The straw that broke the camels back

[10thzodiac]

ME: True story

Smarty pants me, I made a couple of bucks and I became a registered Republican, thought I was one up.

But I was always haunted by my grandmother (RIP) always saying how much she loved the Democrats, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and how the Republicans were only for the rich.

THE LAST STRAW:

Last night I called Lima Ohio to wish my other grandmothers daughter a Happy 88th Birthday. We reminisced about them almost loosing their home in Elmwood Park, Illinois during the Great Depression & the Bank Holiday. How her mother cried and begged for someone to lend them money for the four children wouldn't loose their home, then at the last minute Roosevelt re-opened the banks and saved their home.

According to my aunt last evening, her mother promised only to vote for the Democrats from here on.

I will always remember hauntingly both my Grandmothers just looking at me, never saying a word when I was telling them I was voting for Nixon. After they were gone (RIP) I went on to vote [once] for George H. W. Bush Sr. too.

The Democrats are far from being perfect, but I can never see myself voting Republican again.

Incidentally, the first grandmother I spoke of, she land her two little boys lost their home in Elmwood Park [John Mills Section], Illinois in the Great Depression. Her husband was a Marine WW I and committed suicide at Great Lakes Naval Hospital after being mustard gassed and shell shocked [PTSD] France 1918.

SF

10thzodiac

[drumcorpssnare]

10thz- My grandparents understood that many politicians are self-serving crooks. I learned from them to be independant and self-sufficient.
When I used to ask my grandmother about "the Great Depression" she would say 1930 was a 'picnic' compared to 1895. She told me it was a misnomer that there were no jobs in 1930. There were far less jobs, but it was a matter of how determined one was to work, and take the jobs available. Her husband worked nights as a machinist, and days as a tree trimmer. When he fell out of a tree and severely broke his leg, he had a cast put on it, and was back to work a few days later...at both jobs.
They were never dependant on "Big Business" - (the Republicans) or "the Social Handouts" - (the Democrats). They depended on honest hard work.
I too, have learned to depend on no one but myself. And I feel certain that if the majority of Americans embraced this philosophy, the world would be a better place.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

[Range Coach]

I have never registered as a Democrat or a Rebublican (I never vote in primary elections) and never will. I think that any person with a reasonable amount of intelligence should be able to decide which candidate is the better or, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils. My parents and grandparents were "money poor but dirt rich" during the depression so there was really no personal impact on their way of life, however, I can remember my grandparents talking about feeling sorry for the folks that had to do without. Their point of view was that if you never had it you would never miss it. Drumcorpssnare is correct---when someone (the public) learns to rely on others (the government) it becomes a recipe for disaster. Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself. Former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley once said "Ambition is the path to success. Persistence is the vehicle you arrive in."

[10thzodiac]

Gentleman thank you for the additions to the thread.

Yes, I agree everyone shouldn't depend on the government, but remember the people I've mentioned were doing exactly what you are talking about. The government took away my one grandfather to die because of war, the bread winner and closed the banks on the other grandparents so they could not withdraw money to pay their mortgage.

All my grandparents worked during the depression when they could.
If it wasn't for Hoover-Roosevelt's' WPA the other grandparents would of lost their home too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

As a side note, because there were not enough jobs for all young men between WW I and WW II, both my father and his brother served this country in Roosevelt's' CCC [Civilian Conservation Corps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

The best job one grandmother ever had was sewing tents for the U.S. Army WW II.


My Marine grandfathers' grandfather came from Coblenz, Germany five generations ago 1865. Ironically the same people who later would wound his great grandson nearby in France. The other grandfather came from a well to do family in Poland. Without trial Cossack calvary with their sabers dismembered his older brother in front of his father. My grandfathers' father sent my grandfather to America.

[ErikHeiker]

I have never voted for a Democrat, nor will I ever. Every four years I read their party platform and it scares the hell out of me. They are on the wrong side of everything I believe in. I'm not necessarily a fan of the Republicans, but at least they're not as bad. I'm ready for a Libertarian type third party.

[ErikHeiker]

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD id=tblcontent>
Many people assume that the Democrats' opposition to the war on terrorism and their unwavering determination to undercut the war in Iraq are solely an outgrowth of their dislike of George Bush. While Bush Derangement Syndrome and raw political considerations certainly are part of the problem, you've got to understand that the modern Democratic Party is simply no longer capable of dealing with a conflict like the war on terrorism because of the weird ideological tics of liberalism.

