Lets see how honest the conservatives and liberals can be here.
Which party to the American people agree with on the following issues:
The war in Iraq
The war on terror
Illegal Immigration
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The thoughts of the American people
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
It all depends on how the question is phrased.
For example, Iraq- If you ask people, "Should we cut and run from the terrorists in Iraq with our tails beteen our legs like cowards, or worse yet, Frenchmen?" The response will be much different than if you ask "In light of the Iraqi government's inability to take the lead in maintaining security and stability in their country, should we initiate a phased withdrawl of troops?"
that is true realism...despite what you think, I am honest..
and the fair way to ask the question at this stage in the game is...
"Do you favor the war in Iraq"
or
"Do you support troop withdrawl starting within the next 6 months"
but if you are honest, you will say that Hillary and Obamas stance is:
"Do you support a complete troop with withdrawl in the next year"
Now, the American people are, in general, against the war right now...they are basically in the Democrats side right now, until you ask them if they think all the troops should leave Iraq..
Illegal immigration, you haven't touched that one...so I'll guess you can't force yourself to write that your side is in the minority on that one...
Recent polling has shown that the people trust the Dems more on terror. They clearly don't trust the president on Iraq, and the Congress is taking a beating because they haven't been able to act yet.
I'd say advantage Dems on those points.
Immigration is a tougher issue, because the recent bill was favored by a bi-partisan group of legislators as well opposed by a bi-partisan group of legislators. If you look at the polls, you see interesting contradictions:
• a majority of Americans either favored that bill or opposed it because it was too harsh (30% plus 28%), but if you add the not harsh enough crowd to the too harsh crowd, you get a plurality opposing the bill (43% to 30%)
• Americans like requiring immigrants to learn English, building a wall, and cracking down on businesses that hire liiegals--all more "Republican" issues
• But Americans also like a guest worker program (49% to 26%), a "path to citizenship" for illegals here (63% to 23%), and think deporting all the illegals is untenable (85% to 13%)--all more "Democratic" issues
And then there's the fact that some Democratic officials--Arizona Governor Napolitano, for example--are taking strict crack-down approaches while Republicans--Arizona Sen. John McCain--argue against such measures.
It's confusing and, at best, not easily pegged to one party or the other. Call it a tie?
Still, even if you gave immigration to Republicans, Dems would win this challenge 2-1.
but if you are honest, you will say that Hillary and Obamas stance is:
"Do you support a complete troop with withdrawl in the next year"
That's actually not Obama's and Clinton's position. Only one candidate--well, one who has a shot--has said he'd leave no troops in Iraq, and that's Richardson. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd all argue for leaving a residual force of some kind.
And check out the polls: The "all out but a residual force" by April 1st position is supported 71% to 26%. (Some of that 26% is undoubtedly people like me who want no troops left at all.)
Moreover, "remove all" wins the plurality (40%) against increase (11%), stay the same (17%) and simply decrease (26%) in a different poll.
I think you would have a hard time justifying the notion that either Dem position (all out soon or all out soon except a few) is less popular than the Republican alternatives.
I support an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
I support an immediate cessation to the so-called "war on terror", on the grounds that you cannot wage war against a tactic.
(In addition, if this is now a "war on terror", were we in love with it before?)
The occupation is CREATING terrorism. I do not want the "war on terror" to succeed.
I support closing our borders, the active roundup of all illegal immigrants, and their deportation.
I'd also suggest a five-year moratorium on legal immigration, and revoking the right of a child to citizen status if the mother is not a US citizen.
Well done Jay...but your conclusion on the immigration issue cant be a tie..
Yes, there are a few Republicans who are on the wrong side of the issue, but overall, Republicans are for the things you said...learn english, a wall, and no amnesty...
On those issues, there are very, very few on the Left that will even think about those things...look at the wall that was supposed to be built...the Dems are blocking it being built...so Republicans win that..
As far as guest worker, conservatives are for that...but AFTER the other things are done first...so I don't think you can say that is a Democratic issue...it only is if you admit that protecting the border means nothing to them...
I wanted SOME liberal to admit that the Right wins on the illegal immigration issue...80% of Americans are for building a fence and NO easy road for illegals...and the best we could get was a "tie" from jay...
Man, you guys are not honest at all...for Jay we will give him a "tie" on it...
"I wanted SOME liberal to admit that the Right wins on the illegal immigration issue..."
