Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)
 

Fvckers.



The Iraq civil war is a media creation.

Fvckers.


We will be greeted as liberators.

Fvckers.


Iraqi oil production will pay for the war and reconstruction effort.

Fvckers.


Saddam is linked to 9/11.

Fvckers.


Happy Anniversary! Three years and counting for a war that was declared over by President Worthlesspieceofshiit in May 2003.

Fvckers.


Some days I'm too tired and worn out to even care anymore. Sometimes the daily death toll doesn't even bring pain and sadness to me. Somehow, this totally unneccesary war is slowly stealing my soul. This war is slowly allowing apathy to creep into my being. Some days it takes all my energy just to summon the anger that has been gifted to me.

They are robbing me of my precious anger. They are wearing me down. Their corruption and incompetence is greater than my anger.

Fvckers.

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are

We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished

[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]

MAY 29, 2003: Bush: We found the WMD

We found the weapons of mass destruction. [Bush, 5/29/03]

JULY 2, 2003: Bring ‘Em On

There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. [Bush, 7/2/03]

OCTOBER 5, 2004: Paul Bremer: Never had enough troops

We never had enough troops on the ground. [CNN, 10/5/04]

OCTOBER 25, 2004: The New York Times reports that about 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared from military installation called Al Qaqaa sometime after the U.S.-led war began in March 2003 [NYT, 10/25/04]

DECEMBER 8, 2004: Donald Rumsfeld: You go to war with the Army you have

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. [Rumsfeld, 12/8/04]

JANUARY 12, 2005: WMD search in Iraq is declared over - nothing found

U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN. [CNN, 1/12/05]

MAY 30, 2005: Dick Cheney: Insurgency in its “last throes”

I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. [CNN Larry King Live, 5/30/05]

FEBRUARY 2, 2006: Rumsfeld doubts “long war” in Iraq

“Is Iraq going to be a long war?” Mr. Rumsfeld answered, “No, I don’t believe it is.” [Washington Times, 2/2/06]

MARCH 19, 2006: “Complete victory”

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush yesterday promised to “finish the mission” with “complete victory,” urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved. [Washington Post, 3/19/06]

-----------------------

Also, don't forget about our war crimes...
Source

And yet, Cheney still insists that the statement you quoted from him above is accurate.

History will not look kindly on these men.

Did you catch Bush's Cleveland speech, where he had this to say...

Call me treasonous for disputing God's own annointed, but that's a lie.

Doesn't Dear Leader realize all his speeches are recorded and transcribed?

In the words of Keith Olbermann...

And here I was growing up in the 60's fearing I'd have no Vietnam to warm the cockles of my adult soul.





Whew.

You're all a bunch of non-patriotic, kool-aid swilling, pinko-commy red-diaper doper-baby elitist liberals who's heads are gonna explode one of these days.

(I couldn't figure out how to work in 'ditto').

We just had the 3rd Kern County soldier killed in 3 weeks. That is what is sad, seeing these families mourning their sons. Their loss really gets to me.

Did Leo accidentally log in as wendybeth?
:D

Oh no he didn't!


Good Lord, have I actually misunderestimated this man's stupidity?

Yes, that was how Georgie celebrated the third anniversary of quagmire ... by telling a blatent lie that - with the shrub's every word having been recorded for the past 5 years - is among the world's simplest lies to uncover.


Nothing worse than a liar but a stupid liar.

But the best part is it's allowed to just hang there in the media... unchallenged. It's read by thousands and it becomes fact.

I need a drink.

Hearint the Q&A today literally made me sick to my stomach.

Oh please... if you can't work "terrorist loving" and "moonbat" into the rancid stream, you ain't tryin', girl!

Moonbat?

Oooh, who says that? Can it be I'm missing someone during my hate-radio roundups?

I don't listen to any talk radio. I've seen it mostly in print, blogs and such, referring to conspiracy theorists.

I don't listen to them, but I do scan them when news comes out critical of Bush and his merry band of men. It's always fun to hear them foaming at the mouth and acting so appalled that anyone dare to question the morality of these fine, sanctified men. Except Ingraham- can't listen to her, ever. Like nails on a chalkboard, that woman's voice.

Hannity is the funnest. He's gone from small time radio guy to the annointed one. What a frikken dweeb.

:cheers:

What I hate the most is the he always sounds like he's indignant that people are asking him questions. I mean, c'mon folks, don't you know that in America you're supposed to shut up and believe your leaders without question? That's called patriotism.

Hmph! While I'm certainly not going to insert myself in this thread, I will say that I've not said such things about anyone on this board. Quite the contrary, I might add. (yes, I did see the smiley guy, but felt the need to react indignantly anyway.) :p

Yes, there seems to be something he missed about the concept of being an elected official and the fact that he above questioning. It's as if he took lessons from the wrong world leaders or something.

A reported was reminscing today about how forthcoming both Johnson and Kennedy were during difficult times and how she missed the fronk, honest repore they had with the press. How sad that this just isn't the case today.

I'll disagree with that wholeheartedly. Johnson was frank and honest about Vietnam? Kennedy was frank and honest about the Bay of Pigs?

Hey, I was like 6 so I wasnt really there. I'm just realying observations from someone who was there.

Will Oliver Stone live long enough to make a movie capturing the essence of the era and all the conspiracy theories one film can hold?

Me, I'm bitter that this decade's "free love" is primarily virtual. Not the same at all.

(I can't get started on the actual analysis or I'll never get the rest of my work done.)

Honestly, I wasn't making fun of his Sphincterness.;)

Leo may be conservative, but he's far more fair and balanced than any other that I know. He also has a sense of humor, and a sense of generosity.*


*(I could really use a new expresso maker- hint hint)

Hey - at least I put out for my small appliances. :)

BUt I do like the title "His Sphincterness". Changing my title.

A stupid liar who said this

That's it Georgie, leave this mess for the next guy. We won't forget that you started it.

source

He and his cronies are the wrong world leaders.

I apologize to His Sphincterness.
:p

No one else here is going to see the irony in people in this thread calling conservatives (radio etc) "hateful" when the thread starts and continues in nothing but a hate fest itself?

Naw- did not think so.

I'm sitting with Leo on this one. :)

Here's a Bush quote from yesterday:
Source
:eek:

This guy's a genius!

Hate fest? No.

Utter contempt and disgust for an administration that has lied their way into a trillion dollar, unwinnable war that has cost the lives of 2300 of our servicemen, and countless innocent people? Absolutely.

After reviewing this entire thread, I can find no reference to anyone hating conservatives. Hate for what now passes for conservative policy? You betcha! Wendybeth did refer to "hate radio" in one post. If anybody would pick up that bait, you'd think it would be me, but I didn't.

Now, you are picking up on a good deal of anger, that's for sure. I get angry when thousands of people die for no good reason. I get angry when politicians hold themselves above the law. I get angry when people, any people, elected or not, lie to my face. Don't piss on my boot and tell me it's raining.

Understandable. It's hard to defend the indefensible. I'm seeing this a lot in my formerly gung-ho Bush supporters here at work. It's much easier to lash out at Mr. Bush's critics, even as it's proven they've been right all along.

If anyone needs a good laugh, go here and click on the video entitled "Rambling Man".

I have vastly differing opinions to what is being posted in this thread. I am no Bush apologist, because I have been and am quite vocal about things that disturb me (spending, border policy, etc).

I'm just sitting it out because it has been discussed ad infinitum. There's no point, really. Just suffice it to say that I feel no differently about it than I ever have. That I am not inserting myself does not mean that I have changed my opinion or viewpoint on it or that I have any less fervor about it than I ever did.

Now, I'm not trying to bait anyone, and I really don't want to rain on the anger parade.

Just want to let everyone know that my silence does not equate to acquiescence.

Yeah, I hate war and the warmongers who start them.

What of it?

Hate? I would describe it more as disgust. Complete and total disgust.

You reap what you sow. Or something.

Ditto- please do not assume I agree with you. I don't.

Aside from political differences- I have to say I like people here quite well- but I guess just as Wendy sees "hate" in certain conservative radio shows, I see hate in the words here.

Same world- different lense. You say it's not hate- I see it as exactly that- hate. You see hate in things I do not as well-

But hugs for you anyway Scrooge- I don't get to talk to you often enough.;)

(yeah- quoted Leo and Hugged Scrooge- how about a hug Leo? LOL)

Ahem- sorry, stepping back to the bench now.

*Scrooge hugs Nephythys and passes Leo an expresso machine under the table*

Psst... Give this to Wendybeth but don't tell her it's from me.

Coming at you, babe. {{{{{nephy}}}}}

She'll never know.

The words I used in my hate-radio post were all words that have been frequently aimed at libs and other dissenters by conservative talk show hosts. These same catchy phrases have been tossed around by their listeners, and show up in the oddest places- such as internet message boards and sig lines. They are mean, hateful and people who parrot them are perceived as such. I've looked over this thread and while I've seen a lot of anger directed at the 'leadership' of this country, I haven't seen anything that approaches the vicious (and childish) verbiage of some of our radio pundits. I can handle a reasoned conversation or monologue defending the actions of the current admin, but when they start foaming at the mouth and namecalling I lose any interest in listening. It's lazy, harmful and immature.


(Psst! Scrooge- thanks- now how do I work the damn thing?:D )

Ok, put me down for hate.

IT'S FROM ME!!!!!!

(OK - who told?)

Lol!

Everyone knows conservatives don't give things away, silly!;)

Well, earlier in the thread when you asked for it I did suggest you work for it, Wendy, by mentioning how I put out for my small appliances.

Sca and Nephy sittin in a tree...

Hmm, I don't know how Mrs. scaeagles would feel about that.
:D

And I have access to libs who spew hate and nasty terms at conservatives. It cuts both ways and to pretend that one kind of "hate" is more righteous than another is dishonest. (on edit to say I am not calling anyone out for this)

I guarantee you that should I bring over some of those "hate" comments- most of you would agree with them-and some of the things you call "hate" from the conservatives would be nothing of the sort for me or Leo. It's a matter of perception, and frankly, I don't think your perception is more valid than mine.

ISM however just cuts right to it doesn't he.

(I want a small appliance- maybe a waffle maker?) ;)

ooooh, makes me all squishy :p

No exit strategy

Heh - In fact we all believe our own percption is the most valid (I think to think otherwise might border on insanity) - thus we go round and round - all of us righteous in our own valid way. I hate you all.

