look all you have to do is wipe out the poppy fields AKA "opium" plant and the Marijuana fields AKA "hashish" and there done how do you think the terrorists are funding their War... It may not stop them but it will sure as hell slow them down.. They are afghanistan's #1 export and the Middle Easts #2 exported product...

More money down the rat hole. New president, new war. We have money to fight wars in countries that don't want us half a world away and we have money to bail out super rich bankers and pay their multi million dollar bonuses but not enough to help home owners who are being foreclosed on, fund a good healthcare system or bail out the states so they don't have to lay off workers and cut services to the poor and elderly. It's madness really.

I think Smedley Butler would agree...

Major General Smedley Butler (USMC) fought in WWI, Haiti, Nicaruaga, Mexico and Cuba in the early part of the 1900's. He recieved the Congressional Medal of Honour twice as well as many other decorations. Here is a speech he gave to the American Legion convention in 1933: Smedley Butler on Interventionism:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

American presidents may have different priorities on relatively minor issues but the three things they always do are:

1. Transfer huge amounts of wealth (money or assets) from the public to private (rich) hands: Huge tracks of land given to railroads in the 1800's, Clinton's giving away the electromagnetic spectrum to the telecommunications companies, ridiculously small royalties on resources taken from public land (if any at all are paid), and the grand daddy of them all, the on-going bank bailouts, (etc. etc.)

2. Slaughter large numbers of mostly non-white people either by bombs, and other weapons or by sanctions: ( hundreds of thousands (millions?) of indians in the 1800's, a couple of million Iraqi's slaughtered if you count the Clinton era sanctions regime which killed half a million alone, 4 million Viet Namese in the 1960s & 70's, and now Afghanistan (etc. etc.)

3. Play golf: Self explanatory.

Obama so far is keeping up the tradition very well.

dan-- i do not care if we lose face with the rest of the world.

we need to fix the U.S.'s problem's first and then try to fix afghanistan and the rest of the world.

this is just more of the same.

Why do you think we will lose face? Perhaps the other countries will instead be surprised that we woke up. We have our own problems to spend our tax money on & can't afford to worry about the Taliban. The Taliban may not be good for Afghanistan but they have nothing to do with us if we leave Afghanistan.

Come on BILL.

We needed railroads to help the country expand at that time. RR's needed an incentive to hurry up and do it. Much like $4500 for your "clunker". Are YOU big business?

Your cell phone and broadband reception requires a lot of "room" on the dial. And the expensive advancement to a digital "HD" dial was developed to help us ALL be able to be RIGHT HERE on this "forum" today.

SOMETHING had to be done to kick start the banks again, though I do believe we have done enough and should NOT give out the REST of the TARP money.

And when was the last time a group of WHITE race people threatened us in ANY substantial way? The Germans? Seems like I remember us doing something about that.

THINK before you post.

Wow Dan, it sounds exactly like what was said during Nam. We missed our quick opportunity in Afghanistan. Thanks georgie. Maybe we should impeach Obama and send bush and cheney to The Hague for trial on war crimes.

werewolfofhomer

look all you have to do is wipe out the poppy fields AKA "opium" plant and the Marijuana fields AKA "hashish"

====================

Obviously you don't have a clue as to how hashish is made. Good for you. You are ignorant enough to run fro the House of Representatives. Not quite stupid enough for the Senate though.

None of us like the cost. What will happen if we pull out prematurely? Well, all we did was get side-tracked by Iraq and the Taliban and their terrorist friends came back stronger than when we started.

The only choice we have now is to readdress them. Come up with and follow a complete plan that: 1) includes other countries in the costs and efforts (i.e. UN), 2) addresses and includes Pakistan in the overall strategy, 3) includes real efforts to "do no harm" to the people. and 4) finish the job with infrastructure and security help after the Taliban is minimized and while real recovery is in progress. Yes, this will take years.

lol it gets pretty bad when the opposition has to resort to going way back to 1918 to make a point now. as far as Afghanistan being obamas war get a grip he just got here. Lumping American presidents together to say they are the same playing golf is a downer, disgruntled person, sorta anti American, makes me think the poster knows nothing of American history or have any love for America.

we do what we did in the other democratic fiasco called viet nam. pull out and accept your losses. this is a no win situation. the islamic fundamentalists have no value of life and will use whatever means necessary to remove the infidels. been going on for much more than decades.

"YOU BREAK IT, YOU PAY FOR IT!"

Afghanistan is the only legitimate war we have fought in the last nine years. Iraq was a side-show that diverted resources and lives from our goal of eliminating Al Quida.

While grievious, with the loss of american lives, Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on our country or our citizens. Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussien and his sons, but it wasn't our place to remove them. Our mission was to eradicate the Taliban and Al Queda. The war in Afghanistan took a back burner to the War in Iraq to our collective detriment.

We are now refocusing on our legitimate war. We must win it what ever the cost.

look all you have to do is wipe out the poppy fields AKA "opium" plant and the Marijuana fields AKA "hashish" and there done how do you think the terrorists are funding their War...

Legalization would be even more effective. Burning a field just delays the crop for 6 months, but legalizing destroys the entire illegal drug economy forever.

Colombia, Mexico, Afghanistan, all would be much better off if the U.S. would just legalize.

No way jose legalize pot to smoke, it kills and fast.

You must be on welfare that is the only reason anyone would not be complaining about the Democrats at this time.. Obama the puppet president

It could be very beneficial to sue for peace after #s 1 and 2 have been blown up by 30,000 pound bunker bombs or drone missiles, along with many more Taliban commanders. What say you folks? You see, technology combined with Art of War, effectively deployed, could show the world our resolve. Taliban are disseminating misinformation right now regarding the effectiveness of our strategic use of the drone missiles in Pakistan. The fear factor must be having an effect on their recruitment efforts and Taliban commander career opportunities.

Well I am not so sure this is a legitimate war or not. It really is a matter of who is in control on whether or not their war is legitimate. I do hope that unlike the last 8 years where the Democrats totally lacked the moral courage to vote in large numbers against the war, the Republicans come out and vote against this war. Both parties seem to lack any principles at all- in that if they are for something, even if it is at odds to previous stands they have had on similar matters , they reverse their opinions- or come up with a rationalization why one action is legitimate over another. Bottom line is that we are getting ourselves involved in another countries affairs- continuing the ling line from Korea to present time. In all of that time , we have spent trillions of dollars and cost thousands of lives. And the fact that Iraq supposedly caused so much economic hazard to our own country seems to go by the wayside when people talk about Afghanistan. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander or so the saying goes.

Better to lose face than lives.

Hey Dan, you're living in a dream world and falling for the political rhetoric. These invations into Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will only accomplish the death of thousands of civilians and our military. The Taliban will resume power as soon as we pull out just as they have for hundreds of years. You cannot change another country's culture and impose the will of U.S. way-of-life on them, whether it's religious or moral.

