1 Is it really that bad, Ogre?

2 Wow, now that I read the whole thing, I have to agree with you. But when I came to the blog, I just thought you were linking to somewhere outside the blog. You should have a 'to read more click here' or something like that. The democrats are disgusting weasels, but we knew something was up when Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon was blogging for the Edwards campaign. The nutroots have completely taken over the Democrats; and it's become an openly socialist group that stands alongside communist International Answer, the marxists of Code Pink, and Castro loving Leslie Cagan's United for Peace and Justice. Watching their bedfellows makes everything crystal clear. Great post, by the way. And I tagged you with a meme, you should see that trackback shortly.

3 One other thing; the cartoon is priceless!

4 USA may haven given up but Not I! My mission is from God. Islam must and will be destroyed.

5 "will not oppose their terrorist expansion network until after they have taken Europe and they start trying to take America directly." It gives me no pleasure to type this in: I don't think that some of them will get the point even then. Capitol Hill is filled with madness--sheer madness.

6 What is with the "you're either with the Republicans or with the terrorists" ideology as of late? What is with the absolute distaste for debate? What the Democrats did in the House was open the surge and the conduct of the war to debate. They didn't pass a resolution against the troops, they passed a resolution against the ongoing killing of them. We've all seen what happens when one party controls all branches of gonverment: a complete lack of debate. And without debate, we have things like ten billion "lost" dollars in Iraq, a rampant drug trade in Afghanistan, a free Osama bin Laden and a distasteful hanging of Saddam Hussein. These things all occurred on the Republicans' watch. Do you support any of these things? As the friend of a soldier who was killed in combat, trying to right those wrongs, I can tell you that they all leave a sour taste in my mouth. And that's another thing -- I'm a proud Democrat. I'm also the proud friend and family member of people in the military. My family is proud of our veterans and of our currently-serving relatives. What a sad statement, that Democrats don't support the troops. Nay, Democrats support debate. And its just that debate which so kills Republicans. Because it exposes the fact that, shockingly, they might have done something wrong.

7 "The democrats are disgusting weasels" Can't beat that statement!

8 Cao, I'm working on the line that you do click on to get to the post to get you interested -- that's supposed to imply "click here," but I guess that's not working... Wally, you're exactly right. America has given up, so now it's up to individuals to fight or submit on their own. AOW, you may be right. I imagine if the muslims take Europe and tell the Democrats that they're not coming here, the Democrats might still believe them. Dennis, did you read the post? You're peeing and claiming it's raining. It's not debate to tell the troops that you support them, but refuse to help them complete their job. I wasn't talking about how bad Bush has screwed this up -- I was pointing out that the Democrats, with this move, are openly surrendering to terrorists, period. They can claim they're not, but they're lying.

9 I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is: http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site. Thanks, Mark

10 Consider it done. Thanks for stopping along.

11 I'm just getting around to all the political debate on the net but I had to comment on Dennis' post. It's not about being with the "Republicans or the terrorists' ideology". It's about listening to the news, really listening, even to the pieces that get a five second bleep never to be seen or heard of again. It's about a political party more concerned about their own power than doing what's right. It's about the fact that no one person is completely infallible and, in the same vein, no one person is completely responsible for the mess we're in. Yet, there is one political party that would have us believe so and I fear this stance is going to tear this country apart and I often wonder if that is their true agenda: That they will not be satisfied until there is bloodshed because a frightened people are easier to control.

12 Excellent points, Steph. Indeed, I'm not actually "with" the Republicans on most issues. But this is a purely political move, designed to increase power for Democrats, and will cause the deaths of innocent people because of it. Thanks for stopping along.