€uro is right- we all think our own perception is the valid one. While I am glad one has to go off-site to locate vicious liberal statements, I will say I am not comfortable with any hate-speak, no matter what the source. It's one thing to say the Prez is an idiot, quite another to wish him or his cohorts bodily harm or to start making up silly little derogatory catch-phrases, although I understand the temptation, especially when one has so very much to work with.:D

This thread wasn't intended to be about hate; it's about anger. I understand that they sometimes seem interchangeable, but they're not. At least not for me. Anger can be a wonderful motivator. Without anger people would never quit sh*tty jobs or divorce worthless assholes.

I read the body count out of the paper
and now it's written all over my face


I've recently started noticing that reports of the atrocities in Iraq weren't always pissing me off as per usual. Weary resignation is more often the order of the day now. And that bothers me. I have basically two speeds when it comes to political issues: Anger or apathy. And the thought of being apathetic about war causes me to worry for my soul.


And that's what this thread is about. I'm angry at this adminstration for slowly stealing my anger and replacing it with a nasty apathy/despair virus. Of course that's what they want - always, since the dawn of time - leaders thrive on apathy. Apathy feeds the beast.

I don't want to be beast food. I want my precious anger back.

It's hatred and fear that have brought things to their present state. Truth be told, it's probably more the manipulation of hate and fear that enables the current status quo. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Sac, and apathy frightens me as well. That means acceptance, and......well, history is full of examples of what that means.

Now that I've been watching Arrested Development - all I can think about is White Power Bill...

A good bout of anger is a good thing once in a while, I just don't want to live that way all of the time. Unfortunately, we have potentially another 3 years of anger-inducing material to draw on....if not more.

You made the baby Jesus cry!

Interesting. I think that often times when the supposed purveyors of "hate radio" are supposedly spewing their "hate", it's anger. There's a fine and difficult to determine line drawn somewhere, and I suppose it has more to do with the ideology of the person speaking and where it falls in relation to the listener.

:p


:D

Well how am I supposed to respond to that?:p :)

Ha ha. I'm just messing with you, Leo. I respect your opinions very much.
:)

:snap: :snap: :snap:

So this means you're withdrawing your original criticism of this thread?

There was no hate expressed in this thread (well, other than iSm, of course), only anger. As far as hatred expressed by right-wing radio, it is easy to find examples, not from hateful people that call the shows, but from the hosts themselves. Here are a few examples:

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but I've never heard Al Frankin or Randy Rhodes or any other liberal host EVER call for the death of anyone. Find me an example of a liberal talk show host that has stooped to these levels and I'll reconsider my position.

Therefore, I don't see the irony here.

Not a talk radio personality....but I can give you a quote from Julianne Malveaux on a PBS show, speaking of Clarence Thomas -

"You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I fell. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."

And another -

PBS's Nina Totenberg: "If there is retributive justice Sen. Jesse Helms will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

As a follow up, I suppose we can come to an agreement that wishing harm or death upon someone is hate speech.

I'd pretty much agree that that is a good definition.

I don't think hate speech is owned solely by the right wing factions. I'm sure the left does it too, they ust don't seem to get as much press for it ....ie: it isn't as effective. ;)

Just for fun, let's put Nina Totenberg's quote in context, shall we?

Jesse Helms shot first:
Then Nina Totenberg commented:
Anger? Sure. Hate? Well... certainly from Helms...

I don't agree with hate speech coming from anyone. However, there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to the right wing. Bill Maher loses his 'Politically Incorrect' job because of his comments and Ann Coulter is still making thousands of dollars for her speeches despite saying that a Supreme Court Justice should be poisoned. That makes no sense. Michael Moore is booed for his comments and slammed by the right, but Michael Savage can say whatever he likes and the right is pretty quiet about his comments.

I mean, how does O'Reilly keep his job after saying the Coit Tower in San Francisco should be attacked?

Double standard.

I see where Sac Town is coming from about anger morphing into apathy, and the soul rot that attends.

But anger is too destructive to ourselves. I just can't keep it up. (anger, that is). Was George Bush ever affected one iota by my anger? Or was it only me?


I'm pretty apathetic about things now. This administration may take the cake in many regards, but power has been a corrupt force always and everywhere. I still feel the way I feel about things. I still know evil when I see it and smell it. It's not required that I get riled up, it's not required that I go and "do something" about it. There's nothing I have to prove or demonstrate or accomplish in order for my soul to be pure and good. It just is.



Relax, SacTown, my brother - - you're a good soul. Nothing's gonna stop that. No warrantless NSA search can penetrate. Your soul is safe, and anger will only give you ulcers.

Double standard on both sides. It goes back to what I said earlier, that "hate speech" is defined by the listener depending on the ideological agreement with the speaker of said "hate speech".

The things I posted are no different than what MBC posted. They are about wishing harm or death upon someone. Not a good thing. O'Reilly is a full of himself, self rghteous, and oft inconsistent moron. I have never heard Savage.

I was not being critical- just commenting.

But no- my opinion still stands.

I would disagree (big surprise) because I think that is one of the reasons that the left keeps losing elections.

Don't worry. The right is catching up pretty quickly. ;)

What I'm trying to do with my anger with this administration is not let it get to me. And I also think it's important to direct my anger to this administration by writing as many letters as I can and calling as many politicians as I can. I can't tell you how many calls I made to Feinstein and Boxer before I left (now Kerry and Kennedy). Not to mention my local reps etc. It's important that they know my disgust. They are working for us after all...

I don't think they know it.

I think that the main reason that the Democrats have been losing is because they are spineless. Not "spineless" in the weak on terror, national security, sort of way but rather, they don't seem to be willing to stand up to the Republicans and call them on their BS. I mean, really. The Pubs ran on a platform of "keeping America safe", and yet have done absolutely zilch to protect our borders or prepare for any sort of catastrophe. So, have the democrats called them on this? Nope, not really.

Quite honestly, I think the only Democrat there is that I have any respect for right now is (and I'm sure scaeagles will get a laugh out of this) Russ Feingold. Not just because of the censure thing either, although I agree with it wholeheartedly, but because I think he has integrity. I don't agree with everything he says but that is not as important to me as someone who actually stands for something.

Basically, I'd like to see roughly 99% of them voted out.

I'd like to see roughly 99% of them indicted and thrown in prison for some Brokeback Lockdown.

I will say this...I happen to agree with Pelosi that it's time to forget about the "impeachemnt" angle, and not just because of the uncontrollable shakes I get every time I think of the phrase "President Cheney".

When the spying program first leaked, I was all for an impeachment vote, or at the very least a serious investigation. If anything could have motivated the Republicans to wake up and start questioning their leadership like they should, that was it.

But the moment's passed. It's clear that it ain't gonna happen. So let it go and move on. Now, I'm not saying completely drop the issue. It's important to remind the voters that the Republicans in congress made the decission to not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. But the absolute WORST thing that could happen to the Democratic party is to regain control of Congress and make their first action impeachment of the President. Because then it's just petty vengefullness and questionable priorities.

Unless the anger comes from both sides of the aisle, no matter how justified the anger is, it's going to be looked at as "partisan politics" and dismissed. I hope that the Democrats would just get in there, and start making correct decissions going forward, rather than focusing their energy on this red herring.

Speaking of red herrings, my more cynical side thinks that Bush's declining popularity is all part of a devious plan by the Republican party. Having realized that they were far too late for any ammount of backtracking to win enough people back over, instead the goal is to now move Bush and crew as far to the extreme right as possible, so that come election time, the miffed centrists of the party won't say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen what's really going on. Screw the Republicans I'm jumpin' ship", they can say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen that Bush really is off the deep end. But hey, my Republican representative is saying the same thing, so I'll just vote him back in and he can stear things back on course."

I hope that no one here honestly thinks that Iraqis are better off under a dictator? I hear a lot of that. Take a glance at history. You can find newspaper articles criticizing the United States for getting involved in Germany and Japan, that nation-building in those areas would never work, that those people couldn't function under anything but a dictatorship. If you blanked out the names of the countries, you'd think the articles were about Iraq.

And take a look at Germany and Japan now... among the world's strongest economies.

People complain about freedom not coming to the Iraqis without taking a look at the United States history. It took 14 YEARS after we gained independance from the British to get things going. It wasn't just like "The British are gone, now everything is hunky-dory." To boot, we had a civil war as well! It took a Civil War to even attempt to correct the problems in society. President Lincoln SUSPENDED civil liberties during that period of time!! There wasn't a Patriot Act which pretty much only detains people, liberties were outright SUSPENDED during those times! Lincoln had people who acted like Cindy Sheehan hauled off. Why? He felt that there was too much at stake.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether we should've gone to war in Iraq or not, but we are there now, and it would be disastrous if we pulled out of Iraq now. Nation building is a long process. Iraq is into it 3 years. The United States took 14.

Nation building isn't like constructing a shed, which is a day's work. It's more like building a skyscraper. And it doesn't go perfectly all of the time. We simply can't pull out of Iraq now. It would be a disaster. This is a long process, and for our sake, the citizens of Iraq's sake, and the Middle East's sake, it is vitally important that this works.

Imagine if the people who talk about all the negativity in Iraq were alive when the United States was in the process of building itself up. Using their logic, they'd have thrown in the towel and surrendered to the British.

We did not go into Iraq to nation build. It is not our business to nation build unless asked- we certainly do not invade other countries with the express intent of doing so. We did not invade Japan pre-emptively, we were attacked. Same with Germany. What you describe is called imperialism, and God help us if that is what we are up to over there. It has never worked in the past, and it won't work now.

Saddam wouldn't ask us, would he? Yet when you hear actual Iraqi citizens in the villages, it would appear that they do want us there helping them. Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late.

As far as imperialism goes, I urge everyone to read a political science textbook. The United States isn't practicing imperialism. A requirement to be imperial is to actually have an empire. We don't have one. Another requirement of imperialism is that one nation is trying to extend it's rule over another nation. Again, we aren't making American laws. The Iraqi's now have an elected government who are drafting a constitution and are making up the law of the land for the Iraqis. By the Iraqis and for the Iraqis. That's not imperialistic.

What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany.

Well there must be lots, because Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book about it. I recommend you at least take a look at Unhinged. Unfortunately, I don't have it handy to quote from at the moment, but if you check it out, various Air America hosts are in there acting like gooks, especially Al Franken. Laura Ingraham once mentioned about how at the RNC04 he went and stuck his finger into her producer's face. I also remember Malkin talking about him wrestling a Dean supporter to the ground at a Kerry rally, and getting into a hissy fit with someone at Fox for "not being liberal enough."

