North Carolina Senate: Hagan (D) 48% Dole (R) 47%

Rasmussen Reports ^ | Sunday, May 11, 2008

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

A number of people have said this, and they’re not necessarily wrong in my opinion. I just think that the two issues cannot be separated - see my post #7. I probably should have been clearer in my original post.

Don’t worry, I’m familiar with the expression - I didn’t take it personally. ;)

[mathluv]

'both of which are largely due to fighting a war we can’t pay for.'

Personally, I prefer to fight them 'over there' than 'over here'. They have sworn to kill us - I would rather kill them ---- over there.

[mathluv]

There is NO civil war in Iraq - until the dims get in control. Then they will see to it.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

So how is trying to keep Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other in a country that never posed a threat to us “fighting them”? Why didn’t we do more in Afghanistan? More importantly, we didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia, the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Follow the money...

[yobid]

More enemies dead then our soldiers. No attacks on our homeland.

“War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula”

- General George Patton Jr

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

More enemies dead then our soldiers.

That requires a definition of "enemies". Who are you defining as an enemy? Also, there's more than raw numbers to consider; consider the fact that fundamentalist Muslims don't consider death to be a defeat. That's what makes this war different from any other, and why brute force is not a solution.

No attacks on our homeland.

No attacks in the 90's either, but I wouldn't give the Clinton administration credit. How do you know we haven't just gotten lucky? Also, why would they need to come here when we're putting our soldiers right in harms way?

[Night Hides Not]

A number of people have said this, and they’re not necessarily wrong in my opinion. I just think that the two issues cannot be separated - see my post #7. I probably should have been clearer in my original post.

You're right in that it can't be pinned down to one issue. As far as I'm concerned, a central theme is complete disenchantment with our elite political class inside the Beltway. They've plumb worn me out with their political gamesmanship at the expense of doing the right things for our country.

Today is simply another straw to this camel's back, with the announcement of protected status for bleeping polar bears.

Rush did an excellent job of voicing my/our frustrations today.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

As far as I'm concerned, a central theme is complete disenchantment with our elite political class inside the Beltway.

I think that's accurate, but the biggest issue that the parties currently significantly differ on is Iraq, and I think that's why we're seeing Democrats winning more elections, and will see even more of that this fall. I'm not dumb enough to think that the Democrats are any better on foreign policy (and they're definitely worse on domestic), but it's pretty clear to most people by now that going to Iraq was a mistake and it's time to come home. This is an issue that the Democrats are running with, hence my original comment.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

What are you going to do about these radical Muslims that either want to convert us or kill us?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

You know, for the manpower and money that these groups have, they’re pretty damn pathetic. If we stop using the oil from over there, we’ll diminsh their money supply, and if we stop further fueling the fires with our constant intervention in their affairs, they’ll lose their recruiting power, thereby reducing their manpower.

So, in short, withdraw both economically and militarily from the Middle East. That’s the only real long-term solution.

[JohnnyZ]

So, stop using oil and let Iran nuke Israel.

You would make a great Democrat!