ReDemlicraticans...

[CaptainBallz]

:mad: Really, wtf is the difference....:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_28

[Palehose13]

:mad: Really, wtf is the difference....:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_28

The Dems typically support social equality when the pubes are all about repression of the hippies, gays, and other creative cultures.

[1951Campbell]

:mad: Really, wtf is the difference....:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_28

You can bet your last dollar if there's military action in Iran, most Democrats will vote for it. :shrug:

[1951Campbell]

The Dems typically support social equality when the pubes are all about repression of the hippies, gays, and other creative cultures.

:rolleyes:

[CaptainBallz]

You can bet your last dollar if there's military action in Iran, most Democrats will vote for it. :shrug:

I'm going to bet my last dollar that there already is military action in Iran and everybody just needs to haw, maw, posture, and be symbollically "tough", yet not too tough, in asking for an explanation until enough time is wasted that it becomes an accepted and irreversable fact of life that that is just what we're gonna do.

Then from the Fox Newses and the Stockdales we'll hear, "Well, we're in and now you want us to LEAVE!!?!?! How IRRESPONSIBLE!" And on and on and on and on and on......

[1951Campbell]

Then from the Fox Newses and the Stockdales we'll hear, "Well, we're in and now you want us to LEAVE!!?!?! How IRRESPONSIBLE!" And on and on and on and on and on......

:shrug:

What more is there to say, there's no viable anti-war party in this country, I don't care how hopeful they are at DailyKos.

[CaptainBallz]

:shrug:

What more is there to say, there's no viable anti-war party in this country, I don't care how hopeful they are at DailyKos.

It's hard to have a viable anything with only two corporate funded parties. Two sides of the same coin.
I may be jumping the gun on this because I'm not sure of the underlying strategy behind the move, but backing down in the face of god-knows-what at this stage is political suicide for most non-Liebermans involved. Popular opinion is just not on the side of escalation right now and these buttheaded Dems know that they ran into office with that. To begin backing down NOW just doen't seem to make a whole lot of sense...

[JohnBasedowYoda]

The Dems typically support social equality when the pubes are all about repression of the hippies, gays, and other creative cultures.



:jagoff:

[1951Campbell]

I may be jumping the gun on this because I'm not sure of the underlying strategy behind the move, but backing down in the face of god-knows-what at this stage is political suicide for most non-Liebermans involved. Popular opinion is just not on the side of escalation right now and these buttheaded Dems know that they ran into office with that. To begin backing down NOW just doen't seem to make a whole lot of sense...

If I were cyncial, I'd say the Democrats are hoping for perpetual war so they can run against it in perpetuity.

I'm also reminded of the joke from the Sixties: "they said if I voted for Goldwater, we'd have war in Vietnam. Well, they were right."

Also, seriously...no one's going into Iran without going to Congress first, even if it's with some weak-ass Gulf of Tonkin-type shit.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I'm going to bet my last dollar that there already is military action in Iran and everybody just needs to haw, maw, posture, and be symbollically "tough", yet not too tough, in asking for an explanation until enough time is wasted that it becomes an accepted and irreversable fact of life that that is just what we're gonna do.

Then from the Fox Newses and the Stockdales we'll hear, "Well, we're in and now you want us to LEAVE!!?!?! How IRRESPONSIBLE!" And on and on and on and on and on......


If the liberals ever come up with a plan, other than saying "we need to leave" then maybe we could support it. But much like EVERY liberal protest you see, its only "Bush this" "end the war now" etc etc

You cant just have a great dinner, you need to plan, go through it, then eat it. Liberals want the fast food equivalent of iraq

[StockdaleforVeep]

The Dems typically support social equality when the pubes are all about repression of the hippies, gays, and other creative cultures.