Look at how weak and helpless Jimmy Carter was when he was confronted by the Iranians. And Bill Clinton? Despite being prodded to take action time and time again by world events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein's attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr., the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons under his watch, Clinton seemed incapable of dealing effectively with any serious foreign policy challenges.

That being said, if this nation were unfortunate enough to be burdened for four years with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or one of the other liberals contending for the Democratic nomination, things would be even worse this time around. Why would that be the case? There are a variety of reasons for it.

1) The Democratic insistence on treating the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue will make it extremely difficult to deal with terrorist groups. When you have heavily armed terrorists ensconced in foreign nations, sometimes with the approval of their government, it's simply not practical to capture them, read them their rights, and take them back to America for trial. That is something that should be obvious after that approach was tried by Bill Clinton in the nineties and it failed to produce results. Going back to it in the post 9/11 world, which is what the Democrats want to do, is nothing but an invitation to catastrophe.

2) Ronald Reagan once said that, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong." Conversely, a super power that seems weak invites attack. After spending the last six years railing against the Bush Administration and fighting tooth and nail against almost every measure that makes it tougher on the terrorists, a Democratic victory in 2008 would be viewed by the world as nothing less than an American capitulation in the war on terror. This would encourage the terrorists to launch more attacks and cause our allies in the fight to lose heart.

3) When the only credible Democratic voice on national security in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the Democratic primary last year, the message sent to Democrats was, "Being serious about defending America may cost you your job." After that, elected Democrats became even more reluctant to stand up against terrorism, which is really saying something, since the Democratic Party has been nothing but a hindrance in the war on terrorism since they voted en masse for the war in Afghanistan.

4) The Democratic base doesn't take terrorism seriously and considers it to be nothing more than a distraction from socializing the economy, raising taxes, promoting gay marriage, and the other domestic issues that are near and dear to the heart of liberals. It's old hat to hear Democrats say that they think global warming is more dangerous than terrorism, but at one point in 2006, 94% of the readers at the most popular liberal blog on earth, the Daily Kos, were actually saying that they thought that corporate media consolidation was a greater threat than terrorism (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.PHP#006322). If you have a Democratic base that isn't serious about fighting terrorism -- and it isn't -- you will have a Democratic President that isn't serious about fighting terrorism.

5) Using the American military to further the interests of our country makes liberals uncomfortable, even though they're usually happy to send the troops gallivanting off to the latest godforsaken hotspot that has caught the eye of liberal activists. That's why many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who oppose winning the war in Iraq, are all for using our military in Sudan. However, it is also why those same liberals will oppose using our military to tackle terrorists abroad except in Afghanistan, where it would be politically damaging for them to call for a pull-out.

6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal. Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.

7) The Democrats are overly concerned with "international opinion," AKA "European opinion." The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance. Other than Britain, they don't have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth. Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point -- yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it. This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.

8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system. The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it's not advisable to reveal intelligence methods -- or because our soldiers aren't trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone. How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he'd be back shooting at our troops the next day? If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.

9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President. As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies. Add to that the complete hysteria we've seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.

If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News (http://rightwingnews.com/) and Conservative Grapevine (http://conservativegrapevine.com/), both of which are conservative blogs. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign (http://www.gohunter08.com/).

[booksbenji]

The Democrats have arrived!

WHY I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER!!!

The Democrats new promise "A New Direction For America"

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America 's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means, what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means, what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means, what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means. what?
Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means, what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means, what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means, what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means, what?

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means, what?

Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect:

The economy to go South

Illegals to go North

Taxes to go Up

Employment to go Down

Terrorism to come In

Tax breaks to go Out

Social Security to go Away

Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone
But what the heck!

I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan.

I forgot the No More Katrina Storm Plan.

Now I know why I feel good after the elections. I am going to be able to sleep so much better at nights knowing these dedicated politicians are thinking of me and my welfare.

:banana: :yes: :no:

[ggyoung]

There are 2 things on this site that should riligon and this kind of crap. Everybody is right and everybody is wrong.

[HOLM]

I forgot the No More Katrina Storm Plan.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA

Yeah you talk about a underhanded way to bring communism aahhh I mean carbon credits to the world...

The eviroreligion... They flip out over a baby seal.. But have no problem with a partial birth abortion... Those commie scumbags...