I just saw a book at Barnes & Noble that exposes the many, many lies of Franken, which is ironic because he claims to be the purveyor of all truth.

Anyhow, if people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Medved, etc. were to disappear, Franken would have nothing to talk about. He talks about them on an almost daily basis, whereas they rarely talk about him at all. Laura Ingraham, as I already mentioned, brought up his wacky behavior; Ann Coulter reportedly once tried to say "Hi" to him and he accused her of name-dropping when she told someone of how he snubbed her. Ann Coulter dropping Al Franken's name? That's laughable. Ann Coulter doesn't need Franken, but Franken certainly needs Coulter.

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textbook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

It's probably best not to imply that those who disagree are unfamiliar with the topic, although it's a tempting trap into which I fall all too often.

Personally, I think there are limits to what the current administration would "permit" the Iraqis to decide. And I'm not automatically disagreeing with that philosophy. Absolutely there are laws they could propose that would merit, at the very least, strong influence. However, that means the benevolent servant ideal where the US merely provides the heavy lifting isn't an accurate description.

Shadoe - I'm sorry... were you saying something? I read Laura Ingraham's name and sort of tuned out.

You were saying something about all of us reading some kind of poli sci book? How do you know we haven't?

Right now, a Christian convert is facing death in Afghanistan. This has created an interesting conundrum for the Bush administration. Do they intervene, and maybe cause the Karzai government incredible difficulties? Do we do what we would normally do, which would realistically be to try and ignore the situation, or in the face of mounting international criticism lodge a complaint with a world body such as the UN? Right now, the rumor is they are going with an insanity move, as no true muslim in their right mind would ever turn christian, but what if that doesn't satisfy the imams? The christian right. left and in-between will go after this admin like nobody's business. We'll see just how non-imperialistic we are with this little drama.

(For the record, I hope they go in with Blackhawks and rescue the poor guy).

I read many newspapers, blogs, talk shows, etc. I like to sample a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints. I do not form my viewpoints just because Laura Ingraham happens to say it. She has been the person who I gravitate towards because my beliefs are generally in line with hers.

I have a great political science professor who has taught me more than any other professor I have had. He's absolutely brilliant.

And in general, I end up leaning towards the conservatives on most issues? Why? Because in general they offer up substance. Not just rhetoric, but actual substance. I find it difficult to back many of the liberal positions on issues where in the end they had egg smeared in their face because of all the foul-drawl that is put forward. It seems like their bigger agenda is to attack Republicans. They have no plan, no strategy. Chuck Schumer and "San Fran Nan" have even admitted this. Articles have been written about it. I certainly can't back people with no plan (or if a plan is offered, it's pie-in-the-sky, like Murtha's).

And the dictionary definition you posted proves that America is not imperialistic.

1. We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.
2. We haven't taken over Iraq to make "territorial acquisitions". And we aren't imposing our power in the sense that we don't have control over the politics. To the economy, some extent. But by and large, the Iraqis are voting on their own and establishing the economy on their own. We are nudging them in the right direction. We're not looking to dominate Iraq.

By the very definition of imperialism which you have provided, we are not imperialistic. My prof went into great detail one lecture about how the United States doesn't fit the requirements of being imperialistic when I took his International Relations course last year. This year he went on a tirade about how simple minded the people who say that Bush is like Hitler after a student went and said that to him. That incident occured over three weeks ago, and he still gets riled up about it.

Imperialism aside, what say you to the true small-government conservatives who feel that President Bush has betrayed the cause?

Watch as the Republican party continues to magically distance itself from the Bush team as the elections approach.

By the way, if you gravitate toward Laura Ingraham, does that also include using snide nicknames like "San Fran Nan" instead of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (whom I happily voted for, btw)?

That's an example of elitism. In my humble opinion, the "we know better" ideology does not belong in a rational debate.


Unfamiliar? I suppose my professor with a PhD is unfamiliar as well? The United States isn't imperialistic. It's not imperialistic by the dumbed-down dictionary definition. And it's certainly not imperialistic by the textbook definition. If you have already read the textbooks, crack 'em open again; it's time to review the tome.

I absolutely don't mean to come across as being offensive, but I hold a very strong viewpoint on most matters, and I research them both out of personal interest, and because I get extra credit presenting speeches to my classes (This week I gave a speech about the positive and negative effects of Reagonomics in my Macroeconomics and Poli Sci classes).

While I am most impressed with your class roster, I must yield to the doers of society- I learned long ago that professors, while largely admirable, were teachers of what other people do. Not meaning to denegrate them whatsover, but they too have an agenda, and I would make it my business to find out what that was. It's easy to admire and follow people who spout off about the same things one already believes- they are geniuses!! It's much more difficult to read or listen to someone give an entirely differing viewpoint, and actually give that viewpoint a chance. Run it through your brain, look at all the shadings of grey, think that perhaps they may have something to offer. Life is not black and white, and if they are not teaching you that in college, than you are getting screwed. Or, you're in a junior college.

Personally? I'd rather that we weren't in Iraq. On most aspects I consider myself a conservative first, Libertarian second. When talking about Iraq, I have kept clear my own personal judgements about our purpose there, and have been making an honest effort to bring to light the aspects of nation-building, which is what we are doing there, and how they compare to other places.

I don't have a problem with LI's snide names. For all I care, you can make snide names about anyone. In fact, I'm sure that most people have snide names for others they aren't fond of. It's better than the libelous "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation, and it's even worse if you are going around claiming that you never lie, and then are caught lying in the very book about the lying liars. Or Michelle "****" Malkin. No one deserves that.

Believe me, Shadoe- if the Lying liars could sue for slander or libel, they would have. Good thing the book was backed up with facts, eh?

Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

Well, I have another professor in African-American Literature. I listen to him everyday as well. He has started passing me up when I raise my hand because I confront what he has to say ona regular basis. This one makes fun of passwords being set on the computers, making fun of needed security measures. He constantly makes remarks about how botched up he thinks Iraq is, about how incompetent he thinks President Bush is, etc. The difference between him and my political science professor? My poli sci prof backs everything he says up with clearly outlined logic. My poli sci prof presents various points of view and where their strengths and flaws lie. My Afr-Amr Lit teacher doesn't do any of that. He's stopped calling on me because I confront him on what he says and ask him to back it up. The last time he called on me, it was when he said that "Bill Cosby is out of touch". I asked him to back that up and instead of answering me, he went on to the next person.

I don't see things in black and white, or in absolutes. There are no absolutes, except as the famous quote goes "death and taxes". It seems like a common viewpoint that Conservatives see things as black and white -- not so. What you are seeing is a group of people who have come together because they agree on a certain set of issues. My VERY-liberal and VERY-feminist European History professor wore black in class after Bush's election, and said that conservatives are very good and picking issues and agreeing on them. She told our class that Democrats are going to have to work on that in order to win elections in the future.

I find the Junior College remark to be out-of-line. At least in Minnesota. I attend the University of Minnesota, but I know plenty of people who attended community college here first because the class sizes are smaller and it's cheaper (in Minnesota we have what's called the Minnesota Transfer Curriculm which allows you to easily transfer your credits to other schools in the state). I don't know about Community Colleges where you live, but here they are held up to the same standards as the other public schools. One of them in particular which is only a few miles from my house, Century College, is constantly winning awards with their debate team, math team, etc.

The junior college comment was a joke- kind of. A sort of 'you get what you pay for 'joke, which here in my neck of America means the Wal-Mart version of academics. Can't speak for your state, Shadoe.

We could argue political science and Lying Liars all night, but I have to go to bed- got to work tomorrow. Someone has to pay for this ****ing war.

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth.

1. nation or its people: a nation or its people considered as a political entity

2. republic: a nation or state in which the people govern

3. association of states: a group of states that have formed an association for the political and economic benefit of all members

4. people with common interest: a group of people linked by something that they all have in common

Technically, it's not a colony since we pretty much let them do their own thing. We're not trying to impose control over them. Anyhow, they seem to be content with the way things are. In 1998 the House passed a bill calling for elections to decide the island's permanent status. They chose to keep it the way it is.

Puerto Rico is the largest commonwealth of the United States. The rest are small islands, which again, are pretty much left to their own devices. That doesn't qualify as an empire, and certainly doesn't prove that the United States is imperialistic.

What is the "modern sense"? Please pin down a definition, and how the United States fits into it. If there is a "Modern sense" then maybe we should be looking at a new term instead of trying to apply a term that doesn't fit...

Sorry to drag up a topic from a couple of pages ago, Shadoe, but I can't let you get away with your ridiculous Ann Coulter/Al Franken comment.

Each of Ann Coulter's four books has been a slam at the Left. Liberal-bashing is her bread and butter.

Al Franken was a professional comedian and writer for over 20 years before he published 'Rush Limbaugh is A Big Fat Idiot'.

Just thought a little truth might be in order here.

Believe me, I'm working as well. I'm in class full-time on Tuesdays and Thursdays and working full-time as the Director of I/T at DiscBurn MWF and sometimes Saturday if we get a rush job. Not to puff up my chest about what I do, but I really enjoy my job and my co-workers, so I usually am pretty excited to go there. I do miss when we were located downtown St Paul though. Something about people-watching and fancy high-rises with skyways is so much fun.

Anyhow, it has been a good debate, and certainly great for doing "mental pushups!" I do like debating people, perhaps too much so sometimes. :blush:

Perhaps he talks about them every day because they have a tendency to lie every day. I suspect that if there were no lies to catch them in, he would probably have to find something else to do. As it stands, they give him plenty of material. And as someone else said, if he is libelous, where are the lawsuits? The one from O'Reilly and Fox was laughed out of the courtroom.

i get goosebumps when you talk dirty

The best part about Bush's mess ups is that I get to sit back and say 'Well, I didn't vote for him.'
:)

I've totally wasted my breath talking about Ann Coulter in the past. I think there's a lot of self-hate there.

well i did, after careful thought and sorting out my priorities and realizing that the nation's security was a top priority for me... everything else that was (and still is) important to me seemed moot if terrorist attacks 9or potential of) continued to bring the country to it's knees.

but, giving the job of security to company's with strong ties to foreign governments, who in turn have ties to terrorism, makes no sense to me.

An Ingraham effect? Urm, no.


Actually what you have here is the latest administration excuses for failure talking points being distributed to, and parroted by, all the usual suspects. Blaming the media seems like the last, and most desperate, act of a nothing's-our-fault administration.