13 the acts that democrats do every day just move us closer and closer to the "model" citizens they want us to be... i mean what the hell are we bitching about 3000 deaths for? more military members die in accidents here in the US every year than have died in the whole war... hell the murder rate in Washington DC makes it safer to be a US soldier in Iraq than it is to be a civilian in DC... but noooo its all about how our poor boys are being sent to their death... its a load of crap used for political gain, nothing more... talk to just about any one that has served in Iraq recently and you'll get a vastly different picture of what really happens

14 Exactly right. To Democrats, it's ALWAYS politics, never reality. Thanks for stopping by.

15 Well I'll agree that the resolution is a purely political move...but they're politicians. That's what they do. Also, they have to start somewhere. I do disagree that they're sending a vote of no support to the troops, however. I think not equipping them with proper body armor is a far worse offense than not approving the sad state of the Iraq mess. I did read the post but I got off on a tangent..it happens. Sorry.

16 I don't understand how they can claim to support the troops, but then when the person who is in charge of the troops says he's going to send more troops to finish the job; the Democrats say no, that's a bad idea and we're not going to allow it. If you were building a house and ran out of bricks; then Bob promised to get you bricks; but Janie put up a road block to stop the bricks from getting to you, does Janie support you? Somehow, in the world of Democrats, Janie DOES support you because Janie doesn't want you to build the house, so by not giving you bricks, you cannot do the job, which means they support you. Huh?

17 Oh and I'm confused how this bill surrenders to the terrorists. Does it say "We, the Democratic Party, surrender to your will?" Just wondering, because I mean...here we go again with the "for Bush vs. for terrorists" punchline. Just because a bill goes counter to the wishes of Republicans/conservatives does not make it a terrorist bill. Unless it says "Welcome home, Osama" somewhere in the text, one can assume it does not, in fact, support the "evil-doers" abroad. Because after all, are we not Americans? Why would Nancy Pelosi want to do any more harm to America than, say, yourself? I'm just confused...no one passed me the memo about opposition=terrorism.

18 I believe the argument against the surge is that it's large enough to be a target and small enough to be ineffective. As such, it would be bad move for an already embatted and overstretched military. Furthermore, being stretched so thin, sending 30,000-odd more troops seriously reduces our abilty to defend our homeland.... It's not an issue of 'not wanting to get the job done' so much as it is an issue of feasibility. Unless they reinstate the draft, of course, which I'm sure most of us would object to.

19 This bill tells the terrorists that we're not going to kill them. This bill tells those who are fighting against us in Iraq that we are going to leave them alone and allow them to kill others at will because we're not going to find them and punish them. This tells the terrorists that we will be gone soon and they will be free to restore a dictatorship in the country again. Why would Pelosi do harm to America? Because she honestly does not like capitalism. She doesn't like freedom. She doesn't like anyone having any power other than her and her friends. To me, any time you oppose freedom, you oppose America. And opposition doesn't equal terrorism. But opposing those who fight the terrorists does.

20 I'm pretty sure that Nancy Pelosi respects freedom, given that it is that very freedom which landed her in her current position of power. No burkas here. I'm really not going to address that in full because its ridiculous, plain and simple. To say that any of us hates freedom is just an overstatement. It is, after all, YOUR president which is trashing the Constitution. And even he likes freedom, I bet. Anywho, keep in mind that Democrats aren't just flatly saying "no more troops," but also proposing that we put more pressure on the Iraqi government. We DO need to put more pressure on their government -- it has been doing a whole lot of nothing while relying on primarily US military action to get the job done. Sure, it IS our fault that the current situation is what it is. But this isn't a one-man show. This isn't just America vs insurgents...Iraqi citizens have a lot at stake also. And their government should be kicking ass and taking names as is needed. I guess we just have different opinions, obviously. And you're not going to change mine any more than I can change yours. Thankfully, though, we can at least intelligently (usually) debate our opinions without guns or bombs. Its a novel idea, one that works well here in America and which should continue for a long time. That's all the Democrats are doing -- introducing opposition, debate and conflicting ideas. This is healthy for our democracy and healthy for our troops. So let's respectfully agree to disagree, as I think that's as far as we're going to get with this!

