It is somewhat terrifying to think that we have to depend on Anthony Kennedy to get this one right, though. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
One of the traditionally 'conservative' judges could just as easily decide that partial disclosure is effectively waiving State Secrets. You could see a rather strange court alignment on this one. --- "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
None of which helps fight the bad guys.
America will reject Socialism and higher taxes. Rudy and Mitt have figured it out and I think our House leaders are getting it, too. We need to go after the so called "Conservative Democrats" who lied and scammed their way to victory in what should be Republican districts. Make Pelosi the issue. The American people want victory in Iraq, not surrender. Our biggest exposure is weak kneed Senators. Ignore the main stream media. Run as conservatives, govern as conservatives. It has worked every time it has been tried.
-- We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person. SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
To misinterpret, to overreach, to over promise. It's all coming home to bite them this time. After 12 years in the wilderness they thought the American people would welcome the biggest tax increase in history with open arms. Would welcome full throated in your face socialism, all they needed was a $5000 promise in every pot ... What were they thinking to get this divorced from reality. Answer, hate blinds. It eats out your very core and causes you to act in ways you cannot control. 2008, time to take out the trash ... this Congress has to go. Time to get conservatives back in charge. Note I didn't say Republicans.
How this class of clowns in the Democratic Congress, can be as dumb and petty as they are seen, and yet people vote for them. Not that the Republicans can't be dumb and petty, but man, this group is beyond anyone's expectation.
They combined pie-in-the-sky socialist promises to the nutroots with a majority gained by a contingent of blue dog democrats. I am sensing a turnaround. Longtime Socialist/Democrat States are crumbling and Louisiana has just turned. The Dems have overstepped. What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi
Let the veto stand, let the program die and use it as a campaign ad in '08. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
n/t
it's for the children, oh and the qualifying adults they expanded it to, and the middle class they will pull of private insurance and the 25-50% people on it today that can afford private insurance but would rather have us pay for it. We are the cruel Simon Legree's here? Please are people really that ignorant to not see who is using children as a political tool? "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" Contributor to The Minority Report
Kill the bill, let the whining little creatures die out in front of their local emergency ward while holding a coffee can and a sign labeled "Help me afford medical care so I can grow up." /snark/ sort of. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Becker! Can't say that I disagree though. In Vino Veritas
an appearance on O'Reilly. Or maybe Olbermann. And I'll bring Franz with me. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
She wanted the figure high enough that it would get a veto. - If overridden it makes Bush look bad. - If not it goes into next year's Dem campaign ads.
Craft a bill that will get majority support and 60 votes in the Senate then use the discharge petition process.
Gotta keep those goals unattained, or what will the direct mail say? "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Reporter: "Sir, (snarky question about why the President hates children so much)" Bush: "Thanks, Buck, for that queshtion. You know, it's my *job* to veto what I think's a -- *bad* bill. It's the *job* of *congress* to work with the White House. --- We haven't --- haven't been *dialed in*. Ya know? Ya know, I vetoed the bill because it's lousy policy. -- Speaking of *jobs* and *lousy* I'd really like to insert here how *lousy* the press has been doing. You've been giving me hard queshtions -- tough queshtions today. Now -- uh, where are the tough queshtions for Pelosi and friends who have been just simply saying that the President *hates* children. I don't *hate* children. I want the other 500,000 *children* who aren't insured included. When are you guys going to start doing your *job* and press the Speaker and other Dems to start giving you some facts -- rather than sitting out there asking *me* some of this s**t. Thanks, Buck. How's the wife?
When national polling makes it look like this party is falling over itself getting ready to nominate Bill Clinton Jr., well, desperate times call for desperate measures. HTML Help for Red Staters
.
who don't understand what the 11th actually is (hint, it has nothing to do with a primary). ___________________________________ Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
"Romney supporters are starting to cry wolf about anti-Mormon bigotry. Sadly, to a degree, I think they are right." There are people who will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, just like there are people who won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or Obama because he is black. But my experience shows that these numbers are very small. Mostly we don't vote for Hillary, Obama, and even Romney, because there are other, larger issues that we don't like, issues for Romney that you have listed. The anti-Mormon bigotry issues appears to have been cooked up by Romney supporters and not by the population at large. (See Hugh Hewitt.) The MSM got in on it, but really, they don't reflect core Republican values, so their attack is simply more poo to be flung around at Republicans. Huckabee support has swelled, and it may be the result of his faith, but it may also be the result of Republicans looking for "The" candidate. I suspect the bloom will be off the rose soon, and Huck will be forced to run in the primaries on his political history and not his sermons. GWB doesn' equate to Huck all that well. He brought a tad bit less liberal baggage with him in 2000. His faith was an asset, but not the reason for his election. IMHO.
The anti-Mormon bigotry issues appears to have been cooked up by Romney supporters and not by the population at large. 54 percent of Republicans in the Gallup poll would vote for a qualified Mormon without a second thought; 42 percent would either not vote for a Mormon or would do so with some level of doubt. The polling on this issue shows it is a problem. On what basis do you (and many others) claim this is a made up issue? It is in no way comparable to "I won't vote for a candidate who is black." They've done polls on that as well and the numbers are tiny compared to the the anti-Mormon responses. --- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Only in this country can we get ourselves all worked up over a perceived 'religious issue' that has no basis in fact. Only in this country can we have a candidate who is an ordained minister casting religious stones at another candidate that's a Mormon. Why do we care whether there is a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Budhist, or Muslim in the White House? Do we honestly believe that someone's faith, regardless of what it may be, should be the 'determining factor' regarding his candidacy? I'm not a Romney fan (will not vote for him) simply because he left his job in Massachusetts and didn't lift a finger to help his Lt. Governor get elected. Having said that, not once during his administration, as governor, did his religion cause anyone to raise an eyebrow. Yet here we are, breathlessly awaiting his spoken words of assurance on the matter. What a waste of freaking time; and what a way to divert attention away from the critical issues we should be challenging him to explain his position on - immigration, health care, terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Social Security, etc. etc. etc.
The Debates have asked more questions on Religion than Education, Health Care and Tax Cuts combined! What the media wants, the media gets... Controversy
"Romney is incapable of doing it." I'm not sure I understand this. My perception of Mitt's approach to this has always been about faith (not a specific religion) and he did very well with it. It is clear that there has always been a move to get in to Mitt's religion. This is bigotry. If people really wanted to know what Mitt believes, they could go to the LDS church's website and find out just about everything, except for the temple rites. What they want to do, as is manifest by the bigotry we read on blogs, is to make a political judgment about Mitt over what his religion teaches. This is an absurd, misguided approach to vetting the best candidate for the office. As noted, the support going to Huck isn't completely from Romney, but rather from all the candidates and mostly from Fred. About the second week in November there was a huge drop in Thompson support, a small rise in Romney support and a huge spike in Huck's support while McCain and Rudy were static. So I think it's fair to assume that most of Huck's original support came from the Thompson campaign. After that Huck's support is coming from everyone, but mostly from Mitt. The inevitable ads against Huck will soon start and then well see if people flocked to Huck because he was convincing, or because they were bigoted. If Mitt gets his support back, then people were just fooled by Huck's affability.
Quite cynical yes, but I do think you make a few valid points. However, I think the speech has a lot of potential to either screw Romney up big time or give him some serious momentum. It's up to him and how he delivers this thing. The Romney campaign has mostly told us what not to expect, so it's hard to gauge what this speech will actually be like. But knowing Romney, it will be well thought-out and delivered. We'll just have to see. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill
Supposedly this thing has been in the works for a long time. Erick, have you ever written anything positive about Mitt Romney? .....women and minorities hardest hit
...just a comment :) .....women and minorities hardest hit
HTML Help for Red Staters
Romney is doing this because Christian evangelists leaders have asked him too. They want to support his run for the presidency but don't want to be seen supporting his religion. He is doing it now, because its almost Christmas, and he wants to get it over before the Holidays. The election is about to come to a grinding halt with the Christmas season. _______________________ Give me juicy, Red meat
That's right. The American Left. They are the folks who will never support a Mormon for president. Too much "morality" in that religion. Because they have a problem with it, the impugn their thoughts to conservative Christians. Nice try. Nothing Romney will say will placate them.
...right here: www.michellemalkin.com It looks pretty good to me. .....women and minorities hardest hit
 Sleeping with a dirty wet blanket out in the cold... that might be worse than a Mormon Flipster who goes on TV in an attempt to gain some traction from a surging Huckabee. Today is the big day for Mitt Romney. The question all the pundits are asking is: What is a bigger liability for Romney, his religion or his flip-flops? However, I think the bigger question is... Will this country remain a Christian nation or will t turn into a polygamist nation? I don't think we should take the risk. We can't trust him on the issues and we can't trust him to govern as LDSer -- All Romney will do is just give this country a cold blanket! ConservativeState (TWalsh)
shine. I suspect you will not last a day here.
I am not interested in electing a 'pastor in chief', nor am I committed to installing a national religion test in presidential elections. I thought this crap went away back in the 50's. IMHO GOP labeled folks seem determined to get a marxist in the White House by rejecting any possible GOP candidate for each and every imagined sin, wart or change in their philosophy. Much is made of flippers, yet many folks here were for candidate A before they were against candidate A and are now touting candidate B. I want a candidate that can: 1. Win and have a GOP working base in congress. 2. Will work to defend our borders, deal with the invader problem that is killing us and sapping our culture. 3. Will effectively deal with the ongoing Iraq issue and deal with Iran in a practical matter. 4. Will stack the Supreme court with real judges who understand and believe in the United States Constitution. 5. Will reduce spending, kill pork, and shrink the federal government - also getting and keeping the feds out of my face and life. All things after that really are functions of our Congress - currently a bunch of misfit hooligans who have forgotten who they work for - they are the ones who we should be scared of.
I don't think Huckabee's "surge" is from him talking up his faith, he's been doing that all along. I think the moving and shaking now is from people getting serious. We're getting close, the hypothetical situations are gone. Pro-lifers started abandoning Fred for Huck which started his rise, this gave Huck the numbers to look competitive. This has drawn more people who though he was just an "also ran" and now he has a logical path to the nomination. My cynical view of "The Speech" is that he is looking at bringing in those who would support him but need a philosophical out.
Expectations on the Huck are that he should be a close second or even beat Romney. The thing is, Huckabee is not a conservative. He is not conservative on taxes, illegal aliens, spending, crime, etc. Yes, he is right on the moral issues, but that's all. Of course his surge is because of him talking up his faith. However, has he surged too early? We'll see. You would have to be a fool to think that this speech wasn't in the works since the day Romney decided to run. His religion is a big issue for many - especially evangelicals. He can try to get around his flips on issues and people will either buy it or they won't, but first he has to get past being a mormon. I do think that there are many more people in the GOP primary process who would not support Gov. Romney because of his religion. I actually think the numbers are quite large.
I take it you are a big fan of Fox News. Jim Tomasik
didn't hit the right button again... sorry. ;o) Jim Tomasik
The sky is really blue, buddy - even if Fox News says it.
that Americans are 20 percent less likely to vote for a Mormon for president than a black or female candidate, I think Romney and his supporters have justifiable reason to be concerned about religious bigotry. This speech is a response to that. Whether it is the smartest and most effective response is yet to be seen.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.  - Martin Luther
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases?id=38545 Also, see some discussion at NY Post here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12062007/news/nationalnews/mitts_poll_woe_am...
I was hoping this was part of a larger "voter profile," but it appears it was limited to that particular topic. Polls such as this are of great interest to me - thanks for the info. The Unofficial RedState FAQ You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.  - Martin Luther
The results are pretty ugly, I would say. --- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
With all the poor teaching and wrong information thrown about these days, this is just one more irrational attitude that leads people to vote for the candidates who will hurt people of faith more than the "cult members" they find so intolerable. Same for anyone who would let Hillary win over Rudy over "principle," when Hillary threatens that very principle more. There's that famous saying about nobody ever going broke by underestimating the American public. It's often true in politics, too. lesterblog.blogspot.com
First of all it should be noted that most consider Mormonism to be a cult. (I'm guessing that but I would bet if a national poll were run it would find most believe it to be a cult. Ask evangelicals the same question and I'm sure the percentage would go up. Ask the Directors of this site and I'm sure you'd get a majority saying it was a cult.) If most consider it to be a cult than doesn't that answer the question about why he is lagging in the polls despite all the money and everything else being perfect? Do people want someone who is the member of a cult in the White House? I would not have a problem with a Mormon in the White House. I worked for a Mormon running for Congress. They are great people and they have great traditional American values. I think the problem with Romney is the combination of his flip-flops on the issues with his faith. If you have ever debated theology with a Mormon you know what I mean. His convenient flip-flops on significant issues just reminds evangelicals of his faith. Look at the history of the Mormon church and you'll know what I mean. Look at the Utah statehood process and you'll know what I mean. So maybe the problem isn't Mormonism, it is this particular Mormon?
with his religion though. Heck ,I do to some extent. Would I still vote for him in the general, well let's just say I will note and it wouldn't ever be for a D. But come on, the history behind Mormonism sounds a lot more like scientology than Christianity and that will turn people off (especially all the secretive stuff). Finally, do you think South Park will rerun their accurate and hilarious send up of Mormonism during the general election campaign should Mitt win the nomination?
there is one thing worse than having a presidential nominee who is a mormon. That's having a presidential nominee who is a Clinton. The problem will be less in the general for conservatives.
Expect lots of them, followed by indignant Scientologists defending their misunderstood religion. South Park should host a debate between Donny Osmond and Tom Cruise. But silliness aside, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani et al are asking us to trust in them based in large part on their 'guiding principles', some of which come from their religious backgrounds and some of which have come from life experience. We are wise to look at what each believes and how that belief will effect their decisions for our country.
I think almost no one here would vote for a committed Scientologist. Reaching their theology (if it is a theology for more than tax purposes) is unnecessary. The organization was involved in proven conspiracies against the government in recent history. As an organization, it is frequently under investigation, criminal and otherwise, in various countries. Trying to compare Romney to that is slimy.
was allegedly "one of us" evangelicals. 'nuff said on voting based on religion. We learned that lesson the hard way with the worst president of the 20th Century (apologies to Harding fans). The problem with Romney is that he is frequently too smooth and comes across some times as a timeshare salesman. It doesn't speak to his substance, but like Al Gore's stiffness, it creates a distraction. On the substance, Romney sounds good but fails to convince due to some recently new positions which (conveniently?) test well with the latest target audience, the Republican primary voters. Maybe he really holds these new positions but the general slickness make it hard to accept even if his newfound convictions are genuine.
but Bill Clinton never lost. Combined with the hope that his conversion on moral issues is genuine (there is no reason to believe it isn't), I think he is the best person to put up against Hillary Clinton. I know, I know - Rombot Alert!
The speech HAD to happen on way or another. Better for it to happen now in the primaries so we can gauge its effects and go another direction if the fall out is bad then to have it saved for the general when the only other direction available is to Hillary.
Erick, I know you're not much for simple explanations when it comes to Romney, his campaign, and his motivations. The bigots who would not vote for Romney based on his faith are few. We all know that. However, they pop up just often enough to stir the pot and create confusion. For every bigot, there are a thousand voters that wonder whether conservatives can rally around Romney, or if his faith will get in the way. Romney is making this speech as a reference point for all of those people. If it goes as planned, in the future people who would support Romney, but are unsure if his faith will be a stumbling block, will think of this speech, rather than the bile and slime that the few are trying to spread. It's that simple. (Incidentally, I think you're right that Huckabee is taking little Romney support. He's drawing mostly on disappointed Thompson supporters and undecideds)
Come on this is just a stunt to help Romney in his slipping poll numbers. His biggest problem is his flip flopping on issues and that you can't trust him. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI and this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks McCain is the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton. The campaign surge continues. Also watch this video as to why Democrats are worried about McCain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqnnhXW4SQ and not Romney. Romney can't beat Clinton as a Mormon, Christian, or disguised as Bill Clinton. IMWITHMCCAIN
HTML Help for Red Staters
the above post is too bot-like. This thread is about Mitt
Beginning part was not bot-like but I do like copying the same videos to remind people of what a flip flopper he is. I don't see why that is a problem. He flip flops on issues and we need to remind people of that! IMWITHMCCAIN
What ever the causes that prompted him to make the speech, he covered some precious ground with it. I found it to be patriotically inspirational. Amen to his prayer. And I finally felt I got a glimpse into the man's heart. He has been gaining ground on my ratings list anyway, but this clinched his move to the top spot.
One of the main criticisms of Romney has been his "slickness". He looked very emotional today and, like you said, he really seemed to be opening a window to his heart. Hard to believe anyone with an open mind wouldn't have felt at least a teensy bit moved.
" These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree." Who are the intolerant that Romney is speaking of
. . . speaking of those who are religious (usually practicing protestant Christians) who will not vote for Mitt just because he is Mormon. I have a close, very conservative Christian friend who will not vote for Mitt solely because of his Mormon beliefs. While I personally do not agree with Mitt's religious beliefs, being a quasi-Baptist myself, I truly feel that if large groups of Christians would not vote for Mitt based on his religion, it is only a matter of time before such actions are turned against Christian nominees. R. Michael Woodard
Mitt's slickness. That is an interesting point. He was not slick today. I wonder if those who have claimed they are against him because of his slickness, will now get on board with him?
"Slick" is just a drive-by label for Romney like "lazy" is for Thompson. If you see someone leaning too heavily on that kind of label, it's a sign that they've already committed to another candidate.
www.fred08.com Redneck Hippie
There is a manufactured, astroturf feel to all of this This is what we Commie pinkos from Massachusetts have been trying to tell you guys. There's no wizard behind that curtain. MA, despite being overwhelmingly Democratic, has elected Republican governors for, what, a decade or so? Romney wasn't unpopular (just) because he was a Republican. He was unpopular because he wasn't a governor. When I moved to MA in 2000, our state government was in a permanent state of transition. Weld and Celucci left to (try to) become ambassadors. Swift was so unpopular she abandoned the primary for Romney. Meanwhile, we were seeing once-in-a-generation power handoffs at the State House, and near-annual new management at the Turnpike Authority and the Big Dig (which, given its size, was a huge power position at the time). Yet all of these short-timers were repeatedly in the news. Sometimes they were making popular decisions, sometimes they were horribly unpopular, but always they were doing something. Romney just... didn't... do anything. It wasn't an executive/legislative gridlock problem; he just wasn't even here. Practically from day one, he was working on the next campaign, and by 2006 he was spending nearly two-thirds of his time out of state. There's no there there.
I think that was a pretty major accomplishment. Whether you like what he did or not, you definitely can't accuse Romney of having done nothing.
I didn't mentally associate Romney with the health care plan, but looking back, he was definitely a (if not THE) key driver. Dammit, my memory must be biased too - now who'm I supposed to believe?
Do you actually believe the verbal diarrhea that you spew forth here? Really, your writing is very difficult and often painful to read.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.  - Martin Luther
I mean, couldn't you have at least made them do that on their own? ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Ahem. And yes, the eighth line needs something. I will admit our schools have taught us all To think the poet's craft beyond our art, But that is foolish; as both great and small Can find the words sunk deep within their heart; And though the prospect, true, might some appall There is no harm in daring to impart The thoughts and hopes that come with siren's call For with small steps, do greatest journeys start. So Ronulans, pick up your pens and write! Call forth to work, your version of the Muse; And tell us then, with all your spleen and spite Your... novel... take upon the daily news! Make sure you speak of fiscal theories trite; If that won't work, just yell about the Jooooooooos. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
absentee
unable to make me a poet. Not only am I unable to write a sonnet, I cannot even fake the Norse stanza. You and your teachers are to be commended, Moe.
--- (Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987 Member of the Surreality-Based Community
A wee, strapping lad named RuPaul has come from Texas to save us all he'll get rid of the Fed kill the GWOT dead and knoe the "real truth" of Twin Towers Fall. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
 A doctor whose name is not spoken Was speaking of Gold in Hoboken When out from the crowd, The Troofers sung loud, "Hey Doc, please pass what yer smokin" " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
"Opened the doorwayyou have done... you may regretthe comments you spawn." --Yoda
Liberty escapes The founders saw no oil war You nazi censor.
absentee
Gold in the summer Glinting into Ron Paul's eye Prosperity's end HTML Help Central for Red StatersLet's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Like prawn in fish net Red-Staters must read dung heap posts from R-- P--- fans The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
A cold, narrow house Without neighbors, my abode- Gold, my meagre fare.
"Gold, my standard fare" would have also worked. Marvin'08!
It's the system, Lara! People will be different after the Revolution!- from Dr Zhivago
Catch Not Bin Ladin Mighty Towers Fell by plan Rudy bogarts Gold The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
perfect, right down to the hippie culture "pass the joint" reference.
We demand that you listen to us because we are smarter than you -------------------------------------- I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution. -- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)
What's wrong with Ron Paul? In seventeen syllables? God, where do I start? It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
-------------------------------------- I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution. -- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)
Jim Tomasik
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
 Trees shine bright with frost Speech a vapor hangs but brief; Paul's call falls all y'all. absentee
Zionist Hebrews Trilateral Commission Fear President Paul It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Ron Paul is the Amway/Quixtar of politics
From winter mountains comes ice choking spring rivers - Fix your .sig file, please. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I think we have a winner! Have I told you about my Ron Paul t-shirt?
Here's my Haikus from an anti-Paul perspective: I do not know how Ron Paul has supporters who believe this crap. or perhaps: Neo-cons are still The lesser of two evils When compared to Paul.
When the towers fell Why did Sharon tell the Jews To stay home from work? *Speaks truth to power, leaves quickly to go vote in an online poll* Ron Paul is the Amway/Quixtar of politics
When I read the beginning of this post, I was about to throw a rock at my screen because the Red State wusses caved in to the inevitable Ron Paul Revolution. Ron Paul is the Amway/Quixtar of politics
 No blood for oil Krempasky's a Neo-Con Neo-Con's are Jews (Is it a cop-out to use a posessive, ie Neo-Con's?)
Your comments do ZERO good. It makes you just look undisciplined. Come discuss...but this is spam. For heavens sake and I mean this nicely...step back and think about cause and effect. Are the posts you are throwing up going to have the effect that you want. The answer is no...it will not have the effect you want.
Check the subject matter of the OP. Sun melts morning snow; Fuel burning can't melt steel beams, Therefore, Vote Ron Paul absentee
Sorry, was just following the newest comments at the left and thought...what the heck is this guy doing...sighed a bit...and typed away. I guess it was just a reflex :D
 Arid streets we walk Painted signs proclaim our Truth; Please, don't tase me bro. absentee
the whole Haiku thing...will leave that to others :D
Ron Paul and Dreams Brave Tramps like us we are born to run "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
I think most (all?) of us suck at this, but it is great fun, yes? Like the first day you tried out a hoola-hoop. Or better, the first time your sister's hot friends tried out a hoola-hoop! It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
He's been here a while. He was engaging in satire. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I don't know if I deserve the description of "clean", but it was indeed satire.
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
========= About the Author Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term Mixed Breed.
both clean and articulate. Anything short is simply racist.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
At least according to the good Reverend Joe Biden. It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I leave it to you to figure out that about which Biden was speaking. I doubt even he knows. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
The silver doctor Says: "colonialism" A thousand bongs are glowing "The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
In the basement room rancid food, porn, filthy clothes murmuring RonPaul! "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
seething, angry, I am furious Everyone but me and Ron are stupid all because of the Jooooooooos "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
A haiku must have a seasonal reference or its senryu Dana Common Sense Political Thought
Should have Kigo in order to be traditional Haiku. (Mine did, but I should have used Mauls instead of Falls, stupid hindsight.) Also, it ought to have a distinctive cut between two of the three verses to represent two topics or events. absentee
Thanks for the style tip: As daylight savings time dies Ron Paul is still nuts It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
No F-bombs allowed IQ just below room-temp VOTE RON PAUL YOU JOOOOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!! It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Nazis and Code Pink Together do no thinking Save,"Ron Paul '08!" Have I told you about my Ron Paul t-shirt?
The wretched refuse with conspiracies galore, Send these to Ron Paul __________________________________________________________ Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
First, you block our words Then, laced thick with sarcasm You offer the branch
As autumn winds down The branch is leveled face-ward And the slow whimper ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
 You kick up the leaves But still Ron's magic is lost; Fall, tears of a clown. absentee
And maybe 'freeze' for 'block.' The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
HTML Help Central for Red StatersLet's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Fall becomes winter then spring and summer arrive ron paul still nutty HTML Help Central for Red StatersLet's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
The branch is icy. Peer in the warm house and think, "I shouldn't have peed" Marvin'08!
Online we gather Fight the Elders of Zion And worship Ron Paul!
No more programs, or big government pay-outs, yet liberals like him?
Leaves on the bared trees Lefties make Iraq wind-noise Paul sings their dark hymn. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...between the WOT and Baldur's Gate references, I'm wondering if anybody needs another member for a RPG... "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"Ron Paul Revolution! Net polls, web trolls, online cash . . ." "Shut up." A bird rises. They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Gaze on sqawking loon lit by cold October moon, Hark O gall of Paul!
The revolution is turning noise into hits I smell some Hebrew Marvin'08!

Why hath RedState made the winter of discontent for Ron Paul's minions? "The only thing better than learning from your own mistakes, is learning from someone else's." CURRENTLY LEANING THOMPSON
Turbulent waters, And exceedingly shallow. Ron Paul casts his line.
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
From rotating blades Excrement flying at us Time to cut power And Rightly So!
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
One, George Washington Two, Silent Calvin Coolidge Three will be Ron Paul
Misinformation is rampant on RedState, too. Meet the MSM. Undesirables exist in every faction. Inconvenient truth. Throw the babies out with the dirty bathwater! That'll teach the brats. And XXX XXXX limericks, too?! There once was a Congressman from Texas Who looked to the Constitution for redress. But when he dared cite it, The Republicans did smite it, And America's Founders in the process. There once was a party of Lincoln Which historically won on strength and non-intervention. Some got confused, And summoned their war hawk muse, And now the party's synonymous with aggression. There once was a big tent party, Which claimed to embrace its factions heartily. But then came the '08 horse race, When many of its stallions the Veruca Salts did hate, Leaving the coalition bedraggled and frowzy. In the blogosphere there are certain sites Which claim to support certain types. But if the libertarians go dissentin' Then they won't be lettin' Nothing but negative XXX XXXX blogs be hyped.
The supporters of Doctor Paul Have the unmitigated gall To come to this website And take a grand Shi'ite Then wipe it all over the wall. It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
They feel much better The rest of us: not so sure, As we kneel and scrub And Rightly So!
Like the stars the site Offers all clear instructions That's your one warning. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
To be very fair Romulans were not the first Pot, meet the kettle?
that's Ronulans - damned 'n' key!
absentee
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Ash on the cooling Wind, and the burning leaves say That life is not fair. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
First the WoT (TGH) reference then a first cronicles of Thomas Covenant. In that vein. White gold weilder storms Memory, disdain and scorn Western guardians.
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Square brackets their swords, YouTube videos their shields, They ban 'til blood flows. Marvin'08!
