Libs, an easy question for y'all. What's your plan?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

So TexasTiger, all you know about the Dem party is that they're against what ever Bush is for, and that's all that really matters, right ? Seems that's all you're saying.

Thanks for proving my point that you were not sincere interested in any dialogue. You got a link to the Speakers agenda. You posed a stupid question:

Besides quitting the Iraq war, exactly WHAT are your plans to govern the country? Are you simply biding your time until you get the White House to, before you reveal any REAL plans ?

My plan is have you tried to treason and crimes against humanity. Better get a good Dem trial lawyer!

[AUman43 5]

Tiger in Spain, I'm not afraid to answer your freaking question! First of all, I would develop a PRIVATE set of conditions which MUST be met by the Iraqi government as a condition for us to remain committed to their so called infant government. Secondly, I would inform congress of what these conditions are. These people have to want freedom and and the so called democracy as bad or worse then the US if it is to succeed. So far, they have not proven that they do and appear to consider their religious differences and a desire for revenge against rival groups a higher priority than freedom. The desire for a democracy and freedom SHOULD come from within rather than be encouraged from an outside source who obviously has other selfish interests in the region. Only an idiot would believe that you can continue to occupy a country indefinately that does not want us there. Thirdly, If these private conditions are not met, I would set a private timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and concentrate on developing a peacekeeping force comprised of us as well as other countries with interests in the region. Why should be assume total responsibility for the region when others stand to gain by stability as well? There's your answer Tiger in Spain so now tear it apart!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Tiger in Spain, I'm not afraid to answer your freaking question! First of all, I would develop a PRIVATE set of conditions which MUST be met by the Iraqi government as a condition for us to remain committed to their so called infant government. Secondly, I would inform congress of what these conditions are. These people have to want freedom and and the so called democracy as bad or worse then the US if it is to succeed. So far, they have not proven that they do and appear to consider their religious differences and a desire for revenge against rival groups a higher priority than freedom. The desire for a democracy and freedom SHOULD come from within rather than be encouraged from an outside source who obviously has other selfish interests in the region. Only an idiot would believe that you can continue to occupy a country indefinately that does not want us there. Thirdly, If these private conditions are not met, I would set a private timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and concentrate on developing a peacekeeping force comprised of us as well as other countries with interests in the region. Why should be assume total responsibility for the region when others stand to gain by stability as well? There's your answer Tiger in Spain so now tear it apart!

It wasn't my question, Shug. AURaptor posed the question at the beginning of the thread and all we were given was a bunch of stuttering, ducking and dodging by one of the resident ants to the countrys picnic.

Thank you for posting something other than the drivel one could dig up at crooks and liars, but the question was

Besides quitting the Iraq war, exactly WHAT are your plans to govern the country? Are you simply biding your time until you get the White House to, before you reveal any REAL plans ?

Seriously, what can the country expect ? How will the Dem party improve on a low unemployment rate, massive revenue raised from Bush's tax cuts, and an all time high in the stock market ?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Tiger in Spain, I'm not afraid to answer your freaking question! First of all, I would develop a PRIVATE set of conditions which MUST be met by the Iraqi government as a condition for us to remain committed to their so called infant government. Secondly, I would inform congress of what these conditions are. These people have to want freedom and and the so called democracy as bad or worse then the US if it is to succeed. So far, they have not proven that they do and appear to consider their religious differences and a desire for revenge against rival groups a higher priority than freedom. The desire for a democracy and freedom SHOULD come from within rather than be encouraged from an outside source who obviously has other selfish interests in the region. Only an idiot would believe that you can continue to occupy a country indefinately that does not want us there. Thirdly, If these private conditions are not met, I would set a private timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and concentrate on developing a peacekeeping force comprised of us as well as other countries with interests in the region. Why should be assume total responsibility for the region when others stand to gain by stability as well? There's your answer Tiger in Spain so now tear it apart!

It wasn't my question, Shug. AURaptor posed the question at the beginning of the thread and all we were given was a bunch of stuttering, ducking and dodging by one of the resident ants to the countrys picnic.

