96-3

[Gumby]

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected an effort Thursday to block renewing the Patriot Act,........The 96-3 vote was no suprise to Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who was the lone senator to oppose the law four and a half years ago and is the chief obstacle to extending 16 provisions now due to expire March 10.

roll on, roll on Red Tide. Must be an election year. Are Democrats too scared to filibuster an Act the American people want for their own protection when they might be held accountable come Nov?

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by Gumby

roll on, roll on Red Tide. Must be an election year. Are Democrats too scared to filibuster an Act the American people want for their own protection when they might be held accountable come Nov?

One more reason to vote independant.

[dryheat44]

Originally Posted by Gumby

roll on, roll on Red Tide. Must be an election year. Are Democrats too scared to filibuster an Act the American people want for their own protection when they might be held accountable come Nov?

Yes. Yes they are.

[DarrylS]

The democrats are morphing into a party that is quickly becoming irrelevant and looking more and more like republicans every day, completely disgusted with them many opportunities to make inroads squandered as they just want to meet their self serving interests. I see many opportunities to make somethings different, however very little effort to work as a unified body that can make changes.

[Harry Boy]

I left the Democrats during the Carter years, you could see what was coming, I have been horse whipped for it ever since, the Old Time labor loving, working man and poor mans party is no more, they have all gone.

Todays Democrats are a pack of self serving, weak, social do-gooding, jelly fish, they are very dangerous in this violent hate filled world, they are not capable of protecting you or your family, there isn't a democrat in Washington today that could make the decisions to protect America that the Democrats of yesterday did.

Can you just imagine the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Kerry, Lahey, Kennedy, Gore and the rest of that back stabbing tribe trying to run a war. The war would be over in days, we would LOSE.

I vote the man not the party, but no one believes me, who cares.

[sdaniels7114]

The Democrats have made adjustments with the times. Why is it ok for Bush to change from being a man against nation building to one who unilaterally decided to do it in both Afganistan and Iraq? as well as threaten to do it in Iran, North Korea, Vietnam and all of the other 'evil-dooer' nations; but its not ok for the Dems to compromise on the Patriot act? If 9-11 covers Bush's blatent flip-floppery on nation building it should certainly cover the Democrats' willingness to trade SOME freedom for enhanced security.

Look what happened to Tom Finneran when he decided to ignore the clear will of the people of MA one too many times.



btw, for all of you geographically-challenged Pats fans, Tom Finneran was the Speaker of the MA House of Reps for many years who pretty much acted as an emperor until the sensible Democrats in this state finally managed to oust him. He's also the guy who forced Kraft's hand in the threatened move to RI/CN deal some years ago

[Harry Boy]

The Democrats can do as they wish, that is what this country is all about, but "the people don't have to vote for them", when they lose they shouldn't whine and hate.

I remember Finneran well and he was as you said.

[Patters]

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

I left the Democrats during the Carter years, you could see what was coming, I have been horse whipped for it ever since, the Old Time labor loving, working man and poor mans party is no more, they have all gone.

Todays Democrats are a pack of self serving, weak, social do-gooding, jelly fish,

I agree with you up to this point.

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

they are very dangerous in this violent hate filled world, they are not capable of protecting you or your family, there isn't a democrat in Washington today that could make the decisions to protect America that the Democrats of yesterday did.

That's where I disagree with you. Both Dem and Republican leadership are largely out of the same stock -- same families, same money, same ethnicity, same schools, same social circles, same religion, and so on. The difference between the two parties in areas of defense are nuanced and always have been. Democrats would invest more in peaceful tactics, but they would strike just as fiercely. My guess is that if Clinton had been president after 9/11, we would have done everything necessary to capture or kill the Al Qaida leadership, and would not have gone into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

Can you just imagine the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Kerry, Lahey, Kennedy, Gore and the rest of that back stabbing tribe trying to run a war. The war would be over in days, we would LOSE.

That's naive. You don't know how government works if you believe that. The parties haven't differed much on military matters since before WWII.

[BlueTalon]

Originally Posted by Patters

The difference between the two parties in areas of defense are nuanced and always have been. Democrats would invest more in peaceful tactics, but they would strike just as fiercely. My guess is that if Clinton had been president after 9/11, we would have done everything necessary to capture or kill the Al Qaida leadership, and would not have gone into Iraq.

This is demonstrably false. The indecisive conduct of the engagement in Somalia, the non-action in Rwanda, the drastic limitations in the Kosovo tiff (not allowing any ground troops in, not allowing combat aircraft to operate below 15,000 ft) and an over-reliance on cruise missiles are what characterized our armed conflicts under the most recent Democrat administration. Going back to the previous Democrat administration, there was only paralysis and a poorly planned and executed raid.

The problem is that today's Democrats would never allow anyone like a Lieberman (who is one of the two or three Democrats I trust to have enough common sense on defense issues to function adequately) to become president. We saw this in the last election cycle. The ultraliberals shouted him down, he wasn't anti-war enough for vocal factions, and he didn't last beyond a few primaries. Instead, after a flirt and close call with Dean, Democrats picked a candidate they determined was "electable" and jumped on board his bandwagon so fast that nobody bothered to check for excess baggage and dirty laundry before it was too late.

So... the bottom line is that the Democrat party, the way it currently exists, is incapable of electing a competent military leader. And I don't mean this as a personal attack Patters, but I think you're probably so closely aligned philosophically with the extreme left of the party that you're incapable of seeing it.

[DarrylS]

[quote=BlueTalonThe problem is that today's Democrats would never allow anyone like a Lieberman (who is one of the two or three Democrats I trust to have enough common sense on defense issues to function adequately) to become president...Democrats picked a candidate they determined was "electable" and jumped on board his bandwagon so fast that nobody bothered to check for excess baggage and dirty laundry before it was too late.

So... the bottom line is that the Democrat party, the way it currently exists, is incapable of electing a competent military leader. And I don't mean this as a personal attack Patters, but I think you're probably so closely aligned philosophically with the extreme left of the party that you're incapable of seeing it.[/QUOTE]

I do not trust Lieberman, and there is an effort to dump him in the upcoming election although it may not happen it will send a message, he is at best a DINO. He has a single focus which prohibits him from becoming qualified on defense issues.
Not sure about the excess baggage comment either, if you are talking about Kerry his situation received much media play, while our fearless leader George, a fortunate son, did not even put a toe on foreign soil. He missed a whole year of his commitment, there has been a great coverup of his actions or inactions. I would think that in any event if a Democrat were in power at the time of 9-11 the response would have been the same, the long term difference is that there may have been more focus in Afghanistan rather than going into Iraq. Which continues to be an unjustifiable action in my mind.