The random political thoughts thread
 

I often have brief political thoughts that I don't figure are worthy of a whole thread, so I figured I'd start a place to post such things.

Did Ted Kennedy skip the State of the Union address? I can't seem to find confirmation that he was there, and apparently he was not seen in one TV shot.

John Kerry said on the Today show that 53% of American children don't graduate highschool. What a moron. The actual number is about 13%. He's off by a factor a 4. What possible purpose could he have had to say something so outlandish and easily refutable?

Julian Bond as the leader of NAACP is a joke. "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he said. He also said Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are/were "tokens."

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) sent Bush a letter prior to the SOTU advising him it would not be good to use such terms as "Islamofacists" or "Radical Islamic fundamentalism" or anything that would link Islam to terrorism. Now why would anyone think terrorism is related to radical islamic fundamentalists?:rolleyes:

On a related note, those peace loving fundamentalists are threatneing violence because European papers dared to print a satirical picture of Muhammed with a bomb as a headdress. Apparently printing images of Muhammed is taboo and not supposed to be done. I'm waiting for the National Endowment for the Arts to fund someone a la Maplethorpe who submerges a statue of Muhammed in a jar of urine. I would guess that would make them mad. (A French newspaper editor has been fired for daring to print the picture, by the way.)

Just commenting on your final paragraphs:

Isn't it interesting that the IRA has never been termed "Cathlofacists" or "Radical Catholic fundamentalists"? And what is Timothy McVeigh, exactly? Terrorists are terrorists, and while their religious and political affiliations are certainly pertinent to the details of how one approaches the effort to curb them, focusing on their religious affiliation is dangerous and encourages the growth of racism.

As for the depiction of Muhammed...in Islam, the depiction in art of ANY human form is forbidden (God created man in his image, therefore any depiction of man is a depiction of God, therefore any depiction of man for art's sake is akin to idolitry). So depicting their most important prophit is particularly insulting. Threatening violence is obviously ridiculous. But I am not in the least surprised by the outrage.

Terrorists are certainly terrorists. However, I would suggest that the current terrorist climate is most certainly fueled by radical Islamists. This is the current reality.

I can understand the insult that they are feeling. I doubt, though, that a French editor would be fired for printing a photo of Maplethorpes crucifix in urine "art".

I wonder why the warrantless wiretapping program is classified. What difference does it make to the evildoers whether you do or do not have a warrant to listen in on their conversations?

I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not a distinguishing feature that particularly matters. Islam no more caused Al Quaida than Catholocism caused the IRA. So why make that a point of focus when all it does is add fuel to the reactionary idiots who can't make the distinction between the vast majority of Muslims and the radical minority.

No, but an Italian one might.

More thoughts...

I think all congressmen should be able to pass a written test on all legislation before them. We could call it "No Congressman Left Behind".

It's a shame Shaddeg didn't get majority leader. He's less beholden to K street.

The recent Fitzgerald letter has me wondering about that 12 hour gap.

The name of the strip escapes me (it was printed in the OCWeekly) so I can't link to it, but there was a strip with a little back and forth between two people. The last line was, "Whoever leaked this has completely undermined our effort to protect the country, letting our enemy know our tactics." To which the resopnse was, "Umm, don't you think Al Quaida kinda figured their conversations stood the chance of being tapped, leak or no leak?"

John Stewart last night said that Hillary gave Bush a look so mean during his State of the Union speech that he called it the 'where boners go to die' look.
:D

Love it.

Was going to give you Shadegg mojo, but i recently gave you mojo. I know that typically people like their own representative, but I have found him to be a genuinely good guy.

More mojo worthy comments from Scrooge.

I have read some stuff about htat....what I find intriguing is how Fitzgerald won't turn over any evidence to the defense team. Isn't that required? So either he doesn't have any or he is simply handing the defense a mistrial. Am I missing something? (certainly possible)

So, how I'm feeling right now... is that how you feel when people say "I almost never agree with scaeagles but..."? LOL

:goes for a tissue:

Anyway, the 'taint thing gave him trouble and that was sad. It was one of those "oh no he didn't just say that, did he?" moments.

I'm unclear on that as well. Much more reading to do.

That's her standard look.

Agreed. I've never actually seen her look any differnt.

I think we should answer terrorist threats with threats to publish pictures of Mohammed

Isn't it kinda funny that in light of the wire tapping scandal that there's a movie coming out about a monkey named Curious George?
:D

Bi-curious George?