"Meet the new boss same as the old boss"

THe Militery Industrial comples is alive and well under Uncle Tomaobama. He's another hack for the bankers and the phony war on terror. Where are the liberal protesters now?? Are you for war now that a dem is doing it instead of Bush?? WAKE UP

With the Obama Administration that bumper sticker falls on deaf ears, even ears as big as his. Remember this is the same President who entertained the idea of of making our troops pay for their own medical care. I believe his reasoning was something to the effect of it being an all volunteer military and they knew what they were getting into.

Once again we are seeing the inexperience of our current POTUS in action. He is spending money there (much like here) and has no idea what (if anything) it will accomplish. For him it is a combination of on the job training (OJT) and a grand experiment, that if successful he will be able to say to the world that they were wrong and he does know what he was doing. If it turns out a failure, heads will role (other than his) as his minions fall on their swords to save their glorious leader's face.

I am betting the Russians are getting a good laugh out of this since the Taliban kicked their butt first. Personally I think we should do a massive sweep of their poppy growing areas and remove the kids under the age of 16. Then do as Hitlary Clinton once joked about and just simply nuke the entire area. A few nukes should render the area unable to grow opium poppies, seal all the caves shut and kill most of the Al Quida/Taliban resistance in the process.

Yes I know it is against the laws of humanity, NATO and probably the Geneva Convention, but you have to admit it would save a ton of U.S. troops lives and put a quick end to their games they are playing. I am betting that what little resistance is left (if any) could be handled by the Afghanistan Government without our help. Then we could look to the rest of the Middle East and North Korea and ask them a simple question. Do you still want to play with nukes? If they say yes we can make sure they get a special delivery like we did in Afghanistan.

Of course this would never happen because Obama would become very unpopular with much of the rest of the world and espically the muslims and all in all it would be far too simple a solution to a problem that has been going on for a very long time. So for God knows how long we will send troops over there to fight and die and continue to give money to the Taliban to allegedlly help us against Al Quida.

The war in Afghanistan doesn't have crap to do with freedom. Mostly it has to do with profit. Every President has to keep the armed forces employed and keep the war machine/rebuiding corporations happy with return bribes. They all pick a new spot so as to shift the blame for the last war. Obama's spot is Afghanistan. They also want operations near the 2 countries we fear China and Russia. The other thing about this one is they get to steal all the drugs. That's right folks, in today's world our government kills people for money, drugs, and territories. Sound familiar???

John-385319

Where are the Obamabot "war protestors" where is the media calling the messiah of the mindless drones lies on AF what they are lies? Oh that is right it is BHO so anything he does is wonderful

Well John, you have to see the logic, Bush did it, and hes a mindless, warmongering, fascist pig. Obammy does it, and he is trying to help the world. Funny how libs use hushed undertones , now that their Messiah is the Warmongering, mindless, spineless, fascist pig! What a bunch of hypocrite a$$babies. Oh well, like I say vote both parties out people, that is the only way you will see any change!

Bill Raymond — Too few people really know the truth or don't want to know. Or perhaps they just don't want the madness of seeing things as the really are and not as they should be.

Isn't it ironic you are saying the same thing about Afghanistan as everyone was screaming to G. Bush about in Iraq. It's also ironic that you don't hear much of any news over the networks about Afghanistan and the administration's plan.

Makes you think the mainstream news media really is in Obama's back pocket, doesn't it????

If Democrats are as anti-war as they appear here on the vine, why did you re elect Democratic politicians who fully funded Bush's war agenda, Dem's controlled Congress the last two years of Bush's presidency and and have just approved another 700 billion defence budget and two 100 billion spending appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Af/Pak in the last six months. I thought we were getting away from an "endless war "mentality?. And why in Gods name would we ramp up a war in a country where "empires go to die", just curious.

Why do we not allow all of the people who think we should be in Afghanistan to volunteer regardless of age or inability to pass any requirements? How do we lose face if we withdraw? Unfortunately both parties are too similar and will continue to do the same thing the other party has done in the past. We voted for change, now where the hell is it?

Bill Raymond started this thread with "new president, new war". No, this is an old and unfinished war made necessary by an unprecedented attack on our homeland.

It's also a war that got neglected in pursuit of an unjustified and manipulated-for-political-gain war in Iraq by the last president. Whether you like the Afghan war or not, it's another mess that got dumped in this president's lap by a predecessor who was grossly unquailified for the job.

The reason the war protesters aren't out now is that there is a huge difference between a war rooted in a just cause and an unnecessary war perpetrated for political gain and profit that forever damaged the credibility of our country.

I think the bigger issue is that you can't pull out because the taliban will then be able to gain influence enough to disrupt pakistan. Which by the way is a nuclear country. It was the one Bush war that was actually logical. I guess it was ok 6+ years ago, but not now that a Dem is president. It's painful to watch how easily everyone replaced the war's original and true reasons with political rhetoric.

While I am glad we are winding down from our Iraq diversion,we have to be damn sure we get it right this time.With Pakistan in the Taliban's crosshairs no less than control of nuclear arsenal is at stake.If al-Queda and the Taliban were to manage that then the casualties of 9/11 and both of these conflicts will pale in comparision.We simply have to destroy the Taliban and al-Queda!

Dan,

We, The Unites States, have already lost face with the rest of the world, by having our military attack and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan, and calling it a war on terrorism. We as Americans need to ask ourselves if our national pride is worth the cost in human lives. Ours and theirs. Just how stupid does this country have to get? People go around saying "Freedom isn't free," since the jingoism of the Bush era. I never heard anyone saying that prior to 9/11, so I'd say that it is a bumper sticker slogan, like all the rest of the right-wing rhetoric from the Bush crowd. But you have to ask , just who's freedom are we talking about? Ours? Our freedom was fought for and won by the patriots 200 years ago. How are we fighting for our freedom here in the US, by using UAV drones to drop bombs on civilians 6,000 miles away from here? Are we fighting for their freedom? If so, is killing the civilians we're supposed to be liberating the way to do it? Exactly what threat to "our freedom" was Saddam Hussein's regime? He may have been some brutal dicator but I fail to see how that affected my freedoms here in the US. Do we keep subscribing to the romanticized vsion of our brave military somehow vanquishing the threat of terrorism from the globe? Or do we get realistic with ourselves, and the rest of the world?

Foolish pride is a poor substitute for intelligence.

Alrighty then all of you right wing whiners complaining that we are spending to much. We don't have to worry about the money anymore because a liberal is in office. Uncle Obie is just going to have them print all that we need.

Of course it won't be worth the paper it's printed on but so what? There will be plenty of it to go around.

promise them all JOBS, like they do all the AMERICANS..then keep them DANGLING ON A STRING, like they do here..better than going psycho on each other..or initially/ 1st time, buy their poppy crop, so that next harvest season they can farm food product..promise them mechanized farming if they agree to harvest food products..there must be a sane way to get them to be well cultured, with law and order..a cost effective approach must come into play..otherwise it affects American Economy.....

