# What if the Democrats win in November?



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

Just wondering if you guys have any special plans incase the dems win in November? Me personally, I've started stocking up on High Cap mags, and I have finally decided to break down and buy myself an AR. Figure I better get one while I can.  So what is an appropriate number of High Cap AR mags? I'm thinking somewhere in the 20-30 mag range.  :strapped:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You can bet they will start all their crap again. They are salivating at the idea of "assault weapons bans". Assault weapons like many we hunt with. Ammo also. Like full metal that are dangerous, and hollow points that maim, and jacketed. In the end they want it all. To many this is a joke, but they do it so slow that from one generation to another they don't realize it's happening. Do you think people 20 years old feel they have lost anything? Do you think someone 80 years old feels as if they have lost anything?

I just hope they don't damage the military so bad we can't respond when the first U S city goes up in smoke. North Dakota looks better all the time. I think a couple million Americans will have to die before the general public figures out how dangerous the liberals are. Do they think they will have freedom of speech under a Muslim theocracy? Of course the problem is they only care about their power today. Like children they do not plan for tomorrow -- it's a long way off.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> I just hope they don't damage the military so bad we can't respond when the first U S city goes up in smoke. North Dakota looks better all the time. I think a couple million Americans will have to die before the general public figures out how dangerous the liberals are. Do they think they will have freedom of speech under a Muslim theocracy? Of course the problem is they only care about their power today. Like children they do not plan for tomorrow -- it's a long way off.


The radical islamists are urging Americans to vote Dem, go figure.That should be a wake up call to everyone.But I doubt it.If the Dems take control and the crap hits the fan, they'll just blame it on the Repubs.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Radical Islamists are urging American voters to vote for the Democrats???? Are they going house to house?? Talk about stupid!!! Cheez, how dumb do you think we are?? I'm sure the American voters will vote for the Democratic candidates because radical Islamists are urging them to do it! Boondocks, you are out in the boondocks! We are educated people on this site!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Islamists want the democrats in office, they know the Dems won't stand up to them


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Bob, I got blocked(filtered)! Couldn't read your info! I'm sure it linked Islamists with the Democratic block of voters. Those damn democrats are linked with fundamental Islam. You have me convinced!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Highly educated and can't figure out how to look at youtube?? find some kid to help

Not highly educated highly indoctrinated, there is no question the Dems advocate cut and run and have their heads in the sand about the islamists

read this closely the Nodakoutdoors web site put the smiley faces in not me, and I'm not going to bother to edit them just ignore them

*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.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, if you were a radical in the Middle East right now, who would you want to win this election?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Obviously you think that only the Republican party can fight the war on terror and that every Democrat is a coward. I'm sorry but I am not that simplistic in my thinking.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think democrats are out there that have the nerve to take care of the terrorist problem. However, they are shouted down by the radical left. I think the far left would like to see a loss in Iraq. I also think they are willing to sacrifice a few American boys if it puts them back in Washington. It's hard to believe there are people like that, but I think Kerry is one of them, likewise Kennedy, Schummer, Hillary, Diane Finestine, Nancy Peloci, and many others. How else can we explain their actions? They all had the same information as Bush, now they deny it. 
What do you think will happen in Iraq if we leave now? Do you think the far left liberals care? Do you think we can kiss terrorists into submission? Like I said if you were a terrorists that would never stop until America is destroyed who would you want in office Bush or Kerry? You have not answered that question Rooster. Who?

I would want Kerry or any of his ilk in office if I were them.



> I'm sorry but I am not that simplistic in my thinking.


That is typical liberal put down. If you have no substance devert and question the intelligence of your oponent. You can do better than that.

I have bad news for you. The liberals are not intellectually superior as you evidently think. Remember how supper intelligent Kerry's wife was supposed to be? At least that is what my liberals friends told me. Then she shows us that she isn't intelligent enough to keep her mouth shut, but then neither is Kerry. He didn't botch a joke, he hates the military all the way down to the lowest men and women in it.

Do you really want me to believe that the democratic party will take care of the terrorist problem? When pigs fly.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

DJRooster said:


> Obviously you think that only the Republican party can fight the war on terror and that every Democrat is a coward. I'm sorry but I am not that simplistic in my thinking.


