Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

    I can't say I agree with every single one of these points, and the very tenor of the column is in a format guaranteed to evoke protests, but taken one by one they are pretty accurate and would seem, at a very minimum, to shift the burden of rebuttal to Democrats. There does seem to be a history of naivete, indecisiveness and/or appeasement by Democrat leaders in matters of national security. That is not to say Republicans have always been decisive and correct in their judgments, but distinctions between party philosophies do clearly emerge over several decades. Given that these issues will be key in the upcoming elections, and that the competing philosophies continue to be very much on display, any comments?

    97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

    INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 9/29/2006

    Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

    Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

    President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

    That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

    The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

    Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and (12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

    Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

    The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

    In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

    Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

    America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

    Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

    During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

    Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

    The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

    In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

    For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

    Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

    Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

    Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57) oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

    Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

    Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

    Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

    In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

    The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

    October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

    January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

    Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. (71) In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

    June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

    July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

    February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

    May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

    Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

    Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

    Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

    Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

    Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

    May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

    Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85) Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

    Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

    Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

    The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

    Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

    Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

    Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

    Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

    Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

    Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

    We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

    Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

    However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.
    http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...44423511626964

  • #2
    Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

    Yeah, those evil democrats, traiiiiiitors I'm telling ya.

    IF you have to go back this far in history then I'm looking forward to that same list with regards to the Republicans. Especially the 70's and 80's should provide quite some interesting stuff I reckon.

    Even forget about that and use the word "trust" with regards to the issue of Iraq in the current administration. I'm not a Bush hater or something, but lets not push it shall we?

    LOL @ the oil dependency beying blamed on the democrats and the solution would be drilling in Alaska INSTEAD of looking for a replacement of oil, but hey THEN the car industries and sorts wouldn't be very happy, right? Seriously, we in the West should really get less dependant on oil, fast.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

      Originally posted by Mourning View Post
      Yeah, those evil democrats, traiiiiiitors I'm telling ya.

      IF you have to go back this far in history then I'm looking forward to that same list with regards to the Republicans. Especially the 70's and 80's should provide quite some interesting stuff I reckon.

      Even forget about that and use the word "trust" with regards to the issue of Iraq in the current administration. I'm not a Bush hater or something, but lets not push it shall we?

      LOL @ the oil dependency beying blamed on the democrats and the solution would be drilling in Alaska INSTEAD of looking for a replacement of oil, but hey THEN the car industries and sorts wouldn't be very happy, right? Seriously, we in the West should really get less dependant on oil, fast.

      Regards,

      Mourning
      Mourning: There are (at least) 97 separate facts set forth in the article. Is there not a single one of them with which you take issue, before dismissing the whole thing by claiming it characterizes Democrats as "evil?"

      The article itself does not do that. Instead, it characterizes Democrats over the last several decades as naive in dealings with evil regimes, and weak in their efforts to deal with those regimes, and wrong-headed in those efforts, but nowhere does it call them evil or traitors.

      I don't expect Democrats to like the article, because it strongly criticizes their policies with detailed, dense arguments. But this issue has perhaps greater importance than at any time in our history, and Americans (and their Western allies) have every right to compare the respective historical records in determining which ideological approach they believe will best safeguard them, their families and their nations in these difficult times. Why is it illegitimate for Republicans to make precisely these arguments in support of their case? Why don't Democrats point out where any one of these facts that, listed all together like this, are wrong? It isn't about name calling (although it may feel that way to Dems, given their record as set out), it is about arguing in favor of your preferred position.

      You are of course correct that, if we go back several decades, you could compile a similar list for Republicans. Fine, feel free to do so -- what would the theme be, that Republicans also are just as naive or weak as Dems in matters of national defense? Or would it be a different theme, say, that Republicans can't be trusted either, or "lied" our way into war in Iraq, or alienated the UN or France or Germany? Make your case, and we will discuss it. (And as part of that discussion, Republicans will be pointing out that many of the facts marshalled together -- say, the President's State of the Union address was all truthful, but that Dems like Joe Wilson have now been proved to have lied about it, or that our fiercest critics such as the UN and France and the Russians are themselves compromised by having been bribed by Iraqi agents in the Oil for Food scandal). But you don't even begin to make your case by simply dismissing the entire argument as reducing to a claim not made that Dems are traitors or "evil."