This makes sense.

Afghanistan should have been our priority all along - their the ones that were harboring the terrorist - not Iraq.

Iraq was simply Bush's personal agenda, since his pop didn't do a good job the first time around. Imagine the money wasted by this father-and-son combination of their personal agenda against Saddam.

We should have never been in Iraq. Saddam was an enemy of Bin Laden's.

Our beef is with the terrorists - not the people of Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.

Why are we here in Afghanistan? Simple.

We were attacked on 9/11/2001 by a terrorist organization that had essentially taken over that country. Sorry you missed it... it was in all the papers. I am no fan of George Bush, but I applaud him for our bold response in taking the offensive to rout the Taliban from Afghanistan. Well, in ALMOST routing them... that's why we're still there today: to finish the job he abandoned for the needless excursion into Iraq. And get Afghanistan to the point of stability where the Taliban can't take hold again. The mission may or may not be possible, but it's not a war of choice, as was Iraq.

Your rant is typical conservative BS... you're either ignorant of or consciously ignoring history when it doesn't suit your agenda.

I hope that answers your question. Now I have one for you. What is Obama "lieing" to us about?

President Obama is doing what he said he would do when campaigning. It is the right direction. He is working with the military leaders to accomplish what needs to be done. I know our brave military men and women are working to complete the mission as quickly as they can and they have my support.

there's nothing complicated about war,we kill they kill who kills last wins or we call it a draw.Truman had his Korea,Johnson his Vietnam,Son of bush his Iraq,and Son of Bama will have his war,so much for change.But again it's just words isn't it,dosen' mean a thing. Maybe OB is thinking about what happened to JFK when he tried to get out of Vietnam.

Our military warned, that Iraq would be a mess, a lot of troops and lots of money and lots of years; the chicken hawks in the white house made the generals resign; they knew best. We should have taken out the Taliban first, and finished them off; however Bush & Chenney were drooling over the oil fields, which were going to pay for the entire war, at no cost to the American taxpayer. Look at the mess we have gotten ourselves into, thanks Chicken Hawks.

Bill Raymond....Excellent Post # 1.2. General Butler said it well ... War is a racket. He figured it out and some things never change. The geography changes, the people change, but the racket remains the same.

What do we care if the Taliban retakes the country? There are bad governments and injustices all over the world; it isn't our job to straighten them out. Our presence in Afghanistan is maintained by the military-industrial complex and their stooges in Congress. We the People have no -- repeat NO -- interest in what goes on over there. )And please, don't remind us all that "the plotters of 9/11 were in Afghanistan." Timothy McVeigh operated out of the good old US of A -- and have we invaded yet?)

Dan, you said "If we pull out prematurely; we will lose face with the rest of the world." Here's a shock for you: I remember hearing the same phrase about Viet Nam. Many times.

Here's another shock for you: America hasn't had a competent war Perrsident since Dwight David Eisenhower. And he had enough sense to avoid entangling alliances. None, and I include BO, have been as smart as he was. Not A Single One.

So prepare yourself. Our POTUS is going to have more than one war going on in the middle east and he is now doing his best to alienate our strongest ally, Israel.

One word seems to describe his ideas on tactics: "DUH."

Declare victory and bring our troops home.  We could spend a fraction of what the war costs each year on strengthening our borders and air marshall service and remain safe.

Semper Fi

The Gvmt has to WANT to strengthen the borders before they actually DO it.

And that's not likely under this administration...

imwhitewolf, i don't know what you use to make your hashish but the rest of the world uses "trichome" from the marijuana (cannabis) plant.. look it up but your probably tom stoned to.. and Bill mister cut and past tea lets just make it legal so the terrorist can fund their genocide against all off the western world not just the USA legally what a IDIOT you are... how many more solders have to die for you..

Randal-27684:

"Think before you post"? You might take some of your own advice.

You're using "spin" words.

You may call it an "incentive" when they gave land to the railroads but they were still transferring wealth (in this case actually, "assets") from the public to private hands. I'm not really against "incentives" in all situations, I agree that sometimes it's a socially beneficial thing to do but they do it ALL the time and mostly in ways that are not socially beneficial (I'm sure the railroads could have afforded to pay for the land, too).

Spin: When the government gives money to middle class or poor people it's called it "handouts" or "welfare" or "give aways" words with negative connotations. But when they give money to rich people of corporations (and usually a lot more money) they call it "incentives" or "subsidies" neutral or positive sounding words.

I said the president slaughtered "mostly" non-white people.

Randal:

"And when was the last time a group of WHITE race people threatened us in ANY substantial way?"

How did the American indians threaten us before we invaded their land and started stealing it?

What did the Viet Namese do to us before we invaded their country?

How did the Iraqis threaten us before we invaded them? We sort of gave the green light to Saddam before he invaded Kuwait and besides that we're the ones that built up his army and encouraged him to attack Iran killing millions of people (who never did anything to us either).

What did the Philipinos do to us before we invaded their country and killed hundreds of thousands in the early 1900's. Or the Nicaraguans or the Panamanians in the 1920's & '30's or, etc. etc.

the key is get rid of rules of engagement

There should always be rules of engagement. Having no rules leads to innocent civilians being killed. That gives more flak for the Taliban to use as a recruiting tool.

We have the advantage of military nsuperiority. The Taliban have the advantage of intel. They know the ground. bushed f@@ked up when he invaded Iraq and put Afghanistan on the back burner.

NEVER forget the people. Address them first and get their support and you (they) will win.

The Taliban may no longer be in power over the formal Afghan government, but that does not mean that the Taliban no longer have any hold over the Afghans. Actually, the Taliban is alive and well with its leaders living in exile in nearby Pakistan and many Taliban guerillas still hiding out in pockets of resistance in their home Afghanistan.

Why is it so difficult to stop Taliban's power and release the Afghans from their power? It is necessary to understand first the roots of the Taliban and the "debt of gratitude" that many Afghans still believe they owe to the Taliban to be able to understand this phenomenon.

does no one remember viet nam. we addressed the people. the only ones who really wanted us there were the government officials. the people simply wanted an end to killing. that only happened when we pulled out. the afghan people probably care little who governs them only if they have a decent life without hunger. all our presence there is doing is creating more violence and bloodshed

Agree with buffalo bob. No one likes to have an invading force in their country, destroying the infrastructure, killings young men. The Taliban is likely winning sympathisers and strengthening the longer we stay.

To come to think of it, at first our main concern and target was Osama bin Ladin, Al-Sawari and its militants, then when Taliban refuse to give up Osama in October of 2001, we went in and included Taliban as part of the enemy during Bush time.

I believe the war can be less expensive than we taught of today if our focus is placed on Osama , Al-Sawari and its militant.