Then what's the democrats plan for our security? We know they do whatever they can to *look popular *at election time by bashing their opositions ideas but It seems they have no ideas of their own just a bunch of negitivity! :eyeroll: uke:

What would Kerry and that bunch have done if they were around during the D-Day invasion, cut and run because it wasn't worth the money and lives?
Hitler would have loved to have the dem's of today running this counrty then.
Thank God the people back then that acted like the dem's of today were ignored and considered communist, as we should today!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It is scary isn't it ABBK. The weakness we see in the liberals today is simply a manifestation of American decadence. I think there are two types of liberals. Those with that grew up with a very hard life and think society owes them, and those who have been pampered since birth. They certainly are not a product of mainstream America.
Look at the richest people in congress. Most are liberals. Look at Hollywood where money runs like water. It is no accident that these people are liberal. The rich liberal like Kerry are arrogant elitists who would like us to believe they actually care about the men and women fighting in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kerry came back from Viet Nam and accused our boys of being rapists and murderers. 
The handouts they give to the poor are not the milk of human kindness flowing from them, it is the drug of government dependence. They use our tax money to buy their votes, to keep them in power. They do not see themselves as servants of the American people rather they see themselves as above the common man. Royalty so to speak. But before they take the throne they must disarm the populace. 
Life is so ironic. The liberals kiss up to radical Islam, yet because of their lifestyle and values they would be the first to be beheaded. What does a Muslim think of gay marriage, gay rights, abortion, gun bans, etc? I can just see it now, they will attack with all their AK47 with ten round magazines. 
I am ticked at the republicans, but what is our choice? Liberal democrats? Ya right.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ah, yes, you answered your own question. Right wing Republicans can't run the country anymore than left wing liberals. I can agree on this issue. That's why when I hear someone spout the party line and only the party line it sends up a red flag. Some of you only use the word Democrat in the sense that it represents everything that is wrong and immoral in America. And then expect me to believe that everything that is good in America has it's roots in the Republican party. To me, people like this are very dangerous people in any country and in any religion. Me, I'm a centrist despite what Bob, and others like you would try to make others believe because if anyone disagrees in this forum with your rhetoric they are a left wing liberal. Our country gets bombarded with all this rhetoric that comes from the politics of election time. For me it is a real turnoff and I am not alone. It is reflected in the voter turnout. I think people get turned off to politics when this is the kinds of bias we hear from both parties. It is too bad but that is the evolution of politics at election time in it's present day form. After tomorrows election we will again be told how great or bad one party is or is not and the bantering will start all over again getting ready for the big election in a couple of years. Me, I'm just sort of tired of it because George W called himself the "great unifier" and nothing could be farther from the truth in the current political arena. Tomorrow, I will just go to the polls and look at the candidates and the issues and not the party line and cast my ballot just like I always do. For me that is the American way. For you it will be the parties way!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I will also vote, and it will be for: security of this great counrty that didn't become this way by accident, support of our military that keeps us the freeist most produtive country in the world.
I will not support the nay sayers and people that do not support our troops or our constituion!

So it will be anyone but a democrat, they already have a great track record of what they support.

By the way my son is in Iraq right now with the Air Force, so if you think his mother and I don't care about Iraq you'd be wrong and we aren't for cutting and running, we understand what he is doing is for the greater good of the security of this nation.
I just wish the likes of Kerry and CO. would quit trying to ruin the moral of our troops. :******: 
That's all for now I'm getting :******:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Me, I'm a centrist


 :rollin:

Everyone sees themselves as a centrist. I have a couple of friends that would just be slightly right of Stalin, and they think they are centrist too.

Rooster did you notice on another thread I said I would be voting for Johnson for ag commissioner? Then because I don't agree with you, you say I vote party line while you do it the American way and vote for the issues. You go on to bash Bush because he didn't unify, that takes work from both sides Rooster. Every time he tried the democrats dumped on him. He ticks me off on some things, but he did try and was rebuffed.