      There are in fact a lot of accurate statements included in the article that are relevant to the question who will best protect our national security interests. If you think any one of them is not accurate, say so and we'll discuss it in good and friendly cheer. But claiming we made arguments we did not make does not qualify on this front.

      BTW, I happen to strongly agree with at least part of your argument regarding our oil dependency. I totally agree that we are far, far too dependent on foreign oil, but it would seem to follow that reducing our dependency in a variety of ways should be pursued, and yes, this does include by opening up known domestic reserves such as drilling in ANWR (essentially filibustered by Democrats) or by developing alternative energy sources (not necessarily the controversial use of windmills, or the too expensive solar sources, but something really cool like: http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...d.php?t=24597).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

        Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
        I can't say I agree with every single one of these points, and the very tenor of the column is in a format guaranteed to evoke protests, but taken one by one they are pretty accurate and would seem, at a very minimum, to shift the burden of rebuttal to Democrats. There does seem to be a history of naivete, indecisiveness and/or appeasement by Democrat leaders in matters of national security. That is not to say Republicans have always been decisive and correct in their judgments, but distinctions between party philosophies do clearly emerge over several decades. Given that these issues will be key in the upcoming elections, and that the competing philosophies continue to be very much on display, any comments?
        right, conflicts in Iraq and in Afghanistan are the main concerns that should be bothering US citizens atm and especially during the ellections

        Truth is, US is on the decline for at least six years now (in both internal and foreign affairs). what's even worse, in some fields US is hurting the global progress and generating too much food for specculations and doubts in the rightfulness of American policies. and when it comes to solving problems in conflict areas, the policies of the current administration seem to be rather chaotic and somewhat predefined by doublestandards (if we dismiss the oil factor, etc.). if we consider what's been achieved since Bush came to power, we may say that Israeli-Pallestinian conflict went nowhere and even got worse (imho), Iraqi situation was solved unproffesionally and fuelled too many anti-west specullations, Afghanistan's prospects are blured, North Korea has built themselves a nuke (that Saddam only dreamt of ), Iran have ellected an ultra-extremist governament.. at the same time India are still fighting with Pakistan, who is governed by a war general. in Asia we have only seen bad things happen, despite the fact that Bush has supposedly put these issues very high up the agenda. Europe, who should be working hand in hand with US, has been distancing itself from Bush regarding some issues, this provoked divisions within the EU. Russia, meanwhile, has been steadily detereorating to the soviet era state. Republicans have praised Putin (instead of helping Russian democrats), although he has turned the country into an authoritarian regime with state controlled newspapers, TVs and radios. result of this is that now Russia has only two options: Putin or communists/bosheviks. Democrats are nearly dead in Russia. wherever Bush has layed hand, we have seen the situation worsen. although generally I'd say the World in general has been screwing up in recent years. we are sorta approaching the wall, we are somewhat unable to use globalisation to our benefit. the world looks very much under controll, but in reality it's rolling like the lose tran from the hill - on rails, but unstoppable. anyways, we need US to step up in the foreign affairs and put more effort in diplomatic ways of solving problems. this should help their ecconomy as well, because no one in the democratic world would like to see a full blown economical crysis in US. we have problems as it is. oil prices are idiotic, while efforts to move to the new fuels are being artificially stopped by US encouraged oil companies. this makes oil countries more and more reliant on a doomed source of income. it's like a drugger getting more and more satisfaction from drugs, yet knowing, tha drugs will have to end very soon (I'm speaking about the rising oil prices). now because of these idiotic policies (that US is the harsh supporter of), countries like Russia, Venezuella or hald of Arabic wolrd are like drug addicts, who will go nuts when their drug will be taken away. this must stop. we must move to a completely new policies or it will be too late. Corporations will not be able to controll alternative fuels and what will we do with all those oil countries then? in other words, we are somewhat srewed anyways.. anyways, beign good during the wartime is not what US wants from it's governing bodies atm.
        imho.