Not really, because then you said...
"...As far as guest worker, conservatives are for that..."
and, unfortunately, for you, that little corporatist loophole throws the rest of your argument out of the water.
What would be honest (yet most likely not acceptable to most here) would be...
"Our country's national security is important enough, and the correction of past mistakes of various administrations urgent enough, that we will strive to stringently enforce existing immigration law, without regard to possible, temporary challenges to the well-being of our nation's economy...."
Then, reversal of GATT, NAFTA, and all other "one world" Bushisms like "international superhighways" that serve only to undermine our sovereignity.
Game, what I was trying to say is that immigration is complicated.
You asked, "Which party [do] the American people agree with on" immigration?
A plurality of Americans supported the immigration bill that was both sponsored by and killed by bi-partisan caucuses of legislators.
Was that a "Democratic" or a "Republican" bill? Did the "Democrats" or the "Republicans" kill it?
What's troubling about the entire war issue is that al-Queda is adapting, rebuilding, and matching our level of intensity. Meanwhile, the entire press corps is cheering on our defeat.
People forget that we can't vote Islamic Supremacists away, and you can't appease them. They've been growing in number since the early 80s, and are spreading their tentacles around the globe from the Philippines to Sudan. Pacifism after the 1993 attack on the WTC didn't prevent the 2001 attack. Seeing citizens like hash imply that *we* are the cause of Islamic terror leaves me worried about the future of this republic. This shouldn't be a Republican or a Democratic issue.
Meanwhile, the entire press corps is cheering on our defeat.
This is me calling bullshit on, well, your bullshit. Do you have a single example of that?
People forget that we can't vote Islamic Supremacists away, and you can't appease them.
You seem to forget that nobody's flying planes into buildings in Toronto. Making reasonable predictions about how American actions will affect world affairs isn't "appeasement", it's intelligence.
Pacifism after the 1993 attack on the WTC didn't prevent the 2001 attack.
I don't know what on Earth made you think that pacifism was the American strategy after the 1993 attack. Aside from ignorance, I guess.
"Seeing citizens like hash imply that *we* are the cause of Islamic terror leaves me worried about the future of this republic."
Absolutely. We need a political solution, not a military one.
If we cannot rein in our own criminals and psychopaths, what makes you think we are capable of reining in the Middle East's?
"Pacifism after the 1993 attack on the WTC didn't prevent the 2001 attack."
Compare Clinton's realistic approach to the 1993 bombing, in which the terrorists were apprehended, prosecuted, and locked up in our justice system, to Bush's war for oil and Israel's interests, in which apprehending Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were never a goal, and whose war has been a total failure.
What did enriching Halliburton's and KBR's bottom lines have to do with ensuring our safety?
Under Republicans and flawed neoconservative policies, Americans have never been so unsafe from terrorism.
And America is the laughing stock of the world now.
chet, hash--
Again, the violence toward America isn't blowback, which is the left's term for justified revenge.
Fourteen people were killed in the Philippines a day ago, of which ten were beheaded. A suicide bombing in Algeria today also killed 10. Again, the body count added up by Jihadist violence is huge: 2,000,000 dead in Sudan, 50,000 dead in Kashmir, etc. I don't know why people want to blame this on America using a kooky Leninist theory of imperialism-- you'd either have to be extremely ignorant about today's world, or really hate America to think that.
And don't forget about Musharaf's recent tough decision to stand up to the jihadists in an event that left over 100 people dead. If America goes isolationist, allies like Mubarak, Musharaf etc will definitely not help us when it comes to anti-terrorism. The incentive will simply not be there.
Islamic Supremacists were attacking America during the Clinton administration-- Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, WTC 1993-- turning the other cheek will not make jihadists love us.
"Do you have a single example of that?"
A single example? Sure. Keith Olbermann.
"Again, the violence toward America isn't blowback, which is the left's term for justified revenge."
I'm a leftist. I never use that term. Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do about what other types of people are like, and "the left" is just your all-purpose scapegoat?
"Fourteen people were killed in...."
None of this has to do with the running of America, or putting Americans first....lacking the ability or moral high ground to actually change these situations for good, the only course is to MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS and work on cleaning up our own backyard and restoring diplomacy to our catastrophic, neocon-scripted foreign policy, which has succeeded in alienating virtually every ally worth having, thus at least not doing any (further) harm. For once.