I will face reality and admit I am conservative. Not republican, conservative. Rooster at least admit that your liberal. Your ideas are liberal, and so is your attitude. The same smug comments as Kerry


> "I'm sorry but I am not that simplistic in my thinking"


 (meaning not stupid like those who argue with you right) , and "


> I do it the American way


" (and again the implied your more reasonable than anyone who disagrees with you)". Wow condescension with a capital C. The only person you are deluding is yourself. Tomorrow votes from the low lifes will count just like the elitists, and that is the American way.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

DJRooster said:


> Radical Islamists are urging American voters to vote for the Democrats???? Are they going house to house??
> 
> 
> > Did I say they are going house to house?No,but if thats how you took it I don't think you want me to answer this question
> ...


So I won't.All I am saying is they want the american people to vote for the Dems because it WILL help thier cause.Will being the key word.They know the dems WILL pull out the troops.Thats exactly what they want.They WILL claim victory.And the rest is history.Literally.You will be forced to bow down to allah or get your head cut off.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Me, I'm a centrist despite *what Bob*, and others like you would try to make others believe because if anyone disagrees in this forum with your rhetoric they are a left wing liberal.


 I didn't say that,its not about DJ Rooster :roll: , you always do this when your arguments cannot be factually suported.

I am talking about the people running on the Dems side for office, they are far left liberals that if elected will endanger us all.

There is not an ounce of doubt in my mind that the Democrats have been a great source of comfort and encouragement for Islamic terrorists worldwide. The current Dems in congress are interested in regaining politcal power not in protecting this country.

If American has a weakness in their minds, that weakness is personified by the Democrat Party.

Be absolutely certain of one thing. A Democrat takeover of the House will be seen by Islamic terrorists everywhere as a great victory for them and a stunning defeat of their nemeses George W. Bush. A Democrat victory will make the Islamic fascist not only stronger, but bolder. They will gain legitimacy where there was doubt, and support where there was indifference. In the end, we will pay a price.

Sooner or later Islamic fascists will be defeated. They must be, or we will die thats their stated goal.

A Democrat victory tomorrow will make that victory more costly and longer in coming.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

DJ, Your a centerist and I'll land a piper cub on the moon :lol:

If the Dems win the house the first thing I'll do is send a check to the NRA ILA. And I sugest you do the same.

With Nancy at the helm hang on to your guns boys...................


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> What do you think will happen in Iraq if we leave now? Do you think we can kiss terrorists into submission? Like I said if you were a terrorists that would never stop until America is destroyed who would you want in office Bush or Kerry? You have not answered that question Rooster. Who?
> .


Its funny how this question is always avoided.Lets hear it, what are we gonna do once we leave?I'd love to hear it.Someone on the Left has to have an answer for this one.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> I think there are two types of liberals. Those with that grew up with a very hard life and think society owes them, and those who have been pampered since birth.


Try again. I fit neither of these two categories, nor do any of my "liberal" friends. I've earned everything that I have.

What are my plans if the Dems take one or both houses of Congress tomorrow? I will celebrate, plain and simple.

I think that we do need a new plan for Iraq, not "cut and run" as the buzz term has been invented by Rove and El-Rushbo per se, but a definite reassessement of what we are doing there and why.

We are at war, not only with terrorists, but with radical Islamists. A war with the former creates a problem since terrorists are not restricted to any particular geopolitical boundaries. The latter also creates a problem since we are a secular nation, not a theocracy. Long gone are the days when a nation can and should go to war on behalf of a given religion.

I honestly believe that this war cannot be won through sheer force because you cannot change a person's heart through force. Instead, you must win it through example and diplomacy. Furthermore, no matter how much Bush touts his Christian faith, there is nothing Christian about retribution and war. In fact, there is nothing less Christian. I think that the current strategy is doomed simply because it is an attempt to impart a certain ideology on a people through force.

Bush's entire Mid-East strategy is flawed because he lacks the diplomacy and tact to gain support from the citizens there. If you recall, the president of Iran recently offered to meet with President Bush to discuss Iran's nuclear plans. Bush refused. Subsequently, Bush and Iran's president addressed the United Nations on the same day, and Iran's president once again asked to have a meeting with Bush. Once again, Bush refused. True, a meeting with Iran would almost certainly not changed Iran's plans. However, Bush's refusal to even meet with Iran's president sent the message that the U.S. is committed to solutions based on force, not on solutions based on respect or diplomacy. You are not going to change the mindset of the citizens of Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, or any other nation using these tactics, meaning that those citizens are going to continue to view Western nations as hostile and condescending. Hard to alienate terrorists that way. In fact, you only create more ill-will and play to Al Qaeda's strategy of recruiting more support.