        actually, this is very OT, but considering the chaos that would follow a global move towards alternative forms of fuel (instead of gas and oil, primaraly), US actions attemting to strenghten the global reliance on oil could even be benefficial. at least we would win some time and maybe during that time somebody would figure out what to do with countries that very much depend on oil sales (btw, Russia is one of those countries as well). on the other hand, will we win enough time to come up with the solutions? right now with every increase in energy prices oil/gas countries are becoming more and more dependant on it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

          Let's put it it a little differently. I believe that both parties have the interests of the nation at number one. What those interests are and how to get there is where the disputes are IMO.

          Hopelessly simplistic, offcourse. But, in the end I'm positive enough to concur that both parties are looking for what's best for the US.

          I also believe that both parties have rotten apples amongst them, nothing new there, probably every political party in the world has those. However, to say that one party can not be trusted to govern in wartime, while the other can is a statement so absolute that it's ridiculous given the past and the wars that occured then.

          Both sides made mistakes, but you know what? There's a saying here and I think I have heard a similar one in US media. I'll translate the Euro version though: "the first two things that are disbanded during armed conflict are (military) plans and the truth".

          So, everyone makes mistakes, some are made public, some are not. Not one political party holds the monopoly on mistakes and/or bad judgement in foreign or military affairs. Come on, you'll have to admit how absurd that sounds.

          FDR and Truman were very good presidents I would argue. Still lots of errors occured. Eisenhower and Reagan were very good presidents too, don't tell me lots of errors occured on their watch.

          Again, very simplistic, but come on making this a partisan battle is ridiculous IMO. I'm also surprised that several people shoot into reflexes left or right when they here something from "the other side". I'm a member of the, and this will probably sound weird or strange to you, Conservative Liberal Democratic party in my country. Does that mean I aggree with everything they say? Offcourse not.

          So, I'm wondering (off-topic here) why some people seem to have such trouble admitting "the other side" has done something right a lot of times or if they can't come out under something bad "the own side" has done, they come with caveats about "the other side" doing it too or worse?

          I mean, come on, don't you think it's rather pittifull to view everything according to party lines or to first want to know which side made the mistake/error/abuse before thinking about condemning it?

          This, for all clarity, is not an attack at anyone. I'm just surprised by the level of polarization sometimes.

          Regards,

          Mourning
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

            The article may be overstated and I don't agree with all Republican war time decisions; however, I do trust Republicans more on defense than Democrats.

            It is a valid issue and it does affect my voting.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

              Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
              The article may be overstated and I don't agree with all Republican war time decisions; however, I do trust Republicans more on defense than Democrats.

              It is a valid issue and it does affect my voting.
              Word for word I agree.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

                How much is Karl Rove giving you per month, Bat boy? None of these Rebumblican warmongers even so much as sniffed the battlefield, let alone read Sun Tzu, but we're supposed to trust them while they compound mistake after mistake and drive the war machine over the cliff?
                Bob Woodward is going to give America the scoop on the outright buffoonery of these toy soldiers tomorrow night on 60 Minutes. Why don't you tune in and get maybe just a semblence of how horribly, terribly, irredemably awful it has gotten in Iraq and how Don Rumsfeld may be the all time poster boy for hubris with his 'hear no dissent' stance. You 'GOP all the way' jokers, who have been fooled into believing your shlong will fall off if you don't vote for the party of fake testosterone, need to call a proctocologist asap to get your heads out of your asses before it kills us all.
                Or just stick your head back in the sand and ignore reality, like you have done thus far.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

                  There is only one reason that matters regarding trusting Republicans on wartime decisions:

                  Iraq.

                  The Republicans have had 5 years to get it right. and rather than admit mistakes and make adjustments, They've just sat there bleating "stay the course, stay the course, stay the course." Strike one ... strike two ... strike three.

                  What confidence I had in the Republican party in matters of National defense has been completely destroyed by the Bush administration. It will likely take decades for that to fade, just as it took decades for my admiration of the party for its military work in the 80's and early 90's to fade.