Oh, please no!
:D

That answers my question. You're doing a heck of a job, Gonzy.

Bush's Budget for 2007
 

So Republicans seem to be about not taxing people but wringing the money out of necessary programs like education until people get fed up with that and vote them out. And Democrats seem to be all about taxing the sh!t out of people until people get sick of that and they get voted out. I'm getting the hang of this.
:D

An astute observation, GC.

I'd be all for libertarians if they could ever find a candidate who wasn't a whacko.

Why is global warming such a political issue? The earth has warmed and cooled before without any even supposed human cause. The sun has cycles of increased and decreased energy output.

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?St...7-041447-2345r

Likewise, the "ozone hole" wasn't dicovered until 1985. Who is to say, then, that it wasn't always there? Since it's largest recorded size in Sept 2000, it has been gradually shrinking. In 2004, it was about 25% smaller than in 2003. This also cycles.

I get sick of panic over things we have no control over.

Things like terrorism? ;)

Or gay men.:p

Why does the administration think crying "It's a tool against terrorism" is enough to justify the wiretapping? By that logic, we should be breaking in on drug dealers and shooting them without a warrant...'cause it stops drug dealing.

There may or may not be legal justification for this, but "the ends justify the means" is NOT it. And the constant refrain we've been hearing makes me believe that's all they got, and I'm not buying.

You have a pre 9/11 mindset, GD.

I remember our 9/10/2001 country...

The thing about Karl Rove's pre 9/11 mindset crap that bugs me is who in America, besides Condi "historical memo" Rice and George "we are no longer protected by oceans" Bush, didn't know about terrorism before Sep 11, 2001?

One of the Senators yesterday, I can't recall which one, mentioned that this administration has a pre-1776 mindset. :)

Lol!!!!

While I find it amusing that so many Repubs are now jumping on the illegal wiretapping bandwagon, the cynical part of me knows that it is only because they are looking at the post-Bush political landscape and jockeying for position. Bunch of weasels, all of them. (Dems included).

Gonzales mentioned yesterday (with a straight face, mind you) that other presidents had authorized electronic surveillance including Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.

Can I really trust the intellect of an attorney general who thinks that Washington and Lincoln authorized electronic surveillance.

invest in a nice whip and leather chaps, Leo and you'll do fine. MBC is fairly obediant.

Lol!!!!!!!
:D

Nonesense, I'm sure the langauge included phrases like "by any means necessary" - just becasue the yet invented media wasn't spelled out in name - I'm sure the intent would have included such technologies.

Afterall, isn't this how the current President is justifying his actions?

Keep giving away my secrets and I will have to tell Sac about the bedwetting.

Well, after doing some checking, apparently the quote was not entirely accurate. What Gonzalez actually said was that "President Bush was following in the tradition of such other wartime presidents as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt when he ordered warrantless domestic wiretaps."

He then went on to explain that Lincoln had authorized telegraph wiretaps. I wasn't aware that such a thing existed but it still is a bit different from the original post I made. That's what I get for not checking the facts first.

My apologies.

I spoke too soon in that last post. The Colbert Report played the clip tonight and Gonzalez did in fact say specifically that Washington and Lincoln authorized electronic surveillance.

Luckily, the republicans refused to put him under oath so lying is A-ok. :)

Didn't they do the same for big oil execs recently? They lied, too.
;)

Lying is okay in a free-marketplace, GC. Especially when you are friends with the President.

Lincoln abused civil liberties to a much greater extent than anything we're yet aware of from the president.

Not that this makes current behaviors ok, but so far what Bush has done is child's play compared to Lincoln.

I've posted the some of the extent of what Lincoln did in other threads. It included suspension of habeas corpus, imprisonment of journalists who supported secession of union states, imprisonment of political opponents, government seizure of newspapers......yet he is considered to be one of the greatest Presidents of all time.

Did Lincoln get a lot of votes from women and blacks?

Um, remind me again when Lincoln was president? For that matter, why don't you all remind me when Teddy Roosevelt was president? I believe he was the most recent of Gonzales's examples of wartime powermonger presidents.


And my point is not simply that we shouldn't repeat ancient history ... Someone remind me when Nixon was president! It was during my freaking lifetime, so does that mean it's ok for modern presidents to model their power-usurpation tactics after Nixon?



(There's little I loathe more than the lamest of excuses, 'That's the way it's always been done.')