We need to reassess our strategy in Iraq and hold the Shrub accountable for his decisions. A Democrat Congress (or at least the House) should do that.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

[siteimg]5449[/siteimg]


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

LOL  
oh now this is good reading LOL 

i dont think i agree with anyones points of view on this post LOL


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

How many American soldiers are going to be dead and wounded when we decide that we have enough casualties and the country is secure enough that we can finally pull out? 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000 dead......Is this going to take 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? And not just in Iraq. It is important for Americans to ask these questions and not follow blindly after leadership that would like us to act more like lemmings and follow wherever it may lead because such is the arrogance and swagger of this administration. Despite what you guys would like us to believe, it is good for America that Americans ask a lot of questions from George Bush and his administration because there are some real tough questions that need to be answered. To ask questions is not to show weakness as you would like to make us believe but to ask questions is what America is all about. There is a reason why George W has lost his popularity and this is why we are Americans because we have a voice in the accountability of our leadership and it will be reflected in todays election whatever those results may be.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

In a time of war its important for our government to show a united front and ask those questions you are referring to in private session.

The Dems in congress are asking the questions ( without haveing any plan of their own to offer) out of a desire to regain political power not to save our soldiers.

The net affect is our enemies are encouraged by our lack of unity and more of our soldiers get killed.

The Dems have been irresponsible at best and will get a lot of Americans killed if they prevail.

As for George Bushes popularity,thanks God he doesn't care hes got the sense to address and recognize the islamist threat.

Most of the the Dems and some of the Repub in Congress do not.

Sooner or later alot more of us will die because of the insane multicluturalist PC attitude we have adopted over the last 40 years.

Many battles in previous wars killed more of our people in a day than the Iraq war has in total, and the Islamist first strike on 9-11 killed more innocent Americans in one day.
The Dems fight to stop spying on isalmic phone calls, stop the patriot act ect all point to an unrealistic head in the sand viewpoint.

Their bad judgement( driven only by political aspiration) will get a lot of americans killed, and make the final showdown with the islamists a lot bloodier than it would have to be.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

well Mr. DJ rooster I would have to say that that is some of the best posting I have yet to see on here. great FACT!!!!

keep it up
:beer:

sorry bobm I just cant get on board with your line of thinking.
but then again we don't have to agree on everything, got to
love the USA
regardless of there political party and views. they still have to be held accountable for there actions or lack there of.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

boondocks said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think will happen in Iraq if we leave now? Do you think we can kiss terrorists into submission? Like I said if you were a terrorists that would never stop until America is destroyed who would you want in office Bush or Kerry? You have not answered that question Rooster. Who?
> ...


Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if we hadn't antagonized the h*ll out of them by invading their country.

The Russians were in the same boat when they invaded Afganistan.....don't see Islamic terrorists sending planes crashing into buildings in Moscow.We are now the great Satan not them.Bin Laden was on our side against the Russians.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the great Satan stuff come from a complex combination of historical events and our relationship with Israel.

Ken the plane crashed into our buildings before we invaded, so how does your comment make any sense?

And Bin Laden turned against us immediately after we helped him run off the russians, the only reason we helped him was the larger cold war threat at the time, Same reason we helped Saddam, thats historical fact. The islamists want us out of the middle east and want to control the world, and want to kill all infidels in the west and have publicly stated that repeatedly. Ken you and I are on their list.

The real problem is our politicaly correct education doesn't provide detailed accurate hitorical perspective so we have acountry of historically ignorant people. I was one of them until I started to read about it, maybe you should do the same it might change your opinion.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> The islamists want us out of the middle east and want to control the world, and want to kill all infidels in the west and have publicly stated that repeatedly. Ken you and I are on their list


I believe that it is impossible to defeat religious zealots with pure force unless you intend to kill every last one of them.

Bob, do yourself a favor and find a copy of Dying to Win by Robert Pape. Pape is a political scientiest from the University of Chicago that has studied suicide bombers and terrorism. In this book, Pape theorizes that terrorists need an aggressive adversary to further their cause and gain power. The cycle goes like this...1) terrorists conduct suicide bombing and kill innocent citizens (i.e. 9/11), 2) victimized country retaliates with force and kills some terrorists, 3) terrorist leaderships present dead terrorists as martyrs to recruit new members and gain support against "aggressor" country, 4) return to "1".

