• 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!

What are they?

Were the Democrats acting in the country's or their party's best interests?

  • The Dems votes and behavior were political posturing at a cost to the country

    Votes: 8 100.0%
  • They were acting on principle (all but Lieberman if this is the vote)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Dems in the Senate asked for and got a second vote in support of going into Iraq.

The Dems acted in concert with their speeches when The Clintons were president.

We all know they tried their best to aid and abed the enemy when things got rough.

Their Senate Majority Leader said "we lost."

Others slandered the troops, their Generals, and Bush. Suspending disbelief...

Which brings me to the poll...
 
We all know they tried their best to aid and abed the enemy when things got rough.
...

could we have a poll to determine whether or not you are a moron?
 
could we have a poll to determine whether or not you are a moron?

Ouch!
Hit a nerve have we?

I believe we should remember our history.
Your team should be faced with its disgusting behavior on a consistent basis... because you folks are first to forget. Hence the poll.

Never forget.
Never forget those who pissed on our troops and their families.
And for what?

I suppose you believe the Democrats voting for and then trashing the war was principled?
Trashing the troops? General Betrayus?
Treating President Bush like the enemy?
Rumsfeld?

While men and women are busy fighting a war they voted for?

I understand. I feel your pain.
It's tough to defend a bunch of vultures.
A sensitive issue.
People that vote troops to war for political expediency and then trash them when things get tough for the same reason.

Lincoln would have sent many of your team to the brig.
 
Last edited:
Democrats NEVER act for the good of the nation.

They're out there today, demanding tax increases. A crashing economy, and the fools are trying to raise taxes.

They refused to freeze federal spending. With a trillion dollar deficit and an economy sliding from recession into depression, these fools think there's no end to the money they can spend.

They're serious about this carbon tax nonsense. The economy shows no sign of slowing it's collapse....and the Democrats want to tax energy and turn a rapid slide into a headlong crash for the bottom.

The only good thing with having Democrats in office is the knowledge that the Dow Jones Industrial Average can't go below 0 points.
 
Democrats NEVER act for the good of the nation.

If you want to get down to it, neither do the Republicans. Both sides are out for nothing more than their power. They don't really act for us or by us or uphold our freedom and liberty; they all want to increase the government in their favor. Peas in a pod if you ask me. The Republicans took us into an undeclared, occupational war which we never had any business conducting. The Democrats "opposed" it in theory, but not in practice as they voted for it almost all the time. The opposition from the Democrats wasn't an ideological thing, it was a bitching at the other side thing. About the only thing the Republocrats can do right. We should never have gone into Iraq, especially without having finished in Afghanistan. We're not the Empire here, and we're not good at occupation (nor should we ever be).

In the end both of the main parties suck and are out only for the proliferation of their power, not our rights and liberties. It's time that people start to understand the overall corruption and evil nature of the Republocrats.
 
If you want to get down to it, neither do the Republicans. Both sides are out for nothing more than their power. They don't really act for us or by us or uphold our freedom and liberty; they all want to increase the government in their favor. Peas in a pod if you ask me. The Republicans took us into an undeclared, occupational war which we never had any business conducting. The Democrats "opposed" it in theory, but not in practice as they voted for it almost all the time. The opposition from the Democrats wasn't an ideological thing, it was a bitching at the other side thing. About the only thing the Republocrats can do right. We should never have gone into Iraq, especially without having finished in Afghanistan. We're not the Empire here, and we're not good at occupation (nor should we ever be).

In the end both of the main parties suck and are out only for the proliferation of their power, not our rights and liberties. It's time that people start to understand the overall corruption and evil nature of the Republocrats.

:applaud


Well said!! I know I couldn't have said it better. :)
 
The primary job of an elected official is to get re-elected :shrug:
 
If you ask me they are scum, complete scum but that would to apply to all in Washington not just the Democrats since the GOP isn't any better. Our so-called "leaders" are nothing but bottom feeding, scum-sucking, lower than trash human filth. May the all die and rot in hell.
 
If you want to get down to it, neither do the Republicans. Both sides are out for nothing more than their power. They don't really act for us or by us or uphold our freedom and liberty; they all want to increase the government in their favor. Peas in a pod if you ask me. The Republicans took us into an undeclared, occupational war which we never had any business conducting. The Democrats "opposed" it in theory, but not in practice as they voted for it almost all the time. The opposition from the Democrats wasn't an ideological thing, it was a bitching at the other side thing. About the only thing the Republocrats can do right. We should never have gone into Iraq, especially without having finished in Afghanistan. We're not the Empire here, and we're not good at occupation (nor should we ever be).

In the end both of the main parties suck and are out only for the proliferation of their power, not our rights and liberties. It's time that people start to understand the overall corruption and evil nature of the Republocrats.

Just wanted to repost this for all... Good post.
 
If you want to get down to it, neither do the Republicans. Both sides are out for nothing more than their power. They don't really act for us or by us or uphold our freedom and liberty; they all want to increase the government in their favor. Peas in a pod if you ask me. The Republicans took us into an undeclared, occupational war which we never had any business conducting. The Democrats "opposed" it in theory, but not in practice as they voted for it almost all the time. The opposition from the Democrats wasn't an ideological thing, it was a bitching at the other side thing. About the only thing the Republocrats can do right. We should never have gone into Iraq, especially without having finished in Afghanistan. We're not the Empire here, and we're not good at occupation (nor should we ever be).

In the end both of the main parties suck and are out only for the proliferation of their power, not our rights and liberties. It's time that people start to understand the overall corruption and evil nature of the Republocrats.

I never respected you more than at this moment.

I am glad I entered this thread just to read that, because the OP and poll is just garbage..
Unsubscribed..
 
Last edited:
If you want to get down to it, neither do the Republicans.

Not lately.

They've decided to copy the Democrats.

They're usually reliable for national defense issues....the only part of a budget the Democrats can see to cut is defense.

They're usually good for tax cuts....but never have the needed numbers or power of will to cut the spending that would make the most difference.

That's two issues more than the Democrats can claim.

Not much, I admit.

It's why I'm not a Republican.


Both sides are out for nothing more than their power. They don't really act for us or by us or uphold our freedom and liberty; they all want to increase the government in their favor. Peas in a pod if you ask me.

With the exceptions noted above, agreed.

The Republicans took us into an undeclared, occupational war which we never had any business conducting.

Well, let's clear up some of your confusion.

The war was authorized by Congress. The Constitution doesn't actually say what form a declaration of war must have. Quibble away. I would say our intentions were plain enough to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, since the Congress authorized the attack.

You can't have an "occupational war". The occupation comes after the major conflict was settled, as happened in Iraq. Sure, more US troops died in the occupation than in the war. Doesn't change the meanings of the words.

Certainly if you looked only at the reasons presented to the American people by Bushco, you'd not see anything that screamed "gotta act NOW!".

And agreed, IMO we shouldn't have invaded Iraq at that time.

There were real reasons, unpublished reasons, to invade Iraq. We needed troops on Iran's western border. We have troops in Iran's western border. Thus we don't have to rely on the good graces of unstable Pakistan to put pressure in Iran. Oh. You're aghast. But that's how strategic planning works.

Because Bush wasn't competent, the Iraqi operation was screwed up, and the effectiveness of the force on Iran's border is compromised. Don't listen to President Obama...we're keeping troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future...unless he's a bigger disaster than even I can see him being.

Finally...even though I correctly state we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, the Democrats, rank and file and the major politicians as well, were unutterably and completely wrong in their actions after they voted to engage in war. Once we had troops on the ground in harm's way, our options disappeared and the mission of the political leaders was to ensure those men received 150% of the support they needed to get the job those leaders ordered them to do. The Democrats hurt those men by their constant political backstabbing tactics, and that's unforgiveable.

The Democrats "opposed" it in theory, but not in practice as they voted for it almost all the time. The opposition from the Democrats wasn't an ideological thing, it was a bitching at the other side thing. About the only thing the Republocrats can do right. We should never have gone into Iraq, especially without having finished in Afghanistan. We're not the Empire here, and we're not good at occupation (nor should we ever be).

We're damn good at occupation. Just ask Japan and Germany and the Phillipines. But those missions last....oh gee, the Democrats never figured this one out...decades. The pacification of Iraq is pretty much following the timeline I expected it to. What is it, the Nintendo Generation of America can't wait fifteen years for a mission to be complete?

Then we should drill our own oil, we have enough, and become energy self-sufficient so we can begin once again to afford to ignore what the outside world is doing to itself, because if we're energy sefl-sufficient, our major needs in the world are satisfied without having to go outside and interact with them.

The BIGGEST harm the Democrats have done to the US in the last thirty years is their opposition to any sensible energy plan involving exploitation of domestic energy resources. We've no new nuclear plants, no new refineries, no signifivant new drilling, nada, yet our energy needs grow every year, as does our population. It's no wonder our economy tanked.

In the end both of the main parties suck and are out only for the proliferation of their power, not our rights and liberties. It's time that people start to understand the overall corruption and evil nature of the Republocrats.

Yeah, more or less.

Guess what's going to happen in your lifetime?

Only Republicans and Democrats will be elected President.
 
The war was authorized by Congress. The Constitution doesn't actually say what form a declaration of war must have. Quibble away. I would say our intentions were plain enough to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, since the Congress authorized the attack.
I'll quibble on moral grounds. The war was unnecessary from a national security point of view. There was no serious imminent threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq, especially the U.S. The administration was advised against war and ignored it.

You can't have an "occupational war". The occupation comes after the major conflict was settled, as happened in Iraq. Sure, more US troops died in the occupation than in the war. Doesn't change the meanings of the words.
Your quibbling right here.

Certainly if you looked only at the reasons presented to the American people by Bushco, you'd not see anything that screamed "gotta act NOW!".
I agree.
And agreed, IMO we shouldn't have invaded Iraq at that time.
Agreed, nor should we have invaded Iraq at all.

There were real reasons, unpublished reasons, to invade Iraq.
They weren't valid or justified.
We needed troops on Iran's western border. We have troops in Iran's western border.
Why, who was Iran going to invade...Iraq?
Thus we don't have to rely on the good graces of unstable Pakistan to put pressure in Iran. Oh. You're aghast. But that's how strategic planning works.
Strategic planning for the invasion of Iraq didn't have anything to do with containing Iran, there is no evidence to support this whatsoever, only speculation. Prosecuting a war against another nation and killing thousands of their people, destroying hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in civil infrastructure has to be legitimately necessary. This was not.
Because Bush wasn't competent, the Iraqi operation was screwed up,
Agreed.
and the effectiveness of the force on Iran's border is compromised.
N/A
Don't listen to President Obama...we're keeping troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future...unless he's a bigger disaster than even I can see him being.
We'll see.

Finally...even though I correctly state we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, the Democrats, rank and file and the major politicians as well, were unutterably and completely wrong in their actions after they voted to engage in war. Once we had troops on the ground in harm's way, our options disappeared and the mission of the political leaders was to ensure those men received 150% of the support they needed to get the job those leaders ordered them to do.
I agree with you in that our troops needed our full support. You are out of line if you think the "Democrats, rank and file" were unutterably and completely wrong. I'm a Democrat and I supported our troops, I was one of our troops at the time. You should be more careful, there a lot of Democrat troops who served this nation and weren't among your "rank and file."
The Democrats hurt those men by their constant political backstabbing tactics, and that's unforgiveable.
Please provide an example of how Democrats "hurt" our troops. I hear this malarkey all the time. Please substantiate.

We're damn good at occupation.
We were damn good at occupation. Not this time, we botched it. Bush and Co. got it horribly wrong and as a result many lives were lost. Iraq and the geopolitical situation there were either ignored or lost upon the Bush administration when they chose to invade. The same held true through the first half of the occupation.

Just ask Japan and Germany and the Phillipines. But those missions last....oh gee, the Democrats never figured this one out...decades.
And it was the Democratic administrations of Roosevelt and Truman that oversaw the prosecution of WW2 and the most difficult portions of the occupation of Germany and Japan. Democrats don't forget that kind of thing, to suggest that is simply ludicrous. Democrats began dissenting for a myriad of reasons, not because the "occupation was taking too long."
The pacification of Iraq is pretty much following the timeline I expected it to. What is it, the Nintendo Generation of America can't wait fifteen years for a mission to be complete?
No the reasonable and intelligent generation of American citizens are wondering why the hell we went in there to begin with. Their patience is tested because we shouldn't even be worrying about pacifying Iraq.

Then we should drill our own oil,
I agree.

The BIGGEST harm the Democrats have done to the US in the last thirty years is their opposition to any sensible energy plan involving exploitation of domestic energy resources. We've no new nuclear plants, no new refineries, no signifivant new drilling, nada, yet our energy needs grow every year, as does our population.
I can agree with this.
 
Last edited:
The primary job of an elected official is to get re-elected :shrug:

Nailed it. I've been saying this for years. Neither side is worth anything in my book.
 
Nailed it. I've been saying this for years. Neither side is worth anything in my book.

There is no more sacred, no more important vote than sending troops to battle.
Partisanship I can understand at other levels but not this one.

This is where the Democrats outdid themselves.

They spoke about Saddam's threats when The Clintons were president. That's OK.

Post 911 they struck a similar harmony, and voted twice to send troops to battle.
Twice post 911.

The second vote was of their own fruition. Bush did not need a second vote, he had their support on record. The second vote went through for political posturing for the Libs; to try and cover their record of hostility to our military and intel services.

Then their tone changed?
They slithered away from their votes... and to their natural habitat.
They became hostile to the Home Team while on the battle field fighting a cowardly enemy and a cowering civilian population.
Their Senate leader claimed "we lost" and became an al Jazeera star.
Why?

Bush was too popular and needed to be taken down.
So the Libs attacked their president, the war effort, the troops and the generals.

The Left sunk to a new all-time low... attacking the home team, giving Al Jazeera headline after headline story, and emboldening our enemies.
Day after day after day... pounding away...

Not at the enemy they voted to send troops to go fight, but THE HOME TEAM!

For what?
For what?

Political expediency.

Believing what the scum on the left did is normal behavior during a war they voted for is ludicrous. Many have proven themselves to be unAmerican and had it been another era would have been subject to the fate bestowed on treasonous individuals.


A disgusting lot the Libs, a disgusting lot.

If FDR were alive during this time, he might have sent the Libs to the internment camps.
 
Last edited:
There is no more sacred, no more important vote than sending troops to battle.
Partisanship I can understand at other levels but not this one.

This is where the Democrats outdid themselves.

They spoke about Saddam's threats when The Clintons were president. That's OK.

Post 911 they struck a similar harmony, and voted twice to send troops to battle.
Twice post 911.

The second vote was of their own fruition. Bush did not need a second vote, he had their support on record. The second vote went through for political posturing for the Libs; to try and cover their record of hostility to our military and intel services.

Then their tone changed?
They became hostile to the Home Team.
Their Senate leader claimed "we lost".
Why?

Bush was too popular and needed to be taken down.
So the Libs attacked their president, the war effort, the troops and the generals.

The Left sunk to a new all-time low... attacking the home team, giving Al Jazeera headline after headline story, and emboldening our enemies.
Day after day after day... pounding away...

Not at the enemy they voted to send troops to go fight, but THE HOME TEAM!

For what?
For what?

Political expediency.

Believing what the scum on the left did is normal behavior during a war they voted for is ludicrous. Many have proven themselves to be unAmerican and had it been another era would have been subject to the fate bestowed on treasonous individuals.


A disgusting lot the Libs, a disgusting lot.

If FDR were alive during this time, he might have sent the Libs to the internment camps.

How did you get any of that from my post...or are you just soapboxing, again?
 
How did you get any of that from my post...or are you just soapboxing, again?
I don't see any warning here... :mrgreen: ... no need for Binky... deep breath... :)

You said neither side was worth anything.

I disagree vehemently.
History proves I'm right.

