The REAL plan for what Democrats will do if they take control

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

It is a very good point. Politically I am an independent and have voted independent many times. But the Democratic party is just so far left these days, and they are so overwhelmingly wrong on war, terrorism, immigration, economic, and religious rights issues, it would be impossible for me to vote for a democrat unless they were a "turncoat" in their own party. The question is, do I vote for an independent or vote against the democrat by voiting for the republican. Unfortunately, I think it has to be the latter because of the myriad of reasons democrats would turn waste this country.

This is just silliness IMO. The Democratic party isn't the one that's extreme on these issues. The Republicans have become completely radical in terms of war (by undertaking the largest-scale offensive war in our history against a nation that posed us no threat), have done more to increase international terrorism than any Congress and White House in American history, have no consistent position on immigration, have spent more than any federal government in history, and have taken more drastic measures to legislate "morality" than any federal government in history. The Democrats DO, IMO, lack consistent vision, but ultimately that's more correctable than having a completely stupid, corrupt, destructive vision. It is literally impossible for me to imagine how having the Democrats control Congress could make matters meaningfully worse.

 

[judasmachine]

the war on terror would just get in the way our true commie aspirations..............

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

QFT! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thirded.

Certain traits are just abhorrent.

The belief that we?re not in a global war against Islamic Jihadists.
Tax and spend socialism.
That we?ve nothing to lose by allowing in 100 million illegal immigrants.

Although, it would be nice if the patriot act was repealed that?s about the biggest point of agreement I can reach.

 

[ProfJohn]

Well I think this thread settled one thing for certain. Anyone who questioned whether or not this is a left leaning forum just need look at this thread for proof.
Pretty much every idea listed in the OP would fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

And for those of you who keep bringing it up, when I say ?left? I mean the left in THIS country, which is the liberals ala Pelosi. She is certainly on the left. For some reason many of you hear ?left? and think I am talking about socialists and communists.
That comes later?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

QFT! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thirded.

Certain traits are just abhorrent.

The belief that we?re not in a global war against Islamic Jihadists.

I hate this "debate", because it's NOT a debate. Very few people seem to argue that we AREN'T in a war with Islamic terrorist groups, the debate is how best to fight them. Since you guys don't have any reasonable way to argue that the Dems' suggestions are wrong, you try and characterize the debate as being for or against fighting at all. But that argument is bullshit, and I think people are starting to realize that. Being for or against Republican policies on national security issues doesn't mean you are for or against winning the conflict itself. In fact, I'd argue that the Dems are MORE dedicated to fighting an winning the conflict that the Republicans...because unlike the Republicans, the Dems seem to be committed to coming up with good ideas instead of stubbornly confusing their plans for the war with the war itself.

I think the most stupid idea the Republicans have ever put forward, the idea that drives every one of their positions on national security, and the reason I went from being a die-hard Bush Republican up through the start of the war in Iraq to being one of the more vocal anti-Bush "liberals" here, is that being against things like invading random, unrelated countries means you want the terrorists to win. It's such a stupid position that I'm truly amazed you guys have been repeating it for YEARS now, by all rights the Republicans should be tasked with something more their speed...like running a Home Depot in Fargo.

Tax and spend socialism.
That we?ve nothing to lose by allowing in 100 million illegal immigrants.

Although, it would be nice if the patriot act was repealed that?s about the biggest point of agreement I can reach.

The Republicans are just as "socialist" as the Democrats, perhaps more so. The idea that the government is NOT the fix-all solution to your personal problems is not a popular position with today's conservatives, the only difference might be that Democrats at least want a balanced budget. And while I'm not a big fan of socialism in any form, the "tax and spend" variety seems preferable to the "spend and spend" type.