And something i loathe as lame is the belief that "history begins with me". We can talk about very recent history, being the prior administration, but I get in trouble for that.

Sure - change what's being done now if that suits you (or whomever). Shout from the rooftops about the invasion of privacy and the vulnerability of our civil rights. Honestly, more power to you.

My biggest laugh from all of this is the supposed shock amongst the media and pundits that this is something new.

I doesn't have to me new to be shocking.

I remember there being a big wake-up call in this country after Watergate that finally got the message to everyone that politics were corrupt at the highest levels. It was (and remains) a watershed ... which is why - to this day - every single scandal is named "something-gate."

The shock and outrage about political corruption is not about it being new, but about it daring to continue once having been exposed. There's been a much more commonly American demand that corrupt shenanigans STOP, and far more outrage when it's shown they they have not.

It's far more amusing to me how easily people believe what they want to believe-even if the truth is something far different.

Random political thought-to hell with comparing this to past administrations (ahem- echelon ahem)- what I am looking forward to is the result of the hearings......

My random (yet constant) political thought:

I'm not shocked by wiretaps, or lobbying, or corruption, or the abuse of power, or warmongering, or greed, or anything else. I'm not shocked, I'm just saddened. It reminds me that we are not evolving, we are not growing, we are not fixing anything. We're riding the pendulum of human stupidity. I'm willing to bet that the worldwide percentage of those that are truly honest/kind/happy is the same as it ever was. Ever, in the history of humankind.

Maybe it's not a political thought after all

140 years ago isn't ancient history. That said, what Lincoln or Washington or Jefferson did does not necessarily make what Bush does right or wrong.

It does, however, show that history tends to forgive them if the people believe them to have acted in the greater good.

The only reason I said what I did was the mocking of the idea that these earlier presidents at least provide precedent (if not necessarily justification) for what it appears Bush is doing.

I've not seen much demand that corrupt politics stop. Mostly just that corrupt politics by the other side stop. When the Democrats next hold most of the major offices then 99% of the people will immediately switch sides on just about evrey issue.

"The city of Washington was built on a stagnant swamp some 200 years ago,
and very little has changed. It stank then, and it stinks now." ~ Lisa Simpson
:D

"It's a purely Republican scandal!" shouted the minority leader Harry Reid.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLPHO80.html

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients."

Bwhahahaha!

One thing that I find amusing in all of this is that in the supposed "campaign finance reform", Indian tribes were exempted! McCain gets tons of money from Indian tribes. Abramoff used indian tribes (mostly) to funnel money to candidates.

Good thing campaign finance reform cleaned up politics.

Not much of a hearing when they refuse to swear in the person testifying.

Or to refuse to do on the basis of him being so honest when part of the proceedings was to call him a liar.

Considering the type of people attracted to politics, is it any wonder that we should find our politicians doing things for their own personal political advantage?

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies." ~ Groucho Marx

It's not really as funny when you read the actual facts, a few of which that the liberal media failed to report in their story.

I have absolutely no doubt that every politician involved will have the ability to justify - whether valid or invalid - any involvement with Abramoff or groups with which he was involved.

I would not dare to presume that Reid is dirty. I know nothing of him. However, he has been shouting quite loudly about any Republican that had any contact with Abramoff or any groups with which he had ties.

That's the funny part. HIS dealings were all legit. Anyone ELSE - obviously dirty. Some will turn out to be dirty. Some will not. It isn't a partisan scandal unless you believe that any dem that had contact or contribution is driven by pure motives, and any republican is simply a money grubbing policy whore.

Here's how our press works:

:D

I think they did this with Reid. They excluded something very important to paint a specific portrait of him.
;)

Source

No post-SOTU bounce for Curious George.
:D

There’s a starman waiting in the sky
He’s told us not to blow it
Cause he knows it’s all worthwhile...........................

Look out your window I can see his light
If we can sparkle he may land tonight
Don’t tell your poppa or he’ll get us locked up in fright

I know he didn't pen that strip, but thanks for posting it.


I'm not sure why I seem to want to give mojo to Ghoulish Delight all the time, but really ... it's not (just) because he's a good kisser. :iSm:

How many of these guys have to say the same thing before people realized that they were mislead by this administration.

I assume that it is only a matter of hours before we are informed by the administration how awful and untrustworthy a person he is.

