Why do Democrats crave defeat?

[stephanie]

:clap: Great article..And so true..

By Kevin McCullough
Sunday, March 25, 2007

Send an email to Kevin McCullough Email It
Print It
Take Action
Read Article & Comments (1) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

Please explain something to me. What is this obsession that liberals have with seeing America destroyed?

Why are they so intent on humiliating their fellow citizens? And why don't they have at least some modicum of pride about the greatest nation the world has ever produced?



Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., right, accompanied by fellow House democrats, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 23, 2007, after a sharply divided House voted to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year. From left are Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C., and Murtha. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook) In other words, why are they so insistent on seeing America pummeled?

It is clear from the way they recoil when someone refers to them as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" that there is a piece of them (however insignificantly tiny) that does not wish to be classified as such.

But I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they are so offended. It seems to me that if you love your country, that you love it most when it faces its toughest challenges. But this is not the case with John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and the other 215 that first authored, then voted for, the bill that would hand over victory to the terrorists we have been battling so hard to defeat since 9/11.

In their own echo-chamber vanity Murtha, Pelosi and company believe themselves to be smarter than the commanders of the operations in the war on terror. And they believe that we will sit mesmerized, like sheep, while they single-handedly attempt to give the terrorists a date for victory - August 31, 2008.

But they didn't just author defeat - they campaigned for it.

Only a day or two earlier the "let the terrorists win" bill looked like it was in deep trouble. Some of the more socially conservative blue-dog democrats argued that it would not play well to the average citizen to be authoring a bill, and to hold hostage the paychecks of the men and women in uniform over the issue of when we give victory to the other side.

And that is when the $96 million dollar supplement began to expand like Murtha's waistline. When it was finally passed it had ballooned to nearly $124 million.

Now don't get me wrong - I think that spending more on defense is nearly always a good thing. The problem with this evolving spending measure was that it was all about the pork. The additional $28 million added to the bill was the price of all the "gimmes" that Democrat leadership was forced to pony up just to bribe, er... buy, scratch that... secure the reluctant congressional members’ votes. And by increasing the price tag by more than an additional one fourth of the monies of the original supplement, they were only able to get 218 votes - the barest of bare minimums to get the measure passed.

So not only did the Democrats author a resolution that called for the terrorists to claim victory on August 31, 2008, not only did they twist arms of lower ranking members to get them on board, now they were willing to spend the money that you and I are sending them by way of our tax bill - to fund the effort to buy congressional members' loyalty to the concept of the terrorists winning.

Am I the only one in America that thinks this is truly, dastardly, diabolically - sick?

Personally I believe I work far too many hours, for not nearly enough money, to be paying the exorbitant amount of taxes - to only have them be used against the safety and welfare of my family.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/03/25/why_do_democrats_crave_defeat

[Gaffer]

That's an article I totally agree with. I have been calling those dems unAmerican all along. He left out the fact that the dems cut out of the bill money earmarked for more equipment for the troops. But they didn't hesitate to add plenty of pork to buy votes.

[gabosaurus]

Of course, it has to be from Town Hall. That bastion of right wing idiocy.

[Gaffer]

Of course, it has to be from Town Hall. That bastion of right wing idiocy.

If it doesn't bash Bush we know you won't read it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

And not a word from the esteemed Kevin McCullough that most of the so-called "pork" were emergency measures about Katrina aid and the like that the previous congress, the 109th DO NOTHING Congress run by Republicans, left town without finishing their job of passing these appropriations. Funny how he's pissing about the money that was added to this bill when it has been SOP for Republicans to do that for the last six years. Not a peep out of him until the Democrats did the same and then waaa, waaa, waaa.

Guess who is going to veto that bill and prevent that money we need to support our troops from getting to where it needs to go? Three guesses. Will he be whining about that when it happens? I doubt it.

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats don't crave defeat. They merely crave the opportunity to take control and run the country according to their theories of government creating a better society.

If people wind up dead, imprisoned, starved, bankrupt, or trapped under restrictive, dictatorial or even homicidal governments as a result, here or abroad, that's just collateral damage the Democrats are willing to live with, regrettably necessary until they "get it right". At that time, the improved society they've always dreamed of, will finally emerge.

The fact that they never "get it right", is immaterial. That's just the fault of people who didn't cooperate with them, or didn't do their part as assigned by the Democrats.

Every time.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Democrats don't crave defeat. They merely crave the opportunity to take control and run the country according to their theories of government creating a better society.

If people wind up dead, imprisoned, starved, bankrupt, or trapped under restrictive, dictatorial or even homicidal governments as a result, here or abroad, that's just collateral damage the Democrats are willing to live with, regrettably necessary until they "get it right". At that time, the improved society they've always dreamed of, will finally emerge.