                  The Democrats no longer get credit from me for WWII. The Republicans now get the same consideration regarding their work in the 80's.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

                    Yowza, Sphere. You posted that after I began writing my post, so I didn't see it before hitting "submit".

                    I'm not sure I would have joined in if I had read that first. Your "argument" weakens mine by association.

                    Please, tone it down a little (and yes I recognize the irony of ME telling anyone to tone it down in the politics forum. )
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                      Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
                      How much is Karl Rove giving you per month, Bat boy? None of these Rebumblican warmongers even so much as sniffed the battlefield, let alone read Sun Tzu, but we're supposed to trust them while they compound mistake after mistake and drive the war machine over the cliff?
                      You still around, MS? I thought you were gone after you chickened out on trying to resurrect your false arguments about what a great patriot you think Joe Wilson is, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary. But I do see you are still making dishonest chickenhawk arguments.

                      And leave it to a Lefty to actually think that reading Sun Tzu is all one needs to be a soldier. It is just hilarious that you would think that would persuade someone (Quick quiz: what would Sun Tzu do about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's designs on obtaining nukes? HINT: "Wait until you can engage him from a higher elevation" or "arrange to fight him with the sun shining in his eyes" is not the answer.)

                      Bob Woodward is going to give America the scoop on the outright buffoonery of these toy soldiers tomorrow night on 60 Minutes.
                      Will it be as good as the last Blame America First "scoop" you gave us: "The Big Lie About Islamic Fascism?" http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=24030

                      Will it be a big enough "scoop" to achieve its intended purpose: that the Republicans lose in November? Or will it turn out to be just another collusive liberal fraud, like the selective leaking of the NIE Report, designed by courageous liberals burrowed in at spy agencies to convince Americans to vote Democrat? Or the selective leaking of other national security secrets by Democrats sworn not to violate the law, but who believe electing other Democrats to be of higher purpose than obeying the law and aiding and comforting the enemy in times of war?
                      Why don't you tune in and get maybe just a semblence of how horribly, terribly, irredemably awful it has gotten in Iraq and how Don Rumsfeld may be the all time poster boy for hubris with his 'hear no dissent' stance.
                      I might just do that. I tune in on every one of Woodward's fables, just to see if he still claiming to speak with the late Bill Casey. 'Course, if I just want to get one-sided, slanted reporting about how "horribly, terribly, irredemably [sic] awful it has gotten in Iraq," I could just read any story ever published on the topic in the New York Times, including any of the stories written there for fully a year before we even went to Iraq.

                      But what about if I want to know the truth? Where do I go if I want to know how is it really going in Iraq? Are we really supposed to accept Woodward's word on it? Do you not find it a little interesting that the troops themselves who are actually stationed in Iraq are criticizing the Democrat house organs such as the Times and Woodward's shop, the Washington Post, and accuse them of misreporting and actually lying about what is actually occurring there? Whom shall we believe, the Lefty media, which is opposed to anything Bush supports, or the troops themselves? For example, in the Video Clips shown here (they are all revealing and more honest about the war in Iraq than the major media): http://www.patdollard.com/Teasers.html

                      You 'GOP all the way' jokers, who have been fooled into believing your shlong will fall off if you don't vote for the party of fake testosterone, need to call a proctocologist asap to get your heads out of your asses before it kills us all.
                      After you were spanked for using the word "masturbation" in a post, I thought you had grown up a bit. Now I see you still have a fascination writing things about wee wees and poo poo. Keep at it, MS, some day it might actually be funny or witty. But (only one "t" there, don't mean to encourage you!) it isn't funny or witty yet.

                      "Before it kills us all." If you are so interested in staying alive, you might spend a fraction of the time you spend on Hating Bush (and all things Republican) and learn a little bit about the Islamic Fascists. I know you'll never see this on Moveon.org or HuffingtonPost -- the sites that you let do your thinking for you -- but the al Qaida boys who never much troubled President Clinton are just dying to kill you, your family, your country and your way of life. Really -- I know its hard to imagine, but they're worse for your long term health than Republicans!