No if we win that means less profit. We have to string it along as long as we can..

No, we don't need to be in Afghanistan, any more than we needed to be in Iraq. Stop kissing Obamas butt, and trying to downplay this war!Time to remove all troops from foreign soil, and bring them home, we have over 1500 miles of border to keep locked down, a real job for our troops, and not so dangerous. On the plus side, we can use the military to round up all of these pesky Illegals, and send them home. Talk about saving money.

In as much we wanted them to come home safe, the Generals, Commanders on field, and Mr Obama has decided to be there as long as possible. Probably until doomsday, sad to say.

But my big guess is they will be there up to next year. Their people wanted peace with the Taliban and its future will depend on the result of the upcoming election in that country (Afghanistan).

Although I have not read Zibiginew Brezinski's "The Grand Chessboard", the excerpts I have read do make sence of our Afghanistan policies , it's all about access to Eastern Eurasian oil and natural gas. And to Big D's comment, to chew up as much hardware and to skim as much treasure as possible from the American taxpayer, wars against ideas are great for that.

The hypocrosy of Jeff Immalt, MSNBC, and Keith Olberman just goes on and on. I am sure that they will do all they can to play down the taking out of Mehsud, the thug leader of the Taliban with a $5MM bounty on his head. After all, good news for most Americans is bad news for Keith and company (GE that is).

GE makes it comin and goin on the wars, Olberman sees to that. And Maddow, and Schultz, Matthews et al. Got one of the biggest defence contractors in the world with a media division against the war, well......used to be against the war.

I agree we should bring all our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan home. If only we can do that. That 223 billion dollars spent on war for 8 years should have been used to partially pay our national dept, to bring down the deficits.

Dan-898142 ever here the saying war is hell well it is...

For those of you who say we should be in Afghanistan, that we are helping Afghanistan, let me ask you this. Bush had a very low approval rating the last 3 years he was in power. Many people strongly disagree with his handling of Katrina, and a large number also disagree with the lack of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So here is the question:

Would you want Canada to invade the U.S. in order to depose Bush? Destroy our power stations, dams, nuclear power plants, factories, slaughter the military, kill anyone who opposes them?

If it meant that we would not have a working plumbing system, clean water, an electric grid, or even a job for the next 7 years - is that a sacrifice you would want to make?

I think, of course not. No one wants to see their nation subjected to that much destruction.

Bill, I don't even know where to start. First, "lack of progress in Iraq"? What? Iraq has definitely turned a corner and the news there is, by and large, positive, so I am not sure where you are coming from on that comment. Second, if you will recall, it was Taliban-controlled Afghanistan that aided, abetted, supported, funded, and protected Al Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11. They did everything but fly the planes. Why shouldn't we be there? Don't even try to equate Iraq and Afghanistan. That argument will not work.

Spoken like a true idiot.

mapleleaf3 -- you must be embarrassed! You've demonstrated your complete inability to engage in rational thought. The Taliban murder innocent human beings, throw acid on small girls, cut off limbs, burn and bomb schools, resturants, towns, etc. And you compare them to Limbaugh and Republicans who engage in none of these hideous activities. Here you have it liberals one of your own to be proud of. Come on let's hear your support for your contemptible, logic challenged, fellow traveler.

UGH! Rush Limbaugh GOP rent a mob that's what you showed up with geez go to bed comeback at it fresh in the morning after some coffee and breakfast etc.

Spoken like a true fascist. The only valid opinion to a liberal is their own and, unlike conservatives that love to let liberals talk, (because they eventually make fools of themselves), liberals cannot tolerate any other viewpoint.

Spoken like the latest definition of Republican. Have you noticed the ever widening gap between the word "Republican" and any reasonable thought or action?

Agreed... not the Taliban... but tactics that aren't exactly something to be proud of.

If you call liberals fascists and stifle talk then you become them, conservatives letting liberals talk has not been the rule on these boards any liberal point other then conservative talking point on these boards are met with negative remarks, you said it what a liberal says "you say" they eventually make fools of themselves. Conservatives it could be said can not tolerate any other view point. Go ahead reply and make my point.

Please switch channels

Not only no but no way !

Not really. The more drone missiles deployed, the fewer Taliban commander career opportunities.

I say, if the Taliban want to pursue their career opportunities, we should help them achieve their end goal; i.e., if they want to go to their heaven, we should help them.

If you really think socialized medicine is a good thing, move to Venezuela for a few years and then come back and give us a report on your experience.

Now for Afghanistan; total victory is not possible the best we can hope for is stability. Then we can hope that more Afghans go to school to learn academics and not hate. Is it going to happen? Gut feeling says no, unless some other Muslim state steps up and says enough is enough. They need to move past this hate cycle.

Funny, Saddam Hussein did the same thing to his people in Iraq. And Bush was an a$$hole, for going over to Iraq to fight? I know, I know, everybody will cry, but he said it was about WMDs blah blah blah. Well Obammy is having a war, and you all ok it by saying, but look at the atrocities the Taliban is using on its people. Kind of a hypocritical way of thinking, now isn't it? Bush was stupid for lying about why we went there, but the horrors the Taliban are using, were also done in Iraq, so get off the soapbox, and start crying to high heaven over Obammies little war too! Or shut up about bush, and rah rah rah for this war as well.War is BS, it is a way of making money for those in control, it isn't about freedom anymore, that's just a cover for the truth.

"21stCenturyPatriot

Why are we here in Afghanistan? Simple.

We were attacked on 9/11/2001 by a terrorist organization that had essentially taken over that count...."

You're correct Patriot. What Americans wanted was swift and unmerciful repayment on any one and anything who had something to do with that sneak attck.

What Americans got was a war hemmed in by presidential control and leftist sympathies. Not for our people but for the murderers.

Just sayin'

jabbatheelf when the afghan soviet war ended the Democrat controlled senate and congress refused to spend money to rebuild 1989 the schools and infrastructure of Afghanistan so who really to blame for the Taliban..... we had are chance and the Libs blew it once again...

YES! damn you .... damn you to HELL!!! War mongering slime!!! "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war! " er a sorry i got a little carried away.

David.... lol. Best post this AM.

Warmongering is starting a war. The U.S. will see itself out of this fight at some point, which may be under a GOP administration to see to a pullout. But I think that the Americans are going to make a stand here, until #s 1 and 2, at the least are blown up. America can not save face if they are still alive in any suit for peace.

Who agrees with my post?

Nice post! Too bad it's all horsesh*t !

Hey Genious, are you telling me we didn't kill one single al-qaida member in Iraq? And Yes, GWB went to Afghanistan first to avenge 911 so that blows you're theory out of the water. Why don't you try reading history instead of making it up as you go along.

Dan Slaby -- Dan, glad to see you are standing up as a proud supporter of war. Tell us how fervently you supported the war under Bush or are you a hypocrite?