Dems want to take away gun ownership cuz apparently sane minded people arent responsible enough for themselevs and want tax payers to pay for health care that would benefit deadbeats who OD

Also, the democratic party believes in keeping marriage at the state level, which i do agree with. But who knows, should wisconsin or illinois vote to ban gay union and whatnot, what will you say of your democracy then? The dem party also believes you are entitled to a job BECAUSE you are a minority and believe my taxes should go to pay for some girls' mistake she made(abortion)

Yeah...my party wins

[maurice]

The IL legislature voted against the idea of gay marriage some time ago.

All of this will change when the Boomers start dropping like flies. Subsequent generations are extremely pro-fag.

[StockdaleforVeep]

The IL legislature voted against the idea of gay marriage some time ago.

All of this will change when the Boomers start dropping like flies. Subsequent generations are extremely pro-fag.

http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i22/Philadelphia_FF_300x225_012320041710.gif
"I have aids"

[maurice]

The only thing worse than a tax-and-spend Democrat is a cut-tax-and-spend-even-more Republican.

Remember when some folks in the federal government wanted to cut spending? If there are any left, they have enemies on both sides of the aisle and especially in the White House.

[itsnotrequired]

Fuck 'em.

Vote for me and the prize is yours.

[itsnotrequired]

Buy me a glass of shiraz at the game and we'll do business.

Go to one of those Patio Parties and it is all-you-can-drink wine. :omg:

[chisoxtony]

The Dems typically support social equality when the pubes are all about repression of the hippies, gays, and other creative cultures.

You know..the funny thing is..is that both parties have basically switched places the past 100 years.

The Republicans were actually formed as an anti-slavery party in the 1850's. Lincoln was the first Republican president. The Democrats were very right winged at the time and were a racist southern party. The Republicans were the Eastern and New England liberal party. It was pretty much this way until the 1930's. The Republicans were the ones who supported the arts..human rights..woman's sufferage in the early 20th century. The Democrats had a lot of support among former members of the Confederacy. Minorities actually used to overwhelmingly vote Republican.

The market crash and the Great Depression changed things. The Dems started helping the poor more and became the majority. The Republicans became a minority in Congress and started to appeal more to Southern whites, conservatives and the religous right to win elections while the Democrats started drawing more from the left.

A Democrat in 1907 would be a Republican in 2007. And a Republican in 1907 would be more like a Democrat in 2007.

Both parties continually evolve and represent NOTHING that they did 50 or a 100 years ago. 50 years from now they will have entirely different constituencies and support entirely different things. What you are now..you might have more in common with another party down the road..

[CaptainBallz]

If the liberals ever come up with a plan, other than saying "we need to leave" then maybe we could support it. But much like EVERY liberal protest you see, its only "Bush this" "end the war now" etc etc

You cant just have a great dinner, you need to plan, go through it, then eat it. Liberals want the fast food equivalent of iraq

There's been plenty of ideas suggesting phased withdrawals, timetables, redeployments, ISD suggestions, and on and on, that are blown off as "non-starters" by the neocons. Then FOX chimes in and asks "WHERE's THE IDEAS!!??":jagoff: Then, strangely, you parrot the same crap.

It seems that as long as the ideas don't involve perpetual military action, your kind isn't too interested in it.

And please don't talk about "plans" when defending this clusterfuck administration and it's half-ass attempts at imperial profit raids... i know "you go to war with the army you have" and all... :rolleyes:

Dems want to take away gun ownership cuz apparently sane minded people arent responsible enough for themselevs and want tax payers to pay for health care that would benefit deadbeats who OD

Read this. Realize you make no sense. Try again.

[Palehose13]

You know..the funny thing is..is that both parties have basically switched places the past 100 years.

The Republicans were actually formed as an anti-slavery party in the 1850's. Lincoln was the first Republican president. The Democrats were very right winged at the time and were a racist southern party. The Republicans were the Eastern and New England liberal party. It was pretty much this way until the 1930's. The Republicans were the ones who supported the arts..human rights..woman's sufferage in the early 20th century. The Democrats had a lot of support among former members of the Confederacy. Minorities actually used to overwhelmingly vote Republican.