Thank you for posting something other than the drivel one could dig up at crooks and liars, but the question was

Besides quitting the Iraq war, exactly WHAT are your plans to govern the country? Are you simply biding your time until you get the White House to, before you reveal any REAL plans ?

Seriously, what can the country expect ? How will the Dem party improve on a low unemployment rate, massive revenue raised from Bush's tax cuts, and an all time high in the stock market ?

You're going to be arrested, too.

[otterinbham 0]

Awfully quiet in this room. Anybody here? Echo echo echo echo....

Oh, I forgot. They don't have a plan.

Can you articulate the Republican "plan"? If Republicans had not lost both houses and were still in charge with no real threat of a veto they would need to override, what would they be doing right now that isn't happening?

Actually, the Republicans had a plan which they failed to completely execute. They lowered taxes, but failed to reform Social Security. That will be the biggest debacle of the Republican congress. That and the Prescription Act.

However, an imperfect plan is far better than going back to the playbook from 1968.

You mean staying in Viet Nam? Otherwise, what 1968 throwback legislation are you talking about?

Oh, I mean adding even more entitlement programs, the ongoing ratcheting up of overall tax rates and expansion of government--The entire Keynsian panoply of social services envisioned by that buffoon Lyndon Johnson. The problem with the incompetent Bush regime (Yes, Incompetent) is that the pressing issue of expanding government has actually been accelerated during his administration, not checked.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Awfully quiet in this room. Anybody here? Echo echo echo echo....

Oh, I forgot. They don't have a plan.

Can you articulate the Republican "plan"? If Republicans had not lost both houses and were still in charge with no real threat of a veto they would need to override, what would they be doing right now that isn't happening?

Actually, the Republicans had a plan which they failed to completely execute. They lowered taxes, but failed to reform Social Security. That will be the biggest debacle of the Republican congress. That and the Prescription Act.

However, an imperfect plan is far better than going back to the playbook from 1968.

You mean staying in Viet Nam? Otherwise, what 1968 throwback legislation are you talking about?

Oh, I mean adding even more entitlement programs, the ongoing ratcheting up of overall tax rates and expansion of government--The entire Keynsian panoply of social services envisioned by that buffoon Lyndon Johnson. The problem with the incompetent Bush regime (Yes, Incompetent) is that the pressing issue of expanding government has actually been accelerated during his administration, not checked.

Are there particular Dem legislative proposals that give you concerns, or are you stating just a general concern?

[AURaptor 1,126]

So TexasTiger, all you know about the Dem party is that they're against what ever Bush is for, and that's all that really matters, right ? Seems that's all you're saying.

Thanks for proving my point that you were not sincere interested in any dialogue. You got a link to the Speakers agenda. You posed a stupid question:

Besides quitting the Iraq war, exactly WHAT are your plans to govern the country? Are you simply biding your time until you get the White House to, before you reveal any REAL plans ?

My plan is have you tried to treason and crimes against humanity. Better get a good Dem trial lawyer!

When you fail to answer a simple, direct question, time and time again, it's logical to conclude that you HAVE no answer. How that proves some specious point that I'm not interested in sincere dialogue is beyond all comprehension.

Yeah, you posted the Speaker's propaganda page. That's horse$hit , and you know it. ANY politicians flowery prose sounds great, whether it makes any sense at all or not.

If you can't even come up with the most basic of ideas which the Dems favor, then why even bother by posting anything at all ? Such a sincere and basic question sure has gotten you acting all childish and all. I wonder why.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

So TexasTiger, all you know about the Dem party is that they're against what ever Bush is for, and that's all that really matters, right ? Seems that's all you're saying.

Thanks for proving my point that you were not sincere interested in any dialogue. You got a link to the Speakers agenda. You posed a stupid question:

Besides quitting the Iraq war, exactly WHAT are your plans to govern the country? Are you simply biding your time until you get the White House to, before you reveal any REAL plans ?

My plan is have you tried to treason and crimes against humanity. Better get a good Dem trial lawyer!

When you fail to answer a simple, direct question, time and time again, it's logical to conclude that you HAVE no answer. How that proves some specious point that I'm not interested in sincere dialogue is beyond all comprehension.

