A day in the life of Joe Republican (USA republican, that is)

Trojan

Not so funny, but semi-on topic: here's a smart, attractive female Republican from the National Review Online.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=188301

Any chance they ever would have put her on a ticket before her defection to the realms of sanity?

(I'm guessing she's damned any future chances for daring to criticise our lipstick-clad pitbull).

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

if it wasn't for the fact that for a few years of his life Joe Republican raised his right hand, and spent his youth facing down Nazis or the Warsaw Pact in cold, wet miserable mud far from rural electricity or shampoo, instead of spending it sitting on Berkeley Commons pontificating about how evil the world is and just not using the shampoo in the first place.

It was Franklin D. Roosevelt (democrat) that took america to war in WWII.

Overheal

Trojan wrote: »

Not so funny, but semi-on topic: here's a smart, attractive female Republican from the National Review Online.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=188301

Any chance they ever would have put her on a ticket before her defection to the realms of sanity?

(I'm guessing she's damned any future chances for daring to criticise our lipstick-clad pitbull).

Wow. Johnny 5 is still alive. Heil Lithium!

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote: »

It was Franklin D. Roosevelt (democrat) that took america to war in WWII.

You mean sat idly by whilst war raged around the planet for several years until the country was dragged kicking and screaming into WWII by the Japanese, right?

Anyway, as I said the email, and my reply, is a gross oversimplification. The people who in recent decades have chosen to voluntarily to stick their necks out on the battlefield tend to be overwhelmingly conservative (At some 80% by a recent Military Times poll), but not exclusively so. FDR wanted to bring the US into WWII earlier, but did not believe it to be politically feasible given the domestic situation.

NTM

Ludo

Manic Moran wrote: »

You mean sat idly by whilst war raged around the planet for several years until the country was dragged kicking and screaming into WWII by the Japanese, right?

Or (depending on what you read) created the circumstances which forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbour, thus making entry into the war palatable to the American public who were isolationist at the time

GuanYin

To be fair, the US public would never have been happy to enter into the war were it not for the attack on US territory.

The world sat idly by, mainly for political reasons.

BlitzKrieg

You mean sat idly by whilst war raged around the planet for several years until the country was dragged kicking and screaming into WWII by the Japanese, right?

That would be because of the strong isolationism that existed in the US in the inter war years that opposed entering the war. FDR blatantly supported the allies and oppossed Germany, the mid atlantic war was proof of that.

note also the last war the US can consider somewhat *successful* was waged by a democratic president.

the term of success is of course debatable, but I think that Kosovo being so far along the path of independence is a good thing (especially considering that at a time the UN was convinced the country couldnt survive on its) It would be great to actually see a side by side comparison of commitment and resources put into both the Kosovo and Afghanastan conflict (Iraq would be unfair seeing as it didnt have UN support)