The market crash and the Great Depression changed things. The Dems started helping the poor more and became the majority. The Republicans became a minority in Congress and started to appeal more to Southern whites, conservatives and the religous right to win elections while the Democrats started drawing more from the left.

A Democrat in 1907 would be a Republican in 2007. And a Republican in 1907 would be more like a Democrat in 2007.

Both parties continually evolve and represent NOTHING that they did 50 or a 100 years ago. 50 years from now they will have entirely different constituencies and support entirely different things. What you are now..you might have more in common with another party down the road..

That is some interesting stuff. Even though many think that I am a true lefty liberla democrat, I guess I would say that I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in helping people, but I want programs that work. Teach people how to instead of just giving things away. I also want equality. Contrary to popular belief we are far from it, and I am not just speaking about homosexuals.

[chisoxtony]

That is some interesting stuff. Even though many think that I am a true lefty liberla democrat, I guess I would say that I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in helping people, but I want programs that work. Teach people how to instead of just giving things away. I also want equality. Contrary to popular belief we are far from it, and I am not just speaking about homosexuals.

I am the same way..pretty liberal socially (one exception is I do favor the death penalty) but somewhat conservative fiscally...

[kittle42]

Fuck Democrats. Just throw money at the hapless and stupid. Tax and spend! Tax and spend! Yippee!!1

Fuck 'em.

The current administration spends like there's no tomorrow (mostly because they almost don't care if there is), and has just exploded big government, which is exactly what the Rebpublican party was against as recently as a decade ago.

[StockdaleforVeep]

There's been plenty of ideas suggesting phased withdrawals, timetables, redeployments, ISD suggestions, and on and on, that are blown off as "non-starters" by the neocons. Then FOX chimes in and asks "WHERE's THE IDEAS!!??":jagoff: Then, strangely, you parrot the same crap.

It seems that as long as the ideas don't involve perpetual military action, your kind isn't too interested in it.

And please don't talk about "plans" when defending this clusterfuck administration and it's half-ass attempts at imperial profit raids... i know "you go to war with the army you have" and all... :rolleyes:



Read this. Realize you make no sense. Try again.

Correct me if im wrong, but i believe the timetable has been set for the past year plus. The timetable for withdrawal is dependant on iraq's governing force assuming control

[Palehose13]

I am the same way..pretty liberal socially (one exception is I do favor the death penalty) but somewhat conservative fiscally...

I haven't decided yet about the death penalty. I voted for it in Wisconsin the last election, but now I am not so sure. It really is a tough one for me.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I haven't decided yet about the death penalty. I voted for it in Wisconsin the last election, but now I am not so sure. It really is a tough one for me.

Whats so hard, either u kill someone and should die, or you kill someone and go to jail to live until you die

[chisoxtony]

Whats so hard, either u kill someone and should die, or you kill someone and go to jail to live until you die

I'm mixed on the Death Penalty..if someone is wrongly convicted and executed..you cannot correct the mistake..however if someone is locked up..you can let them go. Also..I don't really believe it is a deterrent..

That said..if some piece of scum grabs a six year old child from a playground..ties them up..tortures and terrorizes them and then kills them (Ted Bundy did this to a 13 year old girl..his last crime AFTER he had been caught and escaped from jail!)..I have no qualms about someone like that being permanantly extinguished from the planet so they can never do it again...

I have very mixed feelings..I think some people truly deserve it..but there is always the chance an innocent could be executed..

[CaptainBallz]

Correct me if im wrong, but i believe the timetable has been set for the past year plus. The timetable for withdrawal is dependant on iraq's governing force assuming control

"Year plus" = since "Mission Accomplished".
The fact is that that isn't a strategy, timetable, or plan. It's a generic subjective rhetorical loop-de-loop that is not meant to be used as legitimate standard of progress. It allows for the perpetual continuation and extension of the occupation.
Even the "conservative" estimate for the realistic completion of the training process is at 5-10 years!!!

Umm, bad plan maybe??