The fact that they never "get it right", is immaterial. That's just the fault of people who didn't cooperate with them, or didn't do their part as assigned by the Democrats.

Every time.

If people wind up dead, imprisoned, starved, bankrupt, or trapped under restrictive, dictatorial or even homicidal governments as a result, here or abroad, that's just collateral damage the Republicans are willing to live with, regrettably necessary until they "get it right". At that time, the improved society they've always dreamed of, will finally emerge.

I fixed your quote for you.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

If it doesn't bash Bush we know you won't read it.

I'll read it. I just won't take it seriously.

[stephanie]

I'll read it. I just won't take it seriously.


Of couse not...:laugh2:

[GW in Ohio]

That's an article I totally agree with. I have been calling those dems unAmerican all along. He left out the fact that the dems cut out of the bill money earmarked for more equipment for the troops. But they didn't hesitate to add plenty of pork to buy votes.

So people who disagree with you on policy are "un-American," eh, gaffer? That's a nice vision of America you've got........"Agree with me (and the other right-wingers who've drunk the Bush Kool-Aid) or you're a traitor.........And by the way, why don't you leave, you un-American cowards?"

Real nice............

You guys have no idea how close to totalitarian ideologues you are.

[grunt]

Easy question.

Dems have been losing for their entire lives. They want everyone else to feel their pain.

[GW in Ohio]

Easy question.

Dems have been losing for their entire lives. They want everyone else to feel their pain.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............................

Seems to me it was the GOPers who took it in the shorts in '06 (thanks to the brilliant leadership of George "I am the decider" Bush).

And it looks to me like the Gops are due for another hosing in '08.

But I could be wrong.......

[grunt]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............................

Seems to me it was the GOPers who took it in the shorts in '06 (thanks to the brilliant leadership of George "I am the decider" Bush).

And it looks to me like the Gops are due for another hosing in '08.

But I could be wrong.......


Yes, you could be.

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats don't crave defeat. They merely crave the opportunity to take control and run the country according to their theories of government creating a better society.

If people wind up dead, imprisoned, starved, bankrupt, or trapped under restrictive, dictatorial or even homicidal governments as a result, here or abroad, that's just collateral damage the Democrats are willing to live with, regrettably necessary until they "get it right". At that time, the improved society they've always dreamed of, will finally emerge.

The fact that they never "get it right", is immaterial. That's just the fault of people who didn't cooperate with them, or didn't do their part as assigned by the Democrats.

Every time.
One characteristic of the Democrats, is that they never seem to ask the people they damaged if that's all right with THEM, before the Dems decide to "live with" it. They just impose it, by court decree if they can't get it through the legislative process. Representative democracy and rule "by the people" isn't in their playbook, despite their constant propaganda.

[GW in Ohio]

One characteristic of the Democrats, is that they never seem to ask the people they damaged if that's all right with THEM, before the Dems decide to "live with" it. They just impose it, by court decree if they can't get it through the legislative process. Representative democracy and rule "by the people" isn't in their playbook, despite their constant propaganda.

I wonder if George Bush and his neocon gang of idiots will ever apologize to the families of the soldiers who were killed during Operation Avenge My Daddy in Iraq.

I wonder if Bush will ever apologize to the Iraqi people for crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war in their country.

I won't hold my breath.......

[stephanie]

I wonder if George Bush and his neocon gang of idiots will ever apologize to the families of the soldiers who were killed during Operation Avenge My Daddy in Iraq.

I wonder if Bush will ever apologize to the Iraqi people for crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war in their country.

I won't hold my breath.......

:slap:

[grunt]

I wonder if George Bush and his neocon gang of idiots will ever apologize to the families of the soldiers who were killed during Operation Avenge My Daddy in Iraq.

I wonder if Bush will ever apologize to the Iraqi people for crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war in their country.

I won't hold my breath.......


I wonder if you'll ever get your head out of your ass long enough to realize that you're asleep at the wheel and left the radio on while tuned in to "Air America". :fu:

[Nuc]

I wonder if George Bush and his neocon gang of idiots will ever apologize to the families of the soldiers who were killed during Operation Avenge My Daddy in Iraq.

I wonder if Bush will ever apologize to the Iraqi people for crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war in their country.

I won't hold my breath.......

They could have just hired some of their "contractors" to assassinate Saddam, let the inevitable happen and either Iraq would be in the same state of chaos it is now or it would have righted itself. And no American boys and girls would have been sacrificed.

[grunt]

They could have just hired some of their "contractors" to assassinate Saddam, let the inevitable happen and either Iraq would be in the same state of chaos it is now or it would have righted itself. And no American boys and girls would have been sacrificed.


Listen curly. Have you EVER been to the Middle East? Have you EVER spoken with an American troop who has just returned from Iraq?