21 No, Pelosi honestly hates freedom. I wish that were not true, but it is. She despises it. And he's your president, whether you want him to be or not. I think he's a pretty bad president, all things considered, but the war on terrorism is the one thing he does have at least partially right. Democrats aren't saying no more troops -- they're saying NO troops at all. They preparing to completely defund ALL troops to force their withdrawl. So they're planning on doing what only works once in a while: economic sanctions. And that hasn't worked on terrorists yet. And yes, Democrats are introducing opposition. But I don't think that's a good idea. When someone is wrong, they're wrong, and no amount of opposition is going to change that. Thanks for stopping along and not dropping any bombs.

22 I know the mass media wants me to believe that I dreamed it and all that but I'm not THAT old... yet. Let's hark back to the 2006 elections. Nancy Pelosi, among others, made it clear that her only real platform was destroying the President. I heard it once and never heard it again but a friend called me and asked me if she was hearing right at precisely the same time I heard it. This is what I mean about 5 second bleeps... It came from her own lips during a press conference but was quickly suppressed before it could reach the majority of voters. Considering the unreasoning Bush hate, many of those who did hear it may not have even registered it as a treasonous statement. The resolution sends the message that we are going to give up and admit defeat, instead of fight against those who would subjugate us. They have no alternative plan. This move is just another in a long line of moves meant to engender hate aimed at the destruction of one person. I have to ask myelf why and so should any other American who truly loves liberty. Like Ogre, I'm not for the Republicans as a party or against the Democrats as a party. Yesterday or the day before, Presidential Candidate Clinton called for a complete withdrawal of troops in Iraq. If you read your history, even move made against the war in Iraq is an almost exact repeat of what happened with Vietnam, just a mere 30 odd years ago. That was a disaster then, and such a repeat will be a disaster now. Yesterday, it was barely reported that a taxi driver ran over his fare after a heated argument about religion. The taxi driver is Muslim. When I say barely reported, almost all news stations and papers mentioned it and then it went the way of other 5 second bleeps. We are at war, all. There's no getting around that. However, it seems the big question is whether we give up without a fight or not. Regardless of anything else, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other remote conflicts send the message that no, we won't. Yes, it costs lives but as someone else pointed out, how many people die in this country every day from crime and car accidents? I fear the Dems in power are not the Dems of old. I've heard my friend bemoan the fact that for the first time ever in an election she voted a straight Republican ticket, even for city and state officials. She's a registered Democrat. What does that say for the politicians? She understands what is at stake here for the future. My ideal government would have a balance between the extreme left and the extreme right but I don't think that will ever become a reality in today's world. Today's Dems want utopia without fully understanding that without accounting for human nature that is biologically hardwired, utopia can never exist. Nor can you take freedom away without losing some of the best qualities of being human along with forcing out the bad. Look at the Socialist Party Platform and compare it to the actions of the Democrats in Congress and tell me you can honestly say they aren't the same. Socialism has failed time and again but there are always those who think they are the ones to make it a success. As far as Nancy Pelosi. Before you make sweeping statements about her being voted in, well, look where she comes from. Look what is happening in that state when illegal aliens can get drivers licenses, bank accounts, jobs, credit cards... and register to vote... who would they vote for when they are "protected" from the laws of the citizens? I can't say with absolute certainty that is how but it does raise questions in my mind that remain unanswered. And there are antics in Washington D.C. that are tied directly and indirectly to her, which shout such disrespect for the nation's laws that it's almost unbelievable... which seems to be the stance of most of the citizens of these "United" States; it's unbelievable so therefore must not be true. As far as Bush hating. I gotta say, you have to admire a man who accepts responsibility for his screw ups, especially in the face of all the finger pointing going on by those who want him destroyed. I can't say he's done a bang up job, either, but who could when you've got half of Congress trying to destroy you for reasons that make absolutely no sense to a freedom loving American? I believe, at this point, that the U.S. is inevitably on a destructive course. When a political party has such power as to force "proof" that concrete evidence is not concrete evidence, this country has a real problem. The course the Dems are on will not be any less destructive than the course the Reps are on. Somewhere, some way, there needs to be a balance but it may already be too late considering we have two more years of this sort of divisive junk in Washington, D.C.