 

[TheInternal]

all the documentaries and articles I've read about the Iraq conflict really make me think we shouldn't be over there. As the president himself has repeatedly said, Iraq and Saddam had no connection to 9/11. Yes, George W. Bush has said MULTIPLE TIMES on television that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We've sent our children (and unaccountable mercenary groups) to Iraq, killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and are effectively CREATING terroism (by both committing it and by simply being a police state.)
As an ammo troop that honorably served in the USAF, I've no evidence to validate the claims of our precision guided bombs actually being precise. Indeed, most reports I've read and seen show a VERY high miss rate of our guided munitions.

As for the patriot acts, it was a blatant infringement on our constitutional rights. You can be arrested and detained if you pose (and I quote): "a potential threat to national security". So... if I sneeze on the same planet, I could pose a potential threat to national security with the wording being so vague.

Those in power used the 9/11 attacks to pass unlawful and unconstitutional "laws" while the public was in shock and being emotionally irrational. The patriot acts being one of the most noteworthy, and one that perpetuates and encourages FEAR.

I dislike both republicans and democrats, but anyone wanting to repeal the patriot acts gets bonus points in my book. I didn't serve in our country's military to have my constitutional liberties infringed upon during a moment of weakness.

I also find the irrational labeling of moderates as "extreme left" disturbing and a bit perverted. Extreme left used to mean mass socialization, tearing down buildings to let plants grow, and hugging everyone. Now "extreme leftists" are folks who happen to say "woah, what's going on? Could you explain to me why you're doing that? It doesn't make any sense."

Just my two cents.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

QFT! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thirded.

Fourthed

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Who the Democrats will put in positions of power say WAY more about them than some talking points memo that is posted on one of these threads.
So here they are the people who will lead congress if Democrats take over.

Speak of the House Pelosi

Polls show that most Americans know nothing about Pelosi and many don't even know who she is.
There is no denying her voting record over eight terms as one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives. Pelosi's lifetime rating by the Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal benchmark for members of Congress, is 96 percent. Her lifetime rating by the counterpart American Conservative Union is 2 percent.
Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections.
Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act, opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist communications. Pelosi also reportedly told colleagues that she would appoint as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee overseeing America's counterterrorism efforts Rep. Alcee Hastings, an ultra-liberal and at least formerly sleazy Florida Democrat. Hastings was impeached and removed as a federal judge by a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1988-89 on bribery and obstruction of justice charges.

Chairman of the Way and Means Committee Charles Rangel

Rangel says he would oppose extending any of the Bush tax cuts past their expiration in 2010 ? imposing a huge tax increase on an economy fueled by Bush's first-term tax reductions. Rangel also supports bringing back the draft.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers

A zealous liberal. Conyers has spent the last few years compiling a case for impeaching President Bush. Pelosi denies that a Democratic House would pursue Bush's impeachment but Conyers pointedly demurred from echoing Pelosi's denial.

Chairmanship of the investigative House Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman,

Among the most partisan liberal Democrats in the House. No one doubts that Waxman would use his committee and its subpoena power to launch a flurry of investigations of the Bush administration, including its counterterrorism intelligence programs.

Some other great facts about Democrats who would run congress
1. More than half the House Democratic caucus voted against legislation authorizing construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border.
2. More than half of all House Democrats also voted against legislation last month to increase immigration law enforcement.
3. Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001, half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S. intelligence agencies.
4. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Thanks to The San Diego Union-Tribune for the details used in this post Link

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

Oh crap! I am scared! I mean, obviously Bush and Co are awful, but the DEMOCRATS MUST BE WORSE... OH CRAP! What do we do if that ever occurred!?

Hold people responsible for their actions!? NOOOO!
Stop deficit spending! NO!!!!!!!
Maybe help prepare our disaster relief to be better than with Katrina!?!?!? NOOO!!!
Push for SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO CURE DISEASES!?!?!? HOLY CRAP NO!
Ask for taxes to pay for the huge deficits that have been racked up in the last 6 years!?!?!? NOOO!!!
Maybe put forth a plan to fix Social security!?!?!? NOOOOO!
Maybe put an end to frivolous lawsuit!?!?!? NOOO!!
Push for alternative fuels by NOT giving HUGE profit relief to the busting at the seems OIL INDUSTRY!>!>!>! NOOOOO!!!
Initiate ethics reform!>!>!>> What would we EVER do then!>!>!>