"Islamic Supremacists were attacking America during the Clinton administration-- Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, WTC 1993-- turning the other cheek will not make jihadists love us."
In retrospect, you'd have to be either quite foolish or hopelessly naive to believe that those attacks were actually spearheaded by the Muslims themselves.
Then again, look where I'm posting.
If what the lefties say is true regarding who they think is better equipped to handle the WOT or Iraq, I shudder for the future of this country. It's shameful to think that there are more Republicans who think we need to consider withdrawing. I don't know what people are looking at if they think our leaving Iraq will help US in the least bit.
Chet,
The last time you mentioned no planes flown into buildings in Canada, I believe I mentioned a recent conspiracy broken up there. One that would have been a direct attack on political leaders. Of course because it failed, the culprits are dismissed as losers, but aren't they all when thwarted? If you judge the situation by how much damage another country did or didn't suffer, you are really not paying attention to th character and style of this enemy. Our people are going to die from terrorism one way or the other. I'd prefer it not be shots to the back as we're leaving the hot zones nor do I prefer it be any more of our citizenry. Leaving Iraq anytime in the near future is a big mistake.
"...I shudder for the future..."
Oh...no problem. Take your time, because I, everyone else here, and everyone else in the entire world have all the time in the world to accommodate your emotional break.
The only thing that should make you shudder is the mess you've helped to create.
"...leaving Iraq will help US in the least bit..."
Of course it will help. Our presence is simply causing the genocide to go unchecked...
Could YOU leave those lucrative 30-year oil grabs?
Pitiful....like a rapist hosting a telethon.
Illegal immigration...ILLEGAL!!!What is so hard to understand???I would love to see a LEGAL immigrant
express their feelings about what is going on while they try to meet the RESPONSIBILITY of becoming an AMERICAN CITIZEN,and how they feel about the concessions many are trying to run right past them.
Fourteen people were killed in the Philippines a day ago, of which ten were beheaded. A suicide bombing in Algeria today also killed 10. Again, the body count added up by Jihadist violence is huge: 2,000,000 dead in Sudan, 50,000 dead in Kashmir, etc.
Right - because we took actions that literally inflamed the Muslim world. We invaded two Muslim countries. You don't think that would have an effect?
We've got doctors in London setting off bombs, now. Could you even imagine such a thing 3 years ago? 6? Back then terrorism would have been the province of a few unhinged radicals from backwoods Saudi Arabia or something.
Now those tactics are commonplace, in response to what is viewed as blind anti-Muslim aggression by the US. "Us vs. Them" Christianity-vs-Islam comments by top military officials didn't help the situation.
If America goes isolationist, allies like Mubarak, Musharaf etc will definitely not help us when it comes to anti-terrorism.
I think it's reasonable to ask what capacity "allies" like Musharaf have to help us, and if their help is worth a hundred American lives every month.
That's a pretty steep tribute. What do we get in return?
A single example? Sure. Keith Olbermann.
I watch his show pretty much daily and I've never, ever seen an example of what you're talking about. Give me a citation. Preferably a transcript. One guy, BTW, hardly substantiates a claim of "the entire press corps."
The last time you mentioned no planes flown into buildings in Canada, I believe I mentioned a recent conspiracy broken up there.
If so, I missed it. Can you repeat the citation?
chet, hash--
I simply do not understand the blame America first position you guys are defending. The grievances of the religious fanatic radicals have no basis in fact. You guys have said before that we should support moderates, since the radicals are loony-- I agree completely, which is why I support what we're doing in Iraq.
Again, you have to be completely ignorant about today's world and recent history to defend the blame America first position. For example, there has been 3,000 killed in an Islamist insurgency in Thailand. What does that have to do with America? The Islamist genocide in Sudan against the Christian blacks has been going on since the early 90s. What does that have to do with America? India and Israel have been dealing with it forever. For example, in 1999, Indian Airlines Flight 814 was hijacked to Kandahar, and the passengers that weren't killed were exchanged for terrorists, one of which went on to funnel money Mohammed Atta.
Again, this is a global problem. This stuff was happenening BEFORE George Bush. In Nairobi in 1998, the Islamists killed 213 and injured 4000 at an American embassy. They are escalating their attacks-- Iran's leader for example believes it is his sacred duty to lead the final jihad against the infidel at the end of times. It is pure stupidity to believe this is a proletarian Marxist struggle against imperialism. Islamic Supremacists are clearly motivated by theological ideas.