But hey, far be it for me to come between you and Laura I. Carry on with the hero worship.

A man who thought oceans protected us, a man who apparently never heard of Pearl fvcking Harbor, a man who allowed the executions of numerous people when he was governor of Texas despite being unaware that killers can destroy innocent life, a man who was asleep at the switch on 9/11/01, would not be my first, second, or ten billionth choice to protect our country.

Here's my "a ha!" moment for the day:

Being angry helps you vent, but it's no fun dwelling in the Madlands.

That's not news to me. The difference is that Ann Coulter is successful at what she does. She doesn't NEED to sit there talking about Al Franken the way he talks about her. And in general she doesn't. He, on the other hand, talks about her all the time. It's almost creepy, like he has a crush on her or something.

How about a positive YES!

That's not what Bush thought. That's what the country thought. The 'we' refers to the United States of America. The concept he is talking about is called isolationism, something the nation was steeped in until we were forced out of it in World War II.

WWKD? (What Would Kerry Do?) Think about the screw-ups he would've caused, and had he been in the presidency, I could kick back too and say "Well, I didn't vote for him." I could do that, but I wouldn't. Sitting back and watching a person make mistakes isn't my bag. No matter who is in office, I'd rather that they succeed and do some good. I might not be fond of them or voted for them, but they deserve some dignity. I think most of us learnedabout helping others in kindergarten... sitting back and being carefree is rather cruel. So much for the "compassionate, caring, accepting liberals"...

Do you honestly think that the media is unbiased? And that they are reporting the whole story? What do you think people's views of the war are going to be when all you hear about are IEDs exploding. And little to no news coverage of anything positive happening, even though it is happening. And now the MSM is caught in a sticky spot. They DON'T talk with the troops. They DON'T talk to the Iraqis. They are completely removed and even feel that they are above talking to the "uneducated" men and women in uniform. Chris Matthews said as much recently. The MSM haven't been able to sucessfully go after Laura Ingraham's accusations. Why? Because as usual, she has a strong point, and just like most of the lefties on her show, they end up sputtering because she, as usual, outwitted them with her superior intellect and biting remarks.


I don't "hero worship" Laura Ingraham. She happens to be my favorite pundit, and with good reason.

You do, huh? From where, pray tell? From your right wing sources who continually spout what liberals are supposedly all about?

Only if you do no more research that what you've shown.

Sure did... and we didn't even have 3 major tribes trying to kill each other over religious fantasies.

Also, if I recall, our founding fathers were careful to provide us some limits on government as it applies to religion.

See? Our situations are exactly alike, aren't they?

Why not have the debate? We certainly didn't have it when all this began, did we? No, all debate was shut down be calling people treasonous and Saddam lovers for daring to disagree with the President. And notice, I'm not giving the democrats a pass here for letting it happen.

Yes, it's a long process no matter how you go about it. We had begun the process by advocating regime change through education, sanctions and diplomacy. And guess what? It was working. Where are Saddam's weapons, Shadoe? Where is Saddam's connection to Al Queda, Shadoe?

Yeah, I saw her performance and it was disgusting. Perhaps Ms. Ingraham is unaware (geez what an understatement) that 80 journalists have been killed while working on the story that is Iraq. Perhaps they were all shot on their hotel balconies which Ms Ingraham claims they work from.
Did everyone enjoy this comment as much as I did??
... and that one??

I love love LOVE it when people pull out Malkin and the rest of the bomb throwers and start parading them around as some standard of honesty, because usually you'll get some thin shred of information maquerading as the truth, i.e. Shadoe's next comment.

Did Malkin also tell you the rest of the story? Did Malkin tell you the manager of the facility approached the heckler and asked him several times to tone it down, and that it was only after the heckler started throwing punches at the people around him that Franken took him down? No? I wonder why not.
And just in case you're tempted to comment on the heckler's speech rights being trampled, please remember that citizens who disagree with President Bush are generally not even allowed in the same hall Dear Leader lies from.

I used to, as well, before conservative thought went to hell in a handbasket.

Malkin and Coulter? (And yes, I realize Malkin and Coulter are NOT republican leaders. I continue to harp on them because YOU brought them into the conversation as examples of conservative truth)

Did you just wake up? Have you completely missed the concerted effort in recent decades to stamp out liberalism completely? Sorry, my bad... you probably did.
And what of this so-called conservative substance?
Fiscal responsibility? I usually try not to laugh directly in someone's face, but that may be unavoidable in this case.
Government out of people lives? Ditto
Giving 8 cell blastocysts the same rights as a functioning human being?
I see. We'll just call that an unfortunate side effect and move on
More serious than accusing someone of treason? One loses you respect; the other can get you killed.

Supposing what Kerry would have screwed up is vastly different than seeing what Bush actually screwed up. The man lost a city on his watch. Am I supposed to sit here and say, 'Well, good thing Kerry's not in. He would have lost more than just one.' Huh?

I sit back and watch because that's all anyone can do. The soldiers who died in this war for no reason deserve my respect, Bush does not. The memories of innocent Iraqi citizens bombed in the middle of the night by us deserve to be thought on with dignity, not Bush.

Shooting an unarmed Iraqi family (including 3 children) is cruel. Watching an out of touch leader implode because of his own stupidity is not.

I can show you tons of pictures of smiling people, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

No, we didn't think that. Every person I've ever talked to about terrorism was well aware that America was an attractive target prior to 9/11 (*cough*WTC attack circa 1993*cough*).

Shadoe, if you want to talk about picking up poli-sci books and looking at history, how about looking at the fact that in the last century not one instance where the United States went into a country and initiated regime change was the end result successful.

Was it good that Iraq was ruled by a dangerous dictator? Clearly not. But unless the people themselves are strong and cohesive enough to initiated change on their own, history has shown that outside help does nothing but replace one bad situation with another, and cost lives of the liberators.

I agree with that to a point, GD, but not wholely.

I think a group of oppressed people is not nearly as able to overthrow an oppressive government as they once were. Methods and technology have changed drastically.

The US revolution was a success with only about 20% of the populace wanting to fight for independence. The British did not have huge technological (in terms of military hardware) advantages, and the colonists were well fed and armed with basically the same weapons as the Biritish.

When you look at somewhere like a Somalia, where hundreds of thousands of people are starving under oppressive warlords, why are they starving? It isn't because there is no food available. It is because the warlords who control the trucks and roads will not allow food to get to the starving people. If you are malnourished, how can you fight?

I could say the same for Rwanda or any other number of African nations.

It is possible, if military leaders under a dictator go against him, for a revolution to take hold. However, in such an example, the military leader overthrowing one dictator typical just wants all the power for himself and becomes a dictator himself.

With what would Iraqis have risen up? The fear and intimidation was clear. I know if I were an Iraqi man, knowing that even speaking ill about my government would result not in my torture, but in the torture and imprisonment of my family, my little girls, I'm keeping my mouth shut. (By the way - props to some of the founding fathers, many of whom faced just that for their families who were in England. The general populace who were fighting, though, did not face that in mass.)

No. Actually I think the MSM has rolled over and shown the Bush administration their belly like a frightened animal.

We didn't invade Iraq in order to bend them over and force democracy on them. We went because WMD. We went because they were an "imminent threat". We went because Condi put images of mushroom clouds in our heads.

Drives me nuts when people confuse pre-invasion justifications with post-invasion spin.

General liberal opinion. I continually read it on blogs.


Please elaborate. I didn't hear anyone else providing historical context in this thread with similar situations that we've faced in the past.

Again, the terrorists WANT Civil War to break out, and they are going to egg it on as much as possible. It needn't happen.

If Iraqis want more religion in their government, then so be it. That's part of democracy.

I beg you to find one place where I said that the situations are exactly alike. Of course they aren't exactly alike. But they share fundamental similarities.


I didn't want to get into a debate IN THAT POST about why we were there. By all means there should be a debate, but we need to be focused forwards now that we are there, NOT BACKWARDS. What's done is done. Time to make lemonade out of lemons. Oh, and what debate was shut down? Are you referring to the Chill Wind or whatever nonsense it was that Sean Penn was talking about? I don't believe that for a moment. I haven't heard anyone being shut up when speaking about the war, unless they were breaking laws in the process, like Cindy Sheehan has repeatedly done.


Apparently you don't know about Saddam's secret tapes... and thousands of documents that haven't yet been declassified. Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda? Take a look. Going into war and even now, liberals have screamed "no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" and the more that turns up, the more we know this isn't true. Saddam allowed Al Qaeda operatives in his country. He knew they were there. He didn't do anything about it. And now these new letters show there was collaboration between Saddam and bin Ladin. Don't be so quick to write things off. Especially as new evidence comes to light.


Well, why not pick one up? Enjoy the comment. Do you think that you are above a refresher course? Picking up my poli sci book here, there are a few phrases about colonialism and imperialism that jump out at me.

• "For centuries, the great powers of Europe had competed for colonial hodlings, ruling, and administering over weaker and less-advanced peoples and territories located in faraway places around the world." (We aren't doing this!)
• "The Eurocentric system [...] became synonymous with foreign subjugation and exploitation." (Where's the exploitation and subjugation?)

If you were to read the book that I have in front of me, it looks more like the US is trying to fix the effects of colonialism in Iraq that were brought on by the European Empires.

So the comment is enjoyable, eh? No one has tried to counter that point with any evidence stating the contrary. So laugh and point all you want, but no one has provided anything that proves otherwise.


Bomb-throwers like Franken and Randi Rhodes? Puh-lease.


Interesting that Franken finds himself in these situations all the time. Do you have an explanation as to why Franken went and stuck his finger in Laura Ingraham's producer's face? Or was her producer out of line? Because the picture I saw showed her producer sitting in a chair while Franken had his finger in the face with a threatening stance. It's suspicious when Franken finds himself in these situations all the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the pro-Dean supporter was being heckled by Franken. Granted, I think that it was stupid for the the Deankey to be at a Kerry Rally, but Franken's behavior is not justifiable.


It really depends on who you listen to? Liberal thought as of late has been about nothing other than attacking republicans, unrealistic pie-in-the-sky idealism, etc.


I brought up Malkin. I didn't bring up Coulter. If you look back, soemone mentioned Coulter earlier and I responded to that post.


Provide some evidence of this please. That's a ludicrious accusation, one that can't be baked up. Did Randi Rhodes tell you this? Or Sean Penn?