Al Quaida in Afghanistan did not kill 3000 Americans, those guys went down with the plane. If you weren't so uneducated you could find Iraq on a map and immediately see it's strategic importance. Terrorists are all over the world, including Iraq, so why not fight them there?

Still, it's Obumma's war now and since he's using mostly predators, expect a lot of innocent civilians to die. The blood's on his hands now, as wells as the poor fools who voted him in.

Hey, where did Slabby go? Confused with facts again?

War with a purpose and focus and strategy and global support and with the people in mind is NOT a GW war. To have a GW war you need to strike the wrong country, or lose focus if you stumble into the right one, have the wrong strategy or none at all, make your VP and his friends rich, get absolutely no global support, and f@#$ the people, including your own. Now THAT'S a GW war we can (and did) get behind!

There is zero blood on the hands of Americans that voted for Obama. He inherited the mess and he has to deal with it. Blaming Americans that voted for Obama is sick!

Read #5.3.

Obama has the blood of millions of unemployed Americans on his head. While he bails out big business .Remember this all started with Clinton..Liberals love to pass the blame..

Let me be the first. Impeach Obama!!!

before its to late

What has a liberal ever done for this country except cry and have their hand out to beg from real Americans

You absolutely do not know what is going on, or you are a supporter of the PDDDP, that's the Palin Dumb Down Distortionists Party.

There is zero blood on the hands of Americans that voted for Obama. He inherited the mess and he has to deal with it. Blaming Americans that voted for Obama is sick!

Sick is it? Well, let's be thoroughly disgusting: I blame you, because instead of protesting against this war, you are defending it through your defense of Obama. Considering Democrats possess a strong tendency to be statists, I'm compelled to ask you: Do you have your brown shirt and jack boots yet?

YOU GO DAN!!!

twocspirt2 -- Interesting to see you already predict Obama will not win the war. FDR or Truman he is not, I agree.

GEEZ are you kidding thats your best shot! Oh man... just go to bed try again in the morning. OOOOOh fox news and rush they just get my panties in such a bunch ooooh

Speaking of news channels anyone know which is the most watched?

Fox News Channel has been rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers.^[2]

Rush well lets see how many listeners WOW! 14.75 million listeners. imagine that! hmmmm

If that isn't a fascist statement I don't know what is. In order for liberals to keep their strangle hold on the country, they must silence all opposition, just like Hitler did.

Funny story about Fox vs. MSNBC.

Comcast pulled MSNBC off my cable lineup in Memphis.

I can't even GET it anymore.

Don't MISS it, can't stand all the slobbering they do ANYWAY. Just thought it would have been the other way around with all the liberals in power.

But many seem to think Comcast just did that so we would UPGRADE from basic to digital HDTV. Boy are THEY wrong in MY house.

There it is again that fascist word, you have to know many Americans think of Bush Chaney in the same light as well as many around the world.

twocspirt2, you shouldn't give them fodder to use in their posts.

Besides, we all know that Rush and FOXnews are not like the Taliban in any way. The Taliban don't respect women while the Republicans... well they... never mind. The Taliban spend their time duisrupting organized group discussions with bombs and fighting while the Republicans... well they... never mind. The Taliban strike hard then retreat back to their caves while the Republicans... well they... never mind.

Wait.... For the most part, Republicans don't have beards! See! The "Republibans" are NOTHING like the "Talicans".

This isn't about Bush Jr., Obama, Fox or Rush. This is now about the U.S. saving face.

Read #5.3.

LMark - by "disrupting meetings" I suppose you are referring to the town hall stuff. Problem with that "thought" is that no one has to pay me or organize me to be pissed off about the health care issue. Your ACORN literally has it written in their rule books to use tactics such as those.

We are honestly pissed off at the stupidity of the "plan" and the fact that WE have to support YOU once again.

And the Republicans are the ones defending YOU from outside forces while YOUR glorious leader wants to make all the illegals permanently legal - including his "family".

You just want to live under OUR protection at OUR expense and then whine for more.

Sorry, don't get the women part of the equation - unless you are referring to abotion rights. And although I AGREE with free choice - consider the fact that 1/2 the babies aborted by YOU are female...

If the POTUS is smart, It makes for a smart Country.

The "Far-Right are so "Vain", they thought my voice [Could "Tingle" them like their babe "Sarah]", Gage me with a spoon will ya. Let me kiss you on your nose "righties", where your "sight" ends. Geezzzzzzz.

This POTUS will end these war's, not under surrender, but for sanity's sake. America is more important to this Administration, than those that wear a "Pink tu-tu" in their closet, listening to Rush Limbaugh and learning to be the next "Fox".

As you say but i do not believe Obama said it but you did write it and it may be a topic for discussion.

Clown was in your opinion the last president a clown too?

Several of the last presidents(including this one) are clowns, get over it! I still cannot fathom why anyone would back the Dip$hitocrats, or the Restupidcans. Both parties have monopolized D.C., and are not willing to give the American people real CHANGE, only broken promises, deception, greed, and corruption beyond repair. Yet, people find it necessary to defend either party? It goes to show, not many of you have a brain to really think for yourself. Who is really to blame for our countries condition? The American people, that's who, we cry about the repubs, and vote them out, then we vote in the dems, and they cant do the job either, so, what do we do? That's right, we vote back the repubs, and cry about the dems. Why not remove both parties, perhaps, put several parties in office, why not try and make the playing field a little more level? So, it is our faults, by our laziness, and inability to educate ourselves on who is running for our offices, and not the White House only, I'm talking about the Senate, Congress, State, and Local governments. Look around there are many choices, try something new, not your standardized 2 party crap! Or, stop complaining, it is your fault. No more excuse's.

Current major parties

• Democratic Party (1828 modern, 1792 historic) USELESS, DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM
• Republican Party (1854) SEE ABOVE COMMENTS ^^^^^

[edit] Other parties in contention for presidential electoral college majority

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

In order for a party's nominee to have the possibility of becoming president by majority vote of the electoral college (as opposed to by decision of the United States House of Representatives after an electoral majority has failed to be reached), they must be on the ballot in states whose collective electoral vote total is at least half of the Electoral-College votes. In addition to the two main parties listed above, three additional parties met this criterion in the 2008 Presidential Election.