And don't forget that he's endangering the security of our nation by revealing this.

I love you guys.

*where's the pink love hearts emoticon, dammit*

Win Win for Iran and Bushwacked for the US...
 

It looks like good-ol boy Mr. Bush has once again lead us into a no-win situation in the Mideast, this time it's Iran and nuclear weapons.

I think the president of Iraq goes to bed a night praying to Alla that the US or Israel bombs Iran. What better way to garner world wide support than to have the US start a war of aggression against a peaceful muslim country that's just trying to give it's citizens the same lifestyle that the west has enjoyed for so long? (You know that's how the world press will spin this)

On the other hand if we don't attack, they get the bomb. Oh boy.


Yea Bush.

I'm wondering why it took over 24 hours for us to find out about Dick "Bang Bang" Cheney's hunting accident.

Hummm...
 

Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told a grand jury he was "authorized by his superiors" to disclose classified information.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that an executive order gives him the authority to declassify secret documents

Hummm, it certainly looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, I wonder...

And Cheney's idea of 'declassify' is to secretly authorize double-secret leaks to the media. Riiiiiiight.

....How long before Cheney shoots it in the face?

:D

I bet Scalia is wiping his forehead right about now. *whew* 'That coulda been me.'
:D

Crap, how did I miss this one. A month ago, the DoJ released its justification for sidestepping FISA. Page one states, among other things that the PotUS has "inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs."

Okay, pulling out the ol' Constitution to confirm this obviously accurate statement ('cause why would they, in the same sentence, mention the very document that proves them wrong").

Let's see, doing a search for mentions of the word "foreign". Alright, there's a reference in Article I, powers of Congress. Another for Congress. Surely the next mention...oh my, no mention of the President's sole powers in foreign affairs. As a matter of fact, any of the Presdient's powers that seem to have anything to do wtih foreign affairs must first go through Congress. Congress must decalre war before he may chiefly commander the troops. He must receive the "advice and concent" of the
senate to make treaties, and only after 2/3 of the Senate concurs. It's the senate that my make rules regarding "capture on land and water".

So what exactly did the DoJ mean by "sole organ"?

And further more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11393473/

If FISA is going to be modified to "accommodate the NSA program", would that not imply that it does not currently "accommodate" it and that therefore the President was violating said law? I mean, do they think that this some sort of inverse "Ex Post Facto" thing where if they vote to change the law after they break it, then they retroactively are innocent?

Not necessarily. Just because a law makes something explicitly legal does not necessarily mean it was illegal before.

If a grey area in the law means you feel you can ride your bike in the street and then the city council passes a law saying explicitly that you can ride your bike in the street, does this mean you were breaking the law before?

Now, I don't agree that this is analogous to what has happened but I believe that the president and his people would claim it is.

I love morons like Alec Baldwin.

A quote from the last day or two:

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately."

Whether you agree or disagree with him is not the point. The point is that I guess it is OK if you terrorize in a non-indiscriminate fashion. Like beating your wife, as Baldwin did repeatedly to Kim Bassinger. That's OK, I guess.

I hate it when actors dabble in politics.;)


(If it helps, I think he's a creep as well).

Can you believe that Cheney's shooting victim actually apologised for causing such a fuss for poor Dick? It must be some Texas version of the Helsinki Syndrome, or a whole lotta payola crossing palms.

(Of course, he could just be afraid that Cheney will try and finish the job....)

"I'm sorry you shot me in the face"

yes, there is something wrong with that statement.

Good Lord.

Everyone here knows I pretty much support President Bush. One of my major criticisms is his hanlding of the border. It was, until today, my major criticism.

I have never seen anything so boneheaded in my life.

The US is going to turn control of 5 major US seaports to a company owned and operated out of United Arab Emirates.

WHAT?!?!

I'm sorry if this is politcially incorrect. I will certainly agree that the UAE has been an ally as of late. But the is now flippin' way we should allow an Arab owned company to operate and manage any portion of out seaports.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1022-8852r.htm

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your life.

Can I send you some fliers on democratic fundraisers in your area?

I completely agree, and you can put that in your sig line....within the proper context, of course.;)

Nothing they do suprises me anymore. Nothing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though. Years ago, when I was in college, there was a guy from the UAE who wanted me to go out with him. I wasn't interested, but he spent a bit of time trying to convince me- flaunted the fact that his family was wealthy, his uncle was the president, etc, but I refused, finally telling him that I had a real problem with the repressive nature of the patriarchal Arab society and their anti-semitism. He told me his mother very much enjoyed her separate household and having her every whim catered to, and showed me a picture in a UAE newspaper that had his uncle shaking hands with the Israeli prime minister. He finally left me alone after I started dating someone else.:rolleyes:

I'm fine with it.

