched themselves without any regard for the country? How did Al Gore, while serving in politics, before he left and did make some money?

How has my Democratic Congressman, the progressive Pete Stark, who founded a bank and gave that up to serve out of moral outrage over Vietnam, and has since fought for universal healthcare and peace as his top agenda? I'm not going to spend the time in this post to summarize the large picture for you on the parties' differences, and I've already pointed out the Democratic Party has its own share of corruption already (IMO, too many of the Bill Clinton policies included).

You are harming the nation by being the enemy of the best group we have serving, the progressive democrats, who are not corrupt much IMO, and spreading false cynicism.

Even famous cynics, like Mark Twain, author of the famous 'Idiot and Congressman is redundant' line among others, was a passionate progressive who would criticize you IMO.

You need to learn to look at the facts and not follow a blind ideology *against* all politicians; your way is a self-fulfilling prophecy of bad leaders, as you do not put any effort in to electing the 'good' ones since you say they're all bad. How is that going to do much than get the bad ones elected, who have the advantages of corrupt backing?

I listed some things that can help reduce corruption in my previous post. You did not quote or comment on that.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?

No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.

Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?

John Kerry =/= all (D)'s

Ok, between him, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, looks like you have 3 out of 4 national candidates from 00 and 04 covered.

So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

Did they not read the same intelligence reports as the administration?
Oh wait, Clinton has even admitted to not reading them before voting.

At worst they knew full well what the intelligence briefings said. At worst they voted blindly. Either way they are responsible for their own votes. They cant blame a republican for casting a vote for war.

No but they can blame an administration that made a case for war rather than presenting an objective view. How many former GWB&Co officials have come out and said exactly that? Are they all lying or is there truth to it? I'm guessing the latter.

You want the people pushing a war to present an objective view? What world do you live in? Perhaps you and your party should learn what the point of checks and balances in this govt are. That is like the democrats presenting an objective view of taxing the rich. Yeah effing right.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.

Here is the difference. When people started experiementing in creating a car their initial failings showed promise that a car could eventually work. And it didnt take them years of failures either. The basics for a car were already there. First and foremost the wheel, which was invented thousands of years ago. Secondly steam engines were already a proven technology.

If your compairson had any validity the steam engine wouldnt have been invented nor working before the first car was produced. The above wasnt a matter of not working in so much as the technology needed to catch up. Embryonic stem cells appear to have a biologic trait which makes them a bad candidate for further development.

Of course, building a car is not the same as fighting a disease. My point is you have to start somewhere and embryonic stem cells have (from what I've read) the most potential to result in 'miracle' cures.

So far that potential is gone. Most sane people understand this. While private industry will continue to work on it. The results are starting to show up in adult stem cell research. The govt not getting involved in mandating embryonic stem cell research is probably the best thing to happen in that industry. If they did, it would be like corn ethanol. An entrenched interest that gives poor results but cant be lopped off the govt payroll due to politics.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor
So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

Not only "would" they, they DID vote to support it, knowing just like most of us (myself included) did at the time that the 9/11 ties were a sham and that WMD claims were dubious at best. They did what all the politicians did, they covered their butts.

Come on... For months every news agency in the US had stories with all of the proof of WMD's in Iraq. If you're going to try to tell me that a majority of Americans didn't buy the WMD claims I'm going to call you crazy. There was mass support for the war and GWB's approval rating at the time is proof of it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor
So you're saying a majority of Dems would support the invasion of Iraq knowing they didn't have 9/11 ties or WMD's?

Not only "would" they, they DID vote to support it, knowing just like most of us (myself included) did at the time that the 9/11 ties were a sham and that WMD claims were dubious at best. They did what all the politicians did, they covered their butts.

Come on... For months every news agency in the US had stories with all of the proof of WMD's in Iraq. If you're going to try to tell me that a majority of Americans didn't buy the WMD claims I'm going to call you crazy. There was mass support for the war and GWB's approval rating at the time is proof of it.

