Portrait of the average American voter...

Mark² wrote:
William Graham wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Walter Banks wrote:
William Graham wrote:

You can fear the gays, flag-burners, and uppity women, but I am
only worried about the terrorists.....After all, 9-11 really did
happen, you know........

What was the Republican response to 9-11.

1) They let the leader of the attack get away
2) They let the terrorists define the US as a terrorist nation
(Your enemy will define you) 3) The US started restricting the very
freedoms that they were promoting 4) Failed to secure the US border
in any meaningful way 5) Refused systematically inspect
international commerce 6) Attacked a country that had little or
nothing to do with 9-11 for a whole series of public reasons most
of which have not withstood the test of truth. The widespread death
and destruction in Iraq has refocused the world away from the
wrongs and horrors of 9-11. Few people outside the US understand
the emotion of 9-11 to Americans, few outside the US can understand
why the US is so pained by 9-11 and fail to understand effects of
senseless violence in the rest of the world. 7) Paid for the war
from a social security fund and provided tax relief to a small
percentage of the population so the real costs will be determined
and faced long after the current administration have retired 8)
Inflated the dollar making the euro the dominate world currency
after about a decade of use 9) The currency value is tied to a DOW
average of about 12000 but has seen real devaluation by about a
third 10) Corporate wholesale sold assets including IP to raise
capital (Equivalent of eating the seed grain on a farm) 11) To keep
prices low nationally stopped research and development. 12) Left
the country addicted to oil with no plan to replace it when the
well runs dry and waiting while the EU is developing and patenting
the solutions to the energy supply problems later 21st century 13)
Deny a cause and effect relationship over global warming.

On these issues it is unlikely the Democrats would do worse. I
don't belong to any political party. From the outside looking in
its a mess that needs fixing.

And the Democrat's PLAN offered as alternative was....... what
again??
We're about to find that out....Now that these geniuses are back in
control, everything should shape up OK........I am waiting with
baited breath for Nancy Palosi's plan.........:^)

I'm actually relieved that the senate fell too.
Why?
Because in two years, when nothing has immproved...the Dems won't be
able to whine that "if only we had BOTH...boy THEN you'd see how
great we are!"
OK. You've got both.
Time to put up all that you haven't shut up about for so long.
This should be interesting.
Same with Rumsfeld.
OK. He's out. What now, Dems?
Oops.

In other words... The Dem's bluff has now been called, and they now have to
come up with a winning hand when their holding a 2, 3, 4, 6, 7...non-suited.
I'd wager there are more than a few Dems thinking to themselves, " -Oh crap.
You mean we have to actually DO something??" I predeict a lot of
hand-wringing and thumb-twiddling...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

rafe b wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:b615h.11349

And the Democrat's PLAN offered as alternative was....... what again??


Before 11/7/2006 there was no point in the Dems offering a
plan. And besides, nobody asked their opinion. The majority
party spared no effort to shut them out of the decision-
making process, at every juncture and at every level.


Just yesterday our fearless leader said he was open to ideas on Iraq.

"I'm open to any idea or suggestion that will help us achieve our
goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq's democratic
government succeeds," he told reporters in the Rose Garden at the White
House.

That's a good sign, I suppose, but also kinda scary. At least he
finally admits that he doesn't have a clue. Now maybe some of his
lackies like PW will admit it as well.

As I said above, I am breathlessly waiting for those democratic
suggestions.....but then, I don't remember hearing any during the last 4 or
5 years either.......

It's really simple. We can do either one of two things.
1. Cut and run, and leave Iraqi to it's fate.
2. Stay on and try to help their new government become viable.

that's it. - Take your pick.

Actually, I kind of like Geraldo's suggestion. Hold a national election
in Iraq. Let them decide whether we stay or not. If 51% of the Iraqi voters
say, "Americans go home", then we do.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote:
Mark² lowest even number here wrote:
That's a good sign, I suppose, but also kinda scary. At least he
finally admits that he doesn't have a clue. Now maybe some of his
lackies like PW will admit it as well.