[Nuc]

Listen curly. Have you EVER been to the Middle East? Have you EVER spoken with an American troop who has just returned from Iraq?

Yes I have been to the Middle East. I've been more places than you have been, that's almost certain. Last year I went to every continent except Antarctica. What's your point?

I haven't spoken with any troops. The volunteer army means that the troops are not from the same social circles as I am. Because a broad cross section of Americans do not serve.

[Gaffer]

Yes I have been to the Middle East. I've been more places than you have been, that's almost certain. Last year I went to every continent except Antarctica. What's your point?

I haven't spoken with any troops. The volunteer army means that the troops are not from the same social circles as I am. Because a broad cross section of Americans do not serve.

In other words your an elitist who doesn't hang with the rift raff. You might try coming down from your ivory tower sometime and checking in with the real world.

[Nuc]

In other words your an elitist who doesn't hang with the rift raff. You might try coming down from your ivory tower sometime and checking in with the real world.

I hang out with riff raff all the time. For example I am even engaging in an exchange with you. :finger3:

I just don't happen to know many people in the military because the people in the military are not the kind of people I hang out with. I don't hang out very frequently with movie stars, race car drivers, astronauts, dildo repairmen or transexuals either. There are a lot of professions I don't know.Do you have a problem with that? What am I supposed to do hang out at the USO?

Of course you are too dense to see what my point was in making that statement. I'm sure most of the other posters understood but I'll put it in simple terms so you can possibly digest it. If not ask your mother or somebody to explain this to you.

Because we have a volunteer army, various elements of society are not equally represented. If we had a draft and if soldiers were taken from all segments of society I most certainly would know more of them.

Did you understand it this time? Or do you want to make more gratuitous insults and unsupported assumptions about my "elitism". :salute: :fu:

[Gaffer]

I hang out with riff raff all the time. For example I am even engaging in an exchange with you. :finger3:

I just don't happen to know many people in the military because the people in the military are not the kind of people I hang out with. I don't hang out very frequently with movie stars, race car drivers, astronauts, dildo repairmen or transexuals either. There are a lot of professions I don't know.Do you have a problem with that? What am I supposed to do hang out at the USO?

Of course you are too dense to see what my point was in making that statement. I'm sure most of the other posters understood but I'll put it in simple terms so you can possibly digest it. If not ask your mother or somebody to explain this to you.

Because we have a volunteer army, various elements of society are not equally represented. If we had a draft and if soldiers were taken from all segments of society I most certainly would know more of them.

Did you understand it this time? Or do you want to make more gratuitous insults and unsupported assumptions about my "elitism". :salute: :fu:

I understood it perfectly the first time.

A draft is not necessary. It would only serve to give the dems a new military victim to play off of. Nothing more than that. You might have said that since you live in oz you don't see many military people.

[grunt]

Yes I have been to the Middle East. I've been more places than you have been, that's almost certain. Last year I went to every continent except Antarctica. What's your point?

I haven't spoken with any troops. The volunteer army means that the troops are not from the same social circles as I am. Because a broad cross section of Americans do not serve.


Bullshit, the US Miltary is basically an exact mirror of the US population.

Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm

[Nuc]

Bullshit, the US Miltary is basically an exact mirror of the US population.

Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm

Great, it's an exact mirror of the American population. I guess that means I am not an exact representative of the American population. Which is alright with me.

[Nuc]

I understood it perfectly the first time.

A draft is not necessary. It would only serve to give the dems a new military victim to play off of. Nothing more than that. You might have said that since you live in oz you don't see many military people.

A draft is necessary. Because countries which have a draft are much more hesitant to send their kids into war without a good reason. A volunteer army encourages, "Well, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up" mentality. As long as the US has a volunteer army you will see the goofy experiments that have been going on lately. It's like the movie. "They Were Expendable". :salute:

[grunt]

A draft is necessary. Because countries which have a draft are much more hesitant to send their kids into war without a good reason. A volunteer army encourages, "Well, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up" mentality. As long as the US has a volunteer army you will see the goofy experiments that have been going on lately. It's like the movie. "They Were Expendable". :salute:

You do realize that 85% of WWII vets were drafted, right? You do realize that only around 30% of Vietnam vets were drafted, right? The military does not want nor need a draft.

And no, you are not a representative of America.

[Nuc]

You do realize that 85% of WWII vets were drafted, right? You do realize that only around 30% of Vietnam vets were drafted, right? The military does not want nor need a draft.

And no, you are not a representative of America.

Your grammar is weak. "Representative" and "a representative" are two different concepts.

Do you think countries which have a draft are more hesitant to send the kids off to danger than volunteer countries. In the modern industrialized world?

[manu1959]

democrats can't loose....they don't keep score, don't play tag, don't play dodge ball, don't give out grades....

[grunt]

Your grammar is weak. "Representative" and "a representative" are two different concepts.