And? Does that absolve these people of not doing their job?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor
I'm not saying the (D)'s never made mistakes and I'm talking about the upcoming administration, not those of 40 years ago. If their 'reign of power' with full control is as bad as it was under 6 years of GWB&Co I'll be shocked.

Also, I'd love to see all of the 2004 presidential election votes of righties who are so concerned about the (D)'s having full control. I wonder how many voted (D) to maintain a balance...

At no point did the R's have full control -- presidency, super majority in the senate and full house control. Even then, we saw how easy it was for hubris to set in. My point was that both parties do stupid things, history is pretty clear on that. Given that fact, having one party with absolute power with no checks or balances is a bad thing, no matter which party you support. Only zealots who think their party is perfect and only the "other guys" do bad things relish the thought of their party having absolute control.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd say the same thing, just as I was very unhappy when the repubs were discussing the "nuclear option" to remove the "obstruction" of the dems.

As of right now the (D)'s do not have a super majority. Will they get it? Who knows. If they do the (R)'s need only look to how abysmally bad the GWB&Co administration performed for blame. A message was sent in 2006 and again in 2008. Now it's up to the (D)'s to deliver. If they don't another message will be sent in 2010.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

Note the important words, 'at the time'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Are you being sarcastic or just stupid? The Vietnam war was started on JFK and LBJ's watch.

That's wrong. The conditions leading to the Vietnam war were caused mostly by the policies of the Eisenhower administration, who foolishly and immoraly supported our 'friend' France in policies of colonization - becoming the enemy of the American principles of freedom and even democracy (when we cancelled promised elections because the long-time leader pursuing freedom from colonization, Ho Chi Minh, would win and we wanted our puppet in charge).

Eisenhower now only declined Vietnam's request for our assistance in ending colonization, he paid up to 90% of the war costs *for France* while they were there - and did other policies basically denying freedom, and tryijng to perpuate our own domination of their system, which included making Diem the leader of 'South Vietnam' with all his massive corruption and oppression of the Buddhists etc. Eisenhower handed Kennedy a real crisis in the region - this mainly in Laos, involving Eisenhower's refusal to support moderates.

Kennedy was heroic in his standing against not only the military and the Republicans, but public opinion and most of his own advisors, to draw a line short of US combat forces in Vietnam - and he was on track for withdrawing, at high political cost, after his re-election; he'd issued a Nationa Security order paving the way, his national security team was working on the plans, he'd had the first symbolic withdrawal of 1,000 US 'military advisors' done in October, 1963 to signal his policy and direction.

LBJ did do the wrong thing, greatly miscalculating the war. But Republicans not only were as or more for the war than Democrats, they remained for it after Democrats changed.

Speaking of BS evidence, perhaps you've heard of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that got the escalation in the war started in earnest?

Geez, get over your partisan zealotry and realize that both parties have -- time and time again -- shown themselves to be quite capable of doing stupid things of all kinds, and getting corrupted by power. You can't just conveniently look only at the last 8 years and say "see, only the republicans have done stupid things!".

You don't prove generalizations about parties with anecdotal evidence.

Yesterday, I listened to an audio clip of Ronald Reagan from the late 1940's saying that Republicans had broken their promises to help ALL Americans become richer because while corporate profits were growing a lot, wages were only going up one fourth as much, and the problem was Republican corporate greed. What generalization would come from that anecdote?

If you want to argue about the parties, don't cherry pick misleading anecdotes.

There would not have been the Iraq war with President Al Gore, that's clear. At the most, even had he pursude the same Bush policy up to the point of the authorization for war and the inspectors getting back in, he would have let the inspectors finish and the result would have been no grounds for war. Of course there's the famous war against Iran, when Carter attacked over the hostages.

Oh, wait, no, that was Reagan's policy for allying with Saddam Hussein and encouraging Saddam to invade Iran, in a war of aggression causing a million casualties.

If you want to discuss the history, you need to do better.