Yeah, you posted the Speaker's propaganda page. That's horse$hit , and you know it. ANY politicians flowery prose sounds great, whether it makes any sense at all or not.

If you can't even come up with the most basic of ideas which the Dems favor, then why even bother by posting anything at all ? Such a sincere and basic question sure has gotten you acting all childish and all. I wonder why.

You asked for MY PLAN as if I'm in charge. If I'm in charge, you're going to Gitmo. We'll check on you in three years so you can tell us how it really is. Take copious notes.

PS: Pack light.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You asked for MY PLAN as if I'm in charge. If I'm in charge, you're going to Gitmo. We'll check on you in three years so you can tell us how it really is. Take copious notes.

PS: Pack light.

No, I asked for Libs plan, as a party, not YOUR own private agenda, if YOU ruled the world. Try to keep up.

If the Dems control the W.H. come '08, I may prefer a tropical vacation to what's in store for the rest of the country.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

You asked for MY PLAN as if I'm in charge. If I'm in charge, you're going to Gitmo. We'll check on you in three years so you can tell us how it really is. Take copious notes.

PS: Pack light.

No, I asked for Libs plan, as a party, not YOUR own private agenda, if YOU ruled the world. Try to keep up.

If the Dems control the W.H. come '08, I may prefer a tropical vacation to what's in store for the rest of the country.

You keep changing your mind about what you say you want.

Club Gitmo, here you come!!!!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nope. You just don't want to or can't respond. I find that rather odd. And I also find it funny that you'd threaten to send me to Gitmo for merely asking you a question. This shows the Dems to be far more NAZI like than the GOP who they are constantly trying to call NAZIS. I guess there's a ton of projectionism going on here w/ the Left.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Nope. You just don't want to or can't respond. I find that rather odd. And I also find it funny that you'd threaten to send me to Gitmo for merely asking you a question. This shows the Dems to be far more NAZI like than the GOP who they are constantly trying to call NAZIS. I guess there's a ton of projectionism going on here w/ the Left.

C'mon, Gitmo's not that bad. Duncan Hunter is the candidate who thinks most like many of the Republicans here:

''They've never been treated better and they've never been more comfortable in their lives," Hunter told a group of journalists two weeks ago, offering as a prop a plate of oven-fried chicken, one of the entrees served to inmates at Guantanamo.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._is_patriotism/

You'll relax, eat well...It's a freakin' all-inclusive Club Med and you're getting it free of charge! We're even borrowing the money from the Chinese so hard working Americans don't have to pay for it. Our Grandkids will. You hate lawyers, but you don't have to see one!!! How great is that?

But that's how it goes. When you were in charge, you decided which Americans were enemies to America. Now we decide. That's Bush's view of governing that you embraced, right?

[AURaptor 1,126]

That's Bush's view of governing that you embraced, right?

See, this is where I think the problem rests. You live in a delusional world of fantasy. Who was sent to Gitmo for simply not supporting the President ? Who else but Islamic terrorist has ever been sent to Gitmo ? In your world, you seem to think that it's some sort of Gulag, where political prisoners consist of lawyers, teachers, artist and the like, many of them American citizens.

It's clear you have no intention in treating this topic w/ any amount of sincerity or maturity. Since you've turned your replies into a sad attempt at comedy, I'm done w/ you. Good day.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

That's Bush's view of governing that you embraced, right?

See, this is where I think the problem rests. You live in a delusional world of fantasy. Who was sent to Gitmo for simply not supporting the President ? Who else but Islamic terrorist has ever been sent to Gitmo ? In your world, you seem to think that it's some sort of Gulag, where political prisoners consist of lawyers, teachers, artist and the like, many of them American citizens.

It's clear you have no intention in treating this topic w/ any amount of sincerity or maturity. Since you've turned your replies into a sad attempt at comedy, I'm done w/ you. Good day.

And to think, I was using my pull to get you a room with a view.

[CCTAU 3,344]

Dims have no plan except to QUIT and call it Bush's fault.

And this is America Jack. You ain't got enough firepower to take me to Gitmo.