But ColGene, you pompous idiot! Today, and for the last few years our troops HAVE BEEN fighting Al Qeada and the Taliban in Iraq. Get your head out of your 4th point of contact and quit arguing ancient history!

The fact is, Afhganistan hasn't been the epicenter of the war against those terrost groups for years. Why do you continue to insist that our troops LEAVE the place Al Qeada and the Taliban have moved to, and move in to where they have all but abandoned?

You don't send your troops where the enemy used to be, you send them where they are!

at least you don't want a carter or a clinton

i know what lets put gene in office not

Wahl, I was thinkin' Republicans. Clinton, Bill was not the anti-christ. Carter, while brilliant, was at the same time a fool. Carter always reminds me of the smart guy in the class who can't tie his shoes and must wear velcro. Bush I didn't drive me as crazy as Bush II. Kinda Carter-like in a weird way (persona, not beliefs). This is why I must reiterrate my support this election season for Al.

Not Al Gore, no, the other Al.
AL SHARPTON, BABY!

The fact is, Afhganistan hasn't been the epicenter of the war against those terrost groups for years. Why do you continue to insist that our troops LEAVE the place Al Qeada and the Taliban have moved to, and move in to where they have all but abandoned?You don't send your troops where the enemy used to be, you send them where they are!

Better look again. The fighting in Afghanistan is just as bad as ever and we have the issue of the use of the area of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. I have said before some of the troops in Iraq must be sent to Afghanistan to finish the job in that country.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007Bush just ain't no Reagan. He isn't even a Nixon. I'm really starting to yearn for Ford. He got a bum rap. at least you don't want a carter or a clintoni know what lets put gene in office not

The harm GWB has done to our country is greater then Reagan, Nixon, Carter and Clinton COMBINED!

It doesn't matter why they are there, THEY ARE THERE! The reasons we went to war in Iraq don't matter anymore because that mission has been completed. The reasons we are STILL there are the only ones that matter now.

The fact you earned the rank of Colonel is proof that satires like Col. Klink aren't alway far from the truth. You make Klink look like Gen. Patton!

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007It doesn't matter why they are there, THEY ARE THERE! The reasons we went to war in Iraq don't matter anymore because that mission has been completed. The reasons we are STILL there are the only ones that matter now.

I have no problem allowing troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda. That does not require ANYTHING close to 160,000. We could cut our forces by 75% or more! That is what Hillery is proposing!

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007KEEP my prediction and look at them after the November 2008 Election!Ah yes, that "balanced" government that you kept complaining about when the GOP was in total control. I'm sure you won't be talking that nonsense, right?

Yes I generally believe a split in power is best IF there can be compromise. However, the GOP and Bush do not understand the meaning of that word and so long as that is the way the Republicans plan to act, only a shift in the power will enable the policy to change as the majority want. If you believe the GOP Big Wigs are not concerned about the 2008 elections, you ate truly out of IT!!!!!

The harm GWB has done to our country is greater then Reagan, Nixon, Carter and Clinton COMBINED!LMAO!

I agree - BUSH is just that!!!

That is what Hillery is proposing!So you are endorsing Hillary now, one socialist supporting another?

What I said is that the approach Hillary supports in Iraq is one that I agree with.

your the one that doesn't know what compromise is.


compromise is when everyone gets something they want. you will not settle for anything less than you want.


we all want to get funds to the troops. the democrats ARE TRYING TO TELL THE PRESIDENT HOW TO CONDUCT A WAR. that is against the law and the constitution.


the congress has the right to declare wars and to sign peace treaties. the congress has the right to pay for a war or not pay for a war. they do not have the right to tell the president that he has to pull the troops out by a certain date.


so they either fund the war or don't fund the war.


by the way the generals and other staff are willing to take a pay cut to keep the troops there. this came up the last time the democrats tried this crap.


the democrats are unwilling to compromise with anyone for anything. THEY WANT BUSH TO LOSE THIS WAR. to make sure that they get elected and that is what this is all about.

this isn't about fighting or not fight a war. it is about being elected, and as soon as the american people realize that the democrats will be voted out of office.

now for the candidates

Hillary wants universal health care, she wants to give 1000 dollars to every new born baby for retirement, she wants to give 5000 dollars to every new born baby for education.

few people in this country want universal health care. that is why the democrats tried to sneak it in with schip.

1000 dollars for retirement sounds great. two problems how do you make sure that they use the money for that. who's going to pay for it.

5000 dollars for education this too sounds great. three problems how do you make sure that they use the money for that. who's going to pay for it. what happens to the money if they don't go to college.


obama wants to kill our friends and shake hands with our enemies. if you can't see what is wrong with this i can't help you.


john Edwards wants to give everyone a house. sounds good only there are at least two problems with this.

who's going to pay for it. john Edwards promised housing to the people of new Orleans he has yet to provide one house.

Since when is it wrong to follow what the majority want?Because our country isn't run on media polls gene. We don't instantly switch positions because the latest poll says something different. How aboutt I take a poll and get 51% to agree that we should end social security, would you support it because the "majority" wants it? I dobut it.

We are not talking about polls. We are talking about what the voters choose in 2006 when they gave control of Congress to the Democrats!

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007It takes a simple majority to pass bills unless the Senate refuses to allow a vote. Cheney proved that when he broke a tie in a 50/50 vote on several occasions from 2001-2006! And your point would be? That the Constitution worked?For someone who professes to revere the Constitution as much as you do and who squeals so loudly when he perceives it has been violated in some way, I can't quite understand your bitching & moaning when it works as designed.

The Constitution was not designed to create gridlock. That is what we have when we can not even get a bill to a vote in both houses of Congress!

Then why do you keep quoting 70% of Americans?  Because democrats barely have a majority really means nothing as far as what "voters want".  You need to stop telling everyone what America thinks because you have no idea.




Failures in your opinion.  You still obsess over Bush and the GOP, but you never address the democrats, why is that gene?  You complain about border security, but do you think democrats really want secured bordered because that will keep their next welfar class out of the country?




But of course you only blame one party. 

Figures you would back the candidate who openly snubbed every military member assigned to White House detail during the Clinton Campaign. Apparently you share her contempt for those in uniform.