                      Or just stick your head back in the sand and ignore reality, like you have done thus far.
                      Now that's funny! Writing a sentence in which you pretend that it is you who sees reality clearly! Is that a cut-and-paste line from Kos?

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      Yowza, Sphere. You posted that after I began writing my post, so I didn't see it before hitting "submit".

                      I'm not sure I would have joined in if I had read that first. Your "argument" weakens mine by association.

                      Please, tone it down a little (and yes I recognize the irony of ME telling anyone to tone it down in the politics forum. )
                      Careful, LA, while you still seem to appreciate proper "tone", if you start joining in dishonest, nutty "arguments", people will start thinking you are also ... well, you know.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                        Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                        Careful, LA, while you still seem to appreciate proper "tone", if you start joining in dishonest, nutty "arguments", people will start thinking you are also ... well, you know.
                        Uh ... what are you trying to say?

                        That's obviously not reading right on my end, because I feel offended and I'm not sure why.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          Uh ... what are you trying to say?

                          That's obviously not reading right on my end, because I feel offended and I'm not sure why.
                          I don't mean to offend gratuitously, LA. I thought you were saying MS's post was so dead on that it weakened your's by association, but then you cautioned him to tone it down. It appeared you were trying to have it both ways -- praising his arguments -- which I have characterized as nutty and dishonest, but I actually find them objectionable on other grounds too -- while distancing yourself at the same time with your cautionary note about tone. If I misread your post I apologize.

                          EDIT: Now I get it -- the post you were referring to was your first, in which you discussed your view of both parties and relative trust on military matters. I was responding to your second post, which seemed to endorse MS's views while simultaneously distancing from his tone. I owe you a stronger apology -- sorry LA.

                          I do think you could be clearer on the reasons for your distrust of the Republican party, after you say they regained your trust in the 80s and 90s. The war in Iraq has been difficult, to be sure, but has been made no easier by the administration having to fight it in an atmosphere of constant political harassment, such as the Wilson-Plame hoax, along with the incessant leaking of national security secrets by embedded Democrats in the CIA and elsewhere, along with nearly uniform opposition by Dems in Congress -- witness the treatment of social liberal/national security hawk Joe Lieberman. It is hard to imagine how things would look today in Iraq if the Dems had cooperated in the effort rather than constantly sought political advantage, but you would reward them for their opposition by blaming only the Republicans. I am not carrying water for the Republicans on this issue -- I believe there have been many, many mistakes by the administration -- but I also believe that the Democrats are not serious about national security (the topic of the original article) and that even the imperfect or flawed policies of the Republicans are better for the country than the Cindy Sheehan/Nancy Pelosi/Joe Murtha/Michael Moore etc. policies embraced by the Dems.

                          LA, you mentioned WW II, but the administration of WW II was replete with at least as many, and arguably far more policy errors than this one, and with more costly losses in terms of casualties, etc. Yet the country was united then, and is divided now, on a matter many of us think of equal or greater peril than the Nazi threat.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

                            Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                            The article may be overstated and I don't agree with all Republican war time decisions; however, I do trust Republicans more on defense than Democrats.

                            It is a valid issue and it does affect my voting.

                            Ever stop to think that this might be exactly the reason we seem to go to war every time we have a Republican President?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              Ever stop to think that this might be exactly the reason we seem to go to war every time we have a Republican President?
                              Good point Eindar. And factually correct, too! Franklin Roosevelt (WW II), Harry Truman (Korean War) and John F. Kennedy (Vietnam) were all Republicans! And if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, there would be another one in the "Republican" column, by your analysis. Oh, wait ...

                              Eindar, you are obviously too young to recall Bob Dole's (controversial) comment about "Democrat Wars of the 20th Century" in the 1976 Vice Presidential debates. At that point in time, all of the wars in the entire century had begun on a Democratic president's watch. But if you are going to try to score political points by smearing an entire party's alleged warmongering (as Dole was rightly condemned for doing), at least read a little history. Or, as you might put it, "stop to think."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X