Pape concludes that a retaliation of force will lead to failure. Is he wrong? How do you change the hearts of people through force?


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

WOW BOBM!!!

i had no idea you knew all that??? way to go!!!

So can anyone answer the question, how many Iraq terrorists were flying planes into NY on Sept 11??? What countries were they from???

Bobm are you saying that there is no way to win a war against a nation full of born and breed religious fanatics, that have no tolerance for the religion of others, and that are hell bent on controlling the whole world because of there religious ideas??? so that would mean, Total annihilation of Islam is the only way to finish this????

Well since I have been over to that neck of the woods/sand dune, I would have to say that's about right, but since we cant really do that(total annihilation), I think it best to leave now, but we need there oil and cant allow OPEC to set America policy. Which means we have to stay until its all settled, but since they are religious fanatics that will never change, there will be no settling anything, which means we have now placed ourselves into something that we can never get out of, well not until we run OPEC out of oil anyway, with any luck we will be able to suck them dry inside the next 100 years and get our boys out of there.

well that's my ignorant opinion, hope you all liked it  
:sniper: happy hunting


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I believe that it is impossible to defeat religious zealots with pure force unless you intend to kill every last one of them.


I agree with you, and when the rest of the country finally sees that undeniable truth then we will begin to pull in the right direction.

We will have to kill every single islamic facist and probably a lot of innocent bystanders or they will kill us, they've already demonstrated they will intentionally target innocents.

But lets not annihilate them first, lets let them get a nuke from Iran and annihilate a city in the US, destroy our economy for many years and plunge the world into a dark age.

Then maybe we will as the west has not yet, face the reality of Islam.

Unfortunately reality is not PC or multicultural, its pretty rough sometimes
they are intending to kill everylast one of us and have repeately stated that goal.

Nothing we say to them will change that so the time for talk is over, the Jihadist mentality see negotiation attempts as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to resupply and reconfigure their attack.

Unfortunately our only option is to kill every committed Jihadist and hope to work for democratization of Iraq to hopefully show the other people in the near east countries that there is another route.

The problem with leaving Iraq now is unless we plan on leaving the planet they will follow. I would rather our marines are facing the threat than our women and childen here in the US.

I was soldier I feel for them I treated dying soldiers I know first hand their pain.
Our soldiers understand the stakes better than our civilians they know the fury of the jihadist and they don't want them to get past them to their families at home.

We owe them a debt of gratitude that in impossible to put into words.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

BigDaddy, I like the way you think. Keep posting!! :thumb:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Back to the original question.....it will bring some balance to a right tilting government. :beer:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

And the war on terror will continue and the USA will continue to be a safe country to live in with an economy second to none. Doomsday scenarios will not rule the moment as the gentlemen from Jamestown and Alaska would like to have you believe. I always like visiting with Bob because he is a person I have come to respect after some good natured debate going back many posts. He is one who tries to keep me honest and I believe is a right wing centrist who won't admit that I am a left wing centrist. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> who won't admit that I am a left wing centrist.


Well, your getting there. At least now you admit you're a left wing centrist, and not a centrist in the true sense of the word.
I don't predict doomsday, that is simply your exaggeration hoping that someone will believe that. What I do predict is more deaths for our soldiers because the terrorists are encouraged. You still have not answered my question (if you were a terrorist would you rather have Bush or Kerry as president). Simple question that you refuse to answer. You refuse to answer because you don't want to admit as a terrorist you would rather have Kerry. You might as well answer, we all know why you will not. 
Another thing that will surely happen with Nancy Peloci in the house: We will see a new round of anti firearms bills introduced. I don't think they will make I through the senate. So no doomsday there. 
Come on now Rooster I have never insinuated doomsday, nor have I exaggerated your points to swing people. I wouldn't do that.
Admit it Rooster the top liberals are weak. Your refusal to answer shows you also know it to be true. Kissing up to Bob will not get you a pass.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I'll answer your question, Plainsman. You asked who I would want as U.S. president if I was a terrorist.