We are SCREWED if the Democrats get back some seats in EITHER house!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

It is a very good point. Politically I am an independent and have voted independent many times. But the Democratic party is just so far left these days, and they are so overwhelmingly wrong on war, terrorism, immigration, economic, and religious rights issues, it would be impossible for me to vote for a democrat unless they were a "turncoat" in their own party. The question is, do I vote for an independent or vote against the democrat by voting for the republican. Unfortunately, I think it has to be the latter because of the myriad of reasons democrats would turn waste this country.

edit: just wanted to say thanx to ProjJohn for putting this stuff out there even though it will obviously be very unpopular in this mostly liberal forum

"It is a very good point. Politically I am an independent and have voted independent many times"

Quoted for BS.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well I think this thread settled one thing for certain. Anyone who questioned whether or not this is a left leaning forum just need look at this thread for proof.
Pretty much every idea listed in the OP would fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

And for those of you who keep bringing it up, when I say ?left? I mean the left in THIS country, which is the liberals ala Pelosi. She is certainly on the left. For some reason many of you hear ?left? and think I am talking about socialists and communists.
That comes later?

hahaha, ah geez.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well I think this thread settled one thing for certain. Anyone who questioned whether or not this is a left leaning forum just need look at this thread for proof.
Pretty much every idea listed in the OP would fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

And for those of you who keep bringing it up, when I say ?left? I mean the left in THIS country, which is the liberals ala Pelosi. She is certainly on the left. For some reason many of you hear ?left? and think I am talking about socialists and communists.
That comes later?

I suppose it depends on how you define "left". You're basing it off of the positions of the "right", but the conservativeness (unless that's not a word) of the "right" in this country doesn't really make them a good benchmark. If I remember my history correctly, being in favor of civil liberties, intelligent foreign policy and well thought out national security policies didn't use to make one a "liberal". Perhaps the real problem isn't that this forum is a bunch of lefties, it's that you and the party you support are no longer "righties".

Here is just one example, the Department of Homeland Security. What problem is it solving? Well, the 9/11 commission said our "intelligence problems" came from the fact that there was too much federal bureaucracy and too little inter-agency cooperation and that our police agencies had trouble getting information from our intelligence agencies. To help rectify this problem we created...the Department of Homeland Security? Super, we'll solve our problem of too much federal bureaucracy with MORE federal bureaucracy, and our inter-agency cooperation problems with ANOTHER agency that doesn't cooperate. Or maybe that's not what they are for, it's hard to tell WHAT exactly they are doing. Oh yes, they issue those helpful terrorist alerts and tell us to wrap ourselves in duct-tape and plastic sheeting...and don't forget the TSA, because God alone knows why rent-a-cops "guarding" the airport need some huge agency to manage them.

Seems like creating such an agency is the "liberal" approach, more government bureaucratic "solutions" in search of problems. Frankly I'm not sure how supporting such a worthless agency is the "conservative" position to take, unless the new conservative agenda is to do something, anything, to LOOK like you're taking action rather than doing something helpful because it might not get you enough press.

So I'd have admired Pelosi for voting against creating the Department. I was "would have" if that's why she voted against it. But like most people who prefer NOT to get their facts from op-ed pieces, I did a little research. And you know what I found, the specific bill the GOP talking points were referring to (I won't say you're a shill, but the "Pelosi voted against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security" argument is taken almost word for word from the GOP website). Hmm, time for a little more research...and wouldn't you know it, not only was that bill a vote to create the DHS, it was ALSO a bill to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize military "assistance" to civilian police agencies, blurring the line between police and the military in domestic law enforcement. THAT is why Pelosi and others opposed the bill, which seems funny considering, once again, that supporting police engaging in domestic police activities is not exactly what I would call a conservative position.