[StockdaleforVeep]

"Year plus" = since "Mission Accomplished".
The fact is that that isn't a strategy, timetable, or plan. It's a generic subjective rhetorical loop-de-loop that is not meant to be used as legitimate standard of progress. It allows for the perpetual continuation and extension of the occupation.
Even the "conservative" estimate for the realistic completion of the training process is at 5-10 years!!!

Umm, bad plan maybe??

Bad plan maybe but democrats have not put forth a time table. You have broad speculations as well. I believe obama said all troops back by 08 or something to that degree. So if violence escalates, does that mean we will see a "fall of Baghdad"? like in Saigon? Refering back to vietnam, every president promised troop reductions, even the mytholized(yes i made a word but its what he has become) JFK, ended up surging more troops.

And i believe either in the initial invasion fo Afghanistan or Iraq, i forget which but it was during the night drop of the 101st, military commanders said this is an operation that would take 10 years or so.

[Palehose13]

Whats so hard, either u kill someone and should die, or you kill someone and go to jail to live until you die

Tony explains what I have an issue with:

I'm mixed on the Death Penalty..if someone is wrongly convicted and executed..you cannot correct the mistake..however if someone is locked up..you can let them go. Also..I don't really believe it is a deterrent..

That said..if some piece of scum grabs a six year old child from a playground..ties them up..tortures and terrorizes them and then kills them (Ted Bundy did this to a 13 year old girl..his last crime AFTER he had been caught and escaped from jail!)..I have no qualms about someone like that being permanantly extinguished from the planet so they can never do it again...

I have very mixed feelings..I think some people truly deserve it..but there is always the chance an innocent could be executed..

There is almost always a slight chance that someone is wrongly convicted. DNA evidence in the recent decade has overturned a number of convictions that were wrong. Who knows what type of science we may be able to come up with in the next decade or two that may be able overturn people who have been wrongly convicted. I'm not saying that there are a significant number of people who are wrongly convicted, but if even one innocent person is executed in my mind it would make the death penalty absolutely wrong.

[CaptainBallz]

Bad plan maybe but democrats have not put forth a time table. You have broad speculations as well. I believe obama said all troops back by 08 or something to that degree. So if violence escalates, does that mean we will see a "fall of Baghdad"? like in Saigon? Refering back to vietnam, every president promised troop reductions, even the mytholized(yes i made a word but its what he has become) JFK, ended up surging more troops.

And i believe either in the initial invasion fo Afghanistan or Iraq, i forget which but it was during the night drop of the 101st, military commanders said this is an operation that would take 10 years or so.

Your first and third sentence completely contradict each other. The Democrats HAVE put forth plans, as much as Hannity would love to tell you they haven't. The problem was they didn't have any means to get those plans through Congress until January. Now they do and are hopefully moving on some, but they're seemingly making ridiculous compromises along the way.

It also seems that by your "Fall of Saigon" reference that you're suggesting we probably should've stayed in Vietnam longer. I don't think I really need to address the parallels between the wars or how preposterous that notion is. There comes a time when you need to reevaluate your assumptions. Violence WILL indeed escalate in the Middle East as long as we're there-- but we're there just in case violence escalates?!? Here's where I invoke Orwell...

As for the commanders realizing whatever mission they were given would take ten plus years, I believe that. I trust our military commanders for the most part with the war thing. Strangely, I don't remember hearing much about those 10 year timetables BEFORE the invasions from our friends at the WH.

[SABRSox]

As for the commanders realizing whatever mission they were given would take ten plus years, I believe that. I trust our military commanders for the most part with the war thing. Strangely, I don't remember hearing much about those 10 year timetables BEFORE the invasions from our friends at the WH.

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,1150688_4,00.jpg
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

[maurice]

The death penalty is a bitch. I'm not a very "pro-life" person, so I'm not against the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, war, IVF, stem-cell research, etc. on principle. OTOH, some of these things often are a very bad idea. Considering the sheer number of people sentenced to death for crimes they never committed (because the "scientific evidence" wasn't really scientific, because some asshole beat out a false confession, because some jailhouse snitch made up a story, because some "eyewitness" never saw what they said they saw, etc.), the death penalty really looks like a bad idea in almost every case.