If I was a low-level or mid-level terrorist on the ground in the Middle East, I would want Kerry as president without a doubt. I would know that Bush is committed to keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be Iran and Syria), and these increased numbers of U.S. troops increase the chances that I will get killed. My choice is based on self-preservation and probability.

However, if I was an upper-level terrorist in Al Qaeda leadership, I would definitely want Bush as the U.S. president. He is the poster child for U.S. arrogance, making it easy for me to demonize the "infidels". Furthermore, he repeatedly uses "line in the sand" diplomacy by saying such things as "You're either with us or against us" or issuing threats of force if nations do not comply. These sorts of ultimatums would make it easy to motivate my members. Furthermore, thumbing our noses as these ultimatums would raise morale. Last, his strategies would make it easy for me to create martyrs and recruit members, and I could almost certainly recruit more members than Bush can kill. Thus, I could grow my forces through sacrificing a few of my members, all while I sit in a secure location far away from the action.

There, I answered your question.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy,

Thanks for the honest reply. We agree on the first part, and I am still thinking about the second part. I think I slightly lean towards Bush's handling of it rather than what you think. I'm not fully aware of hostage negotiation techniques, but years ago psychologist recommendations to law enforcement was do not negotiate with some types of individuals. Negotiate for time, but don't give them what they ask for or your on a one way street to loose in the end. I can see where you think Bush's stand is arrogance, but I agree with him not because he is republican, I agree from the standpoint of psychological advantage. I think with these types of people you must be careful to show no weakness. Keep in mind they interpret that differently than we do. Voting for Kerry now would be seen as weakness. 
I think in the end we will loose less soldiers by showing strength. It is unfortunate that we couldn't look more united. It's like raising kids, you never let the little fellows know if you and your wife don't agree. The little ones are decent psychologists at five years old and professionals at driving a wedge for advantage. Terrorists see the democrat/republican conflict the same. 
You are right about the leadership. They don't care how many die, because they place little value on life. However, we can not win either way with these people. People like Kerry would be seen as a weakness of resolve in this nation which they would interpret as advantage. If I was the enemy I also would interpret it that way. Would you not agree with that?


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

I guess when we vote we have to consider this Republican = hundreds of dead American troops or vote Democrat = millions of dead American civilians.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I realize I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. I think a 4-6wk period in which Iraq and Afganistan were deemed too dangerous for the press would be a good thing. Back the press off to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Isriel. Give the military a chance to go in and get the dirty jobs done without cameras looking over their shoulders. Daily status reports could be given by CENTCOM. I would also classify the bulk of the missions undertaken during this period.


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

> I realize I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. I think a 4-6wk period in which Iraq and Afganistan were deemed too dangerous for the press would be a good thing. Back the press off to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Isriel. Give the military a chance to go in and get the dirty jobs done without cameras looking over their shoulders. Daily status reports could be given by CENTCOM. I would also classify the bulk of the missions undertaken during this period.


I couldn't agree more, get the press out then CARPET BOMB THEM WITH NUKES! :wink:


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

Well I did my part today, voted Republican all the way! 
:beer:

Then, just in case I came home and stocked up on reloading components, you know just in case!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well we can't say the republicans didn't deserve a swift kick in the butt.

Looking at the results it looks like the dem voted dem, the repubs voted repub, and the slim portion of the pop calling themselve indepedents went for the dems this time. thats what the repubs deserve for not following through on their platform of lower spending and smaller govt.

thats good maybe both parties will self examine and become more centrist,maybe. we need them to pull together.

on thing i hated to see is minnesota elect a muslim.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Kill! Kill!! Kill!! Guns!! Guns!! Guns!!! It is easy to see where you guys are coming from and that is what has created a lot of paranoia in the American voters. Thanks guys you are the best thing that has happened to this election.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Rooster, this is exactly why I have ignored this board for close to a year. Republicans are masters of gaining support through cultivating fear, and this has been reflected in many of the posting on this site.... Vote Rep or the Dems will take your guns!... Stay the course in Iraq or terrorists will show up at your front door!

I don't have these fears simply because I try to live my life based on hope and faith... Hope that tomorrow will be better than today, hope that Americans will deal with whatever adversity that we will be dealt, hope that we will regain some sanity and try to build some bridges with people different than us. I also have faith in humanity. Much of this faith is based on my religious faith, but much of it is faith that peope are generally moral and want to do the right thing.