"I watch his show pretty much daily"
So you didn't just see him laugh at the London terror attacks? You probably think Olbermann is right, and it is a conspiracy to scare the sheeple. It seems like the Western democracies can do nothing right in your eyes, and the gun-toting, anti-gay, anti-women, kill-all-the-Jews incinerate-the-West religious extremist Jihadists can do no wrong. This is what people mean when they say Dhimmicrats hate America.
marshall--
You're looking for these links:
June 7th, 2006
Toronto Terror Plot Foiled
It won't convince the lefties. Even though we've seen carnage in Thailand, Sudan, India, Somalia, the Philippines, Israel, Spain, the UK, Argentina, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, Algeria, Russia, and Iraq, the Democrats insist this is all caused by America the Great Bully.
And you're exactly right about keeping the radicals on defense. If they win in Iraq, they will use it as a staging base for attacks around the world.
The Pakistani ISI picked him up on March 1st 2003. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the person who, uh, MASTERMINDED THE 911 ATTACKS.
I was referring to allies in Iraq, actually. It's not clear to me why you think pulling our troops out of Iraq would affect our relations with Pakistan - and remember, it's Pakistan that's essentially ceded a portion of its territory to Osama Bin Laden and his allies.
It won't convince the lefties.
If your "Toronto Terror Plot" is the worst we have to be afraid of, then its time to bring the troops home. Who were those guys? The Marx Brothers? They were even more incompetent than the Fort Dix guys.
If they win in Iraq, they will use it as a staging base for attacks around the world.
They already are, Jason. Largely thanks to our actions. But just keep agitating for more of the same.
"But just keep agitating for more of the same."
I will. Islamic Supremacists are a global problem. Their effectiveness is dramatically reduced when we put them on defense, force them to scramble for resources, deny them sanctuary, keep them on the move, et cetera.
Returning to the status quo and expecting these people to forgive and place nice afterwards is delusional.
Returning to the status quo and expecting these people to forgive and place nice afterwards is delusional.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane.
The victories in the war on terror have been law-enforcement based, not military. So clearly the winning strategy is to take the law-enforcement route, backed up by the military. The war in Iraq is a black hole into which we're dumping money and lives and getting nothing. They've not met a single benchmark. It's time to cut our losses and leave.
Their effectiveness is dramatically reduced when we put them on defense, force them to scramble for resources, deny them sanctuary, keep them on the move, et cetera.
In your view, does having our military pinned down in a peacekeeping operation in a country the size of Wisconsin help or hinder that mission?
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane."
True. But there is still room within the philosohy for alterations that would be substantial. We've been fighting with one hand. Ratchet up the intensity and not fight in the PC manner and lets see what happens then.
But there is still room within the philosohy for alterations that would be substantial. We've been fighting with one hand. Ratchet up the intensity and not fight in the PC manner and lets see what happens then.
I don't see how we can kill our way to victory, here, when it's the indiscriminate killing that drives up terrorist recruitment.
I would assume that even a conservative is smart enough to understand the idea of a "vicious cycle."
Indiscriminate killing? By whom? Are you suggesting our people just shoot up the place without purpose? Are you dipping into Hashfan's stash? Our people bend over backwards to avoid collateral damage, usually at great personal risk. Shame on you for suggesting that our people are comletely lacking in honor and integrity.
Are you suggesting our people just shoot up the place without purpose?
Uh, well, yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
Are you just dense or something? Like, you've got absolutely no idea what our soldiers and mercenaries are doing over there in Iraq? Despite it being in the papers every day?
Our people bend over backwards to avoid collateral damage, usually at great personal risk.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that. Maybe you could make that assurance to the family of this 14-year-old girl, except that they're all dead. And, of course, there's our Blackwater guys over there, shooting random Iraqis under full legal immunity from prosecution. Maybe you can watch this video, shot on Baghdad's "Route Irish", and tell me what these guys are "going out of their way to avoid collateral damage", since they just seem to be shooting at civilian cars at random.
Shame on you for suggesting that our people are comletely lacking in honor and integrity.
Oh, get bent. We're seeing exactly the expected results of a mercenary army made out of the kind of person that would volunteer to go kill people for money.
Post a Comment