So the next time a repub says the Dems are "soft on defense"

[Bluzmann57]

I want to hear some examples of that statement. Just how are Democrats "soft on defense"? That is just another repub talking point and should be exposed as such. The repubs started an illegal war, are taking away not only veteran's rights but soldiers who are serving rights as well, the National Guard is undermanned here at home, etc., etc. Sounds like maybe the repubs are soft on defense. They need to prove it if they say it and they can't. Call them on it. Ask them to point out examples.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. You are correct. I'm sick of hearing this crap when so many of the

recommendations to truly make us safe haven't been implemented.

[Generic Other]

2. Maybe one of the Dems should deck the next Repub who says it?

Preferably a Murtha-type. Swift and sweet. Can you imagine the outcry?

[quickesst]

4. Just...

what I was going to suggest. Plant a fist right between the eyes, and when he recovers enough to shake the stars, let'em know the defense works just as well. Thanks.
quickesst

[zbdent]

3. I want to know why the speaker is

not in uniform and over in the Middle East ...

[Hubert Flottz]

5. The truth is nobody in the past 100 years has been any harder

on the soldiers and their equipment than George Bush and the PNAC. Sent to war without body armor and equipment they needed to survive. Being served rotten food and water with shit in it by Halliburton.

Soldiers pulling three tours in combat. Troops ready to come home to their families and then being told that they were not going home afterall and would spend another 6 months in combat.

Let's talk about who has been the hardest on the soldier!

[gratuitous]

6. Free gratuitous brand generic response

"How do you figure?"

It works on all sorts of meaningless blather talking points. Demand specifics. What is someone talking about when they say (for example) that Democrats are soft on defense? Provide examples, and how exactly the Republican alternative -- presumably tough on defense -- has worked out so well? Would being "soft" on defense not have squandered half a trillion dollars? Would it have killed more than 3,000 service men and women and Defense Department retainers?

Keep after it (and it won't take long) until the person spouting such mindless nonsense has to admit that he really didn't mean anything by it.

[peanutbrittle]

7. 9/11 panel: ‘More F’s than A’s’ on U.S. security

9/11 panel: ‘More F’s than A’s’ on U.S. security
‘Terrorists will strike again,’ says former commission chairman



WASHINGTON - The former Sept. 11 commission gave dismal grades Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States.

Meeting for the last time since being appointed by Congress in 2002, commission members gave the government "more F's than A's" among the 41 grades measuring progress on security recommendations they issued last year.

"We're frustrated, all of us — frustrated at the lack of urgency in addressing these various problems," said former commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10335384/

[B Calm]

8. Republicans are against extra funding for port security. Republicans

also voted to cut $1.5 billion from intelligence community.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. 'Security' is pollsterese..

...for 'Willing to kill brown people at the drop of a hat.'

Both the people asking and the people answering understand that.

How can the Dems compete? The GOP have real piles of dead people to point to and we don't.