• Libertarian Party (1971)
• Constitution Party (1992)
• Green Party (1996)

[edit] Other parties that have nominated candidates in recent elections

These parties have offered candidates in recent elections, but did not in 2004, and they did not have ballot status in enough states in 2008 to win the presidency by majority of the electoral college. Some do not have presidential candidates, and only field candidates for Congressional and/or state-level offices.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

• American Party (1969)
• America First Party (2002)
• America's Independent Party (2008)
• Boston Tea Party (2006)
• Independence Party of America (2007)
• Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
• Moderate Party (2006)
• Marijuana Party (2002)
• Objectivist Party (2008)
• Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
• Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
• Prohibition Party (1867)
• Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
• Socialist Equality Party (2008)
• Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
• Socialist Workers Party (1938)
• Unity Party of America (2004)
• Workers World Party (1959)
• Working Families Party (1998)

[edit] Other parties that have not nominated candidates in recent elections

Some of these parties have nominated candidates in the past, but have not done so recently for various reasons. Others have not yet nominated any candidates.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

• American 3rd Party (1990's)
• American Heritage Party (2000)
• American Patriot Party (2003)
• American Reform Party (1997)
• Communist Party USA (1919)
• Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1986) (two factions using same name)
• Freedom Socialist Party (1966)
• Independent American Party (1998)
• Labor Party (1995)
• Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)
• Modern Whig Party (2007)
• National Socialist Movement (1974)
• New American Independent Party (2004)
• New Union Party (1974)
• Pirate Party of the United States (2006)
• Populist Party of America (2002)
• Progressive Labor Party (1961)
• Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (1975)
• Socialist Action (1983)
• Socialist Alternative (1986)
• Socialist Labor Party (1876)
• Unity08 (2006)
• Veterans Party (2003)
• Workers Party, USA
• World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)

[edit] Regional parties

Few, if any, of these parties have nominated presidential candidates. The years are when they were founded.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

• Alaskan Independence Party (1984)
• Aloha Aina Party
• American Independent Party (1968) - the California affiliate of the Constitution Party
• Blue Enigma Party (Delaware) (2006)
• Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio (1924)
• Connecticut for Lieberman Party (2006)
• Conservative Party of New York (1962)
• Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
• Independent Citizens Movement (US Virgin Islands)
• Independent Party of Oregon (2007)
• Liberal Party of Minnesota
• Liberal Party of New York (1944)
• Liberty Union Party (Vermont) (1970)
• Marijuana Reform Party (New York) (1997)
• New Jersey Conservative Party (1992)
• New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (1967)
• New York State Right to Life Party (1970)
• Personal Choice Party (Utah) (1997)
• Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico (1938)
• Populist Party of Maryland (Nader 2004 - affiliated, unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
• Progressive DaneDane County, Wisconsin (1992)
• Puerto Rican Independence Party (1946)
• Republican Moderate Party of Alaska (1986)
• Southern Party (1999)
• United Citizens Party (South Carolina) (1969)
• Vermont Progressive Party (1999)

[edit] Historical political parties

The following parties are no longer functioning. Some of them had considerable influence. Listed in order of founding.

• Federalist Party (c.1789–c.1820)
• Democratic-Republican Party (1792–c.1824)
• Toleration Party (1816-c.1827)
• Anti-Masonic Party (1826–1838)
• National Republican Party (1829–1833)
• Nullifier Party (1830–1839)
• Whig Party (1833–1856)
• Liberty Party (1840–1848)
• Law and Order Party of Rhode Island (1840s)
• Free Soil Party (1848–1855)
• Anti-Nebraska Party (1854)
• American Republican Party (1843-1854)
• American Party (“Know-Nothings”) (c.1854–1858)
• Opposition Party (1854–1858)
• Constitutional Union Party (1860)
• National Union Party, (1864–1868)
• Readjuster Party (1870-1885)
• Liberal Republican Party (1872)
• Greenback Party (1874–1884)
• Anti-Monopoly Party (1884)
• Populist Party (1892–1908)
• Silver Party (1892-1902)
• National Democratic Party/Gold Democrats (1896–1900)
• Silver Republican Party (1896-1900)
• Social Democratic Party (1898–1901)
• Home Rule Party of Hawaii (created to serve the native Hawaiian agenda in the state legislature and U.S. Congress) (1900–1912)
• Socialist Party of America (1901–1973)
• Independence Party (or "Independence League") (1906-1914)
• Progressive Party 1912 (“Bull Moose Party”) (1912–1914)
• National Woman's Party (1913-1930)
• Non-Partisan League (Not a party in the technical sense) (1915–1956)
• Farmer-Labor Party (1918–1944)
• Progressive Party 1924 (1924)
• Communist League of America (1928–1934)
• American Workers Party (1933–1934)
• Workers Party of the United States (1934–1938)
• Union Party (1936)
• American Labor Party (1936–1956)
• America First Party (1944) (1944–1996)
• States' Rights Democratic Party (“Dixiecrats”) (1948)
• Progressive Party 1948 (1948–1955)
• Vegetarian Party (1948–1964)
• Constitution Party (United States 50s) (1952–1968?)
• American Nazi Party (1959-1967)
• Puerto Rican Socialist Party (1959–1993)
• Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (1964)
• Black Panther Party (1966-1970s)
• Communist Workers Party (1969–1985)
• People's Party (1971–1976)
• U.S. Labor Party (1975–1979)
• Concerned Citizens Party (1975-1992) Become the Connecticut affiliate of the Constitution Party (then known as U.S. Taxpayers Party) with party founding
• Citizens Party (1979–1984)
• New Alliance Party (1979–1992)
• Populist Party of 1980s-1990s (1984–1994)
• Looking Back Party (1984–1996)
• Grassroots Party (1986–2004)
• Independent Party of Utah (1988–1996)
• Greens/Green Party USA (1991–2005)
• New Party (1992 – 1998)
• Natural Law Party (1992–2004)
• Christian Freedom Party (2004)

TIRED!

The only one I see here complaining and saying nothing is you with your non committal other then a two party system malarkey that you spam everywhere with and off topic spew and rantings. If you want to write in Loki since you seem to rub elbows with the Gods on Mt. Olympus then do so, the rest of us live on planet earth and while some independents are doing great in their political lives and I applaud them or any other party that breaks through, realty says a lot of those parties you spam us with do not stand a chance and only take voters away from viable candidates, IE Nader flip flopping between green and other parties. Granted some are not happy with either gop or dem but I am not going to throw my vote away on deputy dog, mickey mouse or pat paulson , or how about paris hilton. I actually do see your point but spamming and berating all you can get a rise from is just plain trolling, you made your point so now move on and try to not trash everyone in 99% of your posts. I love it your an activist for third or more political parties but your a turn off in how your doing it. Your style is cut throat bull in a china shop, living in a glass house throwing stones. I wouldn't vote for anyone or anything you believe in due to for someone that is so engrossed in their cause you eliminate the people you could be allys with in the future. Man I don't even want to know you least of all agree with you and it is your fault in that trash talking is your game and it is so so so lame.

This is called a fiasco,..It was Bush who named El Qaida as the propogaters of 9 11...Just like it was Bush who propogated that Iraq had WMDs. JUst like no WMDs were found in Iraq,..I betcha that El Qaida was not in back of 9 11.

El Qaida? What's that the mexican ragheads?

