tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post116180195669138066..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: A GOP majority- a necessary evil.Freedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162759758685116822006-11-05T12:49:00.000-08:002006-11-05T12:49:00.000-08:00Hi Nazar,Life will indeed go on. But the potential...Hi Nazar,<BR/>Life will indeed go on. But the potential for mistakes, misdirection and ultimately the unnecessary loss of American lives is a real one.<BR/><BR/>Life went on after the British and French voted in isolationist appeasors into government in the 1930's, after the fall of Czecholovakia, after the Nazi/Communist non-aggression pact and even after the German-Russo invasion of Poland.<BR/><BR/>I also would not underestimate the jihadis if I were you, or call them `poorly disciplined.' They are not.They are ideological fanatics unburdened by what most of us would consider the conventions of civilized behavior.<BR/><BR/>While their conventional military forces are inferior to ours AT THIS TIME, they are far from `poorly diciplined thugs with AK47's. They have the active support of a number of nation states, oil wealth to utilize and a substantial 5th column in most western countries, including the US. And as long as the US aand the West refuse to use their conventional military to end the regimes in the various nation states that support jihad, the superiority in conventional forces is not the advantage it seems.<BR/><BR/>I would remind you that a handful of dedicated jihadis killed many times their number and caused billions in economic damage to the West on 9/11, and on a number of occasions since then.<BR/><BR/>Think about it.<BR/><BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162752217870260182006-11-05T10:43:00.000-08:002006-11-05T10:43:00.000-08:00FF, even if the dems win back the House this year,...FF, even if the dems win back the House this year, life will go on. Don't forget, they had the majority, albeit a slight from 02 to 04. <BR/><BR/>Also, as much a danger as the jihadists are, let's face it, they got nothing on us. We've got the best military in the world-we could lick anyone right now, even Iran. The jihadists are just a bunch of poorly disciplined thugs with AK-47s. The only real danger from them is subversion and sabotage here at home, and that's where the real fight is. I don't think we should abandon Iraq or Afghanistan, but it's not as big a deal as the Republican make it out to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162714010439555072006-11-05T00:06:00.000-08:002006-11-05T00:06:00.000-08:00Hello Louie, Nazar.A couple of things...Louie, whi...Hello Louie, Nazar.<BR/><BR/>A couple of things...<BR/><BR/>Louie, while your figures are slightly off for some of the elections, you are certainly correct that the majority of people who identify themselves as Jews tend to vote Democrat, though if one skews those figures to differentiate religious practicing Jews from secular, marginally identified one things change more than a little.<BR/><BR/>Many Jews tend to vote for the Democrats for the same reason that many Blacks do..(1)a long history of bigotry has obscured their basic self-interest (2)Many Jews are marginally identified as Jews and are secular and much more invested in being Leftists and (3)There are a great many Jews, again like Blacks who do not understand the history of the democratic party as regards their group and still think they're voting for FDR.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what your point is.<BR/><BR/>Nazar, I do think Iraq has a lot to do with the current malaise, and your comment that many Americans do not see it as part of the War Against Jihad is an astute one. Part of that,frankly, is Preasident Bush's fault IMO, though I think some of his motives were noble, if misconceived.<BR/><BR/>As for your point that it might be better for the GOP if the Dems take one or more houses of congress as a lead up to 2008, I beg to differ.<BR/><BR/>The damage the people I mentioned will be able to do in two years, simply by obstruction if nothing else is incalcuble.<BR/><BR/>I suggest you take a gander at Thucydides' History of the Peloponessian War, or at least Victor Davbis Hansen's `A war like no other' to get the flavor of what we could be in for.<BR/><BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162675357614942692006-11-04T13:22:00.000-08:002006-11-04T13:22:00.000-08:00Louie, there's a world of difference between dems ...Louie, there's a world of difference between dems and reps. Dems are the ones who think we should submit to the UN. <BR/><BR/>We had a strong dem party until Vietnam. Then the anti-war socialist wing took over, and that's what the dems are right now, for the most part, and what they will be in the near future.<BR/><BR/>The dem leadership is waaay out of touch. I'll give you a prime example: Nancy Pelosi. She voted to decrease spending on the military even after 9/11, and she's against military recruiters in high schools and colleges. She's also for gay marriage and abortion on demand, hardly mainstream positions right now. If the dems win, she'll be first in line to become president if something happens to Bush and Cheney.<BR/><BR/>Why are the dems poised to win this election? Simple: the Iraq War. People are growing tired of the daily bombings and killings, and most Americans still regard this war as peripheral to the war on terror.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162660611596229412006-11-04T09:16:00.000-08:002006-11-04T09:16:00.000-08:00hi nazar,are you saying joshuapundit is an animal ...hi nazar,<BR/>are you saying joshuapundit is an animal bordello?<BR/><BR/>regarding:<BR/>1) if the dems win, the nation will realize george wallace was right back in 1968. there ain't a dimes worth of difference between the dems & reps.<BR/><BR/>2) we had a strong dem party. for over 40 years. a strong dem. party will keep the reps out of power for another 40 years. the only reality to the spending that is going on by the shrub administration is that when dems criticize him for spending like a drunken sailor, actually, he is spending like a drunken dem.<BR/><BR/>you said it yourself, the dems have a good chance of winning this election. why is that? <BR/>imo, i don't agree with your assessment that the dems leadership/spokespeople are out of touch with the people. if they were, the race would not be this close. the reason the race is so close is because there are so many people who believe what the dems are saying. call it nonsense if you will, but if the votes are there for the dems, people have to be believing what they say. even if it is only to be an anti-republican.<BR/><BR/>i think the lieberman(sp) case has another angle to it. if elected, he could start a movement toward non-aligned representatives. we could see more of the gang-of-14 type coalitions. i know the power structure exists in commitee appointments so this may very well not happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162614560729878592006-11-03T20:29:00.000-08:002006-11-03T20:29:00.000-08:00But ff, if the Republicans win, what will happen t...But ff, if the Republicans win, what will happen to our animal bordellos?<BR/><BR/>All joking aside, it could actually be a good thing for Republicans in the long run if the Democrats win. Here are two major reasons: <BR/>1) The majority of voters will notice the pathetic incompetence of the dems when it comes to fighting jihadists. They will reject them like they rejected Carter in 1980. We would just have to hope and pray that the dems won't make too much damage. <BR/><BR/>2) A strong Democratic Party will make for a stronger Republican Party. For example, when there is a serious, principled Democratic senator like Lieberman, who can challenge the Republicans on a number of issues other than terorrism, this will make the Republicans more accountable to their conservative and libertarian base when it comes to things like deficit spending, and social issues. They would have to be more accountable, it's the only way they could win elections. Unfortunately, I can only count on one hand the number of Congressional Democrats that are like Lieberman. <BR/><BR/>In short, the Democrats right now are where the Republicans were in 1964-out of touch with the public, no ideas, and filled with embarassing spokespeople. Only they actually have a good chance of winning this election, for better or for worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1162602443307166112006-11-03T17:07:00.000-08:002006-11-03T17:07:00.000-08:00given:ff comments above.however:if history is to b...given:<BR/>ff comments above.<BR/>however:<BR/>if history is to be any indication of what is to come in this election this is what we have to look forward to.<BR/>granted:<BR/>this is just in presidential elections, not mid-term as we are going to vote now, but this is the jewish vote, by percentage, in past presidential elections.<BR/><BR/>1916 <BR/>hughes(R) 45<BR/>wilson(D) 55<BR/><BR/>1920<BR/>harding(R) 43<BR/>cox(D) 19 <BR/>debs(socialist) 38<BR/><BR/>1924<BR/>coolidge(R) 27<BR/>davis(D) 51<BR/>lafolette(progressive) 22<BR/><BR/>1928<BR/>hoover(R) 28<BR/>smith(D) 72<BR/><BR/>1932<BR/>hoover(R) 18<BR/>roosevelt(D) 82<BR/><BR/>1936<BR/>landon(R) 15<BR/>roosevelt(D) 85<BR/><BR/>1940<BR/>wilkie(R) 10<BR/>roosevelt(D) 90<BR/><BR/>1944<BR/>dewey(R) 10<BR/>roosevelt(D) 90<BR/><BR/>1948<BR/>dewey(R) 10<BR/>truman(D) 75<BR/>wallace(progressive) 15<BR/><BR/>1952<BR/>eisenhower(R) 36<BR/>stevenson(D) 64<BR/><BR/>1956<BR/>eisenhower(R) 40<BR/>stevenson(D) 60<BR/><BR/>1960<BR/>nixon(R) 18<BR/>kennedy(D) 82<BR/><BR/>1964<BR/>goldwater(R) 10<BR/>johnson(D) 90<BR/><BR/>1968<BR/>nixon(R) 17<BR/>humphrey(D) 81<BR/>wallace(I) 2<BR/><BR/>1972<BR/>nixon(R) 35<BR/>mcgovern(D) 65<BR/><BR/>1976<BR/>ford(R) 27<BR/>carter(D) 71<BR/>mccarthy(I) 2 <BR/><BR/>1980<BR/>reagan(R) 39<BR/>carter(D) 45<BR/>anderson(I) 14<BR/><BR/>1984<BR/>reagan(R) 31<BR/>mondale(D) 67<BR/><BR/>1988<BR/>bush(R) 35<BR/>dukakis(D) 65<BR/><BR/>1992<BR/>bush(R) 11<BR/>clinton(D) 80<BR/>perot(I) 9<BR/><BR/>1996<BR/>dole(R) 16<BR/>clinton(D) 78<BR/>perot(I) 3<BR/><BR/>2000<BR/>bush(R) 19 <BR/>gore(D) 79 <BR/>nader(G) 1<BR/><BR/>2004<BR/>bush(R) 24<BR/>kerry(D) 76<BR/>nader(G) <1<BR/><BR/>reviewing the above data, a pattern emerges, for myself at least. i will let others review the data and draw their own conclusions.<BR/>perhaps, just perhaps, it's not the gentiles that need to be informed of the current world political climate.<BR/>just perhaps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com