Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What would the Dems do if they won? (vanity)

Posted on 01/13/2006 10:27:54 AM PST by ark_girl

I have a question.

The Democrats seem to have no real interest in us winning the war on terror. If they got their way and we lose, what do these people think they're going to do with the result? These are people who resent Christians for being too stuffy and judgemental. Why do they think they would enjoy living in a Muslim state where you can be killed for most of the activities they so desperately want to protect?

I appreciate their self-loathing, but there's a difference between embarassing yourself and trying to bring on torture that would most likely involve massive death, rapes, and unimaginable torture (we're not talking making people listen to Barry Manilow in a cold room on their knees at the kinds of stuff you hear about at Club Gitmo....we're talking about the removal of appendages and the kind of things you see in horror movies).

I can understand why they wanted communism to win...they thought they would be the ruling class. I don't understand why they want the Islamofascists to win. Any thoughts? I appologize if this is the wrong place to post this.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: slowday; vanity; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 01/13/2006 10:27:55 AM PST by ark_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
The stakes are too high for the west to lose, and even the liberal types know this.

Actually, I think that the GOP has had a very restrained approach to the war on terror. A dem commander in chief would be free to be a lot more belligerent in attacking our enemies, without suffering the criticisms from the main media outlets and commentators, nor the more conservative commentators.

The only ones who would get weary after a while would be the most dedicated true believers among the leftist ranks. They would most likely be ignored.

Dems are not notably against using violence to advance political ends. Look at the use of military force in Kosovo, for example - quite uncompromising and destructive, with no apologies and no media outlets crying foul.
2 posted on 01/13/2006 10:32:17 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl

The only thing I can think of as to what they are doing.... 90% of this country is just ignorant of the truth about Islam. Currently, it sucks to be in the 10%


3 posted on 01/13/2006 10:32:48 AM PST by MadeInAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

So, you're saying the think they'll screw us until they get back in power and hope they can fix what they've broken?

They're clearly working against us right now.


4 posted on 01/13/2006 10:34:57 AM PST by ark_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
Look at the use of military force in Kosovo, for example - quite uncompromising and destructive, with no apologies and no media outlets crying foul.

Yeah, but whose side were we on in Kosovo?

5 posted on 01/13/2006 10:37:08 AM PST by gridlock (It's not really a Circus until Teddy Kennedy steps out of the Clown Car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
No, I'm not saying that. I am just dispelling the idea that if the dems won, somehow the USA would be more passive when it comes to the use of the military.

There isn't much evidence for that. Even Kerry never said that he would pull the troops out of Iraq. My guess is even if he won, the situation there would be almost exactly like it is today, give or take just a little.

Dems want power and so does the GOP. In itself, that's not unusual. To go from that idea to the idea that somehow we would be defenseless in the war on terror is silly, though.
6 posted on 01/13/2006 10:40:46 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

That's not the point: the USA would certainly be on the USA's side after the 911 attack. If anything, I think Gore's response would have been less refined and less surgical than Bush's. Afghaistan would almost certainly still have been toppled and all else being equal, Tenet would still have told him WMD were in Iraq and it was a 'slam dunk.' What else would have have done but gone in - probably more brutally.

And the usual suspects would have been a lot more quiet.


7 posted on 01/13/2006 10:42:57 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl

Throw out all the votes from the dead, the convicts, the double votes, the out of district votes and find out who really won.


8 posted on 01/13/2006 10:45:24 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
I honestly don't think they believe that Islamofacists are a problem. They are arrogant enough to believe that the ALL POWERFUL United States could never be brought to its knees by a bunch of Middle Eastern Yokels.

Just throw a few here and there in jail, use token bombing and send them lots of money and we'll be fine.

In my opinion, their arrogance towards the average American is only superseded by their arrogance towards the average Islamofacist.

They just don't even see a problem.
9 posted on 01/13/2006 10:51:03 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
That's not the point: the USA would certainly be on the USA's side after the 911 attack.

I don't think this is a forgone conclusion. Well, maybe they would think they are on the US side, but their actions would be detrimental to our interests anyway.

10 posted on 01/13/2006 10:51:14 AM PST by gridlock (It's not really a Circus until Teddy Kennedy steps out of the Clown Car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

You're not understanding my point.

Neither Kerry nor Gore won their elections. In the time since then, there are Democrats who have actively worked against our war efforts....accusing our troops of torture to lower morale, repeatedly telling the country what a poor job the troops are doing, repeatedly telling the country we can't win, attempting to kill the Patriot Act, repeatedly having newspapers print classified information.

There's no way to know what they would have done (FDR was strong, Carter was miserably weak, Clinton was strong when it was convenient)....I'm saying what they have done....it's been to weaken our position in the war on terror and it doesn't make sense to me why they would play games with this.