 

[Jhhnn]

From ProfJohn-

"And for those of you who keep bringing it up, when I say ?left? I mean the left in THIS country, which is the liberals ala Pelosi. She is certainly on the left. For some reason many of you hear ?left? and think I am talking about socialists and communists."

So, uhh, the far right fringe gets to define "Left" to be anything they say it is... definitely reminds me of how the Bush Admin defined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq... objective reality means nothing.

As for the rest of it, call the waahmbulance... The Bush agenda contains more contradictions than a ponzi scheme.

Going to "War" and cutting taxes simultaneously comes to mind, along with smaller govt and the largest expansion of govt since the great society... not to mention "getting govt off our backs", "Family values" and the whole Schiavo song and dance, and those are just for starters... My favorite being locking people up without due process to protect "freedom"...

Spiffy, ain't it? Orwell was only off by 20 years...

 

[ProfJohn]

Nice Washington Post OP-ED illustrates the many problems with the Democrat "agenda"

As I have been saying, they make lots of promises, but offer no solutions.

Vote Democrat and all your dreams will come true.
What Democrats Would Do

On national security, the House Democrats' plan offers more goals than details. Who could disagree with promises to "eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban" or "redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea?" But the hard part -- on which Democrats offer no details -- is how that is to be done.

On Iraq in particular, the agenda calls for "the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces," with "Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Again, what's missing are the details of what "responsible redeployment" might look like. "Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency," the Democrats say. Okay, what if that insistence doesn't yield the desired result?

As to another piece of the security agenda, energy independence, the Democrats assert that they will "achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world" -- a super-sized version of Mr. Bush's pledge to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." The Democratic plan for doing this -- tax credits and research funds -- sounds remarkably like the Bush approach, down to increased use of switch-grass ethanol. Unlike the president, the Democrats rightly frame energy independence as an environmental as well as national security issue; like the president, they're unwilling -- for the obvious reason that they don't want to be branded as tax-raisers -- to recommend a carbon tax.

The agenda is heavy on ideas -- raising the minimum wage, letting the government negotiate Medicare drug prices -- that may have more popular appeal than real-world impact...

Making the first $3,000 of college tuition tax deductible would be a wasteful way -- albeit one that resonates with voters -- of ensuring affordability if Democrats don't impose an income cutoff; none is mentioned in the proposal. The laudable pledge to lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research passed the Republican-controlled House and would almost certainly again face a presidential veto.

The Democrats promise a return to "pay as you go" budget discipline, something that is sorely overdue. But the agenda does not then explain how to pay for a raft of new spending and tax credits, from cutting college loan interest rates in half to doubling funding for basic research to giving a $1,000 match to middle- and working-class families that contribute at least that much to a retirement account.

There is a little more at the link, but I posted most of it here since the points above are the ones in the 100 hours thread.

As I have been say been saying, the Democrats still believe that government can solve every problem for you, but offer no solutions beyond slogans and promises.

 

[Steeplerot]

Profjohn, you have done much for Democratic cause this election cycle by making the right wing look like a serious bunch of kooks in here, you have pretty much ran off the more level headed debate from the right here with your worldnutdaily/limbaugh radical right tripe.

Pelosi owes you a big thank you!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TheInternal
...

I also find the irrational labeling of moderates as "extreme left" disturbing and a bit perverted. Extreme left used to mean mass socialization, tearing down buildings to let plants grow, and hugging everyone. Now "extreme leftists" are folks who happen to say "woah, what's going on? Could you explain to me why you're doing that? It doesn't make any sense."

Just my two cents.

I don't think the "righties" realize they are doing it, they still thing they are conservative, so anyone who questions them MUST be some sort of flaming liberal. Supporting the Bill of Rights has become some sort of subversive communist activity, and taking positions that people like Barry Goldwater would find a lot of common ground with means you are about 1 step away from actually being Karl Marx. And God help you if you wish someone "happy holidays"...

Republicans are so far out in left field (if you'll pardon the expression) that their perspective on the debate is skewed beyond belief.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice Washington Post OP-ED illustrates the many problems with the Democrat "agenda"

As I have been saying, they make lots of promises, but offer no solutions.