It's not like the company is going to be importing the port employees from Afghanistan "camps of leisure" to work there. They'll still be Americans. And there is nothing preventing al Qaeda from infiltrating the employment of ports run by American companies (or run by the foreign company that was previously running it).

As the article states, the company isn't reponsible for port security anyway. They're responsible for lining the boats up and getting the stuff on to and off of the ships as promplty as possible.

Besides, the motivations for a UAE company to avoid terrorist attach in one of their ports is much stronger than it is for the company who runs the Port of Oakland (if they're American, I have on idea). If the Port of Oakland has a terrorist attack the managers will just say "hey, blame the president and we need $6 billion to prevent us from going bankrupt." The UAE company will face invasion and an assumption that they personally oversaw the plan for the terrorist attack.

UAE, as far as Middle East countries go, is relatively liberal (not that this is particularly relevant).

I have changed my mind. I had missed, in the initial stories, that the UAE company is owned by the UAE government.

While I don't care if foreign private companies operate our ports, I think it is reasonable to be more concerned about foreign national governments doing so.

Even Tom Ridge has concerns, although he thinks that a more thorough explain will show that the Bush admin is on top of things: CNN.



"But Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security.
"So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."

Ah yes, Tom, I'm sure we'll get transparancy, explanation, and disclosure in droves from this administration. It's what they're best at.

Like most people I have been looking into the details of this story, and I'm going to have to break with tradition and DEFEND the Bush administration. :eek:

What exactly is wrong with this deal? We are not talking about outsourcing some work to Hammas or Iraq here, it's the UAE. Pretty much our #1 ally in the region. Is this a way to win support in the region? "Hey all you Arabs are the same to us so no deal?" I'm ashamed at the knee jerk anti-Arab reaction this is getting. If they can do the job, which has been outsourced for decades anyway, then what's the big deal? How secure do you think these port operations are now anyway? With the increased attention they would get I'm betting security would actually increase. After all if the UAE company allows a major "incident" it would certainly cost them the contract and a boat load of cash. I think we should show the world that we know there is a difference between radical fundamentalists and the Arab population. I for one welcome the UAE's participation in the global economy.

Actually, the more I'm hearing about it, the less that it bothers me. Basic operations will not change. Security procedures will not change. Arabs will not be staffing the docks. While that may sound racist, it is a reality that Islamic terrorists, who have struck us and have sworn to again, are Arab.

My reaction was knee jerk. Again, the more I hear about it, the less it is of huge concern to me.

Edited to add: But I'm still against it overall. I admit that my opinion on this wavers greatly.

On the other hand, I do find a bit of humor in this. The policy of fear that the Bush administration has been pushing on the American people for years is coming back to bite them in the ass. Now many Americans see the entire middle east as an enemy to be feared.

I don't make it a habit to go to downtown Phoenix at night, particularly a portion of a street named Van Buren. Many drug deals are known to happen there. Many prostitutes and their pimps roam around.

Everyone on this portion of Van Buren street is not a drug dealer, seeking to buy drugs, is not a pimp or a prostitute or looking to solicit one. However, when there are a million other places that I can find the legitimate offerings on Van Buren, why not play it safe and go elsewhere?

It is not something that has been pushed on us by the Bush administration. I think it might have something to do with the fact that Arabs were the ones that planned out and executed 9/11 and have sworn to do more of the same, and have in Europe.

It isn't that all Arabs seek to do this. However, why allow the UAE to do this when there would (presumably) be others that can perform the task as well? Particularly since the UAE is one of only 3 countries that acknowledged the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

But, even after this diatribe, I still go back and forth. My point is that it isn't fear of Middle Eastern countries that make me think it's a bad idea. It's logic.

Logic that would prevent doing business or associating with almost anyone, based on the fact that bad acts were commited by persons whom they have something in common with - be it race, nationality, religion or whatever ... everyone belongs to a group that has untrustworthy "members."

Well.....I said I was waffling!