11 posted on 01/13/2006 10:52:23 AM PST by ark_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
You don't understand my point, I;m not being clear.

I'm distinguishing what they are saying - that is, anything in order to get power back - from what they would most likely do if they had power.

in the past, when in power they have shown no notable aversion towards using military force. even Carter tried a rescue of the hostages in Iran (attacking Iran outright wouldn't have saved the hostages).

It depends on who won the election.
12 posted on 01/13/2006 10:56:13 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

So, they slept through the portion of world history where they talked about Napoleon, the Fall of Rome, and/or the American Revolution? (all involving countries getting beaten miserably by underestimating a determined opponent?)


13 posted on 01/13/2006 10:56:18 AM PST by ark_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
So, you're saying the think they'll screw us until they get back in power and hope they can fix what they've broken?

lol... well said...

But you might add the fact that they'll spend the whole time while in power blaming Repubs for all that is wrong...

14 posted on 01/13/2006 10:58:50 AM PST by sit-rep (If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl

My question is would they have paid say, $20 million to avoid 911? Dems I think would have. Bush would have said,"Bring that sh!t to me Jo Boo." Not a perfect analogy but Dems would pay or do anything to delay the bad things. Bush took it like a man.


15 posted on 01/13/2006 11:00:53 AM PST by BookaT (My cat's breath smells like cat food!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

We're not on the same page. I'm not asking would they would do if they were in power on 1/13/2006 or even on 9/11.

I'm saying that, since they're not in power and are ticked, they're actively working against our interests right now, which is dangerous and stupid. I'm asking what the heck they think they're going to do with the mess they are actively trying to create if they were to succeed in creating it.

If Bush were to be impeached, we were to pull out of Iraq (creating a terrorist safe-haven and a blood-bath), we were to kill or severely weaken the Patriot act, resulting in more 9/11 style attacks they can blame on Republicans and as a result of their brilliance, John Kerry were to get elected present in 2008....what then?

What do they think they're going to do with their handiwork then?


16 posted on 01/13/2006 11:07:03 AM PST by ark_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
What else would have have done but gone in - probably more brutally.

I disagree, to a point. The argument, "The US would have taken care of Saddam eventually" falls flat when you take into consideration of the consequences of it not happening the way it did.

Eventually, the US would have to deal with Saddam Hussein. He would have eventually left us, and the world, little choice. The guy didn't know when to stop. Between the time Gore (or any liberal, for that matter) gets elected, and the US doing what needed to be done, terrible things would have happened. Gore would have drug his feet, and applied half-a$$ed measures like his predecessor. As long as the polls indicated there wasn't a political risk, Saddam would have been allowed to go about his way.

Only a complete moron can not see that being left to his own designs, Saddam would have eventually gotten, and used again, WMDs. The proof is out there, even though the left refuses to recognize that fact. Even supposing that Saddam was not a direct threat to the US, he was (or would have become) a threat to his neighbors and Europe. Here does that leave the US? In these days of interlocking economies and globalization, a Mid-East in turmoil or a Europe threatened is just as good as a gun pointed at the US.

17 posted on 01/13/2006 11:08:26 AM PST by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
They've slept through a lot of stuff. ; ).

If you watched the Alito hearings this week, they were a fantastic illustration.

The Dems huffed and puffed about how Alito might overturn the concept of One person One vote. But that problem was solved years ago. Rather than fighting the exception to the rule here and they are still fighting a major war on something that does not even exist.

They need to just declare victory and get on with it.

They are so busy refighting battles that have been won, or don't exist, they are blind to real threats. They charge and bully nonexistent enemies, oblivious to the fact that the enemy is sneaking up behind them.

They remind me very much of people who spend so much time navel gazing, they completely miss their own life.
18 posted on 01/13/2006 11:09:03 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl
>>I don't understand why they want the Islamofascists to win. Any thoughts?<<

I don't think they really want the terrorists to win but as someone else has already pointed out, the Dems would be unrestrained in their war against them. Not only would the Dems have all of the media outlets on their side, but they would have the support of the Republicans as well. If the Republicans are fighting a war, only about half the country supports their efforts. If the Dems are fighting a war, almost 100% of the country is with them. It's simply a power thing for the Dems as it always is with leftists.

Muleteam1

19 posted on 01/13/2006 11:10:01 AM PST by Muleteam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

They don't believe that we can lose. However, they want to see the US severly damaged; damaged enough so people will give them power. Then they can make some kind of deal with Islam.

As Lenin used to say, the worse, the better.


20 posted on 01/13/2006 11:10:02 AM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson