That depends on what ones interpretation of winning is. I wouldn't call what we are doing there now winning. What do you think is going to happen when this 'surge' is over? No effective goverment in six years isn't winning. They still can't even trust the police yet after six years. Are you prepared to send one of your children over there? The way this is now we will still be there when my 2 1/2 year old granddaughter is military age. To me that is not winning. This is no fault of General Petraeus and you haven't heard him say winning yet and I would also point out that his plan at the get go called for 40,000 more troops permenatley. The 'surge' is only a temporary measure and that was I believe 20,000.
It's for every child born in the U.S. and I agree it's not a good idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by Chinese despots. Like it or not we are going to reap what we have sown. We are doing nothing in Afganistan and Iraq and wishing success isn't going to make it happen. We have the force to maybe accomplish one. Losing two is not better. Let the Iraqi's sort themselves out. They can't play middle eastern hardball with us trying to make them see western values.

Well here's one that'll upset a few of you Yanks, but...

Vote for Hillary when you get the chance.
You've never had a woman for President.
Here in the UK, our greatest leader (post WWII, possibly ever) was Mrs Thatcher.
What I would'nt give to have someone like her in charge again.

And lets not forget it's Queen Elizabeth who's really in charge.

Lets be honest most of us have a woman telling us what to do at home...
Let them run the country! Why not?

Would you vote for this woman?
http://www.drudgereport.com/hrch.jpg

If we don't she'll turn us into toads! :dead:

I keep trying to point out that this is nothing new, and it is not just 'current'. Clear back in 1824 Andrew Jackson won both the popular AND electoral votes, but not by a plurality. It then went to the House of Representatives, who elected John Quincy Adams to be president. It's easy to say it should be overhauled, but exactly what changes would you make?

The downside being that candidates with their own money would have an advantage. Limit what they can spend, maybe?

Again, nothing new. Those things have always ruled; or at least the losing side has made those accusations.

I have no loyalty to either party anymore but I end up voting Republican because at the end of the day it is the lesser of two evils. I am what I would call a classic American or Classic Liberal....somebody that would be classified as a right-wing conservative in this day and age, but in reality this belief system is the true way we were meant to be and the way our founding fathers were. I believe in absolute respect for the Bill of Rights and accepting those rights at face value (our Constitution it isn't up for any interpretation, especially bringing in foreign judgement and laws into our constitution to make judical decisions), and a extreme hatred for progressives, socialist, or any BS word they make up to cover up the fact that their belief is communism. This garbage originated with Karl Marx and polluted this country 100 years ago and has continued to grow in influence. This system was adopted by Democrats.

Historically speaking, our first mistake was Prohibition. Then we really took a left turn with Roosevelts New Deal which did nothing but create more poverty and problems and made the Great Depression last all the way until WW2. The war ended the Great Depression, not the massive expansion of the Federal government into social programs. You would think we would have learned with that but then LBJ came along with the Great Society act.

The Great Society act did nothing but create a permanent poverty class to elect hack politicians to office with the promise of welfare (the new liberal Democrats..see before this Democrats were the party of the racists and the KKK, for reference look up Woodrow Wilson, Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr, Hugo Black, etc). This welfare state has not only ruined the nation, it destroyed entire ethnic cultures. The poverty pimps of these movements still enslave the people they claim to want to help, flaming racism and solving none of the problems that still exist that should have been ended long ago.

National Health care is just one more step in the SP movement to create a legion of lazy, mind-numbed robot voters who will keep voting in these idiots as long as they rob my hard earned tax dollars and give it to somebody who doesn't want to work. Why work and contribute to society if you can get a free check from Uncle Sam. This is how these people keep their power. They go to school for this very purpose, if you go to school for government and public service first thing you learn is how to keep your job. Those who want to work, make a name for themselves, they work in the private sector. It is my belief that this nation will become the reality that is the book "Atlas Shrugged".

Also, if you folks want to talk about scandals, follow the money and how every single thing done by Democrats, Hillary, etc is all through the grace and power of one man, George Soros, and his Moveon.org.

The Religious Quest of George Soros.

I don't believe that a "Classic American" would subscribe to "extreme hatred" for a political/economic belief :-?

Is that a kind of hot dog or pickle? :hmm:

I log in to check if anything's happened, just before I go for lunch.

Thanks AL :D, a hot dog it is

For lunch?

What I meant was I have no idea about who and what your previous post is referring to. Who or what is the "classic American"?

Here

I don't know if that particular aspect of WosMan's quote is part of being a "classic American" or not. In any case, there need not be a major conflict between belief is the US' initial founding principles and a strong disdain for anything veering far away from it.

EDIT: My text was missing several critical words. Corrected.

Yeah, it's not crucial. I was skim-reading and the words jumped out at me