Tell it like it is dude, tell it like it is! :<)

I can't call you a "dude", because that's a stupid replacement for a persons name. But, I can tell you that your remarks make absolutely no sense or demonstrate any forethought. And, please remember that not everyone on these blogs have drugs on their mind. Have you ever considered why they're referred to as "dope"?

Wow Bob - a little too much time in the "sun" huh? Lighten up man, it's a joke.

See one of the ways intelligent people communicate is to us absurdity to expose the absurd.

And the never ending rants regarding Bush - he was both the dumbest president ever, while also fooling all of Congress to go to war, while waging war for oil, and all those other smart things he was accused of.

Do you see how absurd that all is? He just wasn't that smart, and all the paranoid rantings from the libs for the past 8 years were beyond ridiculous.

You libs did one thing well though, you sure taught the idiots on the right how to rant and rave and misbehave at town hall meetings and on forums.

Silly, we don't destroy oil but do destroy opium. Geeez your talking points even in jest have become irrational.

Silly, we don't destroy oil but do destroy opium.

Really? We destroy opium? Ask the C.I.A. about the opium. While you're at it, ask the C.I.A. about laundering drug money through central banks world-wide. Ask what happened in Mena, Arkansas.

Why?, when it comes to wasting(same as Bush did, only more than bush) OUR money, he has proven himself, to be the man for the job!

Tired, I'm tired, too. I'm beginning to think, to hell with it. We are printing and spending ourselves towards a total collapse of the dollar. The majority of people will eventually realize that, but I fear it will be too late; by some accounts it already is. You're right regarding Obama being the man for the job. If we want to spend money we don't have, and spend BIG, he's the ticket.

Gene-275130

Don't be too quick to jump all over our government and religions. They represent what the majority of Americas want. We've been conditioned to believe that war and killing is the only way to spread democracy.

Insane? Yes! A waste of life? Yes! Protecting our freedoms? Hell NO!

If you start new just who is it that you want in?

Our dear president has no idea what to do with Afghanistan. Just like he has no idea how to own a car company, manage the banking industry, or handle healthcare.

He is an empty shirt / politician, period.

This is a sad state we have gotten ourselves into, and with leadership like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Franks and Biden, God help us all.

The Russians failed, I have to think it is a hard place to be and most likely your right. However remember obama did not start this war, BUSH did.

Wrong, Switching. Al Qaeda did.

Also, switching, as stated earlier, Obammy is the Commander in Chief, he has the ability to pull out troops, he has chosen to escalate this war, making it HIS war, or don't you understand that? So try, and make it all Bush's fault is idiotic.

But Tired, don't you know that Bush is responsible for all that is wrong in the world? He was behind Katrina, 9/11, Pauly Shore's last movie, and I think he invented AIDS too. So I guess he started this war against that peace-loving tribe, Al Qaeda as well. Darn that Bush.

LOL^^^^ Good one Dave, good one!

Jack flash......

I agree with you, but if we don't vote for the Dem's then what choose do we have? Do you ever feel like you're between a rock and a hard place?

Why not remove both parties? They are equally worthless, and there are many choices. Enough with the lessor of 2 evils, there are a lot more choices than 2 parties. Get educated, as I said above we are at fault, we keep these 2 greed ridden parties in power.

Current major parties

• Democratic Party (1828 modern, 1792 historic) USELESS USELESS USELESS !!!
• Republican Party (1854)SEE ABOVE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
• Time for a real change, ignore the current major parties, as they have proven that they cannot do the job!

[edit] Other parties in contention for presidential electoral college majority

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

In order for a party's nominee to have the possibility of becoming president by majority vote of the electoral college (as opposed to by decision of the United States House of Representatives after an electoral majority has failed to be reached), they must be on the ballot in states whose collective electoral vote total is at least half of the Electoral-College votes. In addition to the two main parties listed above, three additional parties met this criterion in the 2008 Presidential Election.

• Libertarian Party (1971)
• Constitution Party (1992)
• Green Party (1996)

[edit] Other parties that have nominated candidates in recent elections

These parties have offered candidates in recent elections, but did not in 2004, and they did not have ballot status in enough states in 2008 to win the presidency by majority of the electoral college. Some do not have presidential candidates, and only field candidates for Congressional and/or state-level offices.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

• American Party (1969)
• America First Party (2002)
• America's Independent Party (2008)
• Boston Tea Party (2006)
• Independence Party of America (2007)
• Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
• Moderate Party (2006)
• Marijuana Party (2002)
• Objectivist Party (2008)
• Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
• Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
• Prohibition Party (1867)
• Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
• Socialist Equality Party (2008)
• Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
• Socialist Workers Party (1938)
• Unity Party of America (2004)
• Workers World Party (1959)
• Working Families Party (1998)

[edit] Other parties that have not nominated candidates in recent elections

Some of these parties have nominated candidates in the past, but have not done so recently for various reasons. Others have not yet nominated any candidates.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

• American 3rd Party (1990's)
• American Heritage Party (2000)
• American Patriot Party (2003)
• American Reform Party (1997)
• Communist Party USA (1919)
• Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1986) (two factions using same name)
• Freedom Socialist Party (1966)
• Independent American Party (1998)
• Labor Party (1995)
• Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)
• Modern Whig Party (2007)
• National Socialist Movement (1974)
• New American Independent Party (2004)
• New Union Party (1974)
• Pirate Party of the United States (2006)
• Populist Party of America (2002)
• Progressive Labor Party (1961)
• Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (1975)
• Socialist Action (1983)
• Socialist Alternative (1986)
• Socialist Labor Party (1876)
• Unity08 (2006)
• Veterans Party (2003)
• Workers Party, USA
• World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)

[edit] Regional parties

Few, if any, of these parties have nominated presidential candidates. The years are when they were founded.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.

• Alaskan Independence Party (1984)
• Aloha Aina Party
• American Independent Party (1968) - the California affiliate of the Constitution Party
• Blue Enigma Party (Delaware) (2006)
• Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio (1924)
• Connecticut for Lieberman Party (2006)
• Conservative Party of New York (1962)
• Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
• Independent Citizens Movement (US Virgin Islands)
• Independent Party of Oregon (2007)
• Liberal Party of Minnesota
• Liberal Party of New York (1944)
• Liberty Union Party (Vermont) (1970)
• Marijuana Reform Party (New York) (1997)
• New Jersey Conservative Party (1992)
• New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (1967)
• New York State Right to Life Party (1970)
• Personal Choice Party (Utah) (1997)
• Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico (1938)
• Populist Party of Maryland (Nader 2004 - affiliated, unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
• Progressive DaneDane County, Wisconsin (1992)
• Puerto Rican Independence Party (1946)
• Republican Moderate Party of Alaska (1986)
• Southern Party (1999)
• United Citizens Party (South Carolina) (1969)
• Vermont Progressive Party (1999)

[edit] Historical political parties

The following parties are no longer functioning. Some of them had considerable influence. Listed in order of founding.

