Republicans Make us safer somebody please tell me how.

[StClone]

Where is the proof?

When we hear from Republicans "that throwing money at social programs does not solve problems", why does that not apply to the bloated and abused military budget?

Two of the worst military failures in the last twenty-five years have occurred under Republican Presidents (sic): The loss of 254 Marines under Reagan (biggest non-combat loss of soldiers ever?) and 9-11 (biggest terror attack on U.S. soil).

Was it Reagan's nutty Star Wars and massive waste of tax payer's money on the military that has people still believing that Reps do well on security?

Bush is bleeding us dry with the Iraq morass that has made us less safe. So Freepers and DUers where is the facts that have led the "average American" in the immutable "Reps make us safer belief"?

Is it all smoke mirrors, lies and damn propaganda? If Dems are considered soft on security why are there more Dem leaders with military combat background? And, just becuase Reps love to spend tax payer money on wars to make their friends rich doesn't make us more secure.

Where and why did this erroneous mind-set start?

[LoZoccolo]

1. They basically appeal to anger...

...with their hawkish talk and their demagoguery, and gain a reputation as protectorates as a result (I'm referring to the neocons and their lackeys). This appeals to the greatest number of people; not as many know that you can keep us safer by fighting smarter (with intelligence, diplomacy, other bargaining chips), and so Republicans gain a greater number of people thinking that they are best with national security.

This notion transcends historical reality to such a point that Ann Coulter can stick her neck out and be so bold as to lie and say:

"Whenever America is threatened from outside, Republicans have a lock on the Oval Office. No matter how secure the world seems, after 9-11 you have to vote for the better man on national defense. That is always the Republican."

( see http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20030508.shtml )

I have no idea what she's talking about here, seeing as how Democrats were in the Oval Office during - and elected to the Oval Office in the subsequent elections after - World War II and the Cuban missle crisis. I don't even know where else she can say that we were threatened from the outside. But, as I said, the myth transcends historical reality, so she can get away with this bold-faced lie. It's also rather degrading to her readership for her to assume that they don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of history broad enough to call her on this right away.

[VOX]

6. This is true. The RW runs the table when it comes to exploiting anger...

The whole core of their beliefs systems is one of anger (and fear) -- "welfare cheats," "Muslim madmen," "affirmative action bums," "tax-and-spend liberals," "The Clintons," etc.

Faux News' popularity is due to a kind of addiction that it foments, IMO -- it's so centered on keeping anger hot, that gullible people look in just to stay pissed off and feel righteous.

[joeyslither]

2. Huh?

How are the Beirut bombing (I'm assuming that's what you meant? )and 9/11 "military failures"? They were terrorist attacks. It wouldn't have mattered who was in power...Republicans, Democrats, or the freakin' Green Party.

[Wapsie B]

3. It's just another

one of those infamous talking points that pod people love. Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

[Terwilliger]

4. where is the love

Where is the proof?

When we hear from Republicans "that throwing money at social programs does not solve problems", why does that not apply to the bloated and abused military budget?

Security for surety. I've always heard that people would rather be safe. That's it. That's the sum total of conservatism. For some, human interaction is NOT as important as keeping you and yours "safe". Human intelligence is continually sacrificed for the needs and wants of the few. Intelligence demands that the world be one. We all think the same way in the only areas where it's vital, namely, peace and propserity, where we come to understand that what benefits everyone is what's important.


Two of the worst military failures in the last twenty-five years have occurred under Republican Presidents (sic): The loss of 254 Marines under Reagan (biggest non-combat loss of soldiers ever?) and 9-11 (biggest terror attack on U.S. soil).

Was it Reagan's nutty Star Wars and massive waste of tax payer's money on the military that has people still believing that Reps do well on security?

Absoultely, and well put. Also, the security of our country has hinged on various threats over the last 227 years. Whether Britain, Spain, Mexico, the slave threat, the indian threat, the French threat, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, the Chinese, The Soviets, communists, socialists, peaceniks, other threats... drugs, terrorism, homosexuals, Christian-haters, deparaved, unpatriotic, criminals, ACLU, leftists, Jesus Christ himself is a threat! It keeps the machine hum, hum, humming along.

Bush is bleeding us dry with the Iraq morass that has made us less safe. So Freepers and DUers where is the facts that have led the "average American" in the immutable "Reps make us safer belief"?

Is it all smoke mirrors, lies and damn propaganda? If Dems are considered soft on security why are there more Dem leaders with military combat background? And, just becuase Reps love to spend tax payer money on wars to make their friends rich doesn't make us more secure.

It's hard to understand how someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger can earn anything other than contempt. He is "leaderly" apparently because he is a Republican. I just don't get it. This mindset is beyond belief. It is intelligence that brings leadership. If it is something that has to do with confidence in a neanderthalist sense of decision-making tendencies, I can't relate :shrug:

Where and why did this erroneous mind-set start?

Time immemorial?



PEACE!

[Terwilliger]

5. oh well

that'll show me

[wyldwolf]

7. They protect us from commies, homos, porn, and the monsters under the bed.

[leesa]

8. It's propaganda, mythology...just like Republicans being better

with money. Sheer fantasy and the facts do not support it one bit.

[Terwilliger]

9. oh yeah?

is that reflected in our freaking out about Wesley Clark?