23 And hopefully only two years -- when you mentioned the destruction of Bush, that's the entire platform of the whole Democrat Party from 2006. They have no ideas, they have no plans -- they only exist to hate Bush. Many others have documented this as a serious problem (and even an illness) -- but it's true. Look at this resolution. It's the first real "big" thing the Democrats did since taking control. And what does it do, really? Nothing. It's nonbinding. It helps no one (except terrorists). It does NOTHING for Americans. And this is how the Democrats exercise their newfound power. This is the Democrats taking control. This is the Democrats saying, "Gee, we actually won? Now what?" They don't know what to do, and that's truly sad. Thank for you stopping by again, Steph!

24 Ogre, you're welcome. Politics in the U.S. are such at this point I'd almost rather vote for anybody but a Democrat or Republican. They need to get back to doing the jobs they were elected to do, not become the next dictator under whatever guise they choose. Give me a strong candidate with clearcut goals for the BETTERMENT of the U.S. and he or she has my vote.

25 And I think if the Dems and Republicans both nominate open border candidates that a third-party candidate who stands up for a nation will win. In fact, I think any candidate who makes it to the general election with a clear policy of securing the border will win, no matter their stance on anything else. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there will be any candidates who take that position.

26 "In fact, I think any candidate who makes it to the general election with a clear policy of securing the border will win, no matter their stance on anything else. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there will be any candidates who take that position." I'm afraid you're probably right on both counts. I have sympathy for the illegal aliens. I feel very badly over the fact that their own country is going through a form of ethnic cleansing. However, I also know that you can't take care of anybody else effectively if you don't take care of yourself first. This is true whether it's on a personal or national level. But to say this, no matter how you say it, you are accused of racism. There need to be some clearcut, viable ways of dealing with it. The current policies are creating a slave class, not only of those aliens who are taken advantage of with $1/day wages,while their employers rake in millions/billions, but of those who work for a living, and pay taxes. Remember, Congress signs the checks on the budget,not the president, regardless of who they point the fingers at. I think anybody who supports current immigration policies should research how many of those in political power have offshore accounts which are not taxed, starting with one who has been in office for decades, such as Ted Kennedy, but not it's not just one party, it's both political parties.

27 Exactly right -- and every time in history when a slave class or underclass has been created, it has eventually risen up and demanded more -- sometimes with great violence. The current system is so corrupt, I'm not sure it can be fixed. Some sort of national border could help, but I don't think that's going to happen. I think we're already beyond the 50% point -- where more than 50% of the voters are getting things from the government and the others are paying for it. Once that point has been reached, there's no going back -- the 50+% who are getting "free" things from government will never vote for anything but larger government. And those others who are actually paying into the government will continue to shrink as the benefits of working continue to decrease.

28 Have I taken over your blog? LOL... it sure seems like it at the moment. If so, I deeply apologize for I meant only to add to the discussions.

29 Absolutely no apology needed! Add away!

30 Will do. I can't state on the 50% point any better so I'll just say, "Yup." There is a question about the immigration conundrum that keeps occurring to me but I never see asked: Harking back to the $1/day wages, one must wonder if these illegal aliens who come here because that is a better wage than what they had in their own country, how did they get the money to come here in the first place? Transporting illegal aliens to or across the border is big business after all and isn't cheap by any accounting. I don't think they can afford it on a $1/day. Is someone going to tell me that 12,000,000 of them walked/swam across the border on their own steam, on the verge of starvation? I don't think so. But I have never ever seen that question asked in the media, in Congress, or anywhere else for that matter. Of course I can't be everywhere at the same time, so someone might have and I missed it. Then the question would be why don't we hear it more and why is no one investigating?

31 The easy answer to your question is that no one cares. The media loves socialism and open borders, so they want more people to come in. THey will never ask how they get here. The government loves the power and control, so they won't ask either. In other words, only the "common man" wants to know -- and no one else.

32 Which is why this country is in the shape it is in right now.

33 "Ask and ye shall receive..." I aksed, and sort of got an answer. http://commonsenseamerica.net/blog1

34 The current bureaucracy, which cannot be replaced with a simple election, STRONGLY supports Mexico and not America. That's not an easy fix.