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

Well its official, the sky has fallen.

I'm going to stockpile every round of ammo, high capacity magazine, AR, AK and reloading component I can get my hands on. This is a sad day.

uke:


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Bobm said:


> on thing i hated to see is minnesota elect a muslim.


Oh great. uke:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

BigDaddy, if Republicans are masters of gaining support through cultivating fear I believe they learned it from the Dems. For many years we heard how the Rep. would take away your children's lunch money and hurt and starve the elderly. They talked that for years until the war looked to be a better scare tactic. It's funny how you attribute this technique to only the Rep.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Amen longshot.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Longshot:

Type "moral relativism" into Google and let me know what you find. It involves justifying an action by basing its morality on whether others have done something similar.

For example, when people allege that Bush mislead the U.S. about his real agenda in Iraq, conservatives respondsd, "But, Bill Clinton lied about having sex with an intern."


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy weve been over this lie of yours so many times I'm sick of it.

You could make some good arguments against the Republicans and Bush but the ongoing BS that Bush lied about Iraq is a lie period and you know its a lie but you are such a partisan you will never admit it.

*Every single one of the Democrats in Leadership positions and most of the leaders of European countries all looking at the available intelligence, all thought that Saddam was a threat* and given the post 9-11 era there was no choice to go deal with him.

And he was a threat but I won't bother with those facts you don't want to hear them.

I have plenty of criticism of the republicans especially Bush but this was the only choice every attempt at dealing with him thru the United nations was ineffective and it was a enforcement of a United Nations final warning anyway.

One thing about blind partisans like Big Daddy is they love to rewite history to fit their ajenda, truth be damned.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob

Everyone agrees with what you said. The people who keep bringing up Bush lied are being intellectually dishonest. Militant Tiger may be gone but his spirit lives on. That fellow didn't have an honest bone in his body. People on here have no idea what he was up to behind the scene. Nasty guy.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

This is the only forum on the North Dakota Outdoors Web Site where the moderators are the forum. In the political forum the discussion usually centers on the moderators discussion and views on the topic of discussion. I think that Chris should get a different set of moderators and then let Plainsman and Bob join in the discussion with the rest of the members. Otherwise we should rename the forum, "New, and views of moderator politics!" A moderators role is not to dictate discussion. One man's opinion.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob:

Yes, we have hashed and re-hashed the subject of Shrub's honesty about his real intentions about Iraq. I do not want to get into that again unless you want to.

However, I would urge you to re-read my last post. I was using the subject as a simple illustration of moral relativism and calling Longshot on his post. According to Longshot, using fear tactics is OK because Democrats did it first. I contend that using fear tactics to gain support is simply wrong.

I recall a conversation I had with my mother many years back when I told her that all friends could stay out till 1:00 am on the weekends, while I had to be home by midnight. Her reply involved following somebody that jumped off a cliff... Made sense then and makes sense now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy

I agree, and in that context I would bet Longshot would too.



> One man's opinion.


 Same here Rooster, but you have a problem with that.


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

And thats all I've got to say about that.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

If you plan on "voting from the rooftops", you should also plan on "spending time behind bars" and becoming "Bubba's favorite girlfriend." I know you were just being facetious, at least I hope so.

Besides, rooftops are not considered the greatest of hides. Not unless you have a rock solid egress plan because it is WAY too easy to get trapped on a rooftop. I'd leave myself a better escape route......shoot, move, and communicate.

And that's all I have to say about that&#8230;&#8230;..


----------



## BKudron (Nov 9, 2006)

Remington 7400, know that you have threatened to commit an act of terrorism. You could easily be considered an enemy combatant, held indefinitely, and tortured under laws passed by the very Republicans you support.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

BUZZ OFF MT!!!!!! uke: uke: uke:


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

:withstupid:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

TEST


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

test again


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

what are we testing? oke:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Remington 7400 said:


> what are we testing? oke:


BKudron's use of an anonymizing program to make posts thru a anonyproxy...

Ryan


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

Oh, I see.....



> anonymizing program to make posts thru a anonyproxy


huh
:lol:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> > God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
> > Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in
> 
> 
> Padover's Jefferson On Democracy


quote]



> When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.


[/quote] :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


----------