I think Moon hit the nail on the head with the observation that it's this Admin's attitude coming back to bite them on the ass. The simple fact remains, no matter how politically incorrect it is, that the terrorists we've been dealing with of late have a few things in common: they are Middle-Eastern and/or Islamic. It's only natural that we would be a bit apprehensive at the prospect of the aforementioned plan. The real threat to this administration would be if terrorists did succeed in carrying out an attack either due to the neglignece of the new port officials, or even worse- with the help of. The Republican party would suffer greatly, and it's that prospect that would embolden the terrorists to throw everything they could into realising a successful attack.

I think the UAE are very much like the Saudi's, albeit they are slightly more liberal. They try to walk a thin line, but if push came to shove they would lean toward their Islamic neighbors rather than the West. It's a reality we need to deal with- Islam will win out over West, right or wrong.

I think I have come to a decision based on what I've read, heard, thought, blah, blah, blah.

I am no longer against it.

The UAE - Dubai in particular - is one of the more "westernized" Arab countries. More liberal, if you. Far fewer restrictions on women, more personal freedoms. If the US of A makes a decision that simply because they are an Arab nation that we cannot do business with them, then it sends a message to Arabs everywhere that westernization - however small it may be - we will not do business with them because we perceive them all as terrorists.

The only thing that changes from the way it is run now is the bean counters.

The longshoremen and their union will still be running the operations of the docks. The coast guard will still be in charge of all port security. As it is now, the Dubai shipping company (or whatever their name is) runs the docks from which almost everything that comes in to the US comes from.

I think more than Iraq and more than Iran and more than Afghanistan and more than our support of Isreal, what will speak to Mr. and Mrs. Average Abdul in the middle east would be the refusal of the US to do business with a country simply because they are, well, Arab. Why support any sort of reform to a western open philosophy that same western opn philosophy views them all as terrorists.

That being said, perhaps I am a racist. Would I feel the same way if Arabs would be the ones working the docks? I don't know. I don't think all Arabs are terrorists, but most terrorists we deal with are Arab. This is proving to be a difficult topic for me.

Like I said above, I have no real problem with the thought of an Arab company providing these services (any more than I had with a British company that did it before or the South Korean company that does it in other ports).

To the extent I have a problem with it, it is because it is not a private company but a government owned company. I think there should be more concern about foreign governments providing commercial services directly inside our country if there is any remote security issue. And I'd feel that way if it were the UAE or the British crown.

Regarding the US ports issue: Bush is ignoring the monsters he made. That doesn't seem right, does it? It's backfiring a little bit.

The monsters he made? I realize that many of those who oppose the policies of the President believe this is an issue he created, but terrorism has been going on in the Arab world for a long time, directed at American targets among others. Honestly, Reagan and Carter are the Presidents most responsible, I believe - Carter for his handling of Iran, and Reagan for abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were expelled with our assistance.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

Yes, he (our president) made.
He's been capitalizing on 9/11/01 since 9/12/01. He's turned us into a paranoid country with our color coded fear-ometer that his administration started, his and Cheney's constant reminders that this sort of thing could happen again, etc. So now, the fear that he's instilled in all of us that 9/11 could happen again (which he used to get himself reelected) is backfiring on him. His dogmatic followers are now saying, 'But, didn't you say...' and he's not listening to them.
His focus that our borders are not safe is coming back to shoot him in the foot, too.

That is the root of my discomfort, as well.

Source

I'm confused by this. So he didn't know about it before it was approved but now is going to veto anyone who tries to stop it?

Huh:confused:

Bad news, folks. I'm closing this thread. What I feared would happen with "random political thoughts" has happened ... i.e., one topic has dominated for the last couple of pages, and thus this thread has turned into the political thread uber-alles.

In other words, the trend is becoming apparent to me that this thread will, from now on (unless unchecked), become the ONLY thread in the political (aka "Daily Grind") forum ... eliminating the need for a forum at all.

When a topic gains 2 pages of discussion, it is no longer a random political thought ... but rather a topic worthy of its own thread. But there is no incentive to start a separate thread if a "random thoughts" thread already exists. Further, who can say if any particular "random political thought" will spark a lengthy discussion that makes the thought no longer "random?"


And so, it is with some regret that I am closing the "Random Political Thoughts" thread, with the request that if anyone has a random political thought in the future, please start a thread about it. It will then be subject to the nature of all threads ... if it interests others, it will thrive - and if not, it won't survive.


Not the most elegant solution perhaps. But politics ain't pretty.