Rivulets of thought course darkly On barren dusty plains of hope Nothing echoes so loud as dreams Poignantly absurd, fruitless, dead All cry out for futures bright and secret Uselessly reaching Longing Gray besets gold, attacks Others beseige strongholds of liberty Animals, they rend, we suffer Where is the light of tomorrow? Angry, hidden by a past scorned Yet, morning dawns anew
absentee
I'm like the little brother who never gets the joke till you explain it the hard way. But now that you've pointed it out..... BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! That was some fun! It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
The RONPAULGOAWAY letters are black, while the rest are dark gray. Meh. absentee
Fall strips tree of leaves Stormfront offers many coins Crazy man accepts The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
Zionist Control, This Illegal War must End, Gold Standard, Amen! or Immune to Reason Talking Points all that We have Only Fascists Ban. --furious "I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Ronulans gather The time to choose grows nearer Liars all at once
Ronulan Army! Come fulfill your destiny And crush Red State's throng!
Voldemort Arise! congress passes, Paul vetos, Gridlock saves the day! or Snowballs seen in Hell, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wins! Cthulhu is free. or D30s I roll, supporters of Paul break molds, the Dragon is slain! or Fair Tax or No Tax? either will work for me! But - Please no Gold Standard. ok ok, last one McCain or Thompson, Heck, even Paul works well for me. Don't heart Huckabee. Last one ... really... The Slashdot Effect Brings many websites to their knees. Crazed Paul Fans just spam. Really... I mean it this time *snickers* Who made this blog post? Bringing crack to NA Meetings You've awakened the beast! --- "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The following vid Nicely sums up why Ron Paul Should be our next prez http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9DrjybyhLA best part is at 0:52
GOP, Vote! For HWMNB N, i.e. XX. soli Deo gloria
Recently, I've begun to suspect that pod people (who happen to be high school sophomores) have taken over RedState. Now, I almost certain.
Elmidd frowns and scolds Won't swing at Paul pinata Pines for sober talk -- "We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
--furious "I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Drafty, cold down "there"; Where is my underwear? Alas, on my head! It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Post in Haiku more fun in October* than TALK LIKE A PIRATE Day. *seasonal reference --furious "I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
This haiku thing is fun, but IMHO.............. the TLAPD was the BEST. DAY. EVER. It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
function voteRP() { var argh=arguments if(argh) {return false}} soli Deo gloria
absentee
I read this and laughed myself silly, called my wife in to the computer room and after 5 minutes of explanation she was still looking at me like I was nuts. This is about the funniest thing I've read in a long time.
.rpPrezArgh { background-color:goldenrod z-index:0 } soli Deo gloria
You could call it "Techaiku." Moe PS: 10% of the proceeds will be fine, thanks. Hey, baby just got second tooth, which means that dentist bills are no longer a theoretical future expense... The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
By the time it's time for braces or whatever, SCHIP will cover full dental up to a million dollars a year household income. HTML Help Central for Red StatersLet's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
delBronx,you are twisted.... Here's my effort in C#: using NoBrainWatts; public sealed class DoctorPaul : IDisposable {} It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
soli Deo gloria
Can you re-write it in COBOL please? ;-) I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels - John Calvin
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
IDENTIFICATION SECTION. PROGRAM-ID. voteRon. ENVIRONMENT DIVISION. CONFIGURATION SECTION. SOURCE-COMPUTER. RED STATE. OBJECT-COMPUTER. RED STATE. DATA DIVISION. PROCEDURE DIVISION. FIRST-PARA. DISPLAY "NO". STOP RUN. Sorry if I left out any periods. I was never a COBOL programmer, but I did have an old COBOL for beginners book on the shelf. Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Function Ronpaul(question:string; var answer:string):string Begin if (position('federal reserve',question)<>0) then begin Answer:=answer+'Our money is being destroyed by our iraq debt'; removestring('federal reserve',question); answer:=answer+ronpaul(question,answer); end; if (position('Healthcare',question)<>0) then begin Answer:=answer+'We cant afford Healthcare because we are extending our empire to Iraq'; removestring('Healthcare',question); answer:=answer+ronpaul(question,answer); end; if (position('9/11',question)<>0) then begin Answer:=answer+'9/11 was our fault and the result of us not having hard money'; removestring('federal reserve',question); answer:=answer+ronpaul(question,answer); end; result:=answer; end ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
IT. CERTAINLY. DOESNT. LOOK. LIKE. COBOL. But I'm just guessing about the Fortran, Tis but Greek to me. Now where did I put my OPS5 manual? Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Its pretty readable as far as programming languages go. ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
My school switched primarily to teaching Pascal in about 1985. I graduated before the cutover, in '84, and I learned IBM Assembler, PL/I and FORTRAN (mostly PL/I). I took one COBOL class, but I only had to write one program the whole semester (teacher was not the greatest...), and to this day, I've written only that one COBOL program. I read a LOT of code in my job, but write little. I spent about a year writing Pascal also, way long ago. These days, I prefer Java and PHP, but my heart is still in Assembler... I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels - John Calvin
(Except it made me feel like I was at work, and I was about to get a stack overflow message). Marvin'08!
DISPLAY "NO". Classic! I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels - John Calvin
Since we no longer Make haiku while the sun shines, Gates Walls of perl beckon. #!/bin/perl -w use strict; undef $/; my($hwmnbn)=join(".*",map{chr($_)} (82,79,78,80,65,85,76)); while(<STDIN>) { m/$hwmnbn/i && last; print $_; } soli Deo gloria
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I started coming here when I read about the removal of Ron Paul material.
Until I heard of the controversy over people in support of a person, was not allowed have his supporters heard? I wondered, what was it all about.... PR haha
Like government, we have asked for nothing, then what was free, is taken and told NO. To turn around and say... here, have some... under my jurisdiction ...
I'm not sure if this is supporting HWMNBN or what...but it clearly isn't haiku...and I'm pretty sure it doesn't make any sense at all... "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Auntie Semetick Except Ember One One Staged More Nuts Than Jimmah
Does Ron Know That It's Not in the Constitution To vote for moRONs
Helicopters rise blowing leaves to the fall skies messiah silenced OR Their blood on keyboards We play on boats and kneeboards Please go take a bath OR Skunks spray cyberspace Vainly aiming for the face Thump-thump - it is done OR "Real" Republican So sad - they wouldn't know one If it bit their ass
it shouldn't count. ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Five Million Bucks With Hope For America Honey, let's get steak. www.mikehuckabee.com
Free Speech Outdated Overrated, Lame, and Done Censorship Rocks, man.
We know your address Black helicopters enroute To snatch you away And Rightly So!
Winter in Iowa The two percent support sun Ron Paul Melts Away
As I read the original post, it says that the censorship only applies to "shilling" for He Who Shall Not Be Named (The Doctor from Texas running for the Republican nomination- henceforth to be referred to as Voldemoort). Is it okay to mention Voldemoort by name in the context of a rational discussion, or has that been banned as well? E.g. if discussing taxation, would it be legitimate to use Voldemoort's actual name, or would that trigger the ban? Notice I changed my sigfile to comply with the new censorship policy: James Vote for Voldemoort 2008!
The ban is on all mentions, hints, references, allusions or anything that will give anyone reason to conclude that you "support Ron Paul". So, using Voldemoort, He Who Must Not Be Named or some other flippery violates the ban. In other words, you're on very thin ice. Lose the sig. The ban applies to new users who have not yet applied for Ron Paul privileges and have had their application granted. i.e. people like you. And before that will happen, you need to spend a few weeks writing on every other subject, apart from Ron Paul. This policy is intended to weed out the Storm-Fronters, Anti-Semites, Code-Pinkers, Mobys and all the other assortments of trolls, spammers and idiots who "support Ron Paul" from the unfortunately few sane ones. Veterans Redstaters are free to mention, discuss, attack and even praise Ron Paul (like this guy here who is an actual bona fide sane Ron Paul supporter). Interestingly enough, Ron Paul himself, is free to mention and post about Ron Paul. Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, try to think of it this way; Ron Paul is so fantastic, so great, so utterly what we need, second only to God (and quite a lot of his recent supporters here would quibble with that) that you have to *earn* the right to mention His Great Name.
You take away our First Amendment Rights of Speech; Un-American.
"Libertarian" Thinks 'Property Rights' null phrase - Oh! for season's change! The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The First Amendment Does not apply here, silly This, a private site -------------------------------------- I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution. -- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)
Fed is illegal Currency is collapsing Ron says "I love Gold" Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
while the north winds blow Ron fights against two tools of Zion the Fed and the IRS "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
I voted for Bush Small government he promised Spending is sky-high Liberty shredded Patriot Act infringes On citizens rights Pro-life homeschooler Weighs in the balance the men What do they believe Romney is Mormon Does he wear the spiritual Underwear? Thats weird. Giuliani is Pro-choice. Wont vote for him in In any election. McCain the hero Has scary anger issues Can not vote for him. Fred Thompson was the D.A. on Law and Order Yawn. He is boring. Ron Paul! Defender Of the Constitution. I Think he is the man.
...Ronulan dillweed. It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
The opening made Sometimes too far is too far Bigotry is banned. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Spring, Paul nominated But Veep choice already dead Pierre Salinger?
Freedom isn't free.
make a joke out of him and his following - - apparently following the constitution has become that outdated - - to consider abiding by it is laughable this is completely and utterly ridiculous
Seventeen syllables and three hits of the return key, and he'd have been fine. But nooooo, nothing could keep the man from his proud defiance of other people's property rights... The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative, yes? Liberal like Ron.
Big tent.
Speak of your man-god in seventeen syllables - Or STFU. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Seriously. Perfect.
President Ron Paul Honest Republican See the oxymoron ?
Look up top Go slow the big words will come easier. ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Did cruel winter frosts Strip you of counting fingers? - Oh, by the way: Blam. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I like politics, I hate transcribing on a keyboard: President Ron Paul AN honest Republican See the oxymoron ?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Your last line should have read: See the RoMoron? And Rightly So!
["Let's make this clear, billybob77: by Moe Lane Speak of your man-god in seventeen syllables - Or STFU."]
Bales of straw in fall, Polls of straw foiled by a few. Nay, foil is for hats ------------ "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - A. Lincoln
Thanks Shaggy DA This one made me laugh out loud Haiku is much fun. Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
reins of governance progressive and regressive, roll back, move forward. he may be crazy, either right or wrong, but still, he is a conservative. not all his backers are paranoid fools, it's true please remember this. Seasonal: winter candidates all imperfect to voters future is unclear. morals and money, wars, where do votes reside? issues this autumn?
I have never cared for jumping through hoops like a circus animal.
Or at least, you might show some sense of humor when the landowner is sighting you while taking off the safety... Jumping through a hoop Like a circus animal: Not what I care for But then, perhaps humor is forbidden to those who follow HWMNBN. And Rightly So!
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
The worse thing is you start to think in Haiku. What a pain in the butt.
You were so close The worse thing is this: You start to think in Haiku A pain in the butt And Rightly So!
Make them post Haiku Principles are grey blurry; Tell them all Fa-Qew
Jan 09 comes fast Rudy snorts, then nukes Iran Shoulda voted Paul...
Troop blood on the leaves Slow children rant and again Nukes should make them glad ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"Dissent is Treason!" Red State heads buried in sand; Why are words so feared?
______________________________________ Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
========= About the Author Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.
No, Lord Vegas, this site never have I visted until this day.
Oops again! Make that: No, my Lord Vegas, this site never visited by me 'til today."
Gods' twilight and year's Striking a web site at once Research your own name ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Alas inconstancy of cast out user name the thread is adrift
And Rightly So!
There are three kinds of mathematician - those who can add, and those who can't.
Those who think they can add but don't realize they can't? And Rightly So!
And Rightly So!
...that there is a fourth kind of mathematician. The icepick kind. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Fading sunlight shines Third grade reading a lost art The worst cry out doom ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Ron Paul wins in landslide. George S., humbled, eats his words; Hillary trembles.
______________________________________ Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Not a poet, and Rightly chastised, I please ask One thousand pardons.
========= About the Author Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixws breed. Vegas hates Haiku!
fake conservatives who censor and fear Ron Paul your days are numbered
______________________________________ Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Like the grains of sand The number of our days are When over we lived ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Taste terrible Not Filling No thanks...I'm having a Ron Paul ______________________________________ Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Didn't last an hour Fourteen minutes forty-four Dumped now on the Pile Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
"Your days are numbered" With the sunrise we find you Banned, atop the Pile -------------------------------------- I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution. -- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)
This is hilarious, a great idea! Ron Paul has some good ideas, just some that is... . absurd thought - God of the Universe says just blame America for all the ills of the world don't blame simple dictators . absurd thought - God of the Universe says ignore the threat of jihad SCREAM that it's made up an excuse for blood for oil . http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/ :) . USpace
Bush is Disgraceful Masons subjugate the Globe Paul sparks Rebellion We Have One Last Chance To End Corporate Rule, Join: Paul's RevoLution.
Black Helicopters North American Union Must stop it next fall Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
What happens when mean Reps learn RP's base is Ron Reagans? They STILL scorn.
With site's indulgence I shall slight Republicans - Hey! My tracheaccckkk! The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Ron leaf falls on pile He preaches in the cold wind, A brief flame, leaf gone
Libertarian Now means leftist kook theories meanings fall like leaves The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
Green leaves fall toward Paul. Military donations? Tops. Support the troops.
Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you shall find rest for your souls.
I misposted, sorry about that. I'll try again...
FOX tries to hush him "Ron's polling at 5%" Darn, he gets to talk.. "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you shall find rest for your souls."
Eleventy-Eleven My chad hangs for Paul. It begs the GOP: Stop!!!11!!! No more compassion!!!11!!! Wind Chill Reality bites - We don't "blame America." Cold chills do blowback. Cats on a Hot Tin Roof What's the victory? Just staying on it, I guess. As long as we can. No Country for Grand Old Party Call it? Yes. For what? What's the most you ever lost? Trillions, and our way. Invasion of the Principles Snatchers It's an invasion! Republican hopefuls pitch. Pods snatched the party.
______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Who else, come the fifth? Repub little "L"s not dead. Dude, where's my party? ...and the parodies... World Trade Center Bush and Jews light up NY Islamic scapegoats Autumn golden leaves, Usher in new gold standard Bernanke got p0wned! Imperialists! You are reaping what you sow Get out of UN Ignored by mainstream Red State must now hear our words! Hello? This thing on? Olive branch of peace Paultard haikus embarass Can't you people count?
The California National Guard is similarly concerned about a catastrophic event. Our issue is that we are shortchanged when it comes to equipment, said Col. Jon Siepmann, a spokesman for the Guard in California. We have gone from a strategic reserve to a globally deployable force, and yet our equipment resources have been largely the same levels since before the war. http://anthropos-lab.net/vss/2007/05/kansas-tornado-renews-debate-on-gua... Not making a judgment on Boxer blaming But the issue has been out there for several months relating to the guard and California. --- "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Why are most of the Republican Presidential candidates supporting the North American Union and open borders? www.fred08.com www.joinrudy2008.com [Links edited -- NS]
Didn't you know? Because of...... The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!! It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
This is what happens anytime there is some sort of dissaster, blame it on the president -- blame it on the war. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius did the same thing when it came to tornado relief. Of course she hadnt even asked for extra help yet -- just made accusations to benefit her agenda. This is Bush's fate... no matter what happens... brigdes collapse, fires, tornados, perhaps even Ron Paul supporters being banned from RedState -- eventaully its all about President Bush and "his war."
That's the nature of the beast in America. Just as the quarterback gets the blame in a football game, the person who's in charge is the one that gets the credit and the blame. --- "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Ron Paul!! I mean this guy is the best answer to all the problem s both sides have. RON PAUL for All of US
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
 ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
and their environmental policies for these fires. In order to protect the spotted owl and other so-called endangered species, they and their policies have prevented the thinning of overgrown forests by loggers, and have prevented the removal of underbrush which helps to ignite these fires. They don't care about the people and the homes in the fire-endangered areas, only the animals and other creatures. It is so easy to blame it on Bush and on Global Warming.
Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!!
Molon Labe!
hahahahahahah
Molon Labe!
What an idiot!
You are right, Doc is a little "off" Say hi to Larry Craig!
Hey, where are all of you trolls coming from today? ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right... ---Thomas Paine---
According to the L.A. Times "Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, head of the National Guard Bureau, said Tuesday that the war in Iraq has not diminished the Guard's ability to assist fire-fighters. "Although the California guard currently has 3,000 soldiers deployed overseas, 'We were very, very careful to not take capabilities away from the state of California that might be useful in fighting forest fires,' Blum said. "About 1,500 California National Guard members have been activated to assist with the fires, and another 17,000 are available, if needed, officials said." -- "We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
the fire burned the house right next door to mine, so if anyone should be upset its me. Guess what Sen. Boxer, haing more national guard would have done nothing to prevent, nor to fight the fires that are raging on here. I just dropped off food here at the high school in lake arrowhead for our brave firefighters and troops and there are enough up here now. The parking lot is full of trucks and men. to try and blame this on Bush's Iraq policy is nothing more than foolhearty. It denegrates your office, it denegrates the men and women fighting up here and if its possible, even denegrates your stature lower than it already is. As for those blaming the fires on global warming, since a majority have been caused by Arson or sparks from things such as welding equipment, car fires or down power lines, I hardly see how one could associate what is going on with Gore's folly. There is always going to be dry weather in southern california by October, lots of dry shrubs and trees, and things happen. Its been that way for millenia and will continue to be that way long after Gore, Reid, Pelosi and crew force their green taxes down Americans throats. I mean lets call it for what it is, this Global warming push is nothing more than a way to raise taxes without calling it a tax cut. I get so angry when liberals who arent here fighting these fires try to use them for political gain. - Good things take time...Great things happen all at once.
Only the GOP is fighting the fires, all the liberals are still surfing... LOL
how ignorant you truly are. Where in this entire post did anyone say only the GOP was fighting the fires. We are only commenting on the irresponsible and baseless comments of the liberal Barbara Boxer. If you are going to be an inane drone at least be good at it. Instead you choose to use a crude handle and incite people here. I wonder if it isnt time for you to return to KOSland. - Good things take time...Great things happen all at once.
They're all running around looking for microphones to yell their "blame Bush" claptrap into. And because you make one sensible post does not make you *not* an idiot and a troll. It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Lt. Gov. Garamendi was on MSNBC last night explaining why Bush should stay away from California, "How about sending our National Guard back from Iraq? So that we have those people available here to help us?" I wrote the following quickie note to Garamendi: "Congratulations on embarrassing yourself and the State of California on national television. Is there anything you Democratic tools wont turn into a political football? "I've spent the past two days dodging and dousing flames around my home in Portola Hills. This is a time for consolation, support, and appreciation. Not foolish political opportunism. I guess your Ivory Tower is too far away to appreciate that fact." -- "We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
My father taught me that those who cast blame at others are often those who sit and let others do all the work. Let's be honest, the Democrats love when these things occur, right down to hurricanes and fires, Repubs caught with their pants down, etc, because that allows them the opportunity to stand at a microphone, (shades of Reid, Kennedy and Boxer) and cast blame at the President's feet. They have absolutely NO concern for the actual event or they would perhaps be donating much of their millions to help those affected. Reminds me of the parable of those in the church who prayed out loud and pounded their chests denoting what a great Christian they were, yet Jesus proclaimed those who sat silent and humble, reaching out a helping hand to those who needed it were truly Christians. HYPOCRITES! My only wish is that the Republicans and President Bush would stand up and fight back! Seeing RED and loving it!
Sorry for the snark, it's been one of those days. Hope you make it out of the mess intact and OK. I don't know about the National Guard, but I do know they pulled 800 Marines out of Camp Pendleton to fight the fire. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
it was quite clever actually. As for the national guard and/or Marines, et al, the point of the matter is no one could have planned for this, no one could have foreseen this. What is the count now? 20 Fires of major proportion. the point is that claiming that if these people werent in Iraq things would be better is an insane comment. They could neither have fought the fires, nor prevented them. It is just Boxer, in conjunction with the left, trying to turn the tide against Bush as they did with Katrina, and well basically everything else that goes wrong. This time the response was awesome, there are so many firefighters and government officials up here from all over the states. Given this, she has to look for something to denegrate the President on, so both she, and Garamandi (who is the worst kind of opportunist) decided to try and tie it to Iraq while HArry Reid takes time away from trying to defeat qualified Judges to blame this on Bush who of course caused Global warming. Its insane. PS to the memeber who is in Portola, God Speed. I hope that your house and you both stay safe!!! - Good things take time...Great things happen all at once.
Things seem to have improved quite a bit today. Unlike the whining libs who see political opportunity in every human tragedy, I have nothing but great things to say about how this entire episode has been managed. The firefighters have been truly remarkable - working on guts, heart, and determination to save lives and homes. We could have used more air support, but with so many fires breaking out concurrently across so many areas I really can't argue about asset allocation. The Governor has been hands-on, the Feds have been responsive, and the affected families have taken responsibility for their own safety and well being. The only failing has been the inability of some political hacks to keep their mouths shut and focus on bigger issues than their own self-serving agendas. -- "We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
Of course, it's either Bush or global whining...which is in turn, apparently Bush's fault. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently.
units ever been called in to deal with fires? This is not only incendiary but asinine. There has never been a national guard unit called in to stop a fire especially a fire of this magnitude. Are firefighters being taken out of Cali and moved to Iraq? This is quite extreme on her part. Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember. Proprietor Nation
all the time. The idea that there weren't enough left in CA is asinine, but the idea that they are called on to help fight fires (or provide security in the area while others fight fires) is not asinine. Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
National Guard and Regular Army were called out to deal with California fires in 1985 and 1986. I was there. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
the National Guard is used in most disasters. Considering the looting that normally takes place, they can be used for security. However, they are soldiers first and civic help teams second. Also, I heard last night that 2,000 California Guardsmen are in Iraq leaving 17,000 in Californa to help with this if they are even needed. Molon Labe!
from time to time, usually for support roles and logistics. Wildland firefighting is skilled dangerous work, so you don't want to stick a pulaski in a Guardsman's hands and send him out on the fire line if there's any alternative. Most wildland firefighting in the West is done by civilian firefighters from the several states under cooperative agreements between the states. There's not much business for them here this time of year, so I'm sure Alaska's contingent is salivating over the opportunity to go to sunny CA and make some fancy money - and once a fire goes federal, they do make some pretty good money. Structurally, the National Guard is a subdivision of state government usually under the command of a state Adjutant General subordinate to the Governor. The Governor can call out the Guard to state active duty and they go on state pay and work under state direction. If an incident gets a federal disaster declaration, the Guard may be federalized and may be paid by the Fed and Guard units from other states may be brought in under federal command. If the event is serious enough, the Guard may brought to federal active duty at which time they become essentially regular US active military. In Vino Veritas
 we can do a trade. We'll send all the firefighters, & Senator Boxer, to Iraq and bring the National Guard to California to fight fires. As roles are both blurred,exchangeable, and of equal national priority, why not? And Senator Boxer should make up her own anti-Bush idiocies rather than steal the old ones from a mindless buffoon, up to now in the great Louisiana tradition of corruption management. "a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
She must be afraid that someday - sooner than later, perhaps - someone just might get elected to the Senate who is more stupid than she. Fear not, Senator Poop-for-brains. Your title is secure probably for at least one more cycle. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
said in regards to this statement: "When a Boxer's this brain-dead, the referee usually stops the fight."
Apparently he not only controls the Winds and Waves of Hurricane Katrina- he also controls the Wind and Fire in California. Hasn't anybody ever heard of the phrase "An Act of God" How can these things be Bush's fault?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
.
You know, it makes you think. I wasn't waxing philosophical, I'm saying that's what the whether machine does. It makes you think. About whether you like chocolate or vanilla, for example. Basically so you'll stop thinking about ... something ... stop thinking ... I think I prefer vanilla. It's so smooth and satisfying. Whether that's genetic or not, I'm not sure. But whether that's relevant is really something to think about. Dangit! absentee
 God everywhere else, why should this shock you?.. " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
Methinks he's sane enough to let reality interfere with the psychotic dream.
...that Sen Levin has obtained some information that has him concerned about global terror? I'm not a fan of his, but I welcome his comments. "Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
some of his more recent moonbat statements.
After the last two years can anything the Dems say about WAR or PEACE be TRUSTED? You've got to be kidding me! Many of them not only voted FOR authorizing Bush to go into Iraq, they completely supported the WMD theory. Since then they've not only backed completely off, they've thrown Bush and the Republicans under an entire boatload of 2-ton buses. If there really were a backpeddling trend on behalf of the "majority", shouldn't Bush go before congress and say "you fat bunch of yellow, lily liver, manipulative, lying, power-hungry, *x)$R%@in', did I say lyin', bunch of politicians, you need to admit that no one can trust you on what you said last week, let alone with the oversight of our nation's military. You bunch of bleepin' danged idiots." And walk out. Welcoming their comments is like saying, you know the last few years when you trashed Bush & the troops? Well, we are SO relieved you decided we need military force, thank God, you know, because we really need the Dems to say this because otherwise--NO ONE BELIEVES US. So here, we're nothin without you guys, keep your power.
Maybe the idea that the Democrats are going to be held to account for Iraq may be causing some second thoughts. ____ Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.  J. Michael Waller
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Dick Cheney must've found pictures of Levin with a live girl, a dead boy, Mark Foley, and Halliburton stock. "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Eating spotted owl sandwich in a room heated by a stove that was burning a combination of styrofoam and crude oil with a full gun rack on the wall behind him. Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Reading "Shut up and Sing" while listening to Toby Keith and internet shopping at WalMart.com on a Microsoft-based machine. ------------- So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War coming along?
is a pretty big DNC donor, or so I've been told.
...because I find that very hard to believe.
Link. ------------ [F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred... -John Locke
 ____ Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.  J. Michael Waller
Try this? If that does not work, go here and do a name search for Covel, Toby, check the "all cycles" box, and type in the stupid code at the bottom, then hit "search." You get two results: COVEL, TOBY MR NORMAN,OK 73069 TOKECO INC./ENTERTAINER 1/10/2006 $2,000 Republican National Cmte COVEL, TOBY MR NORMAN,OK 73069 TOKECO INC./ENTERTAINER 9/10/2003 $2,000 Bush, George W ------------ [F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred... -John Locke
Toby Keith was born Toby Covel. There are no donation records for Toby Keith, so I assume that he still uses Covel for official purposes. I know all this because I graduated from High School in his hometown. Our water tower said "Home of Toby Keith" under the city name. No, I'm not proud. ------------ [F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred... -John Locke
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I think he's gotten more than his fair share out of the whole "America kicks Ass" schtick.
I think he just doesn't know better. 1) he lives in the past, when patriotic blue collar Southerners and Midwesterners existed and 2) Although he is country, he is still kind of Hollywood. He is star struck by Willie Nelson, Kris Kristoferson and Merle Haggard, whose politics are are sixties based. Can't teach those old dog new tricks. Toby should know better. I just dont think he gets it. I'll send a unpleasant email, but I'll still buy his music.
that he referred to himself along the lines of a "conservative Democrat". I find it hard to believe he'd be tossing big piles of cash in the direction of Dr. Howeird. ------------- So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War coming along?
A recent quote where he said he's a Democrat because he's a populist and the Democrats are the party of the common man. Wish I could remember where I saw or heard it. They chose dishonor. They will have war. - Winston Churchill
But as I see it's not there I think it's safe to assume that The Haliburton Mind Control Ray-Gun (Pat. Pend.) is working at near full capacity these days. < /snark > In all seriousness - this is good news, folks. A little bipartisanship on the national-defense front is more than welcome at this point. ------------- So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War coming along?
Are you sure this story is accurate, Erick? It's just pretty much unbelievable the way it reads right now. ------------ [F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred... -John Locke
I couldn't find a thing about it on the web, google news, etc. http://jasperblog.wordpress.com/
I had to look at the calander to if it is the 1st of April.
The Same Carl Levin we have all come to know and loathe as a top war critic?? THAT CARL LEVIN???? S'cuse me, but I gotta look out the window and see if pigs are flying! Two or three more Dems come over from the dark side and we just might win this thing. "You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
and the Democrats are deciding that they need to get on the right side of the National Security issue?
there is one serious Democrat. Maybe. ____ Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.  J. Michael Waller
Maybe there is another one...maybe Lieberman got to him? Because Lieberman can call himself an Independent all he wants, he's still a Democrat--albeit the serious sort. "I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
didn't count Joe... ____ Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.  J. Michael Waller
has been that the Dems' view of the war would be completely dour, pessimistic, and enforcing a complete moratorium on postiive news on Iraq. Until they could begin to take credit for anything good that happened. Then by the time they were done, most of the people in the country, who don't pay much attn, and don't have anything but GMA and newspaper headlines to go on would believe that once the Dems got in charge things began to look up in Iraq. You know, a big parade of them going over, intimidating the pres, etc. And "voila!" They're heroes.
...has been that the Dems' view of the war would be completely dour, pessimistic, and enforcing a complete moratorium on postiive news on Iraq. Until they could begin to take credit for anything good that happened. Then by the time they were done, most of the people in the country, who don't pay much attn, and don't have anything but GMA and newspaper headlines to go on would believe that once the Dems got in charge things began to look up in Iraq. You know, a big parade of them going over, oversight for Bush & Co. And "voila!" They suck up the glory. This won't begin to really change til they get the presidency then their theme song will be "Happy days are here again..."
proof before I buy it. Until then I just cannot believe it "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
it's reasonable to think they might even consider showing it to some of the Dims :-)
that Pelosi, Kerry or Off. ____ Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.  J. Michael Waller
We've been there, done that (the 2002 Iraq resolution was passed by a Democratic Senate). And it isn't pretty.
Maybe Levin likes being a committee chair and knows he won't be if Lieberman starts caucusing with the Republicans. So...he's trying to keep the Democrats from throwing themselves off a cliff and handing control of the Senate to the GOP by driving Lieberman away. Lieberman as an Independent is AWESOME! LOL. Honestly, I would never want him to have an "R" after his name because he's so liberal on most domestic issues (although he's been sympathic to school choice and social security privitization) that he would do further harm to the GOP brand name, but I wouldn't mind it one bit if he became an Independent who caucuses with the Republicans.
This is simply lip service. Since when do Democrats REALLY support action (see Clinton admin)?
www.mymanmitt.com www.race42008.com
'Twas only three months ago that the esteemed Democrat Senator was promising a "phased redeployment" as early as April of this year. I wouldn't get ahead of myself just yet thinking that one of these folks will actually be consistent with what they say -- especially for any period of time, or against the pressure of the next unfavorable poll or Kos diary that crosses their desk.
Jeffs observation is eminently wise. Note Dim Levins question: I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria? Under cover of concern, perhaps he elicits a response that, why yes, we do have some potential contingency plans to address this need. Whereupon, either Levin, or a Dim crony, leaps to the press conference forefront to exclaim: See! Ah ha! You right-wing buggers were planning all along to invade the peaceful law-abiding nations of Syria and Iran! Caught you! When in fact, no such scheme exists, just reasonable planning for possibly necessary (albeit unfortunate) situations. Alas, truth is so often sacrificed. I hope new information has given him a glimpse of reality; I wont be placing any bets, however.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Erick's article on Senator Levin was cited in todays Opinion Journal newsletter: Levin's Moment of Reality RedState.org notes a fascinating exchange in a Senate hearing yesterday: "[Sen. Carl Levin] called for escalation of the offensives against both Iran and Syria. Bravo. Speaking at a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, Senator Levin said to John Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence," "I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus--but it shouldn't be the sole focus. " James Taranto quotes from rest of Erick's piece and then concludes: "Take it with at least a grain of salt; after all, lots of Democrats talked very belligerently about Saddam Hussein in 1998 and 2002, then backed away in the ensuing months and years when it turned out that U.S. policy toward his regime was more than talk. But it is nice to know that despite much of the public's having soured on Iraq, and despite the influence of antiwar extremists on the party, Democrats are still sometimes capable of acknowledging reality."
James Taranto is so cool and this just makes him cooler ;)
and you will get no Valentines from Kos next year :>)
Dan Rather got a report full of [expletive deleted] about his [expletive deleted]. May the left follow through and swim in his [expletive deleted].
"Courage." ___________________________________ Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
No, not courage, "Courage." ___________________________________ Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Clinton's frantic efforts to avoid the draft in '92. But I guess that was completely different, eh? Back when I was on an overseas TV shoot, a member of Rather's crew in his famous "Afghanistan sneak" in 1980 told me that Rather hired a sound crew and movie crew from Rawalpindi in Pakistan and shot the whole sequence about ten miles from Peshawar---pretending to be in a dangerous Afghani battle zone. Talk about "courage!!"
I know there is some ever-shifting jurisprudence on this issue; maybe a lawyer can help? Some legal cases have revolved around this point, I believe: containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, Is revealing that someone is gay an injury to their reputation? Is simply telling that fact an injury? I thought for years courts accepted that, but I read an article on howappealing (I think) awhile back that said courts aren't buying calling someone gay as slander/libel anymore. Any application to extortion? I've always hated Rogers' outing efforts; unless a closeted gay man is about to vote to put all gay people in camps or something equally end-of-the-world, his sex life should remain his own.
But that's a facially absurd construction. The principal distinction that I can find between this section of the U.S. Code and those dealing with blackmail is that blackmail properly threatens to expose illegal activity, whereas extortion is threatening to expose anything that might injure someone's reputation - in other words, legal, but embarrassing. If a court held that, as a matter of law, being outed as a homosexual could not possibly be injurious to reputation (especially for a married individual in public office), that would be ridiculous. I've checked USCS, USCA, and the ALR, and used the Lexis and Westlaw functions, and can't find any federal cases standing for this proposition. I rather suspect that some moonbat made it up out of thin air because it sounded good to them. "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
or proposition? I didn't express any construction from the left or the right; I was just curious as to how the law worked on this stuff. I wasn't sure if "you're gay" counted. But yes, if he was married and was cheating, and someone threatened to "vote this way or I'll tell about your affairs," that sounds like extortion.
which is NOT in people's bedrooms. The Right doesn't "out" people, or threaten to do so -- that's the purview of the "live and let live," supposedly tolerant Left (while they, as usual, accuse conservatives of doing exactly what it is that THEY are guilty of.
You always know what Democrats are planning because they accuse Republicans of doing it first.
one for gays, one for blacks, on for Hispanics, etc. If someone who is black, gray, or Hispanic doesn't fit in the mold of the lefty stereotype for members of the particular group, the label "hypocrite" is affixed. A lefty stereogypical gay must be for extra rights and gay marriage; a lefty stereogypical African American must be for extra rights and affirmative action. A lefty stereotypical Hispanice must favor extra rights and open borders. By doing this, any person in a lefty stereotyped category who is not a lefty is a hypocrite. Those who fear the label and the accompanying harrassment are pushed into the lefty box. That is genuinely sick. I'm not going to address this bit about Senator Craig, either, because I don't know, either. But if these tactics are effective for the left, it is going to be very ugly for a very long time.
Each must also vote Democrat.
I'm not all that happy about Republicans being "outed", but I am in favor of holding all politicians to the same standard that we hold Civil Servants working for the CIA or any of the other National Security agencies to. Those agencies have no problem with a person's sexual preferences as long as they are open about them, on the theory that by being open the threat of blackmail is removed. I'd propose a plank in the National Republican platform that states that Republicans will be forthright and honest in all matters, including sexual orientation. If you want National backing, and national money, you have to be honest about who you are, including your sexuality. _______________________________ Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Anybody's business?
Eric, For the same reason it's the business of anyone, contractor or Civil Servant working for the CIA, NSA, DIA, or any other agency where you hold a high security clearance. So why do we give the elected class a pass on this? You are a target for blackmail if you are hiding a part of who you are. Doubly so it would seem if you are an elected offical that does not vote the way some group wants you to. _______________________________ Another South Park Republican spouting off !
If you run for elected office, your employers should know about your personal life especially high office.
Do we want a list of their favorite positions as well? And will this only apply to Republicans?
Spanish, Gee let's set the elected class higher and futher apart from the general public than they already think they are. Ether that or let's declare a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for anyone working for the Federal government who holds a high security clearance. If we ask Men and Women working for the US in the intelligence agencies to disclose their sexuality, then why don't you want your elected officials to do the same. How many more cases of blackmail, or attempted blackmail do you want to happen before you get the point? As to what the Democrats are doing, I think the majority of those in the closet are over here in the GOP, which make them even more of a target for blackmail. Hey, here's a conservative value for you that we should all agree on...Truth. _______________________________ Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I just wonder how far we want to expand the blackmail prevention act: to alcohol abuse? Internet addiction? A sloppy relationship? Religious views? Skipping class in high school? This is a sordid new low for the Left and I for one won't give them any quarter on it. And as far as which party has the most in the closet, if a Democratic Senate or congressional candidate gets outed between now and November, does anyone think for a nanosecond there won't be howls of anger no matter how hypocritical they may have been about it?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I have no problem with voting for an open Homosexual who shared my views. I got a BIG problem with those in the closet. If such a big part of your life is a fraud how can you be honest or effective in any other way? "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
There is merit in having a platform that all elected officials be open with their sexuality. It remains a sticky question just how one would make certain they were sufficiently open. Must the politician fill out a questionnaire, checking the "gay" box or "straight" box? Perhaps we should inquire as to the particular age range the politician is attracted to, and whether he or she has within the past six months engaged in an illicit affair with someone. Actually, I think it's good if people are open about who they are. But frankly, if I found out tomorrow that John Cornyn (I'm a Texan) was attracted to male backsides I would have no less faith in him, because it is his policy track record which attracts my vote to his candidacy. Also, we must consider our standards in things sexual with other aspects of candidates. As my name indicates, I'm a Calvinist. There's no way, if I was running for office, that I'd campaign at an evangelical event and boldly declare, "Jesus sacrifce paid the penalty only for the sins of those whom the Father predestined, and no more." I'd be a bloody fool to do that, but that doesn't make me a closet Calvinist does it? Sola Gratia
You ask them. You ask them the question, if they refuse to answer, then they can look elsewhere for assistance from the party. If they say one thing and are then proven to be doing something different, they are liars. The GOP does not want someone who will lie to the people while looking them in the eye, aka NO BILL CLINTONS. Caught in a lie on this matter, the full force and money of the GOP will be used to unseat you. No Dollar Bill Bill crud, you are out and we are gunning for you. Simple. _______________________________ Another South Park Republican spouting off !
how would you like the candidate to 'prove' they are heterosexual (or any other sexual)? What if I drink a glass of wine every night? How about a six pack? What if I go to Las Vegas and gamble once each year? How about every month? Should I also prove my church/synagogue/mosque attendance? Is it important to know that I am an avid hunter and gun collector? How about if I have ever engaged in 'hate speech'? Should I reveal all overseas trips I have had including all the details of where and with whom I met? Surely, I should reveal all organizations and affiliations I have ever had. What if I was required to meet the same requirements that a civilian would need for a federal security clearance? Should you know that I (or my mother or wife or girlfriend, for a male) had an abortion? Once you get into personal behaviors and activities you have exceeded the boundaries the 'need to know' for public service.
The more sunlight you give viruses like Mike Rogers, the longer they live. Let him writhe in his own toxic soup.
"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank
Craig isn't up for reelection this year. which can only lend credence to the belief that the Foley IMs were held with knowledge and released before the election on purpose, more evidence of the projection of the left, which believes religious conservatives are going to start hyperventilating over this. such blatant, crass politicking will backfire on them. (Craig's married with 3 kids, for what its worth)
Wife and 2 kids, I think.
hence the "(...for what its worth)". don't mean to claim its dispositive, but since I found that when looking up the end of his term, I thought I'd throw it in.
the point of the post was the Dems' dirty tricks and their ugly projection issues
for Sen. Craig if it IS true, for defying the blackmail. (or even if its not really, though the threat of a lie loses a big part of its sting)
This is 100% pure sleaze. The Democrats have descended to being little more than bottom feeders. This approach will backfire on them. The other day a gay Republican called Rush Limbaugh and talked about how his Democratic partner would never vote for a Democrat again after the way the Dems treated Mark Foley and how they tried to turn Mary Cheneys sexuality into a campaign issue. Soldiers' Angels
I think the Democrats are so bigoted towards the values movement that they think a values voter will vote against someone purely because they are gay. It appears the Democrats are trying to play to the values voters types and probably angering the libertarian types who were giving them a serious look.
If they stay in the closet, they are suseptible to blackmail. That's probably why Reynolds/Hastert/Rove didn't do anything about Foley. it was easier to keep their majority by threatening him. It's probably why Rove loves Arnold Shwarzenegger so much, too. God knows what other skeletons Arnold has in his closet.
my trigger finger is itching...
Do you disagree that people who lead double lives are easily blackmailed?
with your pathetic attempts to claim Republicans are the ones doing the blackmailing, troll.
If you're going to take a pot shot like that, at least make it count. You don't get many freebes around here! The crap about Arnold is silly. The Dems threw everything they had at him, and it didn't stick. So fooey on you! A precedent embalms a principle. - Disraeli
I'm just pointing out what I think is a fairly obvious point. are you going to kick me off the board for that?
(sigh, shaking head) What a senseless waste of human life. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
when they make any sense whatsoever. (Sigh...) That one was just no fun at all.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
might find out you've been posting here, occasionally posing as a Republican (not too well, but what the heck). You could be blackmailed for that because, as we all know, being a closeted Republican is as filthy as you can get. Shame on you. _______________________________ If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
is whether this is true, and if there is any hard evidence that it is true. If it's just a lie then it's not really extortion. If Craig stands in front of the cameras and says "Nope, never happened, and they have no proof anyway" then I suspect nobody will believe this creep with a website, and his reputation will not have been damaged. But if he says, "Yeah, it's true" then he can sue the guy's tail off, and he should. A precedent embalms a principle. - Disraeli
That feels truth is what you'd like it to be. Ask yourself this, "Winning or losing in Iraq?"
If we had responsible news media. These tactics wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if the newsmedia didn't participate in making them work. This type of activity is why everytme I hear the press needs a new shield law or a greater degree of immunity my oly response is you have to be kidding.
Nobody, on the left or the right, is ever happy with the news media. From my perspective here in the middle, I don't think the problem is so much bias as it is sloppiness, the desire to be newsworthy, and a shallow understanding of the issues. But in any event, it doesn't look like the news media has been doing much to participate in this story . . .
goes beyond bias. The partisan media is agenda driven. If a "story" is driving itself, they will let it run its course. Rest assured, they will involve themselves post hast should the "story" lose momentum or veer off-track and begin to run in a direction that is contrary to their agenda. *** "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
From my perspective here in the middle, Things like this always makes me laugh ... It's not that I do not believe that there actually is a middle. But in my experience, people who go around announcing how "Independent", "Moderate" or "Centrist" they are (i.e. in the "middle") and claim that the Press is unbiased, tend quite often to be quite a bit farther to the Left than they deceive themselves to be. They're the type of people who believe that Lincoln Chafee is a "moderate", Rick Santorum is too far to the Right while Barbara Boxer is well within the "mainstream." Oh, they can claim to have voted for people of "both parties" and often do make certain to blame "both sides" for everything to establish their bona fides. But when you examine their posts, they only add "But ... I blame both sides" at the tail end of a rant targeting Republicans. And when really pressed, their voting for candidates of "both parties" is usually voting Republican for dog catcher, sheriff or councilman ... but voting straight Democrat for Governor, Senator, US Rep. and President. I don't think the problem is so much bias as it is sloppiness, the desire to be newsworthy, and a shallow understanding of the issues. But in any event, it doesn't look like the news media has been doing much to participate in this story ... The funny thing is that all this "sloppiness" almost always tends to end up with mud on the GOP and the Democrats all pristine in their shining white armor. The New York Times has no Republicans or Republican members of newsroom staff and still claims to report straight down the middle even as practically every single member of staff has an account on DKos.
That kind of attitude is exactly what is driving independent "middle" voters to Democrats. The idea that there is only one true way of thinking, or that one party has a lock on virtue and morality, is insulting. Insult people long enough and they will start casting votes for the other guy. (Not that the Democrats are any better; as soon as they're in power, they treat folks in the middle the same way, and that's how things tend to go in cycles). You want to keep a majority, don't take this kind of attitude with those who may have different views. And I can't speak for others, but my first Republican vote was for Eisenhower and I voted that way through 2000.
Read my post again and tell me if I did, or did not, write this? It's not that I do not believe that there actually is a middle. Here's my contention. If you think Barbara Boxer is more in the mainstream than Rick Santorum, or that Lincoln Chafee actually is a Centrist, or that the New York Times reports it straight with no bias or spin whatsoever ... then you are not in the middle. You are on the Left. And quite far to the Left at that. Alan Simpson, Rudy Guiliani, Gordon Smith are examples of people who are in the middle. I can definitely take the time out to work and vote for them. But Lincoln Chafee ...?
Some of us see Santorum and Boxer equally out of the mainstream, and equally principled. And I think someone can be in the middle and believe that the press isn't an arm of the Democratic Party.
has an major story titled "Is the president manipulating gas prices to help Republicans?" and the answer is "Some people think so." when all economists and oil industry experts say that he has NO ABILITY to manipulate the price even though he'd like to.... yes that sounds like a balanced middle of the road press to me. Maybe they're not an arm of the Dem party, but they're sure doing everything they can to help.
Some of us see Santorum and Boxer equally out of the mainstream Heh heh ... To be honest, I expected that response from you. Given a choice, people adopting the pose of being "in the middle" tend to reflexively go for the all-of-the-above" option. I have come to understand that a huge part of the appeal of posing as a "Centrist"/"Moderate" or "in the middle" is the appearance of being "even-handed" by castigating "both sides" no matter what or who is responsible in any possible situation. Anyway, what's so outrageous about Santorum? List any position of his that is such an affront to good sense that it renders him out of the "mainstream" as you define it. Please. I'm very curious because I've not yet seen someone successfully do so. What makes him more out of the mainstream than Casey? And I think someone can be in the middle and believe that the press isn't an arm of the Democratic Party. In your opinion, can someone be in the middle and think that the Press is an arm of the Democrat Party? I concede that it may be possible for someone to believe that the Press is completely unbiased and reports straight down the middle and still be in the "Center". Although, it would require a great deal of obtuseness and ignorance of the fact that liberals tend to outnumber conservatives by 15:1 in the nation's most prominent newsrooms. However, it is not possible for someone to be "in the middle" and believe that FOX News is biased to the Right but the New York Times is thoroughly "middle of the road" and non-partisan.
Ok, I think Santorum is out of the mainstream when he argues for "intelligent design" over evolution. He was out of the mainstream with regard to Terri Schiavo. As for the media, I just don't see any particular bias exclusively one way or the other. That doesn't mean I think they're all such wonderful folks; they just report stuff they think people want to read or see. The more sensational, the better, and that doesn't seem particularly liberal or conservative to me.
We need a new term to describe the liberals who announce themselves as "centerists" rather than Republicans. Anyone who has lived through the past several years watching the media doing everything in their power to destroy the GOP and return the Democrats to power, yet still imagines that same media to be unbiased, is pretty far to the left.
-- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
they continually have to change their designations because their belief systems and actions sully the definition. Hillary is already all three, before long she'll become a moderate conservative and Republican sympathizer and we will all be labled exponential 'superlacons'. What the hay- I coin it- and I accept the title. BooBooKitty is a Superlacon. ________________________________________________________ Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
to close to the middle. Here is an idea. Go to Dkos, and ask them what the Dems plan is for Iraq (and don't let them give you any BushLied crap, press them on it). Ever better yet, say that you support J. Leiberman, and question why you should give money to Lamont. See how quickly you banned and your comments hidden, then come back and tell me how Dems are embracing independents. Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
I've found that the owners of left-leaning blogs themselves (like Aravosis) are generally pretty tolerant when I try to point out the other side of an issue. But the other commenters are something else. WOW. Scary, scary people. I know I don't exactly "fit in" here either, but I'm pleased to see that other commenters actually tend to attack my ideas instead of resorting to name-calling. On sites like Raw Story, commenters just resort to calling me a troll . . . or in a few instances, a (gasp) Jew.
aren't making things any better for the GOP. He says that "a congressman has told him that several other gay Republicans will be 'outed' in coming days. He said he doesn't know who they are, but, 'They say it is going to be worse than anything that has happened so far.'" Worse than the Foley nonsense? How is that possible?
Anyone want to speculate which closeted senate or congressional candidate with a "D" by their name will be the first shoved out of the closet? I have a good idea but won't dirty my hands.
I heard a Democratic senator is secretly part of a nuclear family. Pass it on.
;)
My question is: who in the world does this Rogers guy think he is? Some kind of god? He claims to have all this inside intel on politicians. If Craig is gay (which I've never ever heard of even being rumored, unlike with Foley where it was heavily rumored for years), then it will be corroborated by other sources. Otherwise, it's just a cheap, last minute ploy to try to damage a politician WHOSE RE-ELECTION ISN'T EVEN ON THIS YEAR. How dumb.
as much as to damage the party
Rogers has reported on Drier, Shrock, and Foley, never been proven wrong. How does one go about disproving a claim that one is gay? This is typical of the sort of argument the left loves to make. Throw something out that can't be disproven and call that proof that it is true. Meanwhile the original claim does the intended damage and it no longer matters what is true or not. I'm sure there's a good Latin term for this.
is considered a special case of argumentam ad ignorantiam - the suggestion that something is so in the absence of any evidence. Quentin Langley Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
If an elected official votes in a way that defeats the interests of voters who are fundamentally like him or her, I think voters have a legitimate gripe to ask for explanation. Let's say, for example, that Sen. George Allen had voted for an amendment to ban marriage among Jews. Wouldn't it be germane to point out Allen's Jewish heritage? Or does he get to determine every last detail of his public resume? If the story's legit, it seems like Sen. Craig doesn't want to be gay when he's trying to maintain a political career for as an Idaho Republican, but he's perfectly fine with being gay when he's horny and needs some man-on-man action. To me, this speaks volumes about his political character.
This assumes that it is in, in fact, the best interests of gay people to be permitted SSM*: while it's an assumption that I happen to share, it's also an assumption that's generally asserted, rather than proven - and an assumption that is shot down by State voters with a regularity of a metronome. You can't race ahead to the conclusion when people are still disputing the argument. All that being said, Sen Craig is also still being subject to an extortion attempt, which is both illegal and immoral. And his would-be extortionist never asked me before he decided to be the Grand High Moral Poobah for the USA. But you get points for spelling hypocrisy correctly. Seriously: nobody ever seems to. Moe The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. *It's also assuming that denying marriage privileges to SSM couples is equivalent to denying them to hetero couples on the grounds of religion and/or race. Which is an argument that accomplishes nothing except create the burning need in one's opponents to make sure that they get to the voting booth the next time that a marriage amendment is on the ballot.
This assumes that it is in, in fact, the best interests of gay people to be permitted SSM*: while it's an assumption that I happen to share, it's also an assumption that's generally asserted, rather than proven - and an assumption that is shot down by State voters with a regularity of a metronome. Gay people are pretty solidly in favor of SSM (go figure); as adults, surely we grant they can determine for themselves what is in their own best interests, no? So what's to prove? State voters, most of whom aren't gay, have their own best interests to look out for, and must say I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that the marriage bans demonstrate their concern for the best interests of gay people.
Actually, no, in this country we don't assert in our legal system that you have to be an authentic X in order to know what are the best interests of X. We don't make Xs wear emblems on their clothing, either. We don't play those divisions at all, officially. The Democrats, on the other hand... -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Emblems?! Come on... this is no way to debate. To use your analogy, if 90% of Xs are telling you that Y is in their best interest, what makes you, as a non-X, know that they are incorrect? Y may not be in YOUR best interest, which is fine -- democracy is a tradeoff and all that. But surely we can grant that people act according to rational self-interest, and that's a good thing -- at a conservative site, I would have thought this would be axiomatic! Why can't gays decide for themselves, like any other group of adults in our democratic society, what is in their own best interest?
And there's also that little matter of no man being an island. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The question of whether gay marriage is in the best interests of gays is distinct from the question of what are our current laws and what should be our future laws. Various groups lobby for various legislation all the time. With respect to no man being an island, that's very liberal of you =) I think that asking people to make decisions based on the wider implications for society is impractical -- one of my favorite things about conservatives is their appreciation that people act out of rational self-interest. I get that you could argue that self-interest includes impact on society, but I think that's a step beyond what most groups are required to do to justify their particular goals.
very rarely know, much less do, what is in their best interest.
my best interest. _______________________________ If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples will result in a net positive for the larger society; or at least will cause no lasting harm. I happen to think that doing so will result in a net positive... if it is done via the legislature. Trying to do this via an arbitrary judicial process is not beneficial, and will end up harming both the institution of marriage and our legal system. So it is not as much of a stretch as you might think; I don't like the current State bans, but I like exalting the legal flavor of the month even less*. Can we at least try federalism for a while on this? Moe The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. *One way or the other, my fellow SSM advocates will eventually have to face the uncomfortable reality that we do and will need to convince the rest of the population that we're actually right.
is a pretty subtle way to look at what's in the best interests of gays specifically. Like anyone else in our vibrant democracy, they have their own particular goals as individuals and as members of various groups, and I would think we'd all agree that like any other people, they act out of rational self-interest. I don't have a problem with the whole "let the people decide" line of reasoning. I took issue with your apparent contention that gay marriage wasn't necessarily in the best interests of gay people (given that they generally seem to think otherwise) but if you're qualifying that to be something more along the lines of "gay marriage may or may not be in the best interests of society, I think it is, but we need to convince everyone else" then that's cool. If you happened to be inclined to do a post analyzing the various pro-marriage ballot initiatives this election cycle it would be appreciated. No pressure, just a thought.
I don't think that the current pro-SSM strategy of policy change via the courts is in the best interests of the populace, whether gay or straight. And I'll think about that post idea you suggested. :) The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
and thanks.
Would it make sense for the Senate to pass laws that legalize discrimination against poor people, gays, minorities, women, non-Christians, and handicapped people? After all, the Senate is made up mostly of ultra-rich white males, most of whom are presumably straight and Christian and hardly any of whom are handicapped. This way they could avoid the problem you pointed out of when "an elected official votes in a way that defeats the interests of voters who are fundamentally like him or her".
Apparently, the problem is this: "Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value..." It's clear that Rogers isn't looking for money - at least not directly from those he's outed. (He does presumably make money from ads on his site, but I don't think that falls within the meaning of the statute.) What DOES Rogers want, and does it constitute a "thing of value"? He's not asking for any Member of Congress to cast a specific vote on a specific legislative item; rather, he's outing those who oppose his views on a somewhat broader swath - "gay rights" in general. If there were an express tit-for-tat - a threat to expose gay members who failed to vote a certain way on a specific, identified vote, I think he'd be in hot water. But that's not what he's done. As it is, I think he's pretty squarely within the First Amendment - questioning the character of our elected officials who vote for things in public and then act in a purportedly contradictory fashion in private. I happen to agree with Leon that the contradiction is a false one, but it's a legitimate, if distasteful, critique of an elected official. So... illegal? Probably not, unless there's case law I'm unaware of to the contrary. Tacky? Absoultely. Relevant? Just barely. Still, Rogers is a tool and those who cheer him on are merely accessories. "Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank
If you don't think that a Senatorial vote on an important matter isn't a "thing of value," I suggest you walk downtown DC and ask all the lobbyists just what the heck they think they're doing. "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
I didn't realize that this outing was specifically tied to the Alito vote. That changes my conclusion 180 degrees. So, where's the DOJ referral? "Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank
Although, while there, is that "doing" or "buying?"
I'm not arguing the relative merit of constitutional bans on gay marriage or interracial marriage here. I'm just saying that Sen. Craig ought not to be granted a free pass from questions about how he squares his apparent sexuality with a vote to amend the Constitution to ensure that people like him (gay folks) don't get access to the benefits of marriage that straight folks do. And it's not unreasonable for somebody to provide voters with enough information to demonstrate that - in Sen. Craig's case - these questions are worth asking.
Lets assume that this is true and Sen. Craig is gay. He is currently getting "the benefits of marriage that straight folks do". Anyone, gay or straight, can get them by marrying someone of the opposite sex.
Sure. Just like back in the day when people were free to access the benefits of marriage by marrying someone within their own racial group.
...have been part of Western society throughout recorded history, and their legality was not even remotely called into question until the institution of the concept of racial slavery. Same-sex marriages? You have to fold, spindle and mutilate not-very-close analogies to fit, and even then you don't dare put any weight on them. Anyway, you are not helping our cause by suggesting that the people who disagree with us are equivalent to the people who opposed interracial marriage. Moe The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Here's Peggy Pascoe's (historian, Univ. of Oregon) summary of four chief arguments that were used to oppose the abolition of miscegenation laws: 1) marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government. 2) interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) constitute illicit sex rather than marriage. 3) interracial marriage was contrary to God's will 4) interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." While the first one seems to be turned on its head these days, don't the last three sound familiar?
Assume there never were any anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Now argue for gay marriage on its merits rather than try to score points on the cheap by casting opponents as being similar to racists like Robert Byrd.
Civil marriage imparts a range of legal benefits to couples who choose to marry, such as property ownership, making health care decisions, and estate resolution. As there is no compelling rational basis for government to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples with respect to granting the benefits of civil marriage, civil marriage should be available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
If marriage is just a contact, why should not any number of people be able to enter into it?
As there is no compelling rational basis for government to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples Children, young man. Children.
How might children be harmed by making civil marriage available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples?
Property ownership. Every state in the nation allows joint property ownership by unmarried, unrelated individuals. Any group of individuals can together purchase a residence or commercial property and hold title in any legally recognized way in the particular state (JTWROS immediately comes to mind). No marriage license is required. Health care decisions. Living will or health care directive authorizing a specific individual as the decision maker. No marriage license is required. Estate resolution. There is an arcane legal document available in some jurisdictions. It's called a Will. Goes through Probate Court. No marriage license is required. There are simply no situations, other than filing a "married" tax return, that apply here. If you want to point out that corporate job benefits may not be available to non-spousal partners, you should look at what's happening in the progressive capital of the world, Massachusetts. Companies are beginning to rethink "partner benefits" because the driver for those was homosexual couples. Now that gay marriage is legal for Massachusetts citizens, companies are considering dropping partner benefits for all unmarried partners, both homosexual and hetrosexual. It's called an "unintended consequence". _______________________________ If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Here it is: --- "I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Marriage has nothing to do with race and Loving V Virginia was correctly decided in my view. But it sure as heck has something to do with sex. That's why it is more than logical for someone to be perfectly fine with an interracial and be completely opposed to same-sex marriage. Comparing interracial marriage and same-sex marriage is like comparing apples and airplanes. The very raison d'etre of marriage as it has been for all of human existence is entirely about children i.e. when a man and a woman have sex, children are a very likely possibility. I may be repeating this; but there are three laws that are universal about marriage, perhaps the only institution, other than religion (the intertwining of which with marriage is no coincidence) that is found everywhere on Earth. First of all, think of marriage in terms of what it is at the very basic level; it is a socially enforceable contract between two people to both care for each other and, even more importantly, provide for the children produced by their union. These three laws are essential to the very definition of the institution that is marriage, and they're based around children, and their raising. [1] Only two people can be in a marriage contract. That is because a child can only be the product of sexual contact between two people. [2] Only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract. This is because only opposite sex couples can produce children. [3] Only people of sufficient distance in blood can be in a marriage contract. After thousands of years of trial and error, every culture around the world noticed that incestuous unions far too often produced weaker, deformed or otherwise compromised offspring. The simple fact is if your render any of these three laws inoperative, then all the others are fair game. If you Lefties want us to abandon [2], why not [1] and [3]?
 If children are the linchpin on which all your views regarding proper regulations regarding marriage rests, then I think you've made a dangerously weak argument against a social contract that as you state can produce no offspring. For example, why aren't you merely against allowing same-sex couples to adopt children? Disallowing same-sex couples to adopt but allowing them to enter a similar social contract as opposite-sex couples seems to obviate your concerns regarding children while maximizing the autonomy of citizens to enter into mutually beneficial contracts with one another. At anyrate, #3 seems outside the discussion, as no one is calling for same-sex incestuous unions. And it certainly isn't intertwined with the other two. Watch your wording and position re #2 - taken literally you are essentially saying that only couples that can produce children may/should legitimately marry, which excises a fair number of married, opposite-sex couples who cannot conceive children together. Without spiralling into the land of rule exceptions, wrt #1, what of surrogate mothers who, without any sexual contact, carry the in-vitro fertilized egg of a different male and female? At that point you have three persons carrying out vital roles in the ultimate birth of a new human.
Disallowing same-sex couples to adopt but allowing them to enter a similar social contract as opposite-sex couples seems to obviate your concerns regarding children while maximizing the autonomy of citizens to enter into mutually beneficial contracts with one another. If it's simply about "mutually beneficial contracts", why limit entry into it to couples? Why not two women and three men all in one marriage? Why, again, restrict it to people who are understood to be in a sexual relationship? And if it is not necessary that they be in a sexual relationship, why restrict it then to non-related people? At anyrate, #3 seems outside the discussion, as no one is calling for same-sex incestuous unions. And it certainly isn't intertwined with the other two. That's your opinion, zroxx. What other reason other than easily observable damage to possible offspring could there be for the worldwide taboo against incest? ... taken literally you are essentially saying that only couples that can produce children may/should legitimately marry No. Prior to recent advances in technology, fertility or a lack of it could not be determined prior to many years of trying and failing to conceive. So there was no way of determining whether or not a heterosexual couple who were about to marry could not have children. Now, I'm sure you'll chime in here and ask about post-menopausal women being allowed to marry but then you'd be missing the point. These rules were created by every culture around the world to provide the best setting in which to raise children. Follow them and you get as close to a perfect situation as you can. Without spiralling into the land of rule exceptions, wrt #1, what of surrogate mothers ... Now you're going to absurd lengths. Surrogate motherhood did not exist when marriage came into existence, now, did it? Look, the question you have to answer is simple; why does marriage exist? How come it exists in every single culture on Earth? Before we continue fighting over it, let's decide what it is and what it means first.
 Disallowing same-sex couples to adopt but allowing them to enter a similar social contract as opposite-sex couples seems to obviate your concerns regarding children while maximizing the autonomy of citizens to enter into mutually beneficial contracts with one another. Why aren't you taking this position with regards to same-sex marriage if your concern is wholly regarding children - which same-sex couples cannot conceive together? why limit entry into it to couples? Yes, why? If we presume that children are kept out of the equation because two or more same-sex persons cannot conceive them and you would move to disallow adoptions of children to same-sex couples (and any groups of 3 or more persons), then why restrict persons from entering into a contract that stipulates things like property distributon at time of death, visitation rights, power of attorney, joint tax filing and so forth. Note that these benefits are relatively modern inventions and certainly weren't around when marriage came into existance - by your argument is that a good reason to strip them out of civil code for opposite-sex couples so we can get back to the narrow purpose that you assert marriage is all about: children? As a practical matter, I don't see an imminent flood of more-than-two person unions just waiting to tie their fates together, but for those that want to be contractually bound with more than one other human, I say have at it - we don't bat an eye when it comes to general partnerships and LLPs with three or more partners contracting together. Civil marriage as has been codified into state laws provides a simple and straightforward means to enter the contract - typically this requires nothing more than a filing fee at a county office and the signature of a county official. So what we're talking about is enabling this transaction between the government and same-sex couples, or (shudder to think) groups; see below. Before we continue fighting over it, let's decide what it is and what it means first. You seemed to suggest that marriage is completely and irrevocably tied to raising children. I pointed out several reasons why the tie between marriage and children isn't nearly as insoluble as you make it out to be. As far as marriage's purpose in the annals of history, I urge you to read this. Personally, I'd like to see the concept of marriage rightly separated into the civil/legal aspect that takes place at your county courthouse recognized in legal code from the religiously sanctified ceremony that takes place in a church recognized in the eyes of God and the congregation. Call the former "civil union" and let those who practice the latter call it marriage or anything else they want. Certainly the latter is the aspect that I suspect you think of when you posit an unchanging definition of marriage, whereas the former has definitely been redefined and altered over the ages to adapt to the changing needs of society and citizens. The more you blend the two, the more you are willingly putting your religious beliefs into the hands of changing political whims which really ought to have no bearing on what you consecrate between yourself and God. Children and adoption certainly complicate the matter - but my question to you that went unanswered, is why not simply restrict child-rearing to oppostite-sex couples and leave it at that? Same-sex couples cannot conceive children and if you don't let them adopt, then based on your stated position it really would be of no further concern whether same-sex couples can file for and receive a "civil union" contract that provides access to the same legal structures as are currently easily and inexpensively attainable by opposite-sex couples.
Anti-miscegenation laws were wrong because they treated people differently. Some men could only marry some women, while others could only marry from this other group. Not all men were treated equally, and not all women were treated equally. Redefining marriage to have a man 'marry' a man only compares with this, if you see no difference between a man and a woman. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The idea that people aren't treated differently in a world where only opposite-sex marriage is allowed is ludicrous. Straight couples have access to the legal benefits of marriage. Gay couples don't. You can try to argue that such discrimination is justified for some set of reasons. But there's no real argument to be made that it doesn't constitute discrimination.
Actually, every single American above the age of consent has equal access to marriage in this country. The fact that homosexuals do not choose to use it, does not deny that they have access to it. That's the fundamental difference here. A homosexual man has the SAME right to marry ANY woman he wants, that I have. There is TOTAL EQUALITY there. Because remember: marriage is not a government registration of looooooove. That's one of the most stupidly statist concepts running through our society today, I say. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I'm pleased to see that you're an advocate for "total equality". Consider Massachusetts...where gay folks can actually marry the human being of their choice these days. And it seems to be working out just fine for everybody. What's so terrible about that?
Well, if children have no bearing on marriage, why limit marriage to couples? Why not seven people (four women and three men) all in one marriage contract? And if children have no bearing on marriage as an institution, why stop a 30 year old woman from marrying her 35 year old brother? Why should these people be denied the "range of legal benefits [given] to [people] who choose to marry, such as property ownership, making health care decisions, and estate resolution?" Why stop all these people from marrying "the human being[s] of their choice? ... What's so terrible about that?"
Well, if children have no bearing on marriage, why limit marriage to couples? Why not seven people (four women and three men) all in one marriage contract? And if children have no bearing on marriage as an institution, why stop a 30 year old woman from marrying her 35 year old brother? Why should these people be denied the "range of legal benefits [given] to [people] who choose to marry, such as property ownership, making health care decisions, and estate resolution?" Why stop all these people from marrying "the human being[s] of their choice? ... What's so terrible about that?"
Marriage in Massachusetts is, of course, limited to two unrelated parties. This is true for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. You seem very concerned about the well-being of children. Specifically, how might children be harmed by making civil marriage available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples?
Where do you get this idea that marriage should be restricted to couples?
Or restricted to human beings, for that matter. I mean, I bet there are a lot of elderly people with pets out there, who would like to be sure that their pets could inherit part of their estate and be cared for lovingly with that money. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I'm not going to make your 3-way marriage case for you. You can type.
You're the one arguing for massive change. You get to explain why it shouldn't go to its logical conclusions. ----------- Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
All I'm saying is nix the nasty gay marriage amendment. We don't have one now, and we don't need one. Leave Massachusetts alone, dude.
It's his assertion that you effectively have. Annnd I'll let you figure out the rest of it on your own. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Why limit it to unrelated couples?
You'll see in 20 years. It's not like we started having a generation of fatherless youth doped up on Ritalin the day after we started making divorce too easy. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
In 25 years, when some form of civil unions or same sex marriage are common, we'll look back at this issue and wonder what was all the fuss about.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, as opposed to rule by unelected elites.
...it's a reasonable bet to make that by 2009 SSM will no longer be legal in MA, but still will be so in CT. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Like many other social issues, people's views change, and I think that the trend is in favor of some kind of civil union. Whether it happens through the courts or the legislatures, ultimately, it will be because most people are in favor with the idea, or at least comfortable with it.
I'm wondering that already.
Regardless of whether this constitutes blackmail of a public official according to the law, I hope that there are people in the GBLT community who would argue that this kind of behavior is despicable. It really astonishes me that some of the people who have been so vociferous about protecting the right to "privacy" in sexual matters are willing to throw that out the window when they deign and appoint themselves the enforcers of a higher ethical principle, in this case "anti-hypocrisy". It seems to me that by wielding this Damoclean sword over the head of Larry Craig, Mr. Rogers is asserting that his judgments about "hypocrisy" simply trump Senator Craig's privacy rights when an election is imminent, and that he has Passed Sentence on this Senator singlehandedly. I'm not as conversant as a lot of people regarding the "forced outing" debate, but I know enough to know that people in the GBLT community are sharply divided over its ethical merits. It seems that Mr. Rogers has unilaterally made up his mind. Some will cheer him. But to me, it proves once again that Liberals cannot be entrusted to preserve people's privacy the moment they decide they have an ideological axe to grind. After the Foley scandal broke, the buzz in the Sinistrosphere was that there was going to be a purge from within of homosexuals in the Republican Party. But amazingly and unconscionably, that purge is actually being conducted by Democrats, it would seem.
Hey, they want to see our talk shows policed...let them ponder their websites being policed as well. I agree that this is a bit of a "stunt," and should fail. If, for some reason, it looks like it MIGHT succeed, we on the conservative side should stand up for Kos. But, I've no problem with the left sweating a bit. They have no problem causing trouble for us. For the moment, "screw 'em." "Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I think that the comments expressed on KOS should not be censored. It is a good place for the rest of us to see what our so-called"progressives" are really thinking. Plus the tin-foil hat crowd needs a place to meet and organize--there is the freedom of assembly provision in the 1st ammendment.
...affect the appropriate FEC rulings? Moe PS: For the record, I'm with Mike on this, all the way down the line. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
This sounds right up his ally. Trent Lott too. Or is it only the right they want to shut up?
he's even less capable of grasping the concept (and frankly, value) of free speech on the web. I'm almost grateful Bambanek apparently slept from March 2005 through the Summer of 2006 rudeness which, IMO, weakens krepmasky's argument, it seems that Bambanek is cleverly using existing law/policies to put Kos on the spot. Bambanek points out that Kos is arguably not a liberal dicussion site, but a Democratic Party advocate site. Evidence: 1) In several places on his blog, it specifically states that the site exists to elect Democrats. 2) DailyKos turned on Cindy Sheehan when she started attacking Democrats in general, and the Democrat Speaker of the House in specific. What remedy does Bambanek demand? After reading krempasky's story, which talks of using "government institutions to silence opponents," I thought that Bambanek wanted Kos shut down, or for the FEC to impose some sort of controls on it. Not according to his weblog (emphasis added): Some will argue that this is a slippery slope that will snare all bloggers. First, most bloggers aren't organizations. Second, most bloggers are read by like 3 people and their posts are certainly not worth $1,000. Third, most bloggers don't exist for the primary purpose of electing certain people to federal office. A better question to ask is can a political committee avoid campaign regulations by simply organizing in the form of a blog? Surely not. ... That is all this complaint is about, that the DailyKos needs to file disclosure reports to the FEC, just like every other political committee out there. In the end, the DailyKos is bound by its own statement that it exists to elect Democrats. They've made themselves subject to the FEC when they decided to be an arm of the Democratic Party. How does the filing of disclosure reports prevent someone from speaking? I'll admit, I haven't read the text of the actual FEC complaint. If Bambanek is calling for Kos to be shut down or censored, he's way out of line. And, I'll admit that, even if Bambanek is only pushing for the FEC to declare Kos to be a partisan site, I hope the FEC turns his effort aside. The FEC shouldn't be in the business of inhibiting political speech---and excessive government oversight would be de facto inhibiting. But, you have to admit, Bambanek is working within the system. Doesn't the FEC exist to make judgements on situations like this? Sounds like Bambanek has a strong enough case to at least take the matter to the FEC. I'm also under no illusions that the Dems wouldn't do the same thing to us, if/when they have the chance. If they haven't already, it's just a matter of time. And, in the spirit of schadenfreude, I don't mind if Kos has to twist in the wind a bit. He knew he was walking a fine line when he made his site into a de facto Democratic Party organ. If the facts are on his side, let him make and win his case before the FEC. (And, in the meantime, endure all the hassle of being investigated. Lawyers, discovery, the whole works. A hassle the Dems are more than willing to put us through, with no apparent concern for fairness or setting a bad precedent.) In that sense, Bambanek's move is smart political tactics. Just like Kos' move against Fox News/CBC debates was a smart move on his part: it targeted an open weakness in his opponent, and expose him to minimal risk. Where Fox's weakness was its image as a conservative network, Kos' apparent weakness here is his overt partisanship. As the trial laywers would say, it's a matter that should be thoroughly investigated. You need to get your licks in where you can, and we can get in some licks here. If you put your opponent on the defensive, you deny him the initiative. Kos has taken a few licks recently---a few more won't hurt us, and might hurt him. If he's tough enough, he'll deal with it. If he's not, or if his movement turns on him... Regardless of what you think about Bambanek's claim, we shouldn't mischaracterize it as an attempt to "censor" Kos. Clarity in language---and fairness in the accusations we levy---is important. With respect, I fear that some of the allegations being levied at Bambanek are a bit misleading, and overcharged with emotion. My opinion...FWIW V/R to all... smagar "Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I wish I'd used this title: "The rudeness in this argument harms that argument." My bust...will do pushup. "Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
No worries there. But what Bambanek's "complaint" ignores is the FiredUp advisory opinion which makes this a pretty clear case.
And if the FiredUp advisory opinion's contents and impact render what I've said here moot...well, OK then. Thanks for your gracious response to my impolite initial title. I'm glad you have thick skin, but I shouldn't be putting you in a position where you need to use that skin. Will do another pushup as penance...once the soreness in my elbows from the last one subsides. "Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
...this is a REALLY dangerous step. It should tell you something that writers at NRO, Redstate, Free Republic (and others) are unanimous in their opposition to the filing by Bambanek. Of course, RedState and DailyKos worked together last year to drive the FEC ruling cited above... If you start arguing now, based on spurious content/FAQ/whatever 'analysis', then you're going to run into real problems with any conservative site that moderates/edits/removes postings, or even one that simply has a majority of participants from one side or the other. Plus, the assertion that DailyKos is a "de facto Democratic Party site" is just flat wrong. Consider that, when the imbroglio over Sheehan's independent candidacy flared up, site moderators stated that Sheehan would be welcome to "campaign" on DailyKos if she were running against Pelosi in the Democratic primary, but not if running as an Independent. I don't think that "party organs" go about opening doors for challengers to the party's leadership, eh? This is a hole with no bottom. [DISCLAIMER: I'm a political centrist who reads across the blogosphere...yes, I read DailyKos AND RedState, but don't often post to either.]
when the imbroglio over Sheehan's independent candidacy flared up, site moderators stated that Sheehan would be welcome to "campaign" on DailyKos if she were running against Pelosi in the Democratic primary, but not if running as an Independent. She can't post UNLESS she is a Dem. They don't want her as an Independent? It's not a persons thoughts that are important over there, its party affiliation.
But being a site for Democrats doesn't make it an arm of the DNC or any particular campaign, no more than Red State's expressly Republican mission makes it an arm of the RNC or any particular campaign. If they don't want to let Cindy Sheehan use their site to advertise her run against their Speaker of the House, then they should be able to do that without Big Government crashing in. Hooray!
... going anywhere! http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
although, I'm not sure what the problem would be if he did meet with the Republican caucus. Who cares? The guy has a job to do and seems to be the best man for it. I wish him all the best.
"...instead of criticizing General Petraeus for briefing Republicans on the war, perhaps liberal bloggers should suggest the Democrats actually attend those briefings." Sheesh... That would be like... suggesting to all of the 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists and AlGoreKrishnas that they actually consider ALL of the facts rather than picking out the sentence or two they can spin into another, "ah-HA"! "Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Fred Thompson? Pro-America... compassionate tough guy... pro-military and general "this will not go unanswered/there will be heavy punishment" sort of guy when our country is attacked... gives good speach... politically involved... actor... (sniff... sniff) Am I the only one smelling a fond hope of reviving that (oh so overdue) Reagan-esque American Pride here? "Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward." "Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
What about the claim in latter part of the post which said that Republicans were going to abandon Bush and the strategy if it didn't show progress by August - and the fact that they "didn't think it was going to work anyway"? Is there any truth to that?
Of both parties. They will have at least two polls done before they comment on whether the sun is coming up in the east tomorrow. And even then, don't try to pin 'em down on whether it will go down in the west. ____ Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The part about the dems not meeting with him that is... It's certainly not news that the left is nuts. Well done is better than well said. Benjamin Franklin
It doesn't go to anything about a video conference. Goes to something about the supplemental funding instead.
Is there an opening ceremony of some kind for the new term? Is there an address or remarks by the Chief, or just the photo op? Does everyone get to slap Souter once for good luck or pull on Ginsburg's pony tail? There should be some kind of pomp. ----------------------- Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I'm crossing my fingers that this Hoosier will still have to show his ID at the voting booth, come next November. I feel so spoiled.
I was going to write about this article... but not on its substance... but the 'typo'. Did you notice that she had already been elected President already in this article???? I mean President Bush gets Mr. Bush while being the active president for 7 years now... and she gets it 13 months in advance? Right after she laid an egg in the last debate... thanks for projecting Sam Youngman. I can't wait for you to call Florida for her early in 2008. He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBCs Meet the Press. Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new or unusual, Penn said, before adding that it is, in fact, an extremely confusing situation  I think there will be further clarification. "Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
C'mon, Troll, the quote is referring to Bill Clinton, who supposedly locked up the records of Hillary's communications with him and she apparently can't do a thing to change it - that is her official story, and Penn is promoting it - that's his job. Of course, this is like when Kerry said the Army was keeping his military record secret. They were, but only becuase he wouldn't authorize disclosure. At any rate, referring to ex-presidents with the title "President" is entirely proper. The habit Dems have of never referring to President Bush by title is just customary rudeness.
Anyway, when you're running on your spouse's coattails, you get the baggage as well. Besides which, if she wanted those records released, she could easily do so. Which means she wants them closed as much as he does. What is she hiding?
 and it's unfair, where's Katie Couric to redeem things? The dopes on the contact lists have never seen Russert, a former Democratic staffer, interview Republicans? How about Chris Matthews in action? Do they actually watch these shows and nothing registers. More money won't give this overrated stumble bum a quicker wit, it won't help her escape the morass of totally contradictory positions, the camouflage she's covered her ugly self with. You want to go all over the map with vapid generalizations, say things that mock what you said thirty seconds earlier, you pay the price like an adult and not whine like a dull but spoiled ten yr old brat. Hillary and the scum that constitute her staff want an unopposed coronation. She and they know that she isn't, and never will be, up to it. Great when snapping out mindless orders, weak when actually having to think. Like the rest of the Democratic Party, only more so, they're tough when ladling out filth about their opponents, but mere tender babes when it comes to their psychological selves and taking return fire. But that's true of most collectivist thugs. "a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
is not so much that the other Dems will attach HRC. More important is that the Dems have been on the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue for a long time now. Finally, at the debate, it came out and was highlighted for all the public to see on a specific issue which all can understand. Since the Republican Pres candidates are cleary against giving driver's licenses to illegals, then here is an issue that works for the Repubs.
So your money is dried up when the real fight comes. Especially when she continues to leave such precious film clips behind...
It will put him to the right of McCain in the GOP primary, and he'll still be moderate enough on other issues to win the general election. I'm an NRA member, but I'd tolerate another Clinton Gun Ban if it meant no amnesty, and no john McCain. Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
With all his law and order background, you'd think the guy would be strong on immigration. Instead, he's a strong proponent of of amnesty and guest worker programs like Dubya proposed. Finding that out was the straw that broke the camel's back in me deciding whether or not to support him. Really, I don't care about the gay marriage thing all that much to be quite honest. On gun control is important, but it's not my first tier of priorities in choosing a candidate. Abortion, though, is top tier, along with taxes, homeland security, and immigration. Giuliani wins on two out of the four. And on abortion, he's far enough left that it pretty much cancels out everything else, even if he does somehow vow to appoint originalist judges. -------- Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
I should note that I'd rather pull the lever for Rudy than Johnny any day of the week. Even with his personal scandals and abortion problems. -------- Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
The same way McCain, Bush, and every politician right of Kucinich is against amnesty. He will support an earned legalization. He will support a comprehensive immigration reform including a guest worker program and a crack down on employers. Tancredo will be the only person to oppose doing anything productive on immigration and he will do about as well as Al Sharpton will in the D primary. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
he will be in favor of amnesty. You fool nobody with that kind of talk Adam. The only people opposed to doing something "productive" on immigration are your faction. Rudy has a track record on immigration, and it's hideous. He fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep NY a "sanctuary city" where city employees were forbidden to cooperate with the INS. When he lost he refused to accept the results.
But if that's how you define amnesty, then the country, the congress, the President, and all viable 2008 candidates support amnesty. Enjoy tilting at windmills. The rest of us will be working on actually changing immigration policy so it makes sense. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
the country, the congress, the President, and all viable 2008 candidates support amnesty It won't make it any more true. Care to list all the people running in the recent elections who trumpeted their support for amnesty? Or in any elections for that matter. Bush did not exactly highlight the issue in 2004.
"if that's how you define amnesty, then the country, the congress, the President, and all viable 2008 candidates support amnesty. Enjoy tilting at windmills." I don't define amnesty that way and neither do all of those parties. But you seem to. That's fine but it's also why those crafting an immigration policy right now are ignoring you. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Absolving people for breaking the law. It's not that difficult to define, for those who appreciate that words have meaning. those crafting an immigration policy right now You are referring to your friends in the Democratic party, I assume. The Republican party has rejected your positions in no uncertain fashion. BTW, you were making noises the other day about actually putting up a post trying to make the case for how amnesty for scores of millions of illegals would be a benefit to the country and the party. Such a post will the be the first such I've seen at Red State, if you pull it off. I'm looking forward to reading it. Nothing would make me happier than to be convinced that this course is something other than suicide for the GOP and conservatism.
I love how you lecture Adam for bending a word beyond its possible meanings, when you're the one who's apparently incapable of consulting a dictionary. Amnesty: noun 1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction. 2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole. 3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense. verb (used with object) 4. to grant amnesty to; pardon. Now, I've not seen a proposal on the table that does not involve a fine of at least $2,000, so it would seem that it is actually you who's using a word in a manner beyond its possible meanings. The fact that you are recapitulating a ubiquitous mistake in so doing doesn't make it any less wrong. "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Then I suggest that you have a look at the Mike Pence plan. This has an amnesty and no fine of any sort. I've pointed it out here repeatedly. It's never a good idea to guess that I don't know the meanings of words.
Where is a link to the full text of this plan? "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
The detailed summary from Pence's website, and in order to even apply to be in the program, you have to return to your country of origin and apply. What exactly is the problem, here? "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
how returning to your country is "punishment"? The idea that a $2000 fine is punishment is weak enough, given that many "poor immigrants" pay up to $12,000 to get smuggled in here. But taking a bus ride across the border? Why not just announce that they have to say three decades of the Rosary and we'll call it even. It makes as much sense as this business of stepping across the border for a moment.
What a terrible, terrible penalty for breaking into the country and committing a wide range of felonies in all likelihood. Incidentally, the failed Senate bill (which may be filibustered this time)had explicit amnesty for document fraud and other felonies, including tax evasion, if I recall correctly. All this is moot. There apparently are enough Republican and Blue Dog opponents in the House to kill it there again without reliance on an easily bought Senate to do the heavy lifting of enforcment first.
Whether the penalty is adequate, the point is whether it's fair to call it "amnesty." I might think that drunk drivers ought to get 10 years in prison for their first offense, but I don't call a 30 day suspension of their license "amnesty." "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
of illegal entry is a form of amnesty, that is debatable. What isn't is what the Senate attempted and failed to do: to tack on what would have been blatant amnesty for document fraud, forgery, and tax evasion. Incidentally, I don't think U.S. citizenship should even cost $2k. It should be free, and given to those who come here legally and show respect for our laws and process. And only to them.
If the penalty for drunk driving was 10 years in prison, and somebody proposed passing a law saying that all drunk drivers who had driven drunk between dates X and Y would only be punished by a 30 day suspension of their license, then amnesty starts looking like a reasonable description of whats going on. In any case those who insist that there is no amnesty always focus on the illegal aliens. The biggest beneficiaries of amnesty would be the illegal employers who suddenly have their lawbreaking wiped off the books.
And that is only if its ever enforced. Whats going on is clear. We can all see through the "comprehensive" rhetoric of Bush and Co..
To be fair, let me say how I define amnesty. Amnesty is "a general pardon for offenses." Thus, any earned legalization program that is not a general pardon is not an amnesty to me (or the others we have been mentioning). Thus if one must report themselves and pay a fine, that is not amnesty. It may be a good or bad idea, but it is not amnesty. People do not like amnesty in the traditional sense applied to illegal immigrants. Polls show significant support for forms of earned legalizaition (sometimes requiring returning to the home countries, sometimes a fine, etc). I continue to believe that supporting individuals who are willing to uproot their families to succeed through hard work should be a conservative thing to do. It is the antithesis of the welfare queen mentality and America is better the more hard workers we have. We should do what we can to attract hardworking immigrants and deter those who would live on welfare. From my experience and research, the vast majority of immigrants fall into the hardworking category and we are the better for that. By finding a way to legalize illegal immigrants and providing an orderly system for future legal immigration, we can focus on integration efforts and security threats rather than worrying about a man who works his butt off to make $3/hr under the table and send half of that home to support his extended family. And legalization would help take away the incentive to hire under minimum wage workers. I'm open to all kinds of restrictions or debates on how earned legalization should occur. But it is either that or deportation and I do not support deportation. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
I agree that immigrants make this country stronger economically. I even support enhancing our immigration laws to allow more LEGAL immigrants in the country (with proper security screening, of course). I will even add that much of the hysteria against legal and illegal immigration is just thinly disguised racism. I agree with everything you write except about finding a way to legalize illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants, by definition, broke the law and should not be rewarded with a "path to citizenship" or whatever. You do not reward the violation of a sovereign nation's laws, especially by those who are not citizens of that nation. Period!
"I even support enhancing our immigration laws to allow more LEGAL immigrants in the country (with proper security screening, of course). I will even add that much of the hysteria against legal and illegal immigration is just thinly disguised racism. I agree with everything you write except about finding a way to legalize illegal immigrants." Ideologically, I care much more about allowing more future immigrants a legal way to work in the country. I prefer higher levels of legal immigration, but guest worker programs would be a good step. My support for earned legalization is more pragmatic than ideological. I don't see an alternative besides deportation which is impracticle. If a bill set up a system that would work in the future and did nothing about those already here, I could live with that. I care more about fixing the system so we don't make the problem worse. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
But where we disagree, we definitely disagree. Or more specifically, I think you set up a lot of false choices. For example, I too support a guest worker program. But I simply do not believe illegals should be eligible to participate in it. And why is deportation impractical? If someone comes here illegally, we should either incarcerate them or deport them. Or both. Again, they broke the law. Were we may even agree about fixing the system. However, I think the basic draw for most illegals is the availability of cheap labor paying either sub-minimum wages or at least, sub-union wages. But as soon as you make illegals "legal," they can and will demand better wages. Not wages that the market will support -- indeed, those are the wages that illegals are working for now -- but wages that they would become politically entitled to as they were no longer part of the "underground economy" and such. Indeed, the interesting thing I find about the economic argument that liberals use in support of "amnesty" for illegals (and I know you don't like the term but please allow me to use it in this context) is that they are actually making an argument against minimum and prevailing wage laws. I do not think you personally are a liberal but rather a libertarian but I will say that as long as we have our current wage laws, we will have an illegal immigration problem. In that regard, "amnesty" will only make the problem worse. Unfortunately, I do not see us changing our current wage laws. Or at least, not for the better while Democrats are in control of Congress.
All you ever do is tell us how not supporting amnesty will cause the GOP to lose in droves, and how everyone supports amnesty. Why don't you explain to us why amnesty is vital to our well being as a country. What does the fact that McCain and Bush support amnesty have to do with the question of whether or not we should pass amnesty? Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
Here's one of my first posts at RS back in mid-2004. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
that you wrote that, but I think I've seen you say that you are not in favor of open borders. I understand the arguments being made in that post, but setting aside the point that I find them very unpersuasive and impractical, nobody has ever attempted to sell such an idea to the American people. If your idea is so obviously good then I don't see why it needs to hide it's face. Let Bush and Martinez attempt to sell this notion to the public instead of pretending to be trying to figure out a way to prevent it. Let's see some politicians run for office on this platform and see how far they go.
Bush and Martinez don't agree with me doesn't mean I trash them and call them insulting names. That's why people with my views on immigration are still in the conversation even if we aren't going to get our ideal. I have been unabashed about supporting increasing legal immigration as a solution to the illegal immigration problem. I think 1% of the country's population would be an acceptable ceiling. Most years we would not come near that. Most actual researched efforts show about 300-400,000 illegal immigrants coming over the border each year. We allow around 1,000,000 legal immigrants a year. Together that makes about .5% of the population coming in to the country each year, far less than my ceiling. This would allow us to concentrate on finding security threats and background checks on legal immigrants as well as giving those who wish to immigrate a reasonable assurance that they can come legally. If illegal immigration is the problem, this is one of many possible solutions. I understand that many people are also concerned about legal immigration and those are the people who I differ with the most. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
1% cap is quite reasonable. Throughout much of the 19th century a much higher pecentage of America's population was foreign born.
I repeat, if you think that "The wall between nation-states continues to be one of the largest impediments to full economic freedom in the world" you should run that idea by the American people and see how far you get. Apart from being flat out wrong (no economist agrees with you), it's political suicide. Bush and Martinez do agree with you. Although they are constrained by politics into acting otherwise for the most part. I think 1% of the country's population would be an acceptable ceiling. And by what calculations do you arrive at that conclusion? Why not 0% or 20%?
The ability to assimilate and past rates of immigration is how I come up with 1% as a ceiling. And "no economist agrees with you" is incorrect. The vast majority of economist (including those who write at The Economist) agree with me. Allow the free movement of capital and goods has made everyone better off. Freeing kabor would do the same. The difference is that labor involves people often from different cultures. Thus it does make sense to make sure assimilation is happening. And it is just as fast if not faster than in past generations. I have my view and understand it will not be implemented right now. I am willing to compromise and try to find plans that are effectively pro-immigrant and anti-illegal immigration. Now run by the deport 12 million people plan by the "American people" and see how it does. It's not popular. Americans are compassionate, not vindictive, people. And unless there is an actual security threat or criminal record, most Americans are willing to support earned legalization depending on what the terms are. I suspect a Comprehensive Immigration Reform will pass the Senate with 70+ votes and the House with 300+ votes and the President will sign it. Only those who want deportation or other hardline measures will be upset by the reform. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Enough with the "everything is amnesty," "all I blog about is 'amnesty,'" and the "if your to the left of Tancredo on immigration your a RINO" crowds. I can read enough of that BS on FR. Viva the darn Bush plan. Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
The only candidate in the presumptive field that I would categorically not vote for, under any circumstances. "We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Only a Giuliani nomination could cause me to explore the Constitution party candidate.
Adam's Blog The Adam Graham Program
He is wrong on just about every issue and has lots of personal baggage.
Being honest, I am perplexed at how ANYONE who calls themselves a conservative could even consider voting for him. He is to the Left of most Democrats in Congress. He earned a reputation as a "law and order" candidate but what is he most famous for: persecuting -- sorry, I mean prosecuting -- Michael Milken, whose only "crime" was making him and his clients money. Conservatives want to support him because he was the mayor of New York on September 11, 2001, but bluntly, what did he really do? Honestly, nothing special at all. On the issues important to me, from abortion and same-sex marriages to taxes and immigration, Guiliani is just plain wrong. Guiliani is the one Republican candidate that I would not simply not for for, I would work against him!
If you lack principle, you can support Giuliani because he can "win" whatever winning means when your core values are opposed by your president. Adam's Blog The Adam Graham Program
Conservatives I've met who support Rudy are simply unaware of his positions on major issues. Junkies like those of us at redstate operate and decide based on large amounts of information that typical voters are not in possession of, for whatever specific reason there may be. I just attended a Giuliani speech yesterday as part of a work seminar. Colin Powell as well. They have a very simple appeal to conservative voters. They speak in generalities, they don't address a lot of hot button issues, they are unabashedly patriotic, and they don't equivocate with regard to the United States as leader of the free world, the world economy, and the fight for freedom in this world. Considering that those same conservative voters are bombarded with the diametrically opposite position from the left, is it any wonder Powell and Giuliani continue to enjoy conservative support? In a primary, the issues will come out. That support will die down. But it's a mistake to assume moral weakness on the part of his supporters. Those I know, and I know many, simply haven't any notion of his position on core issues. absentee
will ultimately be decided by central issues. If those issues revolve around the GWOT and the economy, I think he could easily be our next president. If the 2008 election is about social issues, he doesn't stand a chance in hell. I love Rudy Giuliani. I don't care about his wives/girlfriends/gayfriends/etc....I think he could be a singularly great leader of this nation. Undoubtedly his personal opinions on social issues differ widely from many on the right, but I do think he respects those who feel different from him. I think he is willing to listen and to compromise. I don't see any Souter/Ginsburg/Miers nominations coming from a Giuliani administration. Rudy Giuliani would bring a rare combination of character and competence to the White House. He would definitely receive my support and vote in 2008.
It was a non-issue in '06. The only role Iraq played in the election was to drag down Republicans who supported it. Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
We are ONLY talking about the fall of Western Civilization!! We are only talking about the fate of our nation! We are only talking about extremists who want to rule the entire world...BELIEVE OR DIE!!! HELLO! McFLY!!! ANYBODY HOME!!! See The World In HinzSight! Political HinzSight
Maybe you'd like to tell me where in that comment I said it shouldn't be an issue. It should. Problem is it won't be. If it was, the Dems wouldn't have won this year. Maybe you don't like the observation, but its the truth. Hello! McFly! Do you actually read comments before you respond to them?! Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
I'm venting at the entire Gxxxamned voing world!! See The World In HinzSight! Political HinzSight
.. if the voters say it is. I think they are packing it in. Barring another major attack on the US in the next two years I don't think it will be the major issue on peoples minds come 2008.
This kind of chicken-littleism brings the whole enterprise is disrepute. Terrorists are not a threat to us at the level you posit. You exaggerate many times beyond their proper scope. They are, certainly, dangerous and must be dealt with (as must certain nasty governments overseas) and sometimes that will involve military action. But they are no more likley to bring about the fall of Western civilization than ebola fever is likley to kill the entire human species. Terrorism is for the Righ twhat global Warming is fro the Left: an end-of-the-world hysteria on which rationality is unwelcome. Things are much more manageable when you keep them in perspective.
Otherwise, the country just might rally around America's mayor. The strong executive may be key in 08. 2008 will be the first post 9/11 Republican presidential primary. I think that means something, particularly the old assumptions on social issues may not hold as much weight for the Commander in Chief position. Congress no longer does anything on guns, a gay marriage amendment goes straight from Congress to the states and abortion is in the courts so the question is where does Rudy stand on judges? If he believes in Constitutional judges where these social issues he's on the wrong side of get settled in the legislature than he may be fine. If he wants to be an activist or take any agency at all as the executive on these issues then he's done.
ex-DEM from Miami Totally agree. This is a war for survival, and we need a leader. Rudy can be that person.
Excuse me but what has Guiliani actually done in the war on terrorism. NOTHING!!!!!!
That has got to be one of the most ignorant insults I have ever seen. Rudy was on the ground leading in the rubble of 9/11. He lead New York City out of the ashes of 9/11, the literal ashes.
I think what WT probably meant is that Giuliani doesn't have any experience in prosecuting the War on Terror. He doesn't have any foreign policy experience at all. While he may have done a fine job leading NYC back from the attacks of 9/11, he wasn't responsible for any strategy to pursue our enemies. Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.
...and as big of a pro-Israel hawk as you'll find... One of our biggest missed opportunities, IMHO, was not striking Iran & Syria when we had an opportunity during the Israel-Hezbollah war. If Rudy had been President, I think this opportunity would not have been missed... Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
Ronald Reagan or even George W Bush having any foreign policy experience.
Excuse me but what strategy did Guiliani implement? What policies did he devise? Indeed, what expertise did he bring to the War on Terrorism? As for his leading New York City as mayor, I give Guiliani credit for keeping his cool and presenting a calm front to the world after the September 11th attacks (he did look much better than Bush those first couple of days) but still, can you lease give me an example of something CONCRETE he did "on the ground leading in the rubble of 9/11. He lead New York City out of the ashes of 9/11, the literal ashes"? Don't give me shibboleths, give me concrete, factual examples? Yes, I do think Guiliani did much better than many politicians did but when you cut right down to it, he still did not do much. The fact is, Americans were looking for a hero in the days immediately after September 11 and Guiliani, by simply not looking bad (read: GWB), fit the bill. But again, after all he said and done, he didn't do all that much. And if you disagree, please provide concrete examples to the contrary.
It's just so hard to imagine where the national psyche will be in two years. It was hard enough to predict the midterms two weeks out! If, however, terrorism and homeland security are the top issues in 2008, do you think that will change any minds in the GOP? In other words, will enough people be willing to say, "I don't like his positions on guns, gays, abortion, etc., but he is the kind of leader America needs in this fight"? Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.
No one cares about his opinion on "gays," but many care about his opinion on marriage. Otherwise your comment is pretty spot on. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
You don't think his support for civil unions will hurt him in Iowa and South Carolina? I just can't see Rudy winning in South Carolina. Therefore, I don't see him getting the nomination.
Adam's point was lost. The point was that Rudy's position on civil unions will have an impact, as opposed to some comment about support for gays that clearly implied a backward bigotry among conservatives. absentee
and I believe they are, (Scalia would have been his CJ nomination & he loves Roberts and Alito) abortion will be off the table. I think 2nd Amendment issues will be as well. If he is "right" on judges, his personal opinions won't matter. _______________________________ If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
As long as he takes a Federalist approach on the issues and supports judges in the mold of Scalia, his personal opinion of abortion won't matter. I'd have to say I'm a pretty conservative guy, and I strongly support Giuliani. I know his personal history and the baggage he carries, but it doesn't matter to me as long as it doesn't negatively affect his ability to do the job. He has fiscal discipline, illustrated by his handling of the out of control budget that was given to him and his ability to bring back the NYC economy without raising taxes. He is tough on crime, and he posseses leadership qualities and an ability to communicate that have, regrettably, been lacking within the current administration. I'm not yet sure who my #2 choice is, but I know who is at the top: Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani was a feverent supporter of the "sanctuary city" idea, in which several cities in the US announced that they would not comply with Federal law and cooperate with INS agents. He fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Then he thumbed his nose at the law and still refused to comply with it. I'm not impressed with his supposed law-and-order credentials. Once more people find out about him (hopefully not in the Presidential election) I think they'll pass.
I just looked up the idea you were referring to and I found quite a bit. I hadn't heard that before, and I'm not sure why Rudy advocated such a practice. I now know it began under Ed Koch and extends even to today under Bloomberg. All I know is what I heard Rudy saying on O'Reilly not too long ago - that it was imperative to secure the boarders as soon as possible. I don't know if he was just pandering, or if he believes both positions are valid. I'll have to wait and see what he says next and see if it squares with what he has said and done in the past.
What evidence do you have that he'll take a "federalist" position on judges? Because he said he likes Roberts and Alito? What potential Republican nominee wouldn't say that? Everyone I've ever talked to who is "pro-choice" doesn't care if abortion is made legal by democratic means or judicial fiat as long as its legal. I really think that if Rudy tried to claim that he favored abortion rights but would appoint judges that opposed them that he'd be raked over the coals by the media. Look what happened to John Kerry that he tried to explain that he'd voted to give the president the authority to go to war, not that he voted to go to war. It was true of course, but you can't make those kind of nuances in a 30 second sound bite or even a presidential debate. Maybe that's stupid, but it's true. Anyway, I seriously doubt that Rudy ever even thought about "federalism" until he decided to run for president.
The only evidence that can be offered is only the evidence we currently have. I can only go by what Rudy has said. What evidence do you have that he would OPPOSE judges like Scalia?
He might be acceptable as a senator from a liberal state where all he could do is approve or disapprove a judge. As a president who picks judges I don't want somebody who is pro-choice, pro civil-union, pro-gun control, etc. Rudy said that people weren't going to be concerned about issues like abortion and gay marriage in 2008 because there would be more important issues to worry about. That's not the man I want picking judges. Or the man I want in the oval office when congress passes bills on embyonic stem cell research, etc.
The real issue is who gets to decide social issues, the legislature or the courts? If Rudy is on the right side of that, he will be fine. These "conservative" Democrats are trying to have it both ways today by campaigning as pro-gun and pro-life, but then supporting the party line on judges. In 2008 Republicans need to frame social issues as "who gets to decide, the People's representatives or judges"? That's something Rudy can lead while exposing these Democrats who campaign as "conservatives" safe in the knowledge the Left believes their judges will provide them cover.
I don't know why Rudy polls so high. I don't think people really know him. He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro gay marriage. He had a bad divorce that derailed his Sentate bid. I think people are still smitten with his whole 9/11 thing. He's bad for the party. McCain and Romney are better candidates. This is a total waste of time.
terrorism Rudy has taken and dno't really know much else about him. There is a lot about him that appeals to me, but there are a lot of negatives that make him pretty much somebody I wouldn't consider in a primary, and I suspect he could do well in some areas-the North East, the West and in the Great Lakes states, but I don't see him appealing widely in the South once the other primary candidates start going negative on him. I could vote for him in a general, because he would be a heck of a lot closer than almost anyone the dems are running to my positions, so in that sense he is acceptable, but I am not convinced in his candidacy-plus given his position on abortion I would have to have a heck of a lot of trust in him to keep any promises about judges-although this is one area I think he may actually be good on.
He is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I am sure social conservatives will just forget both of those and focus on his amnesty position.
When's the last time a president really had that much influence over abortion or marriage issues. The president does have a huge amount of influence over securing the border though. And what, McCain would be better because he claims to be pro-life, and against gay marriage. He voted against a federal amendment banning gay marriage, and said he doesn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. So given a choice between the two, I'll at least take the one who wouldn't support amnesty. Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
We need a candidate that is a proven leader and has a great deal of moral authority with a majority of the country as a war time leader. Otherwise, the MSM will rip them to shreds before the general election. I can sacrifice a few conservative issues, particularly those that aren't strategic and the President has very little direct influence over to avoid that scene. Much to my chagrin in many ways, McCain and Giuliani are the only two currently on the scene that make the cut, but I'm still hoping Romney can get there. National Security, taxes, spending, immigration and Federalist judges are the conservative issues I care most about in 2008. If Rudy can deliver on those I'm not going to throw him under the bus because he's not ideologically pure. If we demand that standard, we'll get an intellectual with no proven executive experience much less moral authority with the public. Such a candidate will be destroyed by the MSM.
Pro-life to the point of being obnoxous. I'm also pro-Rudy. He will be good on juducial nominations, so I'm not concerned about his so-called leftist opinions on abortion or gay-rights. With respect to his personal life issues, find me someone who doesn't have them (McCain does, big time). At least Rudy's have been public knowledge for years. _______________________________ If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Why is it that almost everybody who is pro-choice see the courts as protecting natural rights while people who are pro-life assume that since the constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion it should be left up to the states? One's views on abortion and marriage do influence one's judicial philosophy. I can't think of any prominent pro-choice politician who has publically disavowed Roe. Maybe some Ivory tower law professors do, but it's not a stand politicians make and if Rudy does it will simply be out of political expediency. I think that's a really defeatist attitude to say that Rudy's personal morality shouldn't matter because all of our candidates are immoral. And I seriously doubt that it's true. I haven't heard anything bad about Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, or Mark Sanford. I think that the president should represent the moral values of the country, at least to some extent.
If Rudi is a liberal, why would he appoint conservative judges? I hear this all the time. It's illogical.
Conservative judges are not about being on one side or the other of social issues. It refers to their judicial philosophy. There's a link somewhere on this site to a good discussion from last year about the difference, but I can't find it. I think a search on "conservative judicial philosophy" would probably pull it up though. absentee
He and John McCain will split the RINO vote and allow the conservative candidate to win all of the primaries. :-) Rudy Giuliani would be an excellent Homeland Security Secretary in a Mitt Romney/Condi Rice Administration. :-) President Mitt Romney Vice President Condi Rice Secretary of State John Bolton Secretary of Treasury Steve Forbes Secretary of Defense Duncan Hunter Secretary of Homeland Security Rudy Giuliani Attorney General Rick Santorum Secretary of HUD or Labor Michael Steele
I used to be a big Condi fan, but she hasn't been too impressive since she moved over to State. I don't know what it is about Foggy Bottom, but I think Atilla the Hun could be appointed Secretary of State and in six months he'd be indistinguishable from Neville Chamberlain. I understand having to be diplomatic, but sheesh! Romney worries me. I keep hearing conflicting information on whether or not he's just conservative for show. As for your cabinet selections - oh yeah. Very nice!
That's the ticket!
I'd be fine w/ Rudy and McCain splitting the RINO vote and Romney winning. But can't say I see Condi as being the best VP candidate. How about somebody who wasn't the national security advicor during 9/11 and secretary of state during Iraq? Chuck Hegel would be an ideal pick for Romney's VP. Military and foreign policy experience that Romney lacks. Attractive to moderates, but 100% pro-life rating, and an "A" from the NRA.
Mitt Romeny '08...now we just gotta find someone to ride on the ticket with romney...but rudy shouldnt be that person..neither should bush...his last name is gonna be neg for some time now
he would be a great VP because he is pretty tenacious and I think he doesn't give in too easily when he thinks he is in the right. I just think he has a bit too much ego for second fiddle. I am not sold on Romney either. At this point my favorite candidate is Newt-mostly because he knows the basic principals of the party and knows how to articulate them, but I am not convinced he would go anywhere as a candidate-and he would be a huge lightening rod and easy target for the left, but he might be an interesting number two on the ticket.
Mitt Romeny '08...now we just gotta find someone to ride on the ticket with romney...but rudy shouldnt be that person..neither should bush...his last name is gonna be neg for some time now
The social issues that Rudy is on wrong on are issues the President doesn't have a lot say in, like Gay Marriage. Ultimately, we want conservative judges that respect the Legislative Branch to make these decisions. If he can deliver this, conservatives will be happy. The one issue that will destroy my support for Giuliani is how he decides to cast his lot on the immigration issue. I don't expect Rudy to be like Buchanan on this issue, but if he decides to follow McCain's example (amnesty, social security for illegals, etc.) he's finished. Giuliani is a law and order conservative, and I expect him to lean toward strong enforcement of immigration laws. "Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. " William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Giuliani is a law and order conservative, and I expect him to lean toward strong enforcement of immigration laws." See my comment upthread, "Tough on crime". Or read this. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the citys sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to terrorize people. Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.
I thought about it a few times and it seemed reasonable...What say you guys?
You can't put someone in as VP you wouldn't put in as President. The VP has two jobs: break Senate ties and cover for the President. Being no good for the top slot means he's not right for the second slot either. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I would love it, it would be a great ticket to attract independent voters, but I don't think he would ever sign on. Being Vice-President just doesn't mean much to aspiring leaders. "Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. " William F. Buckley, Jr.
He is very articulate & a great debater. Also, if McCain gets the nomination, as the prediction markets are currently predicting, we will need a VP with gravitaz ala Rudy because McCain is so old. Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
Thats a recipe for disaster. You might as well give the presidency to hillary clinton right now. Running a "moderate" and a liberal for the republican nomination for president? You might as well elect the democrat liberal, the real deal. Also many have mentioned condi rice as a possibility. She has sold Israel down the river and is in many ways as liberal as Guiliani. You don't want that.
I favor Rice most. She would win in a walk. But I'll be amazed if she runs. McCain is ok . . . sounding better, but I think I'm just depressed, so that lukewarm endorsement won't last. Rudy could win, but I doubt he can get the nomination. I'll vote for him, but I doubt most other Floridians will. Romney and Mass. and LDS concern me . . . I have no problem with the issues, but I think a lot of people will. Too bad. I believe it will be someone else. Newt would be my favorite, but he cannot possibly win. Only problem is I cannot imagine any Dem who can win, either. Hillary appears to have as much chance as I do. She would get 25% of the male vote and only 10% of the married male vote. Really, I think both candidates will be people we are not now thinking of. That's fine. First time in many, many decades w/o a sitting Pres. or VP in the running.
There is no way I would support Rudy Giuliani, even if he was running against Clinton. I'm not completely sure about Romney, but he's heaps better than Giuliani. Romney has been labeling himself as pro-life, and in every bill that has come to his desk he responded as a prolifer would. Romney is also passionately against stem-cell research. Romney even has a clearer stand on gay marriage and civil unions. Romney is also against amnesty. Here's a quote from a speech he gave recently: I do not like the idea, therefore, of Amnesty; because, Im afraid, that when you have a regular Amnesty program, of one form or another, you will create a greater incentive for people to come into the country illegally. -- Sounding the Trumpet
 I should clarify. Romney's against embryonic stem-cell research, not adult or umbilical cord stem cell research.-- Sounding the Trumpet blog
Let's clarify even more: according to a transcript or video tape (I can't remember which) of an interview I read or heard with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Mitt Romney said he was not against research on existing embryonic stem-cell lines (this is W's position, too) or against research using "leftover" embroyos from invitro-fertilization clinics. The second part of his position surprised me; however, Romney added that he was absolutely opposed to embryo production or cloning for research. The legislature in Massachusetts wanted to permit embroyo cloning for research, I believe, and Romney vetoed the bill that would have established this.
Regarding Jon Sandor's reference to a stance on immigration Giuliani took 10 years ago, I disagree with Giuliani in this case, but I find this specific instance to be a narrow issue to completely disqualify Rudy on. The current mood in this country in regards to illegal immigration is enforcement first, especially among the conservatives that Giuliani needs to win. Perhaps 9/11 will make Giuliani change how he views illegal immigration. If that doesn't do it, perhaps knowing that this single issue will destroy him among the base will. Right now, however, I don't see any of the serious possible GOP contenders that have taken a hard-line against illegal immigration, and anyone in the current field would be better than McCain on this issue, so I'm willing to wait and give Giuliani the benefit of the doubt. "Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. " William F. Buckley, Jr.
it's 3 months old though Rudy on Immigration Last night, in an interview with Fox's Bill O'Reilly, Rudy Giuliani again put himself squarely in the presidents camp on immigration reform. The mayor is for tough border security, but he has also made the case in recent speeches that real reform must include a guest worker program and a path to citizenship. On Fox, Giuliani argued that comprehensive reform is not only practical but also aides in fighting crime and thwarting terrorists. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/08/rudy_on_immigration....
There are three candidates in this race, folks... John McCain Rudy Guiliani Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum Rick Santorum would rock the conservative world. He would pick up big-time donations, I would work harder for him, give more to him, and do whatever I can for that man than I have ever done for a political candidate in my life. He would smoke Hildebeast in debates, he can articulate on social and terror issues. I know he'd fire up liberals like Bush does, but, hey, we beat down the left in '04. Santorum is a leader and he's right on the issues. But he'll have to tone down the anti-immigrant meme. That will kill us with Latinos and he'll need that Latino Catholic vote.
:o)
Care to back up that claim? -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
His platform centered around immigration. Maybe not anti-immigrant, policy-wise, but the voters heard it as anti-immigrant and that's what matters. Here in Colorado Republicans got smoked because we bought into the polling and punditry that said that voters were most angry about immigration. Republicans like Bob Beauprez took that to mean that every cotton-picking thing you talk about should be about how dangerous illegals are to our way of life. No talk about assimilation or a pathway to citizenship--just vitriol. Yet voters smacked down a gay unions initiative and a pot bill and passed a marriage protection amendment. For fear of seeming too conservative, Republicans never talked about that. It looked obsessive. Santorum wasn't that bad but if he wants to win he needs to offer a pathway to citizenship. He supports, I think, the Pence plan. What do you people want? Mass deportations? Are you crazy?? You're getting a wall and tougher limits, can't you just offer some earned path to citizenship for the greater good of both America and the GOP?
can't you just offer some earned path to citizenship for the greater good of both America and the GOP? How is this course of action in the best interests of America, the Republican party, or conservatism? (Why can nobody ever answer this simple and fundamental question?)
You refuse to acknowledge any of the arguments provided, so people just don't bother to try to explain it to you anymore. There's just no incentive for anyone to try. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
you never made any argument. And you seem intent on keeping that record intact.
1. Go home 2. Apply to enter 3. Wait patiently instead of hopping the border like a hoodlum -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Although Giuliani is pro-choice, I do not think that should be a huge factor. All of the pro-life presidents have failed to ban abortion, including Reagan and both Bushes. Because of this, it really doesn't matter whether a candidate is pro-choice or pro-life because the pro-life candidates have not been able to make any changes. Giuliani is great on the war on terror/Iraq as well as tax cuts. He would make a great opponent to Hillary, which is what really matters. He is not extremely liberal and his position on the war on terror is what really counts.
Actually GHW Bush signed the PBA ban. Plus, this isn't about banning abortion anyway. This is about letting the states determine abortion policy instead of having the Supreme Court do it. -- If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
He could do himself a big favor by coming out as pro-choice, anti-Roe. He could articulate a "moderate" position on abortion as supporting a federalist solution that would allow America to put the national abortion debate behind us. If he sounded off as committed to overturning Roe, it would be a big step in reassuring people. Just saying "I like Scalia" does not mean he will put his neck on the line for constructionist judges. Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Rudy could do the country a big favor by announcing that he won't run.
Adam's Blog The Adam Graham Program
Trying to piece together how much Rudy has committed to running. Hotline Blog has me a little confused with the state vs. federal exploratory committee, but Rudy is my man in 08 if he runs. He's someone who is willing to take the fight to Islamofascists overseas, cut taxes and spending at home, and not stick his finger in the eye of Republicans just so the media will love him. Plus he will put all sorts of states in play, which will make the election interesting, and the possibility of a landslide available, which would be key in bringing back a GOP House and Senate.
Rudy Giuliani is way too liberal on all of the social issues to end up as the final choice for President of the Republican Party in '08, and most of the other Republican contenders are also too liberal on most to all of the social issues to end up as the final choice for President of the Republican Party in '08.
Rudy has said clearly in the past that he is pro-choice and anti-Roe. I heard him say it myself, maybe on Hannity and That Other Guy.
I like Rudy personally, but he's anti-2nd amendment. That's a litmus test with me.
Lots of good reasons to support Rudy, and good reasons not to support Rudy. But, since we're supposed to be better than liberals, instead of dismissing someone who is clearly a great leader (and, I like to think I know a little something about leadership) perhaps we could give him the chance to persuade us why we should vote for him and to assuage some of those with serious doubts about his commitment to conservatism. I'd like to hear what he has to say. My major concerns in any election (post 9/11) are the prosecution of the GWOT (aside: if we ever adopt the attitude of those who say we're not in a struggle for Western Civilization, we're done, condemned to wallow in our memories of garndeur - sort of like France), and the nomination of originalist judges at every level of the judiciary. If Rudy personally is pro-choice, yet appoints my kind of judges, well, I can hold my nose and vote for him. As many have pointed out, we have had one very popular pro-life President (Reagan), one semi-popular one (Bush I) and one loved/hated one with a GOP Congress (Bush II) and we still have Roe. I'd like to see Rudy support restrictions on abortion (something he could impact) and put judges in place who would force this debate into the legislative branch where it belongs, and I would like to see some of more egregious over-reaches of the judicial branch reversed (Kelo, et.al.), and, who wouldn't like someone who is perfect, but, since that leader isn't likely to run in 2008, I might find myself voting for the man in this case, vice the positions. In all honesty, I thought GWB was a conservative, but what have I gotten with him - proposed amnesty, NCLB, massive increases in government spending... except for his steadfastness on GWOT and judges...which brings me back to Rudy... I have no doubt that he'd fight the GWOT with the same tenacity that W once did, and that he would not kowtow to the liberal anti-war establishment. Plus, if he can convince some of my conservative friends to nominate him, he has the added advantage of being a winner. And, we won't get any of those things we want with a loser. Sure, some will say "I can't believe you would support him just because he would win" but...we have to win to do anything, and I am just dubious about Romney (although I am open to him) and my real favorite, Newt, can't win, and, for some reason, I think McCain is a loser, too, although I can't put my finger on it (part of it is the fact that I think McCain is pulling the wool over our eyes),and come on Tancredo stands no chance, Condi won't run, and the others are going nowhere fast. I'm open, but I admit, I like Rudy, and I'm not ashamed to say it. If I can't get an ideologically pure victory, I will take a victory that makes Hillary defend New York and puts California in play. It would be nice to give congressmen in those states something to look forward to, and give people a reason to go out and vote Republican again. In field of gnats, Rudy is a giant. The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
If Rudy goes left as the Republican standard-bearer, the long-term consequences for the party and the conservative movement are dire. The notion that only the next election is important is how we ended up with the mess we're in now. Yes, immediate elections are crucial. But we always pay for the residue of compromise and inattention. Republican betrayal on immigration came *this* close to wrecking the right for a generation, if not more. Don't forget: they think they can get away with it.
I'll just say this-if we don't flip Congress Rudy isn't going to do any better than anyone else who might get past him in the primaries for most of the same reasoning here...media hype and Borking notwithstanding, clearly the relentless blather about bi-partisanship and congressional blockades will only get more exposure. I promised no more slams of any in the gop, so I'll leave it at this-the same or an increased Dem majority all by itself is going to determine the next rounds of SCOTUS...we'll have to choke down O'Connor-style replacements imho...and as both Rudy and Romney have routinely pointed out, in a Dem majority environment you fight hard to reach a compromise-compromise will not likely bring more Alito or Roberts-style confirmations. Thompson or McCain or Huckabee would find themselves in the same position. I'm beginning to believe SCOTUS is just as much off the table as Abortion without a flip. We really need to not lose Congress, however too late it might already be. haystack's 12th: Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Don't expect to flip congress. The press has put a stink on the current administration. We need someone who can outmaneuver, outflank and generally run rings around them. ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It may even be in Rudy's interest, in trying to get nominated, to announce now that he will choose as his VP someone who is pro-life (and who has a history of advocating border enforcement).
 I think two somewhat different people. From the cesspool of New York liberalism to the White House and a much different constituency, and with pressure from within his party, I can see a marked change. In New York if you don't run on the full gamut of left wing weirdness you wind up getting about fifty votes from Queens County. Rudy is enough of a pragmatist to make a move to the right on this issue, much as people who favor Death will be outraged. Hillary on the other hand will be handing out discount tickets in front of abortion clinics, and as everything else should be paid for by government, fevered talk of federal subsidies will befoul the air. One of the better posts I've seen and right on about Hillary and media protection for her wretched and incomparably corrupt self. Though they can't make her look any less bloated. "a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"Rudy is enough of a pragmatist to make a move to the right on this issue" No, no he's not. The fact that he's chosen not to despite everyone (including you) assuming he would is a significant sign. Don't say you had no warnings.
What Rudy has or has not done to date is not a guaranty of future actions in the WH. There does seem to be something of a history of presidents acting differently once elected, give me time and I'll try and come up with a name or two. Significant signs are not determinative of the future, which for both you and me may be something we ought not to bet the house on. Thanks for the warning, neophyte that I am, let's see what happens. But if I'm right don't say you weren't told. "a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
His current behavior isn't conclusive evidence, but it's the only evidence we've got. On the other side, you seem to have... wishful thinking.
 By definition an hypothesis is unfalsifiable, otherwise it would be proof or proved false, as in this case time may tell. The only evidence you have now may be the best evidence but that's for now, and it's not now we're talking about. I may add that even with your current evidence you are advancing an hypothesis yourself, that as president as opposed to NYC Mayor his conduct and position will not, cannot change. So what it comes down to is that you prefer your hypothesis over my hypothesis, which gets us nowhere, satisfying though it may be. As you say, the evidence you use is "inconclusive", but the evidence of candidates changing positions when elected is anything but, a sample of reasons given in my first post re. Rudy. And it's fairly safe to say as President Rudy won't be attending any Gay Pride Parades either, something having to do with constituencies. In any case and following the originating post I'll go with Rudy over Hillary any day on the abortion issue. With that and by your leave I'll bow out. The point of the originating post is that Rudy would be better than Hillary, is that in dispute? "a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
If he were to move significantly to the Right on abortion, you'd be here screaming "flip-flop!" and that he cannot be trusted. True or not false :-D ...
I agree. ;) But I wasn't just ready to accept an early-campaign flip-flop, I was hoping for it -- as a New Yorker, he's my guy. But he couldn't even bring himself to declare the obvious truth that Roe v. Wade was constitutional poison. It reflects not only on what he'll do but how seriously he takes the conservative bedrock of the party.
But here's the difference between pro-choice actual (not Chafee) Republicans and Democrats when it comes to abortion. A pro-choice Republican President can be for the Born Alive Infants Act. A pro-choice Republican President can be opposed to Partial Birth Abortion. A pro-choice Republican President can maintain the Mexico City policy. A pro-choice Republican President can support Crisis Pregnancy Centers. A pro-choice Republican President can provide more support for adoption services in lieu of abortions. A pro-choice Republican President can veto legislation forcing OB/GYNs to perform abortions on non-life threatening pregnancies. A pro-choice Republican President can support Parental Notification Legislation. Rudy can be pushed in these directions - and be influenced to pick good judges like we did with Bush vis-a-vis Miers. Hillary cannot.
Any of the GOP candidates is MILES better than ANY of the Democrats.
Let me first take issue with a smaller point, and that is how the media would treat a Rodham Presidency. The media is a business, and the business of the media is business. There would be scandals gallore, probably including many more sexual escapades by her husband. Sex and scandal sell, and the media would be happy to have another four year soap opera just as they had with her husband. On the larger issue, though, what if you're wrong? What if a pro-choice Republican President nominates and has confirmed, with 90+ votes, a nominee who considers precedent equal to the Constitution? Where does it leave the pro-life movement when we are stabbed in the front, not in the back, by a Republican President? I would say it's game, set, match for the other side. I can't imagine another pro-life nominee, as pro-lifers would be taken for granted (as I think we already are) by the Republican Party, and in four years time, we are once again told the exact same thing, and we don't have the money to stop it? Where are the tens of millions of dollars for a grassroots primary challenge to a sitting President? Who will say that we shouldn't renominate Rudy for the exact same reasons that they are arguing we should nominate him this time? Those making the argument for Rudy's candidacy now are the same ones who will tell us that he had no choice but to nominate someone chosen by Chuck Schumer when he does so. Rudy may not be a true believer on the issue, but there is no way he will pick a fight to get someone worthwhile confirmed in a Democrat Senate. www.republicansenate.org
The problem with a Giuliani nomination for the pro-life movement, is that he and many of his supporters are rather open about trying to create a new winning electoral coalition nationally. If Giuliani can take back some of the old northeastern liberal Republicans and ex-Republicans to make his electoral college majority, then the Republican party can permanently tell pro-lifers to get lost. And then the cause of ending abortion on demand in America willl be in big trouble. HTML Help Central for Red StatersLet's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
A. You are wrong, there is no way that would ever happen, especially since Giuliani has basically pledged to be effectively pro-life. B. Even if you are right, it would indeed be bad for Republicans to lose their lock on the pro-life vote, I'm not actually sure it would be bad for the pro-life cause. If pro-lifers had champions in both parties, (I mean real champions, not fake pro-lifers like Reid and Casey), I think we'd actually have a better chance at making progress. That's not reality right now, but if your hypo were correct (as I've said, it isn't), those voters would go somewhere, and eventually they would have a voice one way or another. Jindal/Palin '16
Chafee Republicans do not have nearly enough numbers to make up for the loss of pro-lifers to the GOP. In fact, most of them would still be opposed to him on most other issues where he disagrees with Democrats. It's why he has been shoe-horning himself in front of SoCon crowds to beg us to please(!) not sit it out if he wins the nomination.
I hate to say this, because I abhor abortions, but even if we had 9 Scalia's on the SCOTUS and they overturned Roe, we would not likely reduce the number of abortions in this country. We would likely reduce the number of legal abortions, but recent studies http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php and history show us that making abortion illegal doesn't really reduce the rate of abortions. The only way to reduce and eliminate abortions is to eliminate the need for them. That begins, in my opionion, with teaching children self-respect and respect for others. It included appropriate sex-education that emphasises abstince as well as birth control. We may also need to help private organizations and even the government assist with adoptions, early child healthcare and daycare. It's a very complex issue and on principle, I think abortion, especially after the first tri-mester should be illegal, but we won't actually start making a dent in the abortion rate without takling it as a social issue as well as a legal one.
This is why I think the "take my ball and going home" people are really being foolish. You said, "Either way, I seriously don't get the logic that would lead anyone to believe that there would be no difference between a Rudy and a Hillary Presidency when it comes to abortion. There would be - and it's not even just judges; it's the continued existence of pregnancy crisis centers, it's parental notification, it's keeping partial birth abortion bans in place, it's not repealing the Born Alive Infants Act, it's not exporting abortion outside America's borders, it's not forcing doctors to perform abortions on pain of losing their license to practice, etc" There is a VAST difference between Rudy and Hillary. Hillary is a radical feminist on abortion and related issues. Pro-lifers won't have a chance to turn her large intitutional ship around for decades. Your evaluation pretty well parallels my own journey on this subject. You've got much more talent expressing it however. Thank you. ============= Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
I am. I'm also imaging three or four Stevens or Souters over the next four to eight years. Can't say I see a whole lot of difference.
... while the best we can reasonably expect is a Roberts. The best from a Hillary Presidency would be a Souter. What we would invariably get is a Ginsburg. I'd still go with Rudy here.
can start working on the press releases and speeches for the day we reach 4,000. Of course the sooner that day comes the better from their viewpoint.
All of the dems have based their collective success on American failure in Iraq and now it shocks you that they will not give credit to the troops who deserve it? If they did it would go against everything that they have said and done over the last half century. The only way they win is if America fails. Please don't act shocked when they repeat the company line, at least they are staying true to themselves.
How i'd love to see a youtube security camera video from Reid's office when our 4,ooo hero is untimely killed. 4K balloons, champagne, a crossed out George Bush face on a cake, and Pelosi in her finest red Dress, good chance theres going to be live performances from Green Day, The Boss, and the Dixie Chicks too. Only thing i wonder about is if Code Pink and the other attendees can go for free or will they have the donate/ allow their name to be used for some Hsu donations, to Hillary since she'll be the nominee by then.
It really is that simple.
it remains unclear whether killing terrorists actually achieves anything. It's not like they are running out of them. Personally I'm not a fan of using our soldiers as a honeypot to draw terrorists to them. Also I don't think anyone is advocating that we leave the middle east. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Which is always a start. The enemy never runs out of people until one day it does. That's how war is. "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But there is little evidence that terrorists can be beaten with attritional warfare unless you also wipe out their support base which I think it unlikely. Palestine is a tiny country yet they've been churning out terrorists for 30 years. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
But if you feel that's the way to solve the problem... ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And when they're done, move them to the West Bank. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
pink. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
------------ This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions. -Edmund Burke
Mocking a little twit with an invincibility complex is fairly low on that list. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
the saying, "De mortuis, nihil nisi bonum." ------------ This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions. -Edmund Burke
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
While you're there, would you pick up some cigarettes for me? Thanks. We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I've sinned some, but nothing terrible, so I think I'm going to Heck.
to nip the "Well Stalin did it" argument in the bud but my wording was really poor. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Ok. You're right. It isn't a country. It is a territory that is harshly ruled over by the Israelis. How does that change my point in any way? There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
HTML Help Central for Red StatersReality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's actually a territory that is harshly ruled over by Palestinians. They'd be a hell of a lot better off if the Israelis did run things. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Israel occupies territory because if she doesn't then enemies use that same territory to attack. For proof look at Lebanon. That was a twenty year miserable occupation but an even more miserable war. Hezbollah used the very land once occupied by Israel to launch rockets at Israel. Hamas does the same thing in Gaza now. People like you and propagandists are then always there to blame Israel for the "miserable occupation" but there is no other Choice. The protection of your citizenry is the most important role of government. Unfortunately Israel has no Choice but to undertake these long occupations or face never ending attacks from its enemies. "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
Whenever the word Israel is used you guys feel some kneejerk need to defend them. I wasn't criticizing them. They are doing what they have to do. But they have done nothing to eliminate terrorism. How bout we stick to the point. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
A good start would be reducing the West Bank and Gaza to parking lots. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
 "harshly ruled over" is freaking endearing!...you're right, you wern't criticizing them! " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
if we don't perform, they don't pay. Seriously, Israel itself has conceded its long occupations were a failure. Trouble is, the various Palestinian factions and their Syrian/Iranian/Saudi patrons have failed at making peace and excel at making trouble.
Don't say you weren't criticizing Israel when you describe them as ruling "harshly" over the Palestinians. Next step in your mind was surely: if there were no "occupation", there would be no suicide bombings and rocket launchings. I've seen your views on Israel before in other diaries. You fly to the defense of men like Nasser while condemning men like Sharon. How about you lay off Israel and we'll stick to the point. www.win-the-war.com.
 it's Fun and Games with Flyerhawk! Boy, isn't it fun?.. " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
true, true... (actually, flyer sometimes makes good points on other questions. that's one reason why his views on israel are especially irritating.) www.win-the-war.com.
defended. Palestinian just happens to be the flavor of the day.
I love terrorism against the United States. Being 200 feet from the last major terrorist attack and nearly dying wasn't enough to deter my love of terrorism. And living and working here in New York certainly isn't enough either. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
The Israelis did rule harshly and still impose extremely harsh import economic restrictions on the region. I understand why they do this and I don't think they are wrong to do so, per se. The occupation certainly doesn't help matters but the blood feud between the two is far too great to simply go away because Israel leaves the occupied lands. I personally believe I have a pretty dispassionate view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I may come off as anti-Israel here because the overwhelming opinion of RS is that Israel shouldn't be criticized and Palestine shouldn't be defended in any way. That is far too extreme for. If I were to place blame for that crisis I would put it down at something like... 50% The Arab community along with the clerics of Iran. They have used this conflict for their own purposes for the past 50 years without offering a ounce of real support for Palestine. 30% Palestine - Their leaders have completely failed the people. They continue to ignore the fact that terrorism will never get them what they want. 20% Israel - Israel contributing this problem with their land grabs of the 4 big wars, particularly 56 and 67. As for Nasser the only "good" thing I have ever said about him was that I don't think he would have EVER invaded Israel and that it was Amir that seemed to be the real antagonist. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
first you claim the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israelis and then say you have nothing against Israel. Boy, you certainly made the accusation though. As to your point, it is impossible for a country the size of Rhode Island with about ten million in population to ever rid the whole world of terrorism. That doesn't mean their methods are not effective in limiting. Terrorists were bombing Israeli cities weekly until Israel stopped tit of tat bombing and took out the entire refugee camp of Jenin. While roundly condemned by the Western world, the reality was that they destroyed and killed a major part of the terrorist base by doing it. Hamas has never been the same again. Egypt and Jordan now have peace treaties with Israel and that was after humliating and devastating losses in wars. All throughout Israel's history it has been proven that capitulation and weakness spawn terrorism and wars against it and heavy handedness and strong counter attacks lessen attacks against it. "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
first you claim the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israelis and then say you have nothing against Israel. Boy, you certainly made the accusation though These 2 statements are, in no way, in conflict. I support the Israelis. I also recognize that they have acted harshly towards the Palestinian people. Bombing a refugee camp is more than just harsh. It may be necessary for them to do so but if you don't think that killing women and children is harsh I don't know what to tell you. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the only thing the other post said was harsh there was no mention of necessary. You can be coy all you want, but when you only present one side of a two sided story, it is obvious where your biases lie. They didn't kill women and children. The terrorists hid among women and children and they were caught in the cross fire. If you blame Israel for women and children being killed that is again your right, but it will be met with skepticism at least here. If you want that idea held up go to Daily Kos. Their heavy handed tactics unfortunately breed resentment however in that case it is a battle of wills. At some point the people will finally realize that it is not the Israelis that are creating the problem but the terrorists themselves. When they hide among civilians at some point the civilians will realize that the terrorists are responsible for deaths when soldiers shoot at them. You are constantly making a three sided arguement and thus when one is clearly refuted you just go to another side. It gets tiresome chasing your arguement. I long ago pointed out that for Israel it is always a double edged sword... http://redstate.com/blogs/mike_volpe/2007/aug/23/prime_minister_maliki_c... however, unlike you, I pointed out that this is entirely the fault of the F$%ked up societies that surround Israel. You seem to want to blame, and deny blaming, Israel for everyone around them still being stuck in the stone ages, voting in terrorists, and blindly following vicious, evil imams that call for death and destruction. "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
Flyer, if I may comment on Mike's comment, while I think some of the reaction to your comments on this thread have been excessive and unfair, there is a fair point that I think Mike is making, and a suggestion I would make a well: If you're going to say that the Israelis treat the Palestinians harshly, but you believe such treatment may be necessary and justified, acknowledge that possibility explicitly, and similarly, if you believe that Israel attacking a refugee camp is unjustified due to the predictable deaths of non-combatants, but realize that the non-combatants were not the Israeli's target and that the Israelis may have been left with the choice of either not going after terrorists or attacking them where there are non-combatants among whom the terrorists hide, then again, acknowledge that fact. Otherwise you may give the impression to some here that you are unfairly one-sided. While this suggestion probably means holding yourself to a higher standard than others on RS in terms of thoroughness, clarity, fairness, etc., that's my suggestion.
'harshly'...he did with intent to piss off or inflame. He could have made the point without using it...by using it, he opened up the can...again, it's his MO. " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
You chose to infer that purely because I was the one who wrote it. If some accredited Righty said the same thing it would pass by without even a blip. Some of you are so busy creating Flyerhawk, Man of Straw, that you see things in everything I write that simply aren't there. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
re read the thread...tell me again why using 'harshly' was necessary?...you even after call US 'predictable'...well then, I guess you knew what you were saying was going to get people upset, and you still used the term..... " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
Decided to break out the snark and "inform" me that Palestine is not a country. Of course his snark is completely acceptable because he's on your side. That was the context of my comment. And if you thought about it for a second you would understand why I said it. I wasn't trying to incite people. I was responding to Steven's unnecessary comment. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
again...the thread is there... You got what you wanted...hope you don't feel you're being treated harshly " in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abe Lincoln
It's quite common here for people to make comments containing points or arguments (e.g, Israel harshly treating Palestinians and effect it has) without acknowledging counterpoints (e.g., such harsh treatment may be necessary and justified). Yes, such an omission can sometimes make the comment more provocative, but that doesn't mean it's the intent of the poster. Personally, I think the best response is simply to ask if the person making that comment is overlooking the counterpoint, rather than presuming that that person is completely one-sided and launching into an attack based on that presumption. Sure, there are trolls who show up here and quickly reveal a sharply skewed worldview and/or "factual" assumptions that are incompatible with RS and generally not worth responding to here, but I don't think it's fair to put Flyer in that camp. From what I've seen he is quite willing to engage in rational debate, and while he's (I think) a liberal and I'm not (although on some social issues I'm libertarian), I don't find his assumptions of fact or his opinions to be similar to those of the aforementioned trolls.
Agreed, Flyer is a leftist, but he is no troll. I suspect that at least a few of us here at RS are praying for him to see the light, and renounce his leftism. :) ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right... ---Thomas Paine---
Leftists believe in all sorts of crazy things. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
See See See!!! Prayers work! He is already moving to the right. :) ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right... ---Thomas Paine---
And remember, you can't spell "leftish" without "fetish". I have no point, I just wanted to say that.
And if the point of this discussion was Israel I would explained my point in much greater detail. But Israel wasn't the point of the thread. They were barely a factor. I made a passing comment in regards to terrorism in Palestine and how it continues to this day despite the best efforts of Israel to end it. The only reason I made the comment was to highlight one of the reasons WHY terrorism is still so prevalent in Palestine. Right or wrong the Palestinians believe that the Israelis have been an oppressive force that has treated them unfairly and, at times, brutally. Whether the Israelis have is beside the point. Israel/Palestine is a complex topic in which I find most people are far too willing to pick a side and dig their heels in. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the fact that terrorism continues to this day proves absolutely nothing. Everyone with any hint of knowledge realizes that defeating terrorism will be generational. Just because terrorists haven't been totally destroyed in Palestine doesn't mean that Israel's heavy handed strategy is not working. That is the point I made over and over. You claiming that Israel hasn't totally won yet, is a non starter. Israel's war with terrorism will last even longer than our own. That doesn't mean their tactics aren't working. "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
I realize that might be difficult to do given the number of attempted threadjacks. My point regarding Palestinian terrorism was that the theory that you can just kill off the terrorists is deeply flawed. However I would like to hear more on this point... Israel's war with terrorism will last even longer than our own. That doesn't mean their tactics aren't working. What are their tactics trying to achieve? There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I have already told you. Everytime Israel is heavy handed terrorism ultimately is lessened. Everytime they capitulate, terrorism ultimately increases. Their strategy is simple, do everything to protect your citizenry, kill and capture every enemy, and build a layer of protection between yourself and your enemy: the wall, the Golan Heights, and occupation. Ultimately, their war with terrorists will be a test of will. At some point, just like the tribes in Anbar, the citizens of Palestine will realize that their own terrorists are causing their misery, and Israel must stand up to them until then. There is only so long that brain washing can work. My parent's applied for emigration from the Soviet Union the day after they invaded Afghanistan, despite the non stop propaganda that was thrown at them, their citizenry will take a lot longer. As Golda Meier's character, in Golda's Balcony, once said, "we will have peace as soon as the other side learns to love their own children more than they hate us" "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
And how does your comment support the general premise of this thread? There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I understand. I'm not saying it should have been necessary for you to be more thorough per my suggestion, nor am I blaming you for the tone of the reaction you received; I'm just saying that including the acknowledgments I mentioned in your initial comment would have helped avoid some of the nastiness that transpired (and that detracted from a more useful and interesting discussion or debate), and if that reaction were predictable, acknowledging those points (even with just a few words) would have been a good idea IMHO.
I admit that sometimes I get peeved by the incessant ankle biting that goes on and react negatively. I try not to but we're all human. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
we're all human. Speak for yourself ;>
first here is what you said, "Otherwise you may give the impression to some here that you are unfairly one-sided. While this suggestion probably means holding yourself to a higher standard than others on RS in terms of thoroughness, clarity, fairness, etc., that's my suggestion." all true, I will point out that if take any contrarian position anywhere you must be able to hold yourself to a higher standard since the mob never notices inconsistencies of its own. Thus, if you are going to criticize Israel here, dot your t's and cross your I's or be prepared, and the same goes for the opposite position at Daily Kos. "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
Right. That's why I was suggesting it, even though it means abiding by a double standard.
I've spent a little time in Israel and in the "territories," and can say that you have no friggin idea about that of which you speak. Good to know that you can quote the "ignoramus's handbook of righteous indignation" like any other barely aware Liberal. I thought that you of all lefties would actually be capable of engaging the brain and opening the eyes -- but nope, it's all clichs with no bearing on reality whatsoever. BTW, google "Qassam rockets" some time. Or "land for peace." Or "Gilad Shalit." Or "Ehud Goldwasser" and "Eldad Regev." Or "Palestinian state TV" and "Farfur," among others. Jeez.
I'm a little disappointed with you, Jeff. You aren't prone to hyperbole and projection, unlike many people here. What's up with this? Just so I'm clear where was I indignant about anything? My point was in regards to Palestinian terrorism, not whether the Israelis are good or bad people. How bout we keep our eye on the ball and not try to threadjack into a pointless debate about Israel? As I said just upthread from your comment, I am not anti-Israel. I'm also not pro-Israel, although I do believe that we must defend Israel against the evil that it fighting against currently. I have had several Arab coworkers and associates that have said, point blank, that they despise Israel. They have called me a Jew lover because I don't adhere to their virulent anti-semitism. And these are educated and moderate Arabs. However I have also worked with Jews that have told me that they hate the Palestinians and Arabs in general. It was just as hateful as the Arabs. I point this out simply to illustrate that the conflict is not as Good vs Evil as some here would suggest. The animosity runs deeply on both sides. Oh and lastly, if you would like me to point out the various embargos and restrictions that Israel imposes on "territories" I will certainly do so. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Invade it, perhaps? Start by knocking off its terror-supporting and -sympathizing and -propagandizing government? Then move to establish alternative institutions that don't do those things, while turning the population against them? Then, finally, systematically close down the sanctuaries they seek to establish within its borders? Maybe we should try this with Iraq! "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
We know how to CREATE a support base. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
We let a strongman with pretensions to being the next Saladin remain in power instead of knocking him over while we have the chance. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And we did so because he was killing Iranians. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
No, wait. He stopped killing them, started killing Kuwaitis, and then we didn't kill him when we had the chance. You reading Turtledove again? ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Read The Looming Tower Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The way you so-called "Progressives" fight tooth and nail to keep from "progressing" out of living in the past and refighting dead-and-gone events over and over and over and over and over again is beyond the ridiculous, and has passed far beyond any measure of being worth anybody listening to it. Your "MoveOn" buddies who can't "MoveOn" from 2000 or from 2003 are so intellectually pathetic and reality-challenged that you need your own little bubble so that you can spew your crap and nobody ever has to hear (or upset) you again. Yes, I'm being meaner than usual. Yes, I'm sick of stupid people with stupid answers, and their stupid crap.
The way you so-called "Progressives" fight tooth and nail to keep from "progressing" out of living in the past and refighting dead-and-gone events over and over and over and over and over again is beyond the ridiculous, and has passed far beyond any measure of being worth anybody listening to it. Your "MoveOn" buddies who can't "MoveOn" from 2000 or from 2003 are so intellectually pathetic and reality-challenged that you need your own little bubble so that you can spew your crap and nobody ever has to hear (or upset) you again. Yes, I'm being meaner than usual. Yes, I'm sick of stupid people with stupid answers, and their stupid crap. What do you know about the situation over here? Oh, yeah, what your idols George Soros, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi told you -- and what's in the Liberal Idiots Book of Anti-Reality Clichs. For the love of God, grow up or open your eyes and at least try to recognize a fact when it kicks you in the shins, at least for once.
Just thought I'd point that out. "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan
Somebody else got there first - disregard the above post. "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan
flyerhawk, Palestine is not a country. Never was a country. And never will be a country.
Murtha, Reid, Pelosi (most days), Babs, Durbin, etc. Or don't they count? Or maybe you're not counting them because they've decided that all of their rhetoric for the last four years or so is just a waste of time and they'll "talk" about it but not "do" anything now that they're in power. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
They advocate we leave Afghanistan? I wasn't aware of that. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
It is in Central Asia. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Here are some maps of the Middle East that would suggest that Afghanistan is part of the Middle East. It certainly is pretty central in regards to Islamic fanaticism seeing as it is sandwiched between Pakistan and Iran. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Nor is Turkmenistan, nor is Uzbekistan. The only things these places have in common with the Middle East is that "stan" has a particular meaning in the language of one of one of the Border States of the Middle East (which in fact straddles Middle Eastern and Central Asian culture) and that the overwhelming majority of their citizens are Muslim. The cultures, languages, variants of Islam, histories, and a thousand other aspects of their existences are so different as to make the identity ridiculous. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And the exact same thing can be said about Iran. It doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan is still part of the Middle East particularly in the context of this discussion which is primarily about Islamic terrorism, correct? There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
First, culturally and religiously, there is a great deal that ties Iran/Persia to the Middle East. Much as the question of whether Russia is European or Asian, there is one heckuva good question as to whether it's more Asian or Middle Eastern. Furthermore, given that we're not arguing about Islamic Terrorism, but rather "withdrawal from the Middle East," and given that Afghanistan is a Central Asian, not Middle Eastern, State by geography, I think we can all agree that your first non sequitur was utterly silly. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
If that is the criteria, than I guess Indonesia is a part of the Middle East as well. --- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
it is central to Islamist fanaticism? Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You can't move past 2000 and 2003, but you sure can apply the lib staple of "fuzzy math" to geography now, and twist it to mean what you want! Wow, you're impressive! How about you actually learn some reality instead of sticking to whatever source it is you're getting all of the abject crap that you're dropping in this thread?
What does 2000 or 2003 have to do with whether Afghanistan can or should be considered part of the Middle East? If you would like to create arbitrary boundaries, go for it. If you think that Turkey isn't part of the Middle East, as well as Europe, that's your call. Calling me an idiot or a dumba$$ may make you feel better but it certainly doesn't do much to help your image. Clearly this week has upped the political temperature because nothing I said in this thread should honestly be viewed as particularly Lefty yet the name calling has been rather intense, even by generally sober and intelligent people as yourself. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...no sleep for several days, and the fact that you have made clear in this thread that you have no problem ignoring, twisting, or otherwise altering facts and your own personal reality in order to be contrarian to every single statement made by anybody. Period. Scroll up and down here. You tie and twist yourself and your own logic into knots so large that it boggles the mind, all, apparently, for the sake of being able to disagree with every statement made and to make what you apparently see as cleverly snide comments. If you can't even see that, then I sure can't help you.
But what I see here is a bunch of people that hold a single view that aren't willing to concede even minor points on it. There is a "You're either with us completely or you're against us completely" mindset here. I'm not trying to be contrarian. I just don't hold the same absolute view that you and others do. You seem to believe that the only logical choice in Iraq is continuing the fight. All other options are so clearly wrong that you believe anyone who advocates them must OBVIOUSLY have ulterior motives. I do not agree with this view. Pedantic gotchas were the name of the game in this thread. "Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East!". Ok. So what? How does the arbitrary definition of what is and what is not the Middle East materially change the discussion, other than allowing you and others to gleefully point out how little I know? I was also told that Palestine is not a country as a counter to the point that Palestine has been engaged in terrorism for 40 years. Again what does their political status have to do with the point? In the Israel threadjack segment of this thread I was both taken to task for making the outlandish claim that Israel has acted harshly and I was told why it was necessary for them to act harshly. Of course those that decried my use of the word "harshly" didn't bother to criticize the other posters that justified Israel's actions. And, as usual, any post I make that can be viewed as conciliatory towards the opposing view is largely ignored because it is much more enjoyable to attack Flyerhawk the Strawman than engage in adult debate. The only people who seemed to even bother reading those comments were BrooksRob and Mr. Hahn. I understand that my views are not going to be well received on this subject. However I don't even advocate my actual views here because even slight opposition to the current party line is anathema on this site, at least regarding Iraq. How bout you guys stop projecting views onto me and respond to what I actually say? There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
first, as everyone can see, even with maximum force victory is anything but probable. Thus, anything less is sure defeat. You can claim a middle ground but in fact, all supposed middle grounds are sure defeats. As to Israel, again, you claim you weren't criticizing Israel and then ask why no one else criticized Israel. I responded to you why Israel does what it does. It is the only way to protect its citizenry. They are either completely heavy handed or bombs blow up in major cities. If you want to criticize Israel for protecting its citizenry, that is your choice, but you will be met with significant resistance here. In fact, it is you that takes all sorts of straw man arguements. You criticize Israel and then claim you didn't. You claim their tactics don't cut down on terrorism even though in fact they already have. Israel faces enemies from all 360% degrees of its surroundings. This started and is rooted in things entirely separated from any heavy handed actions they have taken. You are basically taking the Steven Spielberb position that the violence is a vicious cycle, and that is only when it is tit for tat. When they went into Jenin and killed every single terrorist in the camp then suddenly homicide bombings were reduced to almost zero. Back on 2002 and 2003, they were weekly and now they happen a few times per year. You think that because a country the size of Rhode Island has not destroyed every enemy it faces, which is the rest of the desert many times the size of the U.S., that means they haven't slowed down terrorism. They have, but your standards are impossible. "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
figured it was the start of the last letter you were ever going to write. Ever. Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
do not recall many headlines about the USSR invading the Middle East. Quentin Langley Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net International Editor of
"The cultures, languages, variants of Islam, histories, and a thousand other aspects of their existences are so different as to make the identity ridiculous" I disagree, the only thing that matters is Islam, Islam is a cultural creation of Arabia and indelibly bears its mark. Islam is also a totalitarian philosophy, it controls and permeates all aspects of the lives of its followers. So all of the culture and language differences pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming influence of Islam in the people's lives. "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
"So all of the culture and language differences pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming influence of Islam in the people's lives." I don't think that's quite correct. I've traveled in Indonesia (the largest Islamic country in the world), Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, & Kyrgyzstan), and the Arab Middle East (Jordan & Iraq). The three regions are completely different in cultural values, mores, politics, and social structures. Islam is an influence, sure, but the pressure of recent history and geopolitical circumstances is far greater. Uzbekistan, for example, is essentially Russian -- a particularly illustrative story of mine involves tossing back vodka shots in a mosque with some workers there. Indonesia is a frenetic melting pot of cultures, with Malay and Chinese and Pac-islander and even some Australian influences. What these three areas DO have in common are significant economic and political problems. Radical Islam provides an easy-to-follow script for the discontented in these societies, one that can simultaneously appeal to their nativist sympathies (i.e. be set up in opposition to The West) and provides encouragement in the form of a "universal", trans-national philosophy. Even then, though, the role that radical Islam plays in these societies is very different. I would say that it is far more mainstream in the Middle East, or at least has popular sympathy, than, say, in Indonesia. There the society is so fragmented culturally into literally hundreds of languages and ethnic groups that most Muslims think of the radicals as being crazies who live on the outskirts of the archipelago (and are separated by barriers of language and culture). In the 'stans they're mostly too drunk and maudlin to care. Most people want the Soviet Union back, not the Taliban.
Try this link. It will explain a lot. http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/regions/region_middleeast.html ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right... ---Thomas Paine---
RFYoung What nonsense, that they can make terrorists faster than we can kill them. We haven't even fielded two million men yet. We haven't used the big guns. There is no more efficient killing machine in the history of the earth than an army of angry northern European/Americans. Ask the Apache or the Souix. Ask Atalnta or Gettysburg. Ask Dresden or Hamburg. Ask the Japanese. Ask our closest ally, the British, about New Orleans. These people have and do repeatedly say that they want to kill us. They are 1000 years behind civilization. They are the savage hords at the gate. They brought the fight to us, not we to them. It is now time for them to pay the price.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
While Marines tend to make fun of Air Force guys (but they love the accomodations at AF bases and the women in the AF...) General LeMay arguably made Patton look like a Quaker. The question being, does killing terrorists accomplish anything? The general equation is pretty simple. It does when you kill enough of them. Note that "enough" is not a fixed number. "Enough" happens when we've broken their will to come after us. I don't give a tinkers dam about their "hearts and minds". I care about their feet. I would stop the arc light raids when their feet stopped marching off to fight us. And not an instant before. We've turned "war" from a killing field to a video game to our great detrement. We now worry about "collateral damage" instead of planning on it. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But the question whether killing terrorists accomplishes anything or not strikes me like the question of whether imprisoning criminals reduces crime or not... Clearly when a criminal is in jail he is not elsewhere at the same time committing crimes. Similarly, a dead terrorist is no longer able to plan or carry out terror attacks - thus killing terrorists must eventually reduce terrorism. "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet our crime rates are higher than most other western nations. That's not to suggest that punishment crime is pointless. It is necessary. But crime is a part of human society. Are we now accepting terrorism as just part of the world and that we have no expectation of ever eliminating it? There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet our crime rates are higher than most other western nations. Apples to oranges. The real question is, what would our crime rate look like with higher/lower incarceration rates. ___________________________________ Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
It would accomplish a whole lot more, if the terrorists that were subject to being killed, knew that the country that was killing them was not going to stop until the last one of them has gone to meet their virgins. The problem with this current fight is that a certain political group from the country that is presently killing the terrorists has promised the terrorists that they are not going to let them all be killed. That they are going to prevent the killing of as many of the terrorists as they can. In fact, the terrorists understand there is no deed that they can do, that will get the American leftist terrorist supporters mad enough to want to kill them. Witness the current fight in Washington by the Democrat politicians to try and prevent the killing of as many terrorists as possible.
It's all the Democrats fault. Heck the terrorists themselves aren't nearly as culpable for their acts as the Democrats are. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Let's see, "holy warriors" who are willing to murder indiscriminately to protect a twisted ideology, or "activists" who are willing to sell out thier own country to them for political expediency and/or pork? _________________________________ "You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Personally I'm not a fan of using our soldiers as a honeypot to draw terrorists to them. In dealing with a group of people with the stated intention of killing Americans, I'd rather they be going up against Americans who are armed, armored, trained, and ready to kick asperagus (*stupid profanity rules!*), rather than office buildings full of file clerks. I think 9/11 pretty much proved that it's got to be one or the other, we don't really have a choice about it anymore, and it's very likely to end up being both at times. You might have missed this, but I think that point of this post was that the Marines have a better chance of winning than the Accounts Payable department, though I wouldn't count out the legal department. ___________________________________ "You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
You might have missed this, but I think that point of this post was that the Marines have a better chance of winning than the Accounts Payable department, though I wouldn't count out the legal department. Not to mention that if you tell somebody from the Accounts Payable department to take a gun, go into the other room, and go face the six armed jihadis waiting to kill him, he'll (rightfully) panic. The Marine will shake your hand and ask you for a couple of grenades*. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped! *Or a radio, so that he can call for a Warthog. Or something else sensible. You get the point. :)
n/t
1. We should be sending Pentagon lawyers for a full tour with front line infantry before they are allowed to comment or express an opinion on the conflict. 2. If the AP department you refer to is a Marine department, they will generally have an idea what to do. After all, every Marine is first an infantry Marine. :>) ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
We dont need any more cultural centers, Mr. Coburn said. Were fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?
It amazes me how many, seemingly complex issues, can be easily communicated using the principles of Occam. "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Preface: I'm strongly supportive of the war effort in Iraq (for reasons much broader than just the GWOT) and strongly behind aggressiveness in the GWOT. Having said that, based on the oversimplified argumentation that (1) we have a military, and (2) that's the best tool to kill terrorists, therefore (3) we should use send the large numbers of troops to invade and fight wherever they can kill terrorists, we should invade Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza, Egypt, Kurdistan, Turkey, England, Germany, Indonesia, Columbia, Chechnya, a whole bunch of African nations, etc., etc. My point is that this oversimplified argumentation ignores the fact that we have finite military, intelligence and other national security resources and we have to prioritize. As I said, I happen to think that we need to keep fighting in large numbers in Iraq, but that's based on careful consideration of our overall national security needs (and related threats around the world), our resources, our priorities, and the potential for us to positively affect the outcome through our war effort. Obviously when we kill terrorists, the military is often (probably usually) best equipped to do it, but it's a leap of logic to then conclude that a given conflict is one to which we should devote a given amount of military and other national security resources. I think we can make our case for sustaining the war effort in Iraq with a bit more sophisticated arguments.
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Correct. Why, is it like The Onion or something? I realize there was humor here, but wasn't a serious argument being made as I described it? I'll have to check out IMAO now to see if I'm missing something here.
Or put differently, is it SUPPOSED to sound like a moby trying to make us war supporters sound like simpletons?
Read his piece on nuking the moon. http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
this is his magnum opus "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Based on about a minute on IMAO, seems like the answer may be "yes" in a sort of self-deprecating way, but I'm unsure of whether or not some folks here are viewing the argument in the post as actually a sound argument. If it's meant as just a friendly caricature of us Iraq war supporters, then let someone let me know and I'll do my best to lighten up. In fairness to me, sometimes people post arguments, meant seriously, that could pass for parody.
Relax. It's sort of a faux-ironic thing. I could spend some time explaining it, but that would probably give away my secret identity. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
ok, guys. I guess I'm the last to know about this site (of which I'll be a regular visitor henceforth, after reading a bit of the "moon" piece). ok, breathing deeply, calming down. (but man, do I feel like the uncool kid on the block)
RFYoung Sophisiticated arguments? We don't need no stinking sophisiticated arguments! or Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.
Or as a college buddy of mine used to say (half-jokingly) when we got into heated political debates and he would pull some premise straight out of his a*s, "I don't need facts -- I have opinions!"
I'm giggling like a pubescent girl watching the Beatles in 1964. Well, with a deeper voice, more chest hair, and my glasses aren't horn-rimmed, but you get the idea. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I wish my beehive was that nice. Sigh. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
We bots always try to help our man, or woman, or whatever!
Any day that combines Frank J. with Redstate is a banner day-- especially if it confounds those who deserve to be confounded. All the Whos down in Whoville are singing.
or with a First Cav column very effectively. However, a couple of guys knocking,(or not), on doors anywhere there are doors of opportunity would be of great value. Jack Bauer in a Dominoes hat comes to mind. The only statement should be "We will leave in peace as soon as you tell us where our next stop is". Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I never understood how people say when you kill a terrorist one will just replace them like its a futile attempt. Well, what's the opposite? If you don't kill terrorists they will not continue to grow, recruit and train? What nonsense. Leaving a wasp nest alone will not cause it to shrink. Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
The opposite is to cut off their support base by dealing with the political issues that are the engine that drives terrorism. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Me, I'm kinda stuck on that whole Catholicism thing. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
--- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We'll send in armed missionaries. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Can we fix it? Yes we can! HTML Help Central for Red StatersReality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
..."We break for bulldozers"? I apologize in advance Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
I just got done chuckling at that. ----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Although I've seen a couple of reports/opinions indicating that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to convert everyone in the world to Islam, the balance of what I've read (9/11 Commission Report and other sources I consider credible on this question) indicates that their ultimate goal is to establish a caliphate over the muslim world. Of course, even if that's true, their goals could easily change, and converting the "infidels" could become an end in itself to them or perhaps be seen as the only way to preserve the caliphate. But at least as for now, it seems to me that converting all the infidels around the world is not what they are fighting for.
I mean, that's your call - but frankly when he says we ought to all convert I'm pretty much taking it in a different light than, say, the same words if spoken by Pope Benedict. That I cannot immediately recall those precise words coming out of the Holy Father's mouth not withstanding. YMMV. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
the Holy Mother, Ann Coulter. Something on the order of... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Look man, I'm kinda partial to Ms. Coulter and she sure ain't hard to look at - but I think one would need to be blogging-while-over-the-legal-limit-times-about-20 in order to confuse her with His Holiness. Just saying. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
She is indeed hard to look at, and her voice and demeanor are entirely unattractive and so far from feminine it's ridiculous. One of these days I think she'll wear such a short skirt that her cojones will show. Now Michelle Malkin -- ooooh Baby!
That's hitting below the belt, man. "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
hey, maybe if I did actually hit Coulter below the belt she'd have the voice of a woman.
For one thing, he's a lot taller. For another, he wears hats. And from what I've seen, her dresses are a lot shorter. /snark/ I was just providing fodder for the "convert 'em" crowd. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Give me a quote, in context, and with a source (and preferably a link), so I can see what he said and if he was expressing a wish/suggestion or if he was stating it as a goal they were fighting for (to convert all "infidels" to Islam).
Read his last two missives (last week and Oct 2004). ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I just re-read a transcript of the recent video (scanned it and read relevant parts more closely) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf and didn't see a clear indication that one of the reasons they are waging their war against us is a requirement that we all convert to Islam. Quote for me what you consider evidence of that position. Since I've gone through that trouble, even though you were the one who quoted him and should be the one providing the source and link, please direct me to the 2004 statement to which you refer.
He's waging war on us. He wants us to convert. He states that conversion will bring peace. He's waging war on us... What part of this is not clear to you? ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
He is saying that conversion will LEAD to peace, but that's not the same as saying that conversion is a REQUIREMENT for peace. What part of THAT is not clear to YOU? I'd rather not get snarky, but I'm just pointing out your snark and suggesting we just have a nice discussion.
I though it was '04 but it was actually much earlier. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I guess you don't want to drop the bad attitude, but I'll request it again. I'm tryin' reeeeeeal hard these days not to be drawn into nastiness. If you're referring to the 1998 fatwa, see GC's excerpt and my comment below. And let's try to have a civil discussion.
But we seem to disagree on a couple of things - so let me spell out where I am coming from: 1) bin Laden declared Jihad in 1998 - calling on all Muslims everyehere to kill all Americans everywhere 2) that Jihad order stands today 3) it is reasonably well established that conversion spares you from death (though you are likely still subject to subjugation) 4) bin Laden, in fact, offers conversion as a (point conceeded) route to peace So, if you want me to offer that bin Laden never gave a "convert or die" order directly, I'll withdraw that point. But seeing as how his goal is a worldwide caliphate - be it through conversion or the death of the infidel - I'm not seeing how operationally there is any need to make the statement overtly. Civil enough? ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
see reply downthread "Reply to docj"
Go to the bottom of the thread. So conversion is the only alternative to death it seems. Rather straightforward, no? ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
... and you get some 753K hits - the first 15 I looked at were relevant. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
See my comment above. Instead of asking me to find your quote for you, why don't you do it. Show me. And go straight to the source: bin Laden's (or Zawahiri's) own words, without ellipses).
www.scottbomb.com Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Although I've seen a couple of reports/opinions indicating that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to convert everyone in the world to Islam, the balance of what I've read indicates that their ultimate goal is to establish a caliphate over the muslim world. Well, if *that's* all they want, then I suppose we really *are* being unreasonable about this. It's sooo simple now - All we have to do to ensure our long-term safety is turn over a quarter of the world's population, 80% of it's oil reserves, and at least two countries with nuclear capability to THE SAME FREAKIN PEOPLE WHO MASTERMINDED 9/11!!!!!! Let me ask you, how many nails do you have to drive into your own skull in order to get to the point where this seems like a Good Idea? _________________________________________ "You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
And what political issues might these be? All I ever hear is that they hate us and want to kill us because we're not Muslims and we support Israel. After all, Mohammed told them to do it. Some states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and others are able to seperate their religion from their politics enough to know better than to attack other countries. They leave us alone, we leave them alone. In fact, we engage in commerce together and enjoy the fruits. However, countries like Iran and the loose nuts without a nation (Al Qaeda & Co.) are bent on trying to destroy anyone who does not do things their way. Now what were those political issues again? www.scottbomb.com Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
I disagree with both you and flyer on this one. No, Scott, I don't think they want to kill us because we're not Muslim. But no, Flyer, we can't satisfy them via political changes that would (or should) be at all acceptable to us. They want a caliphate -- picture Taliban-style rule, with all its violations of human rights -- across the entire Muslim world (defined as broadly as they wish), and they are obviously willing to kill as many innocent people as necessary to achieve it in full.
We aren't looking to convert the actual terrorists. Too late for them. What we need to do is create change among the people that support the terrorism, either explicitly or implicitly. Terrorism needs popular support. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
We aren't looking to convert the actual terrorists. Too late for them. Well, we can't let them keep running around loose. You say we can't convert them, I say we kill them. Do we agree, or do you have a better idea that doesn't involve killing them? And if the answer is law enforcement, well, somebody's still got to capture them. "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
My concern lays with the process of killing them. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If YOU'RE not willing to do it , dont sweat it. n/t
ok, fair point, Flyer, but there's still the very difficult issue of how we should fight terrorists in the meantime while we wait (and hope) for popular sentiment in the Muslim world to turn strongly enough against them to stop them for us to an acceptable extent. The changes you're talking about are long-term goals and not exactly guaranteed, to say the least. Yes, we need to FACTOR INTO our choices of policy what the short- and long-term impact will be on of popular sentiment that can be more or less conducive to terrorism today and in the future. But just as we shouldn't simply attack everywhere without considering the negative repercussions on such popular sentiment, we can't abandon all the policies of our GWOT that have a negative effect on such sentiment, because that would leave us way too vulnerable. Reasonable people can disagree on where exactly the optimal balance is. Personally I think you're erring too far toward basing policy on changing hearts & minds and not enough on policies that may run contrary to that goal but which I think we are better off maintaining.
defined as those that don't accept their extremist view of Islam. Read The Looming Tower re the Wahhabists and listen to what the leaders say in Iran (Death to America, The Great Satan). Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm aware of the claim in The Looming Tower. That was among the couple of reports/opinions to which I referred that do say that about bin Laden's goals. As I said, that runs contrary to the balance of what I've read from sources I consider credible.
What sources have do you refer to? Got any specific cites that say Bin Laden and company are not interested in the world outside of historically Islamic lands? --- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
What I'm saying is that, in most of the sources I've read and heard from that I consider credible, including the 9/11 Commission Report and a number of other sources (including statements from bin Laden and al Qaeda) in which their demands are listed, those demands include the U.S. getting out of what they consider to be Muslim lands and the U.S. stopping it's support of regimes in Muslim countries that stand in the way of the caliphate they seek, but not the conversion of Americans to Islam. As Encarta (encyclopedia) puts it, "According to the U.S. State Department, al-Qaeda has stated its goals as driving U.S. forces from the Arabian Peninsula, overthrowing the Saudi government, and supporting Islamic revolutionary groups around the world." The latter is presumably intended as support for establishing the caliphate. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701505592/bin_Laden_Osama.html To be sure, bin Laden has said that Americans SHOULD convert to Islam, and he's said that if we did the war in Iraq will end (although his odd, newly lefty logic seems to be that if we all converted to Islam, we'd ditch democracy and capitalism, which he says are the drivers of our war in Iraq). But I haven't seen much evidence, outside of a couple of potentially credible accounts/views, that our conversion is a demand of his or of al Qaeda, meaning something we must do, even if we meet all his demands on policy, for him to stop trying to kill as many of us as possible. So again, where I've seen his DEMANDS listed, our conversion is not one of them. Obviously it would be hard for me to prove a negative -- that someone never said something -- and it's up to those who claim he IS making that demand to substantiate that claim.
Also from Encarta: Al-Qaeda II. Al-Qaedas Mission Al-Qaeda seeks to incite a global jihad (holy war) to overthrow regimes with predominantly Arab or Muslim populations that al-Qaeda considers corrupt and anti-Islamic. It wants to replace these regimes with a single Muslim nation or empire strictly governed according to sharia (Islamic law). Al-Qaeda sees the United States and other Western countries as blocking this goal because they are allied with many of the countries al-Qaeda considers corrupt. Al-Qaeda also considers the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia an affront to the Muslim people because Saudi Arabia is the location of Islams two holiest shrines, Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden has issued two fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) calling for the expulsion of these forces from the Arabian Peninsula and sanctioning the use of violence to achieve this objective. A 1998 fatwa, issued in the name of The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders, declared that the ruling to kill the Americans and their alliescivilian or militaryis an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. Bin Laden regards the U.S. military presence as a continuation of the Crusades, a series of wars during the Middle Ages in which Western Christians sought to capture the Holy Land from Muslims. In addition, since the September 11 attacks bin Laden has sought to exploit Arab and Muslim hatred of Israel, calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. He has also tried to portray al-Qaeda as the true defender of Islam and protector of Muslims everywhere. He has opposed U.S.-backed sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations (UN) and the violence inflicted on Muslims in places such as Bosnia, Chechnya, East Timor, the Philippines, Sudan, and Somalia.
This person was the contributor of the above Encarta piece: Contributed By: Bruce Hoffman, A. B., B. Phil., D. Phil. Vice President for External Affairs, Director of the Washington Office, Rand Corporation. Author of Inside Terrorism and Countering the New Terrorism.
Is how big is this caliphate? You seem to think it's confined to the Arabian peninsula. I don't think it is. At a minimum it would have to extend into Asia, Europe, and Africa. There's no reason to believe the Western Hemisphere isn't also a priority, whether they've specifically listed it as a demand or not. --- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
nice job putting words in my mouth and not paying attention to what I've actually written. I've said the Muslim world (however they define it). And obviously that includes most of the Middle East, and parts of Asia and Africa. But I would imagine that, in Europe, that would include just Turkey and Bosnia, and I don't get your assumption regarding the Western Hemisphere (it's something you state, but don't give any argument for).
You're the one that is arguing that a mad man bent on forcing people to convert to his form of Islam or die isn't interested in the US for some reason. He's just interested in Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan. And Egypt. And Indonesia. And Turkey. And Morocco. And Spain. But not the US. But I would imagine that, in Europe, that would include just Turkey and Bosnia Again, based on what are you imagining this? Why wouldn't OBL and company be interested in Spain or Portugal? Maybe you can devise some kind of theory about that that makes a bit of sense, because I haven't seen it yet. --- Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
They claim the Iberian peninsula as well. ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right... ---Thomas Paine---
Those darn "Moops"! http://youtube.com/watch?v=N8erL9xaCkg ("Moops" reference beginning at 6:36 in video)
it would be too much. They are a fanatical murder cult of death with no legitimate beef against the United States. Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I am by no means suggesting we should shape our policy to conform to al Qaeda's wishes. I'm just trying to point out what I believe to be their goals and what goals that are attributed to them that I haven't seen sufficient substantiation for yet.
1800s when Europe wanted to pay tribute and we refused? We are the reason trade routes in the world aren't toll lanes controlled by mafias. Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
are Bernard Lewis's "What went Wrong? and more and Bodansky's pre-911 UBL book. Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm just saying The Looming Tower is one book by one guy (with whom I'm unfamiliar). I'll have to check out the others you mentioned to see who they are, any perspective they're coming from, and what they said. If you have quotes or links, that might save me a bit of time. Anyway, I'll do a quick search.
goals and ever changing greivance. Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike, no offense, but WTF?? You don't have to tell me we need to kill them, and you certainly don't need to imply that I've forgotten about 9/11, ok? I see no reason to be hostile to an attempt to develop an accurate understanding of what their demands are, and certainly no reason to imply that someone has forgotten about 9/11, especially not the day after the anniversary and especially not to a guy who lived then, and still lives, in Manhattan, and whose experience of it may have been different from yours. Seeking an accurate understanding of those animals certainly doesn't mean that I'm any less supportive of our GWOT than you are.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...the engine that drives terrorism. In this flavor, it's spelled I-S-L-A-M. Unless you're planning on getting rid of that (not a particularly pretty idea, but one that does have some merit in a purely utilitarian, "Can it get the job done" sense), I'm all ears as to your planned approach. Otherwise, what Thomas said. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Hippie. Their political issue is that they are religious zealots who think that Allah has commanded them to kill all the infidels and when they do they will go to heaven with seventy two virgins. Deal with that. The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Reagan www.proprietornation.blogspot.com
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...cut off their support base by dealing with the political issues that are the engine that drives terrorism. Congratulations! I knew that if you participated here long enough, the light bulb would one day go on over your head. So you agree that terrorism is driven, at least in part, by the utterly hopeless conditions that obtain in these countries where thuggish despots divert all the mineral wealth into their own palaces with solid gold toilets. You must therefore also agree that the more of these thuggish despots we overthrow, replacing them with governments that are answerable to the citizens, the fewer people will live under these terrorism-breeding political conditions. Saddam Hussein was just one of the despots, but it's a start. Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I completely agree with the first part. The oppressive conditions that much of the Arab world lives in is a big part of the problem. And I do believe that changing those regimes to modern liberal governments would greatly help the people and help to eradicate terrorism. However I don't agree that our invading a nation to overthrow their government is a means to that end. I believe that doing so simply allows a different group of despots to take charge and us the United States as their excuse for atrocious behavior. We need to be there to help nations along in moving forward but I don't believe that we can externally change a nation. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If the answer is 'none yet,' then how will they take charge as long as we remain until the job's done? If the answer is 'they can't,' then isn't the Democratic cut and run strategy going to create a greater terrorist threat than would exist if we... stay the course? HTML Help Central for Red StatersReality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
That guys like Sadr are despots in training. Iraq is still very much up in the air as to what will ultimately happen. I don't know what the right course of action in Iraq is. I wish I did. While I think that going in was a terrible idea that horse has left the barn so I am not against staying in Iraq PROVIDED our leadership makes it very clear what our intentions are, which I don't think they are doing right now. The Democrats talk about pulling out but vacillate whenever they are asked to put their pen where their mouth is. The Republicans talk about staying the course but don't tell people the cold bitter truth, that staying in Iraq means staying for many likely bloody years. But to answer your question I do think that leaving now would essentially allow the despots free reign. What I don't know is whether that is our best choice or is staying longer and risking withdrawing later with the same results but with more dead soldiers. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I love how hard you try to dance around it. You absolutely, positively refuse to lay the blame on the Democrats (the people you usually vote for) for pushing a cut and run strategy, therefore allowing a Sadr or someone else to take over, therefore (according to your own theories) creating oppressive conditions that 'breed' terrorists. You nearly dodged it... by claiming that are options are withdraw now, or withdraw later. Well, 'hawk, WHY are those our options? Is it because the Democrats won't let up with their lies about our troops, comparing them with Nazis (Durbin), calling them incompetent (Schumer), saying they're going into people's homes and terrorizing them (Kerry), etc. etc.? Is it because they won't stop lying about their own votes (Kerry, Clinton) to go into Iraq, and more specifically the reasons for going in listed in the resolution they ratified? We have to finish the job, or everything that the (relatively few) soliders who have died over there died for, will be lost. ALL of it. The only thing left would be to put up a memorial... which would then get oil poured on it by some lefty nut... HTML Help Central for Red StatersReality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
blame the Democrats for everything that goes wrong in the world. But that blade cuts both ways. Personally I prefer to talk about the policies themselves rather than play the blame game. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
and inhibit would be allies. Their policy is responsible for the longevity of America's effort in Iraq than anything Rumsfeld did or didn't do. Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Your guys (and don't give me that junk about not being a registered Democrat, because I don't care. You defend them all the time, you've expressed preferences for voting for them, so they're yours) have an expressed policy preference to RUN AWAY FROM IRAQ, saying it's not our problem. According to YOU, a guy like Sadr is a despot in training. According to YOU, despotic rule breeds terrorism. So according to you, if we go with a Democratic plan for Iraq, we will stand back and watch the place breed terrorism, and know it going in. There isn't really any gray area. Either we keep on going until the job's done, or we quit prematurely according to some politically-generated deadline. President Bush has called for the former, his opponents have called for otherwise. There's a right side and a wrong side here. I urge you to get right with YOUR OWN EXPRESSED VIEWS OF THE ORIGINS OF TERROR, AND YOUR OWN EXPRESSED VIEWS OF OUR OPPONENTS IN IRAQ. HTML Help Central for Red StatersReality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Your either or choice is loaded to favor your views. Either we stick it out to the end and win or we quit and lose. Well gee given those choices how could anyone POSSIBLY want the latter? That gray is an interminable occupation in which we never achieve a thing but keep an endless cycle of violence from ever ending. We are not omnipotent. There are some things that are beyond our powers. It is possible that fundamentally changing Iraq is beyond our power. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
This is exactly what I am talking about when I refer to loaded questions.... Courtesy RJ Matson, Roll Call via Cagle Cartoons at The Moderate Voice There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
have been to aid the terrorists.Proof of that is obtained from the North Vietnamese Colonel who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam . "Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans? Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out." Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory? A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us." That was their policy in surrendering South Vietnam to North Vietnam. The actions of the Democrat political leaders in front of America, in the past few days, have proven that their policy has not changed.
I've been a little busy at work lately but I can't imagine I missed that one. Oh that's right. This is your cut and paste stuff about things that happend 30-40 years ago. I know. I know. Next comes the story about Kennedy & Co. sold the United States to the Soviets to win the election in 1984. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
of the Democrats have not changed. Whoever is against America is who they support. All these years and nothing changes, the same Democrats are still selling out America.
We shall see. Near as I can tell, we have been doing everything we can to assist those Iranians who wish to "move forward." By all accounts, there are quite a few such people. So far, obviously, they have not had much success. On the other hand, Shah had some pretty good secret police, and he fell right over once seriously challenged. Iran is a very different case. In particular, it is a "country," in the sense that we usually use that word. By comparison, Iraq without Saddam is like Yugoslavia without Tito. Nevertheless, had the people in Iraq taken advantage of the opportunity we provided to them, they could have built a shining city on a dune. Instead they used the relative freedom of the post-Saddam era to haul out every clan and tribal grudge that had been brewing for the last 500 years. It's so sad. Their so-called "leaders" don't appear to have any other agenda. Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I do think that Iran was moving in the right direction but 9/11 changed all that. And you are right on with regards to Iraq. The irony of that is that I do believe that one of the reasons that the Administration chose to go into Iraq is because they felt that Afghanistan was too Balkanized and we would be caught in a morass of tribal fighting never achieving anything. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...The opposite is to cut off their support base by dealing with the political fanatical religious issues that are the engine that drives terrorism... Didn't you? Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Fanaticism is a bi-product of political and social angst. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Flyer, I know you can't be this naive. www.scottbomb.com Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Cause and effect. Different things. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
 Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
but perhaps a good place to start would be to identify mosques that are fomenting hatred and acting as fronts for terrorism and bomb the damn things until the largest piece of rubble will fit through a fine screen. ____ CongressCritter: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Flyer, the traditional leftist line is that fanaticism is rooted in sexual repression. ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right... ---Thomas Paine---
----------- We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
What sort of angst, pray tell? Political oppression? Dysfunctional societies? "No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Please credit your quote to its author G. B. Shaw not R.F. ennedy
you saved me from googling the source of that quote. R.F.K. was quoting G.B.S. when he said it,
I quote Kennedy because it is relevant to me. I know the original source of the quote, which RFK credited when he said it. I find a Presidential hopeful saying this to be more relevant than a snake in a poem. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
HTML Help Central for Red StatersReality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
There's an equally plausable logic here. Hollywood created Rambo. Rambo defeated the communists. Therefore, Hollywood is an equally valid answer to who should kill the terrorists. In fact, Hollywood has been pretty damn good through the years at killing off bad guys. AND...on top of that, they've made a fortune doing it. Now, I can already hear the arguments about Hollywood being all liberal and such, but where do you think true conservatives like Reagan and John Wayne came from? See my point? It's too bad Bush missed the boat on this. Instead of a war czar that no one has heard of and no one hears from, he should have created a new department in charge of terrorism termination. The head guy would be The Terminator. And I know just the guy for the role. Move over, Rambo.
UBL's 1998 fatwa is to wage holy war, i.e KILL, not convert, against all Americans: The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs. According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith). Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" and ShiiteMuslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought. Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
And how exactly does your excerpt support your claim rather than mine? Where does it say or imply that a demand -- a requirement for peace -- is that Americans all convert to Islam?
They said: According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Yes, I think that's accurate, although it seems to be because our policies interfere with his goals, not because we are "infidels". But I thought we were debating the "conversion" claim. Thomas' initial comment that started this: http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/i_think_the_u_s_military_should... My reply, which was followed by docj claiming that conversion was a demand of theirs. http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/i_think_the_u_s_military_should... I assumed you were weighing in on that question.
By the way, check out page 3 of the transcript of his recent video, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. He stresses the opposite of a "convert or die" message. Granted, he may be saying things he doesn't really mean in order to influence our domestic politics or those of other nations or broaden his appeal to Muslims, but for whatever it's worth, he is claiming that they do not have a conversion demand nor a goal of killing Americans if our policies weren't getting in his way. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf Again, just because some have trouble taking things at face value (not saying you), I'm NOT saying we should bow in any way to any degree to his demands, and I want to cut this guy up as much as anybody. I'm just exploring the question at hand here regarding what his demands are and aren't.
Yes, plenty civil. As for your argument, you have not established that he is seeking a WORLDWIDE caliphate (i.e., outside of areas with majority or substantial minority Muslim populations), let alone one in which everyone must convert or die. That is what I'm asking to be substantiated here. And again, saying that conversion would LEAD TO peace is not the same as saying it is a REQUIREMENT for peace (i.e., not necessarily the ONLY way to get him to stop trying to kill us).
that a muslim empire, run by a caliph and in the possession of weaponry they could have only previously dreamed of, can peacefully coexist with the infidel? If that's the case, let me ask you this: what, in the long history of Islam, leads you to believe that? ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I don't know, and I'll do what I can in my political choices not to find out. But let's not move the goalpoasts here. You asserted quite strongly that bin Laden had the stated demand that everyone in the world convert to Islam or be killed. You have yet to substantiate that claim. Do you plan to do so? And if not, are you withdrawing that claim?
If not, done - for the time being (it's been a looooooong day, I have no energy to dig into his and his minions statements and I really have to get to bed). I'll take it up again tomorrow if work permits. ------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Sleep well, infidel. (hey, that kinda almost rhymes in a catchy way, like "See ya' later, alligator).
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer www.race42008.com www.hinzsightreport.com www.theminorityreportblog.com "One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Probably never thought anyone would bring up that TV show (not to be confused with the terrible movie). I doubt too many others would admit to watching this show (on this site, at least), but there are lessons to be gleaned. If you're still reading... One of the underlying themes throughout the 7-year series, was whether Buffy Summers, the slayer, was doing any good. She fought the demons, the monsters, stopped the apocalypse numerous times, even died twice. But the demons and vampires, the casualties, never stopped. Why did she bother? If the end wasn't in sight, if there was no end to be, then why fight at all? The simplest answer: Because it's the right thing to do. Because it must be done. The more complicated answer: Because she was the chosen one, and she had the power to fight the evil. The point isn't to rid the world of evil - sure, if someday that happened, Buffy would have been happy to retire - the point is to fight the good fight. To do what is necessary to keep that evil from overrunning the world, from winning. If we do not yet understand that, then we are already losing. I'm not saying we're lost, but we're not in a position to win. We fight and kill terrorists because it's the good fight; it's necessary; it's the right thing to do and it must be done. R.J.
BtVS (why I bought a DVD player, in fact), Firefly, BSG (both camps), Bab5, the various STs, Star Wars... heck, we even have a roleplaying gamer or two stinking up the place. :) Moe Lane PS: Agreed, by the way. The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
n/t
And if you don't know Dr Who, you don't know science fiction. The rest is all derivative. Quentin Langley Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net International Editor of
She kept fighting to keep the advertising revenue from a popular show coming in. a href="http://andrightlyso.com/index.php">And Rightly So!
except for the Rumsfeld part. Rudy and Huck are divisive, Romney is strong, but there is the slick factor. McCain is unpalatable for his previous strong positions against some conservatives. So we have Fred. Can Fred beat Hillary? Dunno, It will be either a narrow win, or a Dole like total loss. "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
I'd say that he's desperately trying to drag himself back into contention in the primary, but it really doesn't look like he is. I think he'd make a pretty good President, but he makes an awful candidate. www.republicansenate.org
I'm with Huckabee because I believe he has the potential to turn around that 18 to 30 demographic you speak of. Furthermore, I'm a believer in George W. Bush compassionate conservatism and think Huck will do a better job of implementing it. I make this stand understanding that there is a realistic possibility Huckabee will be out after South Carolina and maybe Iowa, so a second choice is important for me since my caucus isn't until February. You and Mary Maitlin have done an excellent job convincing me that Fred is a good second choice, although I was previously leading toward McCain. I think Fred is wrong on immigration and Bush/Huckabee/McCain/Giuliani and the WSJ are right, but other than that he is solid. Furthermore, I think he is a way better politician than Hillary Clinton, and can win. I don't see most of the voters who will decide this election voting for Hillary over Fred. "I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it." -George W. Bush
the giant nanny state? the huge deficits? the alienation of the business community? the laughter and scorn of the Democrats? The sense of betrayal felt by movement conservatives? or was it the loss of both houses of congress? "Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
The idea of it, not the implementation, which I agree has been flawed, costly, and a political failure. What compassionate conservatism turned into was a compromise with Democrats on medicare and education that created more problems not less. Like Jack Kemp, I don't believe Republicans have to sell out their principles to give a crap about those in neeed. Bush never managed Congress well enough to get it done. "I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it." -George W. Bush
communism. Maybe the implementation failed because the idea itself is flawed.
___________________________________ Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Some enterprises are doomed to fail not because they lack merit, but because they're attempted with the wrong tools- and government is the wrong tool for this job. We all want a compassionate world where everything works and people get along and opportunity is there for everybody. Not all of us seem to have figured out that government can't deliver this world. At any price. (or at the very least, it hasn't worked every time it's been tried.)
That is the problem with the "Compassionate Conservative" message. Government is not a person, it is a machine. The parts are people, but like a machine they have to work by a if/then reactive system, therfoer they become parts, not people. The persons being served have to fit into the system, therfore they become numbers, not people. The result is a static system that pigeionholes everyone and discourages them from trying to leave thier pigeonhole. This is compassion? Govenment compassion is like being hugged by a chainsaw. The intentions may be good, but it's still a frickin' chainsaw. ---- Brian Epps RandomNumbers.us
It's neat to be able to see someone think out loud about their decision process. I have gone through a similar process, but ended with Rudy, Fred and McCain as my top 3. They continue to tussle, but for similar reasons as you (but different weights), I think McCain, Fred, Rudy is my current order. I'm still holding out hope for a McCain/Thompson or Thompson/McCain ticket. Fighting pork and rekindling federalism would follow forthwith. ______________________________________ Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm with Fred and sent him money last Wednesday. I disagree with you a bit on Mitt though. I don't think he'll turn his back on us. At least not until year 5, after his re-election. He'll need so-cons for the re-election. I do think that he'll have a harder time with some people because of his religion than Fred will have with those same people. And once again, I will PROUDLY vote for any of the big five (even Huckabee) on election day 2008. Oz Read my most recent story, "No speech from Romney is a reason to avoid him" on First Cut Politics
I have gone thru a similar line of thinking, and it also led me to Fred. The Unofficial RedState FAQ You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.  - Martin Luther
A "Leave Me the Heck Alone" (LMHA) conservative.... I have to say that's an appealing way to look at it. Kind of embraces the "freedom" part of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I do find that very refreshing when it seems every other candidate wants to tell you that there is something wrong with the way you think. But....(everybody has a big one)... Most days Fred comes across as the "Leave Me the Heck Alone" Candidate. Hint: You gotta want the job, Freddie. And you gotta be willing to play the part for at least four years. Drop the character of the irascible, cantankerous curmudgeon. Imagine the roll. Think "Leader of the Free World".
You CANNOT trust John McCain. He does not like the first amendment. McCain/Feingold and other statements attest to that. He would love to be the overlord of the internet. The Gang of 14. He's a pal of Ted Kennedy and is working with him on immigration right now. Does ANYONE believe someone who would be 72 on inauguration day will excite ANYONE under 50? Any wonder why, here in Arizona, he is NOT leading in the polls? -------------------- Vista really sucks!
I think McCain has character. He just won't do the things many of us would like him to do, heh. HTML Help for Red Staters
But he's a loose one. McCain will go off. You just are never sure what direction he will be aiming. -------------------- Vista really sucks!
Just look at the McCain flyer that Erick posted. If he'll suck up to the Cult of Global Warming to try to win the *GOP* nomination, is there anything he won't do? --- Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
He's been on about that for years, even when he wasn't running for anything. The man didn't take a Global Warming trip to Alaska with HRC to pander. I think he means it; he thinks it feels hotter in Arizona these days, and he think's it's Global WArming. HTML Help for Red Staters
--- Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Two words: Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office. And, not nearly as cranky. And, was a GOOD Republican. -------------------- Vista really sucks!
I like Fred. I think he has set forth the best policy ideas in the campaign. And I like the fact that he is appealing to fiscal and social conservatives. Two problems with Fred. 1. His appearance and demeanor. Not much he can do about that. Men like this guy. But I suspect that large numbers of women will not--he just ain't pretty enough and he's old-man gruff. The gender gap is gonna be huge in this election, as many men will be repelled by Her Hillaryness. We need to work that to our advantage so that the Republican candidate does not have a comparable effect on women swing-voters. Romney will probably be more popular--nice looking, nice guy. His wife isn't some young mega-babe, but is attractive in the way that many women consider reasonably attainable. After all, there's a reason Fred was cast as the boorish, brutish, sexual-harassing boss on the Roseanne show--because he was believable in the part. Romney would never have been so cast. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3492255455426747690&q=Roseanne+... 2. Fred will not beat Hillary if he can't run a disciplined, sharp campaign. Not much evidence of that yet. I think if he can fix #2, we can live with #1--and Fred might be the best candidate. In any case--COME ON, FRED--STEP UP, MAN! "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
that Fred has fixed his campaign? (I'm not complaining or critiquing--I really would like to know what people are looking for.)
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
is like hoping for an inside straight. -------------------- Vista really sucks!
One of his campaigns was less genuine than the other. Do you really think his run for Senate was the real Mitt? I don't. HTML Help for Red Staters
be someone who we know will voluntarily run a "less genuine" campaign? Something (I think we understand what) made him run, and supposedly govern, in a way different from who he is. Will it happen again in the White House?
The Democrats achieve many policy objectives by playing that game. They win many votes that ought to be ours. What's the harm? And I answered your question above. I think the Romney who sells himself to Democrats isn't the real Mitt Romney. Are you going to state otherwise definitively? Hard to have a good, solid debate with innuendo, heh. HTML Help for Red Staters
The harm is not so much when you are