• Federalist Party (c.1789–c.1820)
• Democratic-Republican Party (1792–c.1824)
• Toleration Party (1816-c.1827)
• Anti-Masonic Party (1826–1838)
• National Republican Party (1829–1833)
• Nullifier Party (1830–1839)
• Whig Party (1833–1856)
• Liberty Party (1840–1848)
• Law and Order Party of Rhode Island (1840s)
• Free Soil Party (1848–1855)
• Anti-Nebraska Party (1854)
• American Republican Party (1843-1854)
• American Party (“Know-Nothings”) (c.1854–1858)
• Opposition Party (1854–1858)
• Constitutional Union Party (1860)
• National Union Party, (1864–1868)
• Readjuster Party (1870-1885)
• Liberal Republican Party (1872)
• Greenback Party (1874–1884)
• Anti-Monopoly Party (1884)
• Populist Party (1892–1908)
• Silver Party (1892-1902)
• National Democratic Party/Gold Democrats (1896–1900)
• Silver Republican Party (1896-1900)
• Social Democratic Party (1898–1901)
• Home Rule Party of Hawaii (created to serve the native Hawaiian agenda in the state legislature and U.S. Congress) (1900–1912)
• Socialist Party of America (1901–1973)
• Independence Party (or "Independence League") (1906-1914)
• Progressive Party 1912 (“Bull Moose Party”) (1912–1914)
• National Woman's Party (1913-1930)
• Non-Partisan League (Not a party in the technical sense) (1915–1956)
• Farmer-Labor Party (1918–1944)
• Progressive Party 1924 (1924)
• Communist League of America (1928–1934)
• American Workers Party (1933–1934)
• Workers Party of the United States (1934–1938)
• Union Party (1936)
• American Labor Party (1936–1956)
• America First Party (1944) (1944–1996)
• States' Rights Democratic Party (“Dixiecrats”) (1948)
• Progressive Party 1948 (1948–1955)
• Vegetarian Party (1948–1964)
• Constitution Party (United States 50s) (1952–1968?)
• American Nazi Party (1959-1967)
• Puerto Rican Socialist Party (1959–1993)
• Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (1964)
• Black Panther Party (1966-1970s)
• Communist Workers Party (1969–1985)
• People's Party (1971–1976)
• U.S. Labor Party (1975–1979)
• Concerned Citizens Party (1975-1992) Become the Connecticut affiliate of the Constitution Party (then known as U.S. Taxpayers Party) with party founding
• Citizens Party (1979–1984)
• New Alliance Party (1979–1992)
• Populist Party of 1980s-1990s (1984–1994)
• Looking Back Party (1984–1996)
• Grassroots Party (1986–2004)
• Independent Party of Utah (1988–1996)
• Greens/Green Party USA (1991–2005)
• New Party (1992 – 1998)
• Natural Law Party (1992–2004)
• Christian Freedom Party (2004)

Bingo^^^^

No Obama and Pelosi,Dobbs,Kennedy,Frank,Reid shall supercede anything as you say little George has done. At least Bush loved his country. And was a puppet president.

Um, "Wonder Boy" has dumped a lot of money into Afghanistan in his 8 months in office, its not all Bush, get over it. BTW, in case you missed it, Obammy is further escalating the so called war, now that makes it HIS war, get off you soapbox. Also, to the nimrods that point fingers all the time, both parties hold the blame, get an education.

Unless one is involved in government, and privey to what goes on, it is really kind of hard if not imposible to second quess the ones that are there, and why things happen as they do, the way the country is set up is complicated, and sometimes it seams to grind to a halt, but we do know that freedom has a price! and if we want our children to have freedom we have to pay the price, and sometimes all we can do is pray for them that are making the decissions that effect our freedom, and work together , not allways against the government of our country, and it is very important to give them the time they need to get things done that we do not allways understand, if we try to hard to run the government from the sidelines then sometimes we become part of the problem, we need to trust the system that we have set up, and give it time to work or fail.

A lot of these people that take sideline, positions go to far, at some point they need to step into the shoes of our leaders or simply shut up, and let them do their job.

Stop smoking the bong and get back in the rubber room

Carrot and the stick, might be better to lead a willing horse then an abused one, cooperation and communication is a two way street, if you beat someone into submission they will come back and bite you in the south forty and you will pay for all your generations and their generations lives.

switching channels : Are you a Republican or Demacrat? are you for the health care bill or against?

Actually, I don't remember Afganistan ot Iraq doing anything to us at all.

I do respect out service personnel. I have absolute loathing contempt for the filthy, self-serving politicians who are responsible for sending them to these countries. Hope that puts an end to your silly, pointless and misleading ranting.

I'm guessing you must be somewhere in the deep south. If not, then maybe you might think about moving there.

Here we go again ...you must be from the deep south what in the world does that have to do with anything...Im a New Yorker born there I left thank you...If you had any sense whatsoever you would understand that is where these idols of mecca hang out who not only want to take out our troops but if they can get your hands your sorry ass they would... I dont believe wipe out those who want this jihad gone..but they will toy and toy until theres only one solution you or them either get that idea in your head or stay out of the water for the sharks are comming!!!!!

Dale, I am a democrat and I have not read or been keeping up with the health care plan but I figure it scares the h e double tooth picks out of the republicans and always has. If it helps Americans I am for it. However I liked the clunkers program too and as you see the same detractors have their problems with that so i don't expect them to like any new programs put out by the current administration.

Switching channels, you really ought to read the health care plan if you're going to be for it. And give it a good, close read with the koolaid well out of reach. It will scare the bejeezis out of you. If you read it and still support it, then God help you, because the government won't - especially after you retire or turn 65.

You can download your own copy of the bill - HR 3200 - at this GOVERNMENT webiste, among others: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=BILLS-111hr3200IH

Yet, after so many liberals in here proclaim to have read this bill, are still for it. That tells me they did not read any of it, well maybe the cover.I have read it, and I will say, it sickens me how these idiots continue to try and say its good for the country, its good for the people, we need it(the sky is falling the sky is falling). The legislators that formed this bill, left it wide open, in other words to change it at will. If, your that stupid to trust this Government with your very life, man you need serious mental help. Nothing is done in D.C., unless it benefits the RICH, and the Politicians, now call me a liar on that one, and shame the Devil!

^ Still waiting!!!

Thank you SCSlim for the link, got it saved bookmarked, it is a mouthful to digest, I will be studying on it.

Tired of the BS: any bill can and does get changed or amended by congress and comes out monthly in the Federal Register if there are any changes made, if this health bill does pass, yes expect changes it is very normal to do that. Remember I never said I read it but if it does help Americans I would be for it, do not assume anything as you I am sure have heard what to assume does.

oops made a mistake, just looked up federal register on the Internet (google), not published monthly but.......daily!

Winning? There is no such thing as winning a war, with a people you cannot conquer, don't buy that? All I will say is Viet Nam.