Democratic Party Implodes

[hoosier]

Again, I'll try to make MY position clear without bringing reagan into the discussion (you did that, as you brought in hagel and luger, you are getting very good at distracting from the actual debate about what is right and wrong and making me address people that I don't agree with on the topic because there is an (R) by their name. Remember, my first blog on the politics thread stated, "I'm a libertarian who generally votes republican").

My references to Hagel, Lugar and Reagan weren't "distracting from the actual debate", they were responses to statements made by you--alluding to Obama as an "extreme liberal," for example. If you get bothered when people call you on such judgments, don't make them in the first place.

[texaspackerbacker]

So to what do you leftists attribute our winning the Cold War, Hoosier? Maybe Gorbachev's kindheartedness?

Maybe it was all a sandbag job to get America to forget about Communism and elect a true Marxist in 2008.

More like Gorbachev's political and administrative incompetence: his reforms were never backed up with any coherent plan, and he failed to deal effectively with his main political rival (Yeltsin), who ultimately deposed him at the moment of his greatest weakness. The downfall of the USSR is surely more complicated than you or I or anyone who's not an expert in the region's history is able to summarize. But most scholars agree that the sharp drop in world oil prices in the early 80s led to a severe depletion of the Soviet Union's dollar holdings, and that in turn led to food shortages and general unrest. There are of course many other social and economic factors (ethnic unrest, war with Afghanistan, etc.) that help explain why the USSR entered into an economic and social crisis in the mid 80's. In a nutshell, political incompetence and bureaucratic mismanagement of the economy played a far greater role than did the desire to compete with Reagan's military spending. So yes, to answer Sheephead's question, the result would have been more or less the same with Carter or Mondale in office instead of Reagan. But the myth that a US president led to the USSRs downfall would never have taken root.

Gorbachev's "reforms" were nothing more than grudging stop-gap reactions to the abject FAILURE of Soviet Communism brought on by pressure to compete with American style free enterprise capitalism--particularly in the arms race instigated by Reagan, including the monumental bluff known as "Star Wars".

Carter did not, and Mondale would not build up American weaponry, and would not have been believable in any "Star Wars" bluff because of their histories of weakness.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for the concept and stats on high levels of spending in the Reagan years, I previously dismissed this by blaming it completely on the Democrat-controlled Congress--which indeed was a major factor.

What I should have also pointed out, though, is that Carter had so decimated the American military that Reagan had a lot of making up to do in defense spending just to get ahead in conventional armaments, etc.

It's absolutely amazing how close Carter and these other sick America-hating Dem/lib pieces of shit actually came to selling out this country. Now, we have this all out America-hating scumbag, Obama promising to CHANGE back to the same old Carter/McGovern crap, and trying to knock America from the seat of world domination.

I'm confident the American people will NOT let that happen.

[Guiness]

ok, I have a question about the original topic...

WHY did FL and MI move their primaries?

[hoosier]

ok, I have a question about the original topic...

WHY did FL and MI move their primaries?

To get to the other side?

Supposedly legislators in both states objected to Ioway and New Hampshire hogging the primary season limelight and decided to make an endrun around the party rules. Interestingly, it was Republican-controlled legislatures that pushed the early primaries through in both states. The DNC could have--and probably should have--taken that into consideration when it originally decided to nullify the MI and FL primaries.

[bobblehead]

Again, I'll try to make MY position clear without bringing reagan into the discussion (you did that, as you brought in hagel and luger, you are getting very good at distracting from the actual debate about what is right and wrong and making me address people that I don't agree with on the topic because there is an (R) by their name. Remember, my first blog on the politics thread stated, "I'm a libertarian who generally votes republican").

My references to Hagel, Lugar and Reagan weren't "distracting from the actual debate", they were responses to statements made by you--alluding to Obama as an "extreme liberal," for example. If you get bothered when people call you on such judgments, don't make them in the first place.

Again, Obama IS the most liberal member of the senate in 2007. I didn't get bothered by you calling me on it, I documented it. Pointing out hagel, lugar or anyone else joining him in a UN tax doesn't dispute that fact, it merely points out the error of their ways. And I don't mean to be disparaging, I enjoy the discourse. I actually looked and looked for numbers so I coud figure out all those factors as % of GNP, but couldn't find them. If you did find them and proved to me that republicans are bigger spenders and deficit runners than liberals I would commend you for it. I would also commend tex if he could show me with numbers that transferring wealth has a benefit to the GNP.

I can only go by certain things I know to be true. Democrats, especially liberals are responsible for pushing social programs like SS, medicare, outrageous benefit plans for gov't employees, emptying the SS trust fund ect. that are bankrupting this country. That is not to say republicans, especially their current form aren't enjoying some time at the trough too. Its why we got hammered in the '06 elections, not the war, and also why pointing out them supporting liberal spending sprees won't alter my opinion.

[swede]

I like the term "swiftboating". But to me it doesn't mean an untruthful attack. It means having the truth suddenly shoved into your face like a cream pie.

Are you going to vote for McCain?

I like McCain as a person. My father, the Rushian Dittohead, loathes him as a regular traitor to conservative causes, and dad probably will not vote this year. The only time I questioned my support of McCain this year is when he spoke out on global warming. Otherwise, I can live with a sharp stick in the conservative eye now and again as long as he appoints strict constructionists to SCOTUS.

McCain has referred to the Swiftboat attack as disgraceful. Seems to be a difference of opinion on how legitimate those accusations were.

BTW, where did YOU spend the Vietnam War?

Roosevelt Junior High. Best six years of my life.

[Kiwon]

It's just amazing to see how the Left continues to cannibalize the Clintons. Before they could do no wrong, now their troubles are a blood sport for them.

Latest example: The Vanity Fair hit piece followed up by a reporter for the Huffington Post who suckers Bill into making a candid response and then features it on her Huff Post blog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/bill-clinton-purdhum-a-sl_b_104771.html

USA Today's take on it, "The former president's blow-up began when he was approached yesterday by Huffington's Mayhill Fowler. She got him started on the subject by asking what he thinks about the "hatchet job" in Vanity Fair -- a way of posing the question that could, of course, be seen as almost guaranteeing it would get Clinton going and that he might have a sympathetic listener."

Besides the "hatchet job" question to get the ball rolling, the reporters adds phrases "it's all over cable news" and the author "is married to Dee Dee Myers" in the midst of Clinton's answer just to prime his pump and keep him going.

While it is priceless to hear Bill Clinton complain about unfair media bias it is a clear reminder about how corrupt the Left really is. They feel like they made Clinton so they are entitled to break him. Obama is even more of a media creation.

Obama will be an absolute puppet for left-wing, special interests.