What annoys me are all the allegedly "pro-life" people who fail to recognize these problems. (They're usually pro-war as well.) Among them are all the people who bitched and moaned when then-Gov. Ryan converted a bunch of death sentences into life sentences. Life in prison really should be enough unless you're a particularly blood-thirsty individual. The IL prison system is not a pleasant place to live.

[CaptainBallz]

The death penalty is archaic and a bad idea. It's nothing but state sponsored vengeance. Does nothing for crime prevention or justice. It should be abolished by all nations that even dare call themselves civilized.

And, oh yeah, fuck Texas.

[StockdaleforVeep]

The death penalty is a bitch. I'm not a very "pro-life" person, so I'm not against the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, war, IVF, stem-cell research, etc. on principle. OTOH, some of these things often are a very bad idea. Considering the sheer number of people sentenced to death for crimes they never committed (because the "scientific evidence" wasn't really scientific, because some asshole beat out a false confession, because some jailhouse snitch made up a story, because some "eyewitness" never saw what they said they saw, etc.), the death penalty really looks like a bad idea in almost every case.

What annoys me are all the allegedly "pro-life" people who fail to recognize these problems. (They're usually pro-war as well.) Among them are all the people who bitched and moaned when then-Gov. Ryan converted a bunch of death sentences into life sentences. Life in prison really should be enough unless you're a particularly blood-thirsty individual. The IL prison system is not a pleasant place to live.

You go to prison and have the rest of your life paid for by tax payers in free food, housing and for some, college education in the prison. Yes its "bad conditions" but many in the high level of incarceration are probably used to "harsh living" so they are able to adapt easy, plus drug usage is rampant in the prison systems so those who are prominent sellers\users outside of the prison are able to continue inside. Also, for families who lose a loved one to a murderer who has no remorse in the killing, how does letting them live in prison seem "justice." Yes eye for an eye doesnt bring back the dead but letting the killer live is a mockery to the memory of the dead

[StockdaleforVeep]

The death penalty is archaic and a bad idea. It's nothing, but state sponsored vengeance. Does nothing for crime prevention or justice. It should be abolished by all nations that even dare call themselves civilized.

And, oh yeah, fuck Texas.

Then how should the prisons work then? Civilized people also dont kill people in stores or houses for shoes and tv's

[CaptainBallz]

Then how should the prisons work then? Civilized people also dont kill people in stores or houses for shoes and tv's

Prisons should work like prisons. They're here to keep people off the street who have and will continue to cause harm to others (i.e. pot smokers). But it should be understood that doing so is a surface-level temporary fix that do not really address deeper underlying issues.

In the case of the shoe's and TV's, I'd say that that issue is most likely poverty.

[maurice]

You go to prison and have the rest of your life paid for by tax payers . . . .

Actually, life in prison costs tax payers less than imposing the death penalty. Due process ain't cheap. In the olden days, folks would argue that you should kill 'em quicker and get rid of the process . . . and then all the wrongful convictions came to light.

Thank god for DNA. Before that, they'd just go ahead and kill the innocent ones. Heck, they still do if there's no DNA evidence or if it's never tested.

(discussion of life in prison)

Have you ever been inside an IL state prison?

Going off on a tangent: The lawlessness inside of prisons and jails is particularly appalling when you consider that the vast majority of prisoners will get out. If they weren't hardened criminals when they entered, they damn well will be when they get out. It's a great recruiting tool for gangs, as well.

Also, for families who lose a loved one to a murderer who has no remorse in the killing, how does letting them live in prison seem "justice."

Oh, this one is easy. I already hinted at it with my "blood-thirsty" comment. Many people think that they'd feel better if they could get vengence by killing the killer. That's not true. The grief process doesn't work that way. The family still has to live with the loss. Killing the killer doesn't bring the victim back. Vengence doesn't benefiit anybody. This is the genius of Christianity.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Actually, life in prison costs tax payers less than imposing the death penalty. Due process ain't cheap. In the olden days, folks would argue that you should kill 'em quicker and get rid of the process . . . and then all the wrongful convictions came to light.

Thank god for DNA. Before that, they'd just go ahead and kill the innocent ones. Heck, they still do if there's no DNA evidence or if it's never tested.



Have you ever been inside an IL state prison?

Going off on a tangent: The lawlessness inside of prisons and jails is particularly appalling when you consider that the vast majority of prisoners will get out. If they weren't hardened criminals when they entered, they damn well will be when they get out. It's a great recruiting tool for gangs, as well.



Oh, this one is easy. I already hinted at it with my "blood-thirsty" comment. Many people think that they'd feel better if they could get vengence by killing the killer. That's not true. The grief process doesn't work that way. The family still has to live with the loss. Killing the killer doesn't bring the victim back. Vengence doesn't benefiit anybody. This is the genius of Christianity.

I have not been in a prison, because i have morals and understand the concept of following law. If someone killed a loved one of mine, i would not want him simply living "safely" in prison the rest of his life. Yes he is in a violent environment but he gets to spend every day eating, sleeping, reading, etc, not contributing anything to society and taking breaths away from people who deserve it. Also, in prison, he also runs the chance of killing other "innocent" criminals in prison

[maurice]

I have not been in a prison

In other words, you don't know what it's like. Rent Shawshank. It's kinda like that, except that IL prisons currently are much more restrictive, and you get two men to a single-person cell. Ask Jeff Dahmer how "safe" it is to be a murderer in prison.

because i have morals and understand the concept of following law.

Unlike those damn immoral prison guards, nurses, priests, and other people who work and volunteer in prisons.
:rolleyes:

Also, in prison, he also runs the chance of killing other "innocent" criminals in prison

Shouldn't you be in favor of this sort of thing? And didn't you just say that prisoners are safe?

My post also mentioned jails. That's where you go before you've been convicted of a crime. If you're poor, you can't make bail and have to stay there, sometimes for a year or more, even if it turns out that the cops nabbed the wrong guy.

[StockdaleforVeep]

In other words, you don't know what it's like. Rent Shawshank. It's kinda like that, except that IL prisons currently are much more restrictive, and you get two men to a single-person cell. Ask Jeff Dahmer how "safe" it is to be a murderer in prison.


So unless you are speaking because you have been in prison, you are basing prison life off a book\movie? Yes i have seen it, and gee, a guy was able to manipulate the system and escape. If you want to rattle off other movies\shows, i have seen prison break, and despite how rough and tough it is, gangs and politics run rampant

If someone killed someone and is unrepentant, why should he still have the gift of life preserved for him? If you are against the death penalty, you would think to keeping prisoners off life imprisonment because all it does is bottle together the violent element and perpetuate violence.

[maurice]

So unless you are speaking because you have been in prison, you are basing prison life off a book\movie?

No, I'm basing it on the fact that I am one of the other things I mentioned ("people who work and volunteer in prisons") and on the fact that I regularly communicate with people who are inside of IL prisons, jails, and lockups. I've been inside state prisons, police lockups, court-house lockups, a federal detention center, and 26th & California.

I only mentioned Shawshank, because it's a fairly popular film, and because it was made in an actual (decomissioned) prison. In fact, it's an awful lot like Stateville in Joliet, except with half as many men per cell.

If someone killed someone and is unrepentant, why should he still have the gift of life preserved for him?

I have no idea what this means. Like I said, I'm not against the death penalty on principle. It's the application that's messed up.

If you are against the death penalty, you would think to keeping prisoners off life imprisonment because all it does is bottle together the violent element and perpetuate violence.

Bottling together the violent element is a good thing and probably the main purpose of prisons. The problem is when you mix the violent element with the non-violent element, like the 18-year-old in for possession of marijuana, the 52-year-old in for fraud, and the schizo in for thinking that his victim was a purple monkey with bad intentions.