Do you think countries which have a draft are more hesitant to send the kids off to danger than volunteer countries. In the modern industrialized world?

I think most countries will do what they have to do to survive, you Nazi internet English Professor. :finger3: Now, the question is, what does "survival" mean to other countries. Well, I can't speak for other countries, but i will take a shot at defining "survival" for America.

Preserving the American way of life.


Like it or not, Americans, even LIEberals, are accustomed to living a certain way. The U.S. Government, right or wrong, will make sure that it stays that way. You know why? Because the U.S. Gov. is made up of politicians. And politicians need the people's vote. And those people will only vote for politicians that preserve their way of life. As I wrote above, right or wrong, this is how the world works.

A draft has nothing to do with how, when or why we, the U.S., go to war. The reason for a draft is outdated. Will we ever need a draft? Will the military ever want a draft? Maybe if we need to invade mainland China. Until then the U.S. Military will not need or want a draft. The democraps keep trying to bring this up in Congress, but as usual, the Repubs smack them upside the head and it all goes away.

So get back to your caviar and truffles. :poke:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Democrats don't crave defeat. They merely crave the opportunity to take control and run the country according to their theories of government creating a better society.

If people wind up dead, imprisoned, starved, bankrupt, or trapped under restrictive, dictatorial or even homicidal governments as a result, here or abroad, that's just collateral damage the Democrats are willing to live with, regrettably necessary until they "get it right". At that time, the improved society they've always dreamed of, will finally emerge.

The fact that they never "get it right", is immaterial. That's just the fault of people who didn't cooperate with them, or didn't do their part as assigned by the Democrats.

Every time.
One characteristic of the Democrats, is that they never seem to ask the people they damaged if that's all right with THEM, before the Dems decide to "live with" it. They just impose it, by court decree if they can't get it through the legislative process. Representative democracy and rule "by the people" isn't in their playbook, despite their constant propaganda.

There must be a real sense of self-righteous arrogance about someone that QUOTES HIMSELF to make a point on a forum.

Spew that funky garbage, white boy. Your partisan rant, sans citation, convinces no one but the choir.

Funny thing about representative democracy: you praise it all the time when you are out of power and forget all about it when you are in power. Talk about a page missing from the playbook.

[Nuc]

So get back to your caviar and truffles. :poke:

You know what? I do eat caviar and truffles quite frequently. And if you are really a Republican, you do too. Because the GOP is the party of the rich. How do you reconcile your neo-blue collar attitude with the reality of the party you claim to belong to? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Get with the program! Truffles, not MacDonald's.

[grunt]

You know what? I do eat caviar and truffles quite frequently. And if you are really a Republican, you do too. Because the GOP is the party of the rich. How do you reconcile your neo-blue collar attitude with the reality of the party you claim to belong to? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Get with the program! Truffles, not MacDonald's.


Show me where I have claimed to be a Republican.
I'm a Libertarian, a true social lib and economic con.

So, anything else, fat boy? :coffee:


And BTW, anything else about my previous post you want to comment on? Besides the caviar and truffles?

[grunt]

There must be a real sense of self-righteous arrogance about someone that QUOTES HIMSELF to make a point on a forum.

Spew that funky garbage, white boy. Your partisan rant, sans citation, convinces no one but the choir.

Funny thing about representative democracy: you praise it all the time when you are out of power and forget all about it when you are in power. Talk about a page missing from the playbook.


That's a pretty good starw-man you have built there. "Acorn" writes a very thought out post and you play out in the field. GOOD JOB! :slap:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

That's a pretty good starw-man you have built there. "Acorn" writes a very thought out post and you play out in the field. GOOD JOB! :slap:

Yeah, he writes out one post and because no one grovelled over it, he repeats himself to "try" and make his point. I dismissed it the first time and even more so the second. This inane blathering from a guy (LA) that can't even figure out how to research a citation when it's sitting right in front of him. You can fall in line behind him but I think I'll let his parade pass me me up. Too many clowns in his troupe. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[grunt]

Yeah, he writes out one post and because no one grovelled over it, he repeats himself to "try" and make his point. I dismissed it the first time and even more so the second. This inane blathering from a guy (LA) that can't even figure out how to research a citation when it's sitting right in front of him. You can fall in line behind him but I think I'll let his parade pass me me up. Too many clowns in his troupe. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


Still working on that straw-man I see.

[Nuc]

Show me where I have claimed to be a Republican.
I'm a Libertarian, a true social lib and economic con.

Well then we're on the same page, so stop sniping at me. :slap: :pee:

[grunt]

Well then we're on the same page, so stop sniping at me. :slap: :pee:


Being on the same page doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. :finger3:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Still working on that straw-man I see.

I dealt with his points. It's obvious you failed to see it.