When Bush was running, I heard plans about what should be done with Iraq, domestic and foreign policies. What did I hear from Kerry? He talked about how the Democrats have better plans, but mysteriously he didn't let people in as to what those plans were. Just that they were different from the Republicans. Oh, and that they have better hair. So if you're Vidal Sassoon, the Kerry ticket is for you.

I can't debate you there. I think that Republicans and Democrats alike can guarantee what Ingraham had to say about this in her E-Blast this week:


That viewpoint absolutely disgusts me. The same arguments were made to keep slavery in place! It makes me sick... the platonic chain of great being, the so-called "proof" in the Bible that blacks were inferior to whites, etc. It's sickening and disgusting. And then to hear "think about the life that child would've gone through. It's better this way." Again, what perverted thinking! Do we point out people in the street and say, "oh what a terrible life, let's kill them"? NO! So why is it ok to do it for a BABY in the womb?

I've been trying to be very careful what I say because politics are such a personal thing and it's hard to be tactful about it. It is my sincere attempt to not attack any person, but rather what is being said. I don't hold grudges or anything of that sort.

Treason is worse, yes.

OMG, it's in blogs?! It MUST be true.

I figured it would get to this eventually, and that's why I was planning on staying out. While I understand the sentiment of what you've said Sac, and it is indeed true to a point, there is more to it than that. There is Saddam not giving fully unfettered access as required by the cease fire agreement. There are multiple foreign intelligence sources who also said they had WMD. There were violated UN resolutions and.....

GAH! I wasn't going to get into this. I'll stop.

I should clarify. I see that attitude on blogs. Not blogs of the right describing the left, but blogs of the left. It's not a sentiment that's shared by all, but it does seem to have quite a following behind it.

I repeat...OMG it's in a blog, it must be true!!

Liberals do this blah blah blah blah. Conservatives do this blah blah blah blah. How pointless is it to spend our time blaming the "other" belief system. What have we become, the Hutus and Tutsis? What's next?


Isn't there some leader out there who would like to attempt to bridge the gap and move things forward in a POSITIVE direction for once? Not just a leader who is adept at lipservice, but someone with real effectiveness.

I have too much disgust with the blame game to muddle through and look for someone.

Leo, none of what you point out (which I don't necessarily disagree with) changes the fact that in that climate, history has shown a 0% chance of success. Every attempt has resulted in a paralell move (either to a new dicatator or to open civil war). So what good has been done by attempting? Especially making an attempt like this one in Iraq where more and more of the those that were part of the planning of the initial invasion are revealing that no one had done their research and they had absolutely no clue what kind of enemy they were facing. Doomed from the start.

And none of THAT changes the fact that, whether you want to believe there was some sort of WMD/UN resolution-based justification for going in or not, the "liberating Iraq" angle is nothing but pure spin from the administration. It was never part of their pre-war thought process, it was a total after thought, at best a "I guess that'll be a nice side effect," as evidenced by their complete failure to consider what it would mean to actually try to build a viable nation. They weren't unprepaired because they didn't understand what they needed to do...the were unprepaired because they didn't give a rat's ass what they needed to do.

Would you make the same unsuccessful claims in Afghanistan? While I'm not particularly proud of the likely execution of a man for converting to Christianity, there is a functioning and democratic government in place. We went in and took out the ruling Taliban and have established something that's going pretty well and is certainly not a failure.

I guess I have never understood the spin accusation of the "liberating Iraq" angle. In all of the discussions of getting rid of Saddam due to WMD, doesn't that in and of itself imply a new government? And presumably one that would not be oppressive? Granted, the administration was not saying "liberate Iraq". They were saying "get rid of Saddam". I guess I see that as equivalent, unless the presumption is that an equally evil leader is put in place.

I do not think the Iraqi situation can be described as a failure. Three years is not a long time when you think of all that has to be and has been done. I would point out, and again not to equate WWII with Iraq, but the establishment of functioning governments free from insurgents took much longer than three years in Germany and Japan. However, it was well worth it.

It's what we do, Leo. Give us a muddy pen and some slop and we'll happily frolic for hours.

I seem to recall the US having quite a bit of help from the outset in defeating the Taliban from armed, organized Afghanis who opposed the Taliban. It's true without our help they were not likely to be successful in that goal, but they were there, motivated. Whereas in Iraq, even now, AFTER Sadaams gone, with us providing the weapons and the training, we can't pull together an organized military or police force. Big difference.

And what is with this constantly repeated crap about how long it took for Germany and Japan to rebound after WWII. Did we occupy either of those countries for 3 years?



How about we all refrain from using analogies for 4 pages or so, and just talk about what we are talking about?





By the way, Kabul has a democratic government. The rest of Afghanistan is drug warload feudalism, as it's always been.

Ummm...yeah. We actually still have troops in each of those countries.

Edited to add: Sarcasm aside, we had an active occupation in Japan until at least 1951, when it was scaled back. I do not recall the length of the active occupation of Germany, but we had an active military presence there that was never scaled back due to the rise of the USSR. How much of that was due to the needs of Germany and how much was due to the USSR I cannot say.

(sigh)
At the risk of repeating myself, if you truly desire not to attack people, stop instructing those who disagree with you to "crack open a textbook."

I'm well aware of our strong military presence in Germany and Japan (and throughout the world, which is among my reasons for alleging the U.S. is an imperial power).

But a military presence is not a military occupation. Admittedly, I'm not the biggest student of WWII history: Did we really occupy Japan for a significant length of time? (Of course, saying we occupy Iraq is a bit of a misnomer, because I believe we only really occupy Baghdad.)

Regarding Japan, yes, MacArthur basically ran the place under military rule until 1951.

Were they fighting daily battles and having to restrict all non-military foreigners to a single area, smaller than the airport, within the capital city?

You're right there. It needn't. That's why I was opposed to breaking the power structure before we could combat that sort of thing.
You didn't. It's called "overstatement" and it was used for effect. You were the one making the argument that there are fundamental similarities. I don't see them. But I am willing to let you and your poli sci professor try to convince me otherwise. Have at it!
Well, we are in total agreement there too. We just disagree on the lemonade recipe. The lemonade I'm sipping calls for the removal of the men and women that lied us into this war, NOT letting them continue along in the same fashion.
Ever heard of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. How about General Shinsecki, ever heard of him? We could go on all day, but I'm beginning to smell a lost cause.
What makes you think I haven't seen that? We already knew that officials from each organization had met to discuss collaboration, but that no collaborative relationship resulted from those meetings. This is old news.

Al Queda was in America too.
We knew they were here, too.
Neither did we... well, nothing substantive.
Does that mean we're going to attack America now? ;)
Hardly. I just laugh at the hubris of a college student offering me a refresher course on ideas I covered YEARS ago and continue to discuss on a daily basis. How about you finish going through it the FIRST time, and then get back to me. Chances are I'll still be here.
What's your point? I don't need to pull up some bomb thrower to solidify my argument. We can't say the same thing for you though, can we? Remember, YOU brought Ingraham and Malkin into your argument. I mentioned Malkin's lies about Franken because you brought them up.
Uh... is that overstatement or do you mean literally "all the time"?
Nope! Don't need one as I'm not using Franken to back up my arguments.
Again... overstatement or "all the time"?
Franken helps diffuse a volatile situation and he's out of line. Malkin lies about Franken's actions and she's justified?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
You're right. You did not bring up Coulter. She's Leo's babe.
You'll be covering the "Fairness Doctrine" soon if you haven't already. There's also plenty of info on the K Street Project in the news right now
No. Did Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham tell you to ask me that? ( ;) See how ridiculous that sounds?)

Hmmm Interesting. You listened to the speeches, or did you confine yourself to the talking heads impressions of those speeches?
Funny! Who says conservatives are humorless?
Excuse me, but I'm gonna need a little more from you here. How did we get from "A woman has the right to control what goes on in her own body" to "Scrooge argues by extension that blacks are inferior to whites"?
Rest easy. Neither do I

We'll never see eye to eye.

We choose who and want we want to believe- and nothing can sway it. Then you tell me I beleive lies, and I tell you that you believe lies, and round and round we go.....

POP goes the weasel!

I don't know all of the details. Only that there was a definite military occupation under complete US authority for a period of around six years.

I would guess there were curfews, military checkpoints, numerous restricted locations, blah, blah, blah.

I have no doubt that there were many, many insurgents. The Japanese were not living in a culture built around the concept of surrender, which is why so many battles in WWII in the Pacific cost so many allied lives. The Japanese fought to the death, as surrender was not an option.

I would guess that it was far worse for the first three years in Japan than it has been in Iraq, but I have no way to prove that. The destruction imposed on Japan is so much larger in scope than what was done in Iraq that there is no way to draw a comparison.

Ahh....Ann....but I didn't bring her up. I think MBC quoted from her first.

And Shadoe, if Scrooge held grudges, he would still be mad at me for comparing him to Matt Drudge.:)

Would those be the tapes that you talked about in an earlier thread? The ones where every expert who talks about them, including ones within Bush's adminstration, say that they contain nothing that's news and prove nothing? The ones where you freely admit that you don't believe any of the facts that the copious experts have given about it, but rather chosoe to believe assumptions that support the conclusions you've already come to? Yeah, I saw those.

Actually, I kinda liked that one ;) Drudge being such a conservative icon and all.

I did, and was thinking of you when I did so. :)

I'm touched, MBC. :blush:

Can't believe I read the whole thing:eek:

Yeah, but have you read any Poli-Sci textbooks, hmm?;)

I proudly state, I have scrolled though most of this and read little if anything

wendybeth, m'dear, I'd mojo you if I could.

Not even the two pages debating the merits of nihilism?







(Hmm, what else could I type that might get him to read through this whole mess? :evil: )

Throw in a small appliance?

Not everyone can be bought so easily (hi scaeagles). I would have to come up with a damn swanky appliance to pull that off.

Will this suffice?

lava lamp?

Yeah, that should about do it. Unfortunately, my budget in more in line with Prudence's idea.

What say you, €?

I'll even throw in a poly-sci textbook to help you get over the humps.

:)

Fridge is too dangerous and he just bought a lava lamp.

You guys....:)

Well, you know- war was "inevitable". This just made it more so.

I read stuff like this, and the second thing I think of is what sort of spin revisionists and apologists will put on it. Three guesses as to what the first thing is.

Scalia flips people off seconds after attending church and we're fine with that. If that person was someone on the left, he/she would be crucified. Double standard.

Really? I seem to recall a rather famous video of Bush flipping off a camera. I think that was blown up pretty big. Not a double standard in the least.

Of course, I fail to see the relevance of that comment to the thread in question, but that's OK.