Vote Democrat and all your dreams will come true.
What Democrats Would Do

On national security, the House Democrats' plan offers more goals than details. Who could disagree with promises to "eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban" or "redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea?" But the hard part -- on which Democrats offer no details -- is how that is to be done.
...

...

What do you mean, "who could disagree" with those goals? Clearly the Republicans do...destroying al-Qaeda and bin Laden and finishing the job in Afghanistan have all taken a backseat to the Iraqi adventure. As for stopping nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea, again, I don't see Republicans doing a whole hell of a lot...everything is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. It's like AA, admitting you HAVE a problem is the first step to solving it. Unfortunately it's not the last step, but it puts the Dems one up on the Republicans.

 

[M00T]

ProfJohn, you are the most intricate, aggressive and expert troll I have ever seen.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well I think this thread settled one thing for certain. Anyone who questioned whether or not this is a left leaning forum just need look at this thread for proof.
Pretty much every idea listed in the OP would fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

And for those of you who keep bringing it up, when I say ?left? I mean the left in THIS country, which is the liberals ala Pelosi. She is certainly on the left. For some reason many of you hear ?left? and think I am talking about socialists and communists.
That comes later?

:Q Better go report some people to the Un-American Activites Committee!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: M00T
ProfJohn, you are the most intricate, aggressive and expert troll I have ever seen.

I am not sure if that is a complement or not hmmmmmm

Actually, compare my posts to half the posters on here. At least I provide actual FACTS and back up my ideas with links and documentation. Compare that to the typical P&N post which is just name calling or posting outrageous claims with no proof to back them up.

The good news is post election I will go into my typical ?post election? recovery mode and stop paying as much attention to the political news and therefore most likely cut back on my posts.

If the Democrats win though you may have to put up with me bitching for 2 years. Best part of it will be I can post one anti-Democrat thread after another, like the ones we see now, and get away with it. And when ever someone says ?what is the Republican plan? all I have to say is ?they aren?t the party in power, they can?t get anything done? like the Democrat posters are doing now? Could be fun

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
At least I provide actual FACTS and back up my ideas with links and documentation.

Wingnutdaily, freerepublic, frontpagerag, sludge report op-eds etc. are not facts, the other side would get flamed to hell and back for posting stuff from DU or rawstory KoS etc you nub.

You post that crap you lose credibility almost instantly wasting someones time skimming through partisan trash to try to prove your point, it's not cool for either side to do and just promote imo well-deserved flaming of the poster for being such a hack for even trying to get away with it pulling the debate of this forum down to slimeball levels.

 

[Gaard]

Aren't there anymore Republicans here?

"I'm an Independent."

Are Republicans ashamed to admit they're Republicans?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Aren't there anymore Republicans here?

"I'm an Independent."

Are Republicans ashamed to admit they're Republicans?

:laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
At least I provide actual FACTS and back up my ideas with links and documentation.

Wingnutdaily, freerepublic, frontpagerag, sludge report op-eds etc. are not facts, the other side would get flamed to hell and back for posting stuff from DU or rawstory KoS etc you nub.

You post that crap you lose credibility almost instantly wasting someones time skimming through partisan trash to try to prove your point, it's not cool for either side to do and just promote imo well-deserved flaming of the poster for being such a hack for even trying to get away with it pulling the debate of this forum down to slimeball levels.

Actually I don't use any of the sites you listed, used Freerepublic ONCE.
In this thread I use a San Diego newspaper and the Washington Post.
Another thread I started today uses Newsweek and the Boston Globe.
Pretty main stream sourcing if you ask me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

owned

/thread Nice try again OP, still batting 0.000 Thinks perhaps you need a job to offset all your free time message board trolling.

If in fact he is a paid GOP shill they're sure not getting thier money's worth out of him. :laugh:

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security...

No-good low-lifes. Why, anyone who opposed creating the DoHS ought to be strung up and...

Oh, wait.