35 You're right but it's exceedlingly diffuicult to do nothing.

36 I really do know how to spell but I am typo royalty: diffuicult=difficult

37 You're obviously not a liberal. They THRIVE on doing nothing.

38 Well, one of the political sites(I forget which now because there are more than I thought possible) I've found has this silly link to a political test which basically said I'm a Centrist... not sure if that's good or bad.

39 Well it's better than being a liberal. I like this test: http://politicalcompass.org/

40 I'm not sure I fared much better under the new link, lol. It says I'm a Social Libertarian?

41 What were your numbers? And libertarian is a good thing. It's NOT liberal, it's libertarian -- one who support liberty and freedom.

42 I didn't really get the numbers, got interupted. I know the difference... it's the social tagged onto it that bothered me. shviers of socialism creeping up my spine, ya know.

43 Every time I take that test, I come out way to the right. And there's a reason it's called the RIGHT.

44 I saw the graph. On it I was under the line to the right a little over midway along the line toward the right, which is about right. I guess I can live with the Social tag because I do believe people should help others to the best of their ability... my beliefs tells me so...but I also believe it should be a matter of personal choice/decision, not some mandate by government.

45 That's the difference between a socialist and someone who believes in freedom. The socialist believes that government should force people to help one another. One who wants freedom believes people should be free to help one another.

46 The flipside thought of government mandating is the question: If they're so good at it, why are there so many charities still operating? And I've taken this thread way off topic so I'll stop now.

47 HEhe. That's one thing that really infuriates me -- government is completely and utter incapable of being charitable. It's not their money!

48 Well, I'm jumping into the politics ring, too... I acquired hillbillypolitics.com last night. Give me a few days/week or so and I'll have you a link up along with some other sites.

49 Neat!

50 “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...” -James Madison "America was born in the midst of a great revolution sparked by oppressive taxation. There was something about the American character—open, hard-working, and honest—that rebelled at the very thought of taxes that were not only heavy but unfair. Today the proud American character remains unchanged. But slowly and subtly, surrendering first to this political pressure and then to that, our system of taxation has turned into something completely foreign to our nature—something complicated, unfair, and, in a fundamental sense, un-American. Well, my friends, the time has come for a second American revolution." -Ronald Reagan

51 I cannot count how many times I have used that first quote.

52 thought youd like this pic ogre http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389432250&size=o

53 "America was born in the midst of a great revolution sparked by oppressive taxation. There was something about the American character—open, hard-working, and honest—that rebelled at the very thought of taxes that were not only heavy but unfair. Today the proud American character remains unchanged. But slowly and subtly, surrendering first to this political pressure and then to that, our system of taxation has turned into something completely foreign to our nature—something complicated, unfair, and, in a fundamental sense, un-American. Well, my friends, the time has come for a second American revolution." I wrote an op-ed and submitted it to several newspapers along these same line (secession) and all of them declined and dismissed me as a crackpot... glad to see I have some good company.

54 Excellent picture, Chris! And there is a movement -- a SLOW movement -- towards that American Revolution. The Free State Project is, in my opinion, the ONLY hope for freedom left on this planet.

55 One state isn't going to affect much in the overall makeup of the country. Only if you get enough states thinking along the same lines as the Free State Project will we have enough "clout" to make a difference. I looked at the Free State Project and almost signed up for it, but, it felt like, in a way... giving up and running. That I refuse to do.

56 One state can set it's own rules for itself. That's the idea of the Free State Project. I don't think the country can be turned around as whole, it's too far gone. But one state might be able to. And if the federal government stops them, at least they die free.

57 LOL... why do you think I wrote an op-ed calling for secession? If the Dems get control again for any length of time, they are going to mutilate the Constitution and States' rights. They are already trying as hard as they can but there are a few stalwart Reps stopping them.

58 There's at least one other secessionist movement afoot. Christian Exodous is trying to do that in SC, but I'm not sure how many people are involved yet. The Free State Project has thousands -- but even that may not be enough.