Total double standard. Anything happen to Bush because of it? Nope. Not a dang thing.
Of course it's okay, because it's totally relevant. It's yet another example of the moral double standard that occurs when someone on the right does something compared to someone on the left. The media gives a free ride to the right. And just to reiterate that, here's an example:
The bold is my emphasis. Is this a news story or a commentary about the news story? This AP reporter has agreed with Scalia's spokeperson. Case closed... according to the spokeperson. Yeah, if we took the word of every spokesperson for the person in question no one would do any wrong...
:rolleyes:

What should have happened to Bush? Was it publicized and somewhat embarrassing? Yeah.

What should happen to Scalia?

Is this any more important than, say, Ginsberg falling alseep during arguments before her court the other day? Did you hear about that? I would guess not, but as I do not watch any evening news programs perhaps it was on. Hell, I'd probably fall asleep during some of that stuff too.

But, to follow your logic, I could crow from the mountain tops that should it have been Justice Thomas who fell asleep, he would have been crucified.

The thing is....it's not a big deal. Honestly, GC, I think you dislike Scalia so much that you want it to be a big deal.

I find Scalia to be a hypocritical jerk. The man comes from church and flips people off seconds later. But, hey, he's a good guy. He's just Sicilian that's all...

Hey, this atmosphere was not laid out by me. It's the whole moral era that Bush and friends were supposed to be presenting to the country. Yeah, right. They are no more moral than the Democrats when they ran the White House.

This thread's about anger. And, you know what, people that can't see a dang thing wrong with anyone in this Administration make me mad. There you have it.

And speaking about Supreme Court Justices, Ginsberg shouldn't fall asleep on the job she should be criticized for that. But here's a tidbit from Sandra Day O'Connor, you know, Reagan's nominee:
Source
O'Connor said on NPR that the US is showing signs of the beginnings of a dictatorship under Bush. But, hey, we didn't hear that in the news either.
:rolleyes:

Well, saying that O'Connor was Reagan's nominee is like saying Souter was Bush Sr's nominee. Yes, but that does not mean that the justices are bound to any sort of philosophy or view of the constitution.

We can each complain all day about what we think should make the big story that doesn't.

I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks Scalia is crooked:
Source

Now this is a judge saying casually at a meeting that someone doesn't deserve a full jury trial.

No. He is saying that a captured military combatant is not deserving of a jury trial.

I personally think Breyer should recuse himself of all cases, because he advocates citing foreign law, but that's beside the point.

And for how long is this person supposed to sit in prison without representation at all? And what if after all those years we find out we had the wrong person?
Well, we can't all get what we want.

Ever notice that its Republican nominees who seem to be the most independent thinkers on the Highest Court?

I did, and it was on Fox News even. Maybe you just don't watch enough news.

Actually, I did hear this story. What they failed to report however is that Ginsberg is currently under treatment for colon cancer. Those undergoing treatment tend to tire easily. This sort of ties into the double standard argument. When Renhquest had his problems with illness, people were understanding. Ginsberg, not so much.

I didn't know that. However, I pointed out that I would most likely fall asleep during some of those arguments being presented as well.

What I find to be interesting is that Ginsberg and Scalia are practically best buddies. I guess their families spend lots of time together.

No, I think I watch too much news. And I don't consider Fox 'News' a credible news source.

Apparently not because you keep saying "such and such a story is being ignored by the news" and they are almost all stories that I have seen covered on the news.

I saw the Sandra Day O'Connor quotes on Fox News, CNN, The News Hour and in both the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. So I don't know what you require that this have been covered in the news. I only mentioned Fox News because if there was any media outlet that would have most stereotypically ignored the story about Sandra Day O'Connor's comments it would have been that.

The very reasons for why you don't consider Fox News to be credible is the reason that even them talking about it shows that this story was covered.

Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.

Calling Bush's Administration the beginnings of a dictatorship warrants the level of 'Cheney shooting someone in the face' coverage.

Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this."

You find people who think the Bush administration can do no wrong make you angry. I almost find people who think the Bush administration is actively seeking to do evil make me angry. Instead they just make me giggle a little bit.

I think they are ignorantly doing evil and that makes me angry. Actively pursuing evil implies at least some sort of intelligent thought application, whereas ignorance is indefensible.

I often search out Faux News just to see if and how they treat a story. Sometimes, they surprise me with a relatively balanced item. It annoys the hell out of me when CNN and MSNBC put obvious spins on a story. I think to get the best picture you have to seek out all possible news sources (within reason- I won't go near Al Jazeera or any extreme right outlets) and sort out the chafe as best you can.

Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with.

Scott Adams (yes the Dilbert guy; he has an interesting blog) said recently that he thinks President Bush is probably smarter than 90% of the population but that most politicians are smarter than 99% and so the difference is striking.

I don't buy the idea that Bush is stupid. I do buy into the idea that he isn't as smart as we should expect.

Al Jazeera is perceived as a mouthpiece for the Islamic extremists and as such everything they put out is tainted by that perception. It's an accurate perception, imho.

Oh, so I didn't make myself crystal clear so therefore what I'm actually trying to say can be tossed out the window. I'm talking about the press giving Bush and friends a free ride and you want to discuss what kind of car they rode in.

I'm thinking one can giggle if they don't understand how angry someone else feels. I say if you're giggling then you're not paying attention.

In the documentary 'The Control Room' Al Jazeera said the pulling down of the Saddam statue was staged and the participants weren't even from the area. They were shipped in. The press did not cover that aspect of the whole incident enough for me when you compare it to the repeated footage of the statue coming down on CNN, MSNBC, Fox...

If not being clear means saying something that was not true, then yes, you were unclear.

Personally, I don't find O'Cononr's statements all that interesting. You can find dozens of complaints every day that if X continues to it logical conclusion than totalitarianism is the result. I agree that politicalization of judicial opinion is wrong but I also don't think the gestapo is in our future.

I agree that Bush has made poor policy decisions. But I also think he has made some good ones. I don't think he is seeking to turn our government into a religious dictatorship.

If you want to see evil in everything he does, then fine. We can disagree. But if I giggle it is not because I am not paying attention as I find the histrionics silly.

Yes, Al Jazeera is not objective. I just don't think that is reason to discount it entirely.

As opposed to the idea that non-objective sources should only be discarded when you disagree with them.

I find O'Connors statements completely interesting. Here's someone who was appointed by Reagan saying that Bush is leading our country into a dictatorship. That's important to me. I think she's right.

Histrionics may be silly, but contrarians are just as comical.

When a news source is non-objective and is a mouthpiece for one way of thinking it should be discarded. I don't listen to Air America either.

Out of curiosity, which news sources do you find to be sufficiently objective for your consumption? I personally don't think any of them are so I just take in as much as I can, try to be aware of the biases and conflicts and sort it out from there. The only two "sources" I exclude out of hand are Al Franken (because his voice grates on me like almost no other) and Michael Savage (because I don't think he even believes what he is saying).

I'm not trying to be contrarian for the sake of contrariness. I just disagree with you on these two particular issues. A) I'm fine with the level of coverage O'Connor's comments received and B) I don't think that everything the Bush administration has done has been bad, though some of it has been. I find the latter to be true of pretty much every presidency I've experienced directly, except maybe Carter who didn't really get a chance to do much of anything, unfortunately.

I wouldn't have even become involved in this thread except you said something that wasn't true. I'm not trying to throw out the baby (your concerns about the validity of O'Connor's comments) with the bathwater (your inaccuracy in saying tha the story wasn't covered). You are free to continue discussing the first point; I'm just not so interested in it since it is purely subjective opinion.

Obviously, the story wasn't well covered- I scour the news daily, and I missed it. GC's comment that it wasn't covered wasn't exactly worthy of being such a hardass- he meant in that he could tell, and arguing the point is just sort of dumb.

I am amazed that you have more of a problem with a relatively innocuous mistatement than with the story he was commenting on. I am also surprised that you consider Justice O'Connor's statement to be so easily dismissed due to the subjective nature of it. (I'm assuming that's what you meant- forgive me if I am wrong). A cop is kicking the crap outta me; I believe he should probably stop, but of course that's merely a subjective viewpoint, tainted by the pain and damage being inflicted on my person. Perhaps I need to wait for people to wander by who have no sort of experience or knowledge with regards to this situation before someone who has a truly objective point of view steps up and stops the beating.

Might be a long wait.

I made no particular scouring of the news and saw it in five relatively mainstream sources. So, perhaps my experience was misleading.

No, I don't find her comments all that shocking for several reasons, none of which have to do with subjectiveness (and I never said subjectiveness was an issue). One, it wasn't the first time she had said it (she had made similar comments before she even left the bench). Second, she couched her comments saying we were a long way from what she feared could be the ultimate response. Third, she is an interested party; no judge likes legislatures having opinions on what they do, from either side of the political spectrum. Fourth, as I said "the sky is falling" predictions for every government action are a dime a dozen and O'Connor's wasnt even a "sky is falling" statement just a "the sky might potentially fall at some point in the future."

Finally, my hardassedness (though really I think GC is at lesat equally hardassed in a hysterical position, but we can disagree on that) wasn't just because of this one but my perception that he has frequently labelled stories as uncovered (when they're not, they're just not covered in the way he wants) and this is a sign of some participation by the media in helping the administration keep us complacent.

I find Scalia's statements on the Guantanomo case (though couched to avoid direct reference) inexcusable. I find the semi-flip off (he didn't flip off the reporter but rather made a different rude gesture) by Scalia to be a non-issue (and would also find it a non-issue if Ginsburg did it). But overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

That is what triggered the hard-assedness. I certainly made no claim as to which is more important: O'Connor's statement or GC's. The fact that O'Connor wakes up in the morning is probably more important than anything any of us will say in a given week. But I'm not talking to O'Connor, I'm talking to all y'all and I found GC's statemnt, independent of the importance of SDO's, to be silly.

Per his comments he finds mind similarly silly. I can live with that detante.

I find Fox News is generally way more entertaining than CNN or MSNBC. I generally only watch any of them when it's the weekend and I'm on the treadmill and can't find anything else to watch, but the Fox News people seem so lively - as if they're going to leap across the desk at any moment, the news is that exciting.

Of course, I generally have my headphones on so I can't actually hear any news, but the Fox News people are much more fun to watch.

Unleess, of course, CNN is doing one of their umpteen "life behind bars" stories. Then they win.

:) :) :)

Interesting. Of course I can only only go into anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but in doing so I would most likely give you cause to say that, in fact, I am finding minor exceptions to show how that isn't what I'm doing.

I would argue that, in fact, immigration and border control is no minor issue, and in the growing protest thread I have been critical of the President - as I have in the past - regarding his inane border policies.

I could go into republican politicians - such as John McCain - that I have nothing kind to say about.

I would go on, but the perception of me is understandable. However, it largely does not come down to the individuals that are conservative or not so. It comes down to what I believe in, and I will fully admit that I am more supportive of those in office that come closer to sharing my political philosophy.

Yes, but your point of complaint there is that they are being sufficiently conservative.

Exactly. It is because of my political philosophy, not because I think those who call themselves conservative are infallible. It is not blind loyalty to a Republican President, it is belief in a set of ideals.

I take your point with pride. I will always defend those conservative ideals. I do have a few issues that go outside the realm of so-called conservative thought that have been discussed here.

That's fine. I'm certainly not expecting anybody to change just because I find something silly. I'm not that important.

I, personally, don't think anybody has yet issued a Grand Unified Theory of Society that I could support completely and to the exclusion of everything else.

Well, that awaits its collective development in threads like these ;)

In today's Herald:

Source

I am not familiar with that gesture at all. I don't see it as "flipping off" - the middle finger is not extended.

What is the history of the gesture?

I've seen this gesture in mafia-style movies. I don't think it's nice, whatever it means.

As a recent Sicilian, I know the gesture is an insult. You do it to someone you don't like. If he said that word with, it's really bad.

I'm going with what the photographer said. He knew it was in poor taste.

I believe that gesture is considered a non-verbal "fvck you".

The gesture is intended as an insult and is generally not considered obscene.

The word he used with the gesture, however, most definitely is.

Think Cheney in the Senate and you've got it ;)

GC, would you please stop being so darned hysterical.;)

Yeah, it's an insult. Very mature, Scalia. Good to know you're on the Supreme Court.

Not obscene? Um, SacTown got the meaning exactly right.

While I personally don't agree that 'fvck you' is obscene, I think it is commonly considered as such.



I don't consider too much to be obscene. One thing I do, though, is Scalia hearing argument on the Enemy Combatant Detention case this week just after he has publicly stated his decision on the case in advance of it being heard. As a jurist on the land's highest court, that's true obscenity.

You're right, wb. And to not be accused of further histrionics, I'll remove my 'Mission Accomplished' flight suit now.
:D

With this I agree. It is important that we can all pretend that each of the justices hasn't already decided 99% of the cases before they actually reach the court.

I actually have no problem with the idea that the people at Guantanamo have no right to jury trials or whatever. They are essentially POWs and such a right has never attached.

However, as near as I can tell, we are no longer engaged in a war with Afghanistan which means it is time for all of those people to be returned home and let the government of Afghanistan decide what to do with people who fought on that side of the war.

Since we are no longer at war, they are no longer the equivalent of POWs, which means we now need a good reason for imprisonment and need to prove it.


And GC, of course he doesn't approve of it. If he did it wouldn't be an insult.

Yeah, GC, to the rest of the country it's an insult. On the LoT it's just bragging about your Friday night.

Yes, they are in a legal limbo, at the whim of - - - are we still insisting that we are a democratic republic? Or is a nation which imprisons POWs after a war is over, detaining them indefinitely while specifically denying they have any rights under federal law, international law or the Geneva Conventions .... tell me again what form of government that is?

It's a CHRISTIAN government, baby!

Sort of. The problem as I see it is that the government's trying to play it both ways. "These are POWs, so we have a right to try them in tribunals." Okay fine, but at the same time they're saying, "These are ununiformed 'enemy combatants' and therefore we are under no obligation to grant them even the most basic rights afforded POWs."

Either they're POWs or they aren't.

Or last night.



I've said too much.
:D

The doing of bad things is in no way contradictory with being a democratic republic so I have no problem keeping the label.

GD, I don't disagree that the government is trying have its cake and eat it to. I was only sharing how I view the people at Guantanamo. And by that perspective they should either have all been released a couple years ago regardless of how complicit they were with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Or, when the war was essentially over, they should have been converted from combatants to criminals and given due process. And since most of their criminal acts would have been in Afghanistan, they should be returned to Afghanistan for that due process.

Heheh, that reminds me of something I just heard (hmmm, maybe another tangent coming on?)

Hey, if I'm angry about it, it fits in this thread. Right?

I think that's a great quote.

That is perfect! I love it!

Great quote.

Here's the Snopes page (your quote is essentially correct) which gives some more detail. It is a wonderful response and I'd really love to have audio of it (as well as a recent speech I heard from Fran Lebowitz that perfectly captures the nature of my atheism).

Even if this guy didn't originate the retort, it really does some up the issue perfectly.

Wow, an open and honest admission by this Senator that she desires to make biblical law the rule of law in her state. Where's the outrage? Where's the religious persecution of Christian Americans that Tom DeLay so laughably alleged?

Not that it matters much since minds are made up, but here is Scalia's account of the incident:



According to other news stories, Scalia actually saying "va' fa' un culo" (which he does not admit to doing) was not part of the original account from the photographer and while others in the area confirm the hand gesture, nobody else heard him say it.

Personally, I still don't care either way. Any more than I did when Bush called a reporter and asshole, Cheney told someone to **** himself, or Clinton got a blowjob.

I'm glad to learn that the gesture has a less drastic meaning.

I'm dismayed that he saw fit to contravene the record on that, but - unless I've missed something - hasn't commented on why he has the gaul to sit in judgment on a case he has publicly pre-judged.

Source
:(

Birds hate our freedoms.

I hate birds. Scummy neighborhood pigeons poop all over my house and car. So, yes, I think brids do hate us and our freedom.

And yet, you hate cats- which eat the birds that poop on your stuff. Granted, the cats poop on your stuff too, but at least it's not an arial attack.

Ah, but the cats who kill the pigeons leave their dead, decaying bodies in my back yard. I like the hawks who sometimes hang out in the neighborhood. Instant pigeon repellent.

Leo hates birds and Chicken Little. So here goes:





I can't help it. I'm cleaning out my photobucket account.
:D

If anger is a gift (referring to the title of the thread), then US Rep Cynthia McKinney is very gifted.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=77991

She punched a security guard who tried to stop her because she didn't go through metal detectors (members of congress are not required to), and he did not recognize her.

If she hadn't played the race card, I wouldn't think it's a big deal.

"Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers,"

The guard is going to press charges. I think that's going a bit far.

I would totally love to see the tape. :D

Angry black women are such a turn on. I'd play black lady/white cop with her any day.

Wait, I just saw her picture. Ignore my previous post.

Good....I was thinking I might have to dish out some negative mojo on you for putting that image in my head!

Say what?! I find something very un-democratic about those making law being exempt from them.

Yep. I think it has something to do with them being far too important to wait in a line with everyone else. They are busy, you know!:rolleyes:

I reallly don't have a problem with them being exempt. By their election we are putting our full faith and support behind them in running the country. If we can't we trust that they won't blow up the Capitol Building then we're screwed.

And while I find Cynthia McKinney to be an embarrassment (not for her politics but for her or personality) it does raise an interesting question if she indeed does have more problems than other Congress(white)men in using her privilege.

That said, I'm surprised there isn't some form of gate for people exempted through the metal detector that requires swiping an ID. We had a swipe key gate to go through at work and while our CEO could go anywhere he wanted to without question he still had to swipe his badge to get in.

OK....she just keeps upping the racial component of this.....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/31/D8GMPKR81.html

"Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black," Myart (her lawyer) said.

"Members of Congress wear identifying lapel pins and routinely are waved into buildings without undergoing security checks. McKinney was not wearing her pin at the time "

I watched her portion of that press conference. You have to love the kids dragged in to stand behind her with hand-written signs (most likely by some unpaid congressional intern, not the kids themselves) saying "Is Cynthia Being Targetted?"

Again, her basic claim may be correct but it would have her cause if she weren't a kook and didn't walk around looking like she was recently surprised to discover the extent of her own craziness.

Heheh, this has turned into the 'Random Political Thoughts' thread that I tried to prevent once before.


Oh well, there's no stoping a juggernaut.

Oh sure.....close the one I started, but let this one continue. :p

Precisely! You catch on quick. :)

I wasn't sure where to post this. It's more of a tongue in cheek thang than a serious thang.

Do you ever think that the Republicans and the Democrats just take turns? I mean, once the GOP sees that their debt is so huge and that there's not much they can do about it that they just hand things over to the Dems? Then the Dems tax the crud out of everyone until there's enough money for the Repubs to spend?

If anything, that would make a funny film.

:D

Except it hasn't worked that way. You had one Republican president who spent a whole lot of money and cut taxes, then the next spent not so much money (and in one famous instance slightly raised taxes when submitted to abominable legislative blackmail). Then a Democrat who did pretty well with spending (and submitted to the most successful and only significant alteration of a major entitlement program in 40 years) and left taxes mostly flat, and then another big spending Republican who apparently never saw another person's dollar he didn't want to spend.

Well, if we only count two-termers ... then G.C.'s pattern works just fine.


Let's do that, then.


(It also works if we delete the redundancy of presidents with the same last name, and make the disqualification apply to the one who seved less time. I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?)

Source
Bleh.
:(

I see what you're saying.

For the benefit of this country, it being run like a business and all, the Republicans should give up their control to get money back into the government by having the Democrats tax us for it. Sometimes I wonder if that's how it works. I mean, the moment a party gets too popular and too smug and spend-y or tax-y they tank and the other side comes in to 'save the day' so to speak.

I don't know. I'm not an expert on politics. I'm just thinking 'out loud'.
:)

This doesn't bother me at all. Based on 2000 data (in terms of income, not all wealth), the wealthiest 5 percent pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes and the wealthiest 1 percent pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes.

If one is going to cut taxes, one must cut the taxes of those that actually pay those taxes.

We can get into a debate on the increase of federal funds that goes along with tax cuts because of increased economic activity. We can get into the amount of wealth controlled by percentage. We can get into the amount of federal services received based on income levels. There are lots of things we can get into on both sides, and they are worthy of debate. I think it is clear where I stand (and no, I am not in the wealthiest 5% of tax payers).

The truly wealthy in this country pay very little in taxes because they do have have taxable income. Taxes, as currently structured, and are penalty on the creation of personal wealth, not a tax on true wealth. That is why I think the entire income tax structure should be scrapped for either a flat tax based on something like Steve Forbes proposals discussed during the 2000 campaign (he got my primary vote in AZ), or a consumption tax which excludes food and services.

This will never happen. True political power is the power to tax, give tax breaks, and control the tax code. And ALL politicians are guilty of wanting that kind of power.

Dept. of Homeland Security's Brian J. Doyle is a pedophile.

Ay carumba!
:(

You'd also need to eliminate a Harrison and a Johnson. And it probably wouldn't work since prior to 1913 (when the income tax was made legal) the tax structure used to fund the federal government was very different. In the last half of the 19th century a president's policy on inflation was probably just as important as their tax policies (industrialists tend to be anti-inflation while agrarians tend to be pro-inflation). Also over the course of the last century the Democrats and Republicans have essentially swapped sides in the political spectrum (Republicans used to be the "reformers" and "progressives" while Democrats were conservatives).

If you only count two term presidents and throw out matched names then the only presidents to be elected twice and serve two full terms are Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the century then you can add Woodrow Wilson and FDR to the list.

As for the tax cut GC posted to I can't really roll my eyes harder as it is an exercise in stupidity. Why not just headline it "Analysis shows that cut in investment taxes benefits primarily those with lots of investments." Tomorrow they can run an article that covers the controversial topic of how "Increase in candy bar prices disproportionately impacts those who eat candy bars." There are, of course, very important issues* raised by this particular tax cut that are worthy of discussion but the article doesn't mention them.


* Such as "Has this cut created a real increase in tax burden for others" or "Should taxes be cut in a time of increasing governmental spending obligations" or "Even if actually beneficial to the overall economy does it make political sense to pass a tax cut that is so likely to be used as a political tool against you and then reversed."

Rangel is right about this issue. Tax cuts for all of Capitol Hill's friends, special interest groups and campaign contributors. Whoo hoo! And yet Social Security is messed up and Medicare is messed up... Not to mention the huge deficit. But let's allow the rich to get richer.

I think most people get the ramifications of such a cut- it's not necessary to headline it in any other manner. Obviously the people that have money to invest are going to be the winners in this game- that was the point that the opposition made way back, and they were right. I'm still waiting to see a return on all those freed up dollars that are gonna be reinvested in our economy. It's hard to see over that pile o'deficit, though.

But is it easier to see over the pile of a country approaching (statistically) full employment, good growth in investment markets, and good economic growth in general (particularly compared to most other industrialized nations).

If the last 50 years have shown anything it is that large deficit spending does not seem to correlate to any particular hampering of the economy. I'm still not in favor of massive deficit spending but the fact that a tax cut doesn't reduce a deficit doesn't really bother me.

If we want to get rid of the deficit then the answer that has worked historically (much better than trying to raise taxes) has been to spend less money and get lucky with the economic cycles.

Full employment? My, the good folks in the Gulf region and Appalachia will appreciate that. Hell, the people in my town will. Theywill never get an accurate count regarding unemployment simply by counting the people recieving bennies- many people either don't qualify or have had their benefits run out. I wish I could buy into this rosy picture, Alex, but I don't see it from my vantage point. This neo-trickle down economics only works for some, and they aren't letting the money go downhill.

Oh, and don't even get me started on pension plans.:rolleyes:

I'm not an advocate of trickle down economics.

However, at the national level (which is the level the President should be primarily concerned with) things are going very well economically.

In the most depressed economies there will be segments that are doing very well and in the most robust economies there will be segments that are doing very poorly. But nationally, unemployment is very low. It is at levels that only 20 years ago were considered below the theoretical minimum threshhold. Yes, there are areas where it is worse, such is the nature of an average. There are also places where it is much better.

There are currently only five states where unemployment is as high as 5.5% (and one of them is Alaska where unemployment is always high due to the seasonal nature of most their industries) which is a number that not so far in the past would have been a miracle economy. Even in the Gulf Coast states unemployment is low for the most part.

Yes there are flaws in the system of calculating unemployment but they tend to cause both under- and over- counting (it doesn't count people who have given up on finding work, but it tends to undercount the self-employed and has a mixed bag when deciding how to count people who were not interested in being in the job market but have been drawn in by an improving economy). While there are certainly pockets of bad, overall the picture is pretty damn good (especially compared to other countries where unemployment figures in Europe are generally two or three times as high; and all members of the EU use essentially the same method of counting as the U.S.)

I think it is easy to make a case that Bush hasn't done much to help the economy but it is hard to make one that he has hurt it, particularly at the local level. Considering that Bush has spent the money regardless of whether he has had the money coming in it is hard to see how another couple billion in investment taxes would have changed much.

I saw that kid on CNN yesterday, testifying before Congress. He's a cutie!


Um, but, er ... well, he's claiming he's the victim of sexual predation by thousands of men - - via the pornographic web-cam site that he himself set up. I don't quite get the victim part of this equation.



(Well, I'm not really angry about this ... but I'm tired of all the weighty stuff in this thread. Let's talk gay sex with underage boys and the politicians who are ensnared by their irresistible wiles!)

OMG, wait ... I'm confusing this with the other pedophile story in the news today. Wow, heavy newsday for sexual depravity.


Heh, here's an idea for ya ... howzabout we make it legal for kids to have sex, oh, i dunno, when they hit puberty??? Ya know, kind of in agreement with God and nature and all??

I read this article on the pedophile and was surpirsed by this quote:

I didn't realize this was a tasks of Homeland Security - is there an expectation that terroristist are also pedophiles or pornographers?

I have no problem with kids having sex with other kids at puberty (or even before). I do have a problem with adults having sex with kids since almost by definition it is an unequal power relationship in which even if consent is given the emotionally maturity is not in place to give that consent.

Yes, this creates a blurry line (is a 20-year-old with a 16-year-old bad?) but I think it is a line that needs to exist. If biological ability is the sole basis on determining what we think appropriate for children then we have a whole lot of reorganization we need to begin.

My kid hit puberty this year- she's ten. If any adult thinks it's okay to go after her, then they needn't worry about getting arrested. I'll ****ing kill them long before the cops catch them.

The four major federal agencies involved in child pornography investigation have always been U.S. Immigration and Customs (to keep it from being shipped to the country and more specifically to prevent children from being brought into the country specifically for sexual exploitation), Department of Justice (obviously), U.S. Postal Inspection Service (the mail police), and the Secret Service.

Customs and Secret Service used to be part of the Department of Treasury (Customs did the investigative work and Secret Service provided forensic and technical services) and when both agencies were moved to DHS these roles went with them. There are a lot of functions under DHS now that have nothing to do with terrorism (which is a big part of the problem with DHS and helped contribute to the FEMA fiasco).

There is not a loud enough AMEN and ME TOO for that one. No snaps could agree more...but in the interest of showing my wholehearted agreement (yes, mark the date I fully agreed with WB ;) )

:snap: :snap: :snap: :snap:

The most recent science concludes that the essential judgment centers of the brain, necessary for making rational decisions, is not fully developed in humans until age 25.

My personal experience with people in the younger 20's, and AS a person in the younger 20's, only confirms this.

So, do we make sexual decision-making illegal until then? What makes 16 or 18 or 21 the magic number, when decision-making ability does not mature until 25?

I'm very sorry and understanding that parents may bemoan the acts of Mother Nature, which is having girls (especially) hit puberty younger and younger. But who can argue with Nature? (Argue and win, that is)


And why is it that kids were married at 12 or 13 when the life-expectancy age was 40, but that is somehow considered too young now? What has changed, besides society? Nothing about the children themselves, though perhaps society once molded them to be a bit more mature at that age than it does today. But they were children biologically nonetheless.

Have we simply realized our mistake? Or is the mistake being made now by puny humans pitting themselves against indomitable nature and evolving biology?

Anyone can argue with nature and win. It's called self-control and personal responsibility, and it can be instilled into children as well.

Then instill it in the children. It's pretty much naturally instilled in most adults as well, not to find young children attractive (ick!). But "instill" is a far cry from criminally punish.

Accepting sexual activity with children who are physically "mature" is no more or less "natural" than a someone murdering someone to protect their territory or property. By your "laws shouldn't go against nature" theory, we really ought to repeal laws agains murder as a simple look into the animal kingdom shows that it's an entirely natural instinct.

I have all sorts of issues with the way ages are randomly set for all sorts of activity.

For example, why can someone vote and enroll in the military at age 18, but not consume alcohol until 21? That has always baffled me.

I instill (or have attempted to....my eldest is 12, so I really have no evidence that what I'm doing is working because it's too early) some Judeo-Christian values in my children with regards to sexuality (and drugs as well). With the 12 year old almost year into puberty, it was time to start (several months ago). We have had excellent communication thus far.

That aside, with understanding that Judeo-Christian morality is not what governs the law, I would keep the the statutory limit for consent at 18, with the an exception of a two year age separation exception. Like a 19-17 year old relationship. Personally, I'd like to ban 50-20 year old relationships, but that's just because I find it icky. :)

Natural law and societal law, to agree with GD, should not be in a position to be forced to line up.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that murder is natural law. Animals generally don't kill members of their own species. In fact, I'd say it's much more an abberation among animals than it is among men.


In any event, I find zero correlation between consensual sex and unconsenual violence. In wanting to de-criminalize the natural, I am not supporting de-criminalizing everything under the sun simply because everything happens in nature.

Perhaps that leads us back to when people can "consent" to sex. I say the science makes that 25, and I say that's absurd. Any other age limit is arbitrary. I'm not comfortable with criminalization based on arbitrariness.

Not true about the animals, iSm. Male cats often kill litters, as do the larger wildcats. Dogs will fight to the death, not to eat, but to establish their ranking in the pack. (Or to protect, etc). Animals kill often for no apparent reason, just like people, and within their own species. We had a murderous zebra finch we had to get rid of not too long ago.

I'm far more comfortable with an arbitrary age of consent than with none at all. A child, by your own statement, cannot make an informed decision and an adult can. Until we come up with a better way of determining the age of consent we're stuck with societal rules. Part of the social contract, whether one likes it or not. I understand the rules are far more relaxed in other countries, but that is changing- just ask Gary Glitter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

So, I had to look up Gary Glitters chargers and history.



As opposed to the better type of child porn?

:rolleyes:

I believe he is now in a Vietnam jail, having been convicted on child molestation charges.

Sorry to quote myself, but after rereading my post, I didn't want to offend MBC, so I will retract it. :)

Gee, thanks for adding 10 years to my age. :) And, by the way, I wouldn't be the only one you were offending on the board.

You probably don't want to see my list of what I would ban due to my own "ickyness" factor.