He's said that many many times.
The only "suggestions" made by the Dems have been insightful "plans"
that basically amount to, "This sucks."
-But when asked what they'd SPECIFICALLY do...they offered nothing.
Nothing.

Not true. Joe Biden has a plan. Harold Ford has a plan. Murtha has a
plan.

Can you please convey those specific plans? -Because I've listened to
both those men many times, and they utterly failed to convey one.

Bush's problem is that he listens to nobody but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
and Cheney.

Perhaps
..
He's not listening to Rumsfeld anymore.....Now, he's listening to Nancy
Pelosi.....I wonder if he'll hear anything......:^)

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
rafe b wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:b615h.11349

And the Democrat's PLAN offered as alternative was....... what
again??


Before 11/7/2006 there was no point in the Dems offering a
plan. And besides, nobody asked their opinion. The majority
party spared no effort to shut them out of the decision-
making process, at every juncture and at every level.

In other words... They had no plan.
If they had an alternative plan, we'd have heard it.

--
Their, "plan" was to loudly proclaim that bush had no plan......But when
asked, "Where's the beef?" they grew strangely silent....:^)

"rafe b" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

In other words... They had no plan.
If they had an alternative plan, we'd have heard it.


Maybe if you got your news & views from someone
other than Brit Hume or someplace other than Fox,
you'd have a clue.

Here's Murtha's plan, or at least the first version
I found after five minutes with Google. This one's
dated 4/17/06.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press.../pr060407.html

Right.....I think we should employ Murtha's plan immediately......Then, when
the civil war in Iraq culminates in a new Theocracy, we can blame it all on
the Democrats.....I'll go for it.

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


"Mark²" wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:


On these issues it is unlikely the Democrats would do worse. I don't
belong to any political party. From the outside looking in its a mess
that needs fixing.

And the Democrat's PLAN offered as alternative was....... what again??


On Heath Care Hillary Clinton

Right. With her plan, if you were rich, and needed a heart operation, and
you hired the chief cardiologist at the Mayo clinic to do it for you, you
would be thrown in jail. (and so would the cardiologist) And my self paid
health insurance, that I scraped and saved for for 40 years would be
worthless....the Robin Hooders would trash it, and steal money from me and
give it to Hillary to pay for the poor.......And they ask me why I am a
Republican........

"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

How convenient....And they never made any speeches on the floor of
congress either? My goodness, how could the republicans keep so many
politicians quiet?


See Jack Murtha. See "Swiftboat".

See Max Cleland -- Vietnam vet who lost three
limbs at Khe Sanh, and lost his Senate seat in 2002
for being "soft on terrorism."

See the fat lady at the convention, wearing a purple
bandaid on her second chin, in mockery of a *real*
war hero.

Some folks on your side, sir, have no shame. How
they can dodge the draft, and then impugn the
bravery of real soldiers -- and get away with it --
is beyond my comprehension.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
...

What's your point about the two million dead Iraqis?

My point is that Saddam Hussein managed to do in that many people over
the last 30 years. This puts him in the Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin
category. Getting rid of him was a very good thing, and Bush did that.


So why aren't we going int Darfur and stopping the genocide there? Why did
Iraq merit special attention? Why not selectively topple each and every
national leader that we deem unfit to lead?

We're not going into Darfur and stopping the genocide there because
President William E. Graham hasn't taken office yet, and at 71, he's not
likely to, either.....
"Unfit to lead" isn't the criteria.....Slaughtering several million
innocents is the criteria. (In my own personal case) But you can choose your
own criteria, and vote it too.......

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

Same with Rumsfeld.
OK. He's out. What now, Dems?
Oops.


Dubya gives us Robert Gray. Same old same old.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Has a
history of doctoring the intelligence to fit the policy --
so he'll fit right in.

Look up "Iran-Contra." Look up "nearly indicted."


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
...

"That_Rich" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:47:43 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


Karl Roves "fear and smear" campaign caught you... hook, line and
sinker.

Where's your Karl Rove / Lee A****er scum tactics NOW

I never wrote that.......You have your headers mixed up.......