eddieb said:
Ignoring the namecalling, you only correctly characterize the typical democratic positions in 3, 4, and 7.
Using #2 as an example, you don't think that Democrats are generally pro abortion? That will come as quite a shock to NOW and NARAL. They will be shocked and saddened that they are almost exclusively supporting candidates that are not generally pro abortion.
And while we're at it, you probably would have been more accurate to say I was wrong about #3 because Democratic politicians make a big deal about going hunting no more than once each election to fool the rather large number of gun owning Democrat voters that they are NOT anti- gun. If they were honest about their positions on guns they would lose droves of supporters who only pay attention to what they say during elections, not what they say and do the rest of the time.
I was making general statements, and you can find exceptions to all of them on both sides. I was kinda going by majority positions. For instance, if you were to ask ALL Democrats are you pro or anti gun, more would say anti, although a lot would say pro. If you asked all Republicans the same question, more would say pro, but you could probably find quite a few that think no one but police and military should have them.
What namecalling? Suggesting that Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had balls while Carter, Reagan (in a couple of cases) Bush, and Clinton acted like pussies in responding to terrorist attacks is namecalling? I consider it a curt evaluation of their performance. I could do a nice long list of things they did that I liked, and things that I didn't. I was trying to be breif, instead of posting a novella.
Let's do the current President as an example:
Dealing with terrorists:O.K. overall, but could be a lot tougher. But it is a work in progress, so a final evaluation is not possible. So far, more balls than pussy.
Dealing with illegal immigration, definitely a pussy. Since nothing at all seems to be going to be done about it, I think a final grade could be given now.
ChrisReid, I know I'm probably taking a chance here, but the point is to try to look at each parties' responses to terrorism. Just by WHAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY DONE, I see that one party is tough with them, the other is not. It kinda seems to me that it would be in our national interest to smash the fly with a sledgehammer, rather than just shooing him away, when dealing with these dirtbags.
I thought we would be landing a Marine division in Lebanon in 1983 after they blew up the BLT and killed more than 200 Marines. I thought we would level the place before we left, just to show the world "This is what happens when you fuck with us." But we didn't. We lobbed a few 16 inch shells, tucked tail and ran. Although Reagan was a great president for most of the rest of his terms, I will never forgive him for letting the Marine Corps take that gigantic black eye without a fight.
And our responses now should strike terror into all who dare to challenge us. It's one thing to declare a war, don uniforms, and go forth to the field of battle and settle differences, but quite another to hide like a rat and attack innocent civilian men, women and children. Those types of tactics should be dealt with in the harshest possible way.
And any politician not willing to do that is a weenie. And that's a name they deserve to be called.
Semper Fi.
(Thanks McGruff.)