I'll agree, Republicans had stopped being Republicans on many fronts, but Iraq was not one of them. Their support for the mission was consistent; except for a couple jerks like Hagel.

I proved to you one side voted on principle.
One side believed in the cause from the start.
One side voted their conscience.

The other side voted out of fear they would be politically weakened.
The other side turned on the Home Team for political expediency.
The other side behaved like traitors.
Many in the Lib party leadership should be sharing a cell with Johnny Walker Lindh.

The Libs proved themselves to be a most disgusting anti-American lot.
Using votes to send troops to war for political expediency.

People willing to send troops to battle for their own political gain are a group that can NEVER be trusted.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any warning here... :mrgreen: ... no need for Binky... deep breath... :)

You said neither side was worth anything.

I disagree vehemently.
History proves I'm right.

I'll agree, Republicans had stopped being Republicans on many fronts, but Iraq was not one of them. Their support for the mission was consistent; except for a couple jerks like Hagel.

I proved to you one side voted on principle.
One side believed in the cause from the start.
One side voted their conscience.

The other side voted out of fear they would be politically weakened.
The other side turned on the Home Team for political expediency.
The other side behaved like traitors.
Many in the Lib party leadership should be sharing a cell with Johnny Walker Lindh.

The Libs proved themselves to be a most disgusting anti-American lot.
Using votes to send troops to war for political expediency.

People willing to send troops to battle for their own political gain are a group that can NEVER be trusted.

You keep mentioning "liberals". I am a liberal. I supported the war in Iraq and still do. So did and do other liberals. Point negated.

See how easy that was? You proved nothing, and I dismantled your point, quickly. You need to learn to use the word "some". Without quantifiers, I will refute you every time with minimal effort.
 
You keep mentioning "liberals". I am a liberal. I supported the war in Iraq and still do. So did and do other liberals. Point negated.

See how easy that was? You proved nothing, and I dismantled your point, quickly. You need to learn to use the word "some". Without quantifiers, I will refute you every time with minimal effort.

Come, come.
You are being coy again.

This is precisely the point I made in my first rebuttal.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/44785-what-they.html

Ouch!
Hit a nerve have we?

I believe we should remember our history.
Your team should be faced with its disgusting behavior on a consistent basis... because you folks are first to forget. Hence the poll.

Never forget.
Never forget those who pissed on our troops and their families.
And for what?

The Libs could not tolerate one bit of dissension in their war against President Bush.

They excommunicated Lieberman at the ballot box.

They were more stalwart in their war against Bush than they were the enemies they voted to send troops to fight.

That is part of your party's history now.
I hope it haunts you folks like Vietnam did.

Because we should not forget the behavior of your party and its leadership when it comes time to vote for the Commander in Chief.
 
Last edited:
Come, come.
You are being coy again.

This is precisely the point I made in the Poll section about Libs.

Not in the least. I negated your point in one swift movement. And you have not responded to it.



The Libs could not tolerate one bit of dissension in their war against President Bush.

They excommunicated Lieberman at the ballot box.

They were more stalwart in their war against Bush than they were the enemies they voted to send troops to fight.

That is part of your party's history now.
I hope it haunts you folks like Vietnam did.

Because we should not forget the behavior of your party and its leadership when it comes time to vote for the Commander in Chief.

Here, let me correct this for you:
Some or many Libs could not tolerate one bit of dissension in their war against President Bush.

Some excommunicated Lieberman at the ballot box.

Some were more stalwart in their war against Bush than they were the enemies they voted to send troops to fight.

That is how some liberals have behaved.
IT needs to haunt them like Vietnam did.

Because we should not forget the behavior of some liberals and some of its leadership when it comes time to vote for the Commander in Chief.

There. Much more accurate. You really need to stop with the overgeneralizing, since you cannot substantiate anything you claim. What I have written, you probably could. Like I've told you, I disagree with extremists on both ends of the spectrum. You are describing extremists on one end, and are acting like one on the other.

Btw, here's a secret for you...extreme conservatives don't care about the country either...they just care about attacking liberals...just like extreme liberals don't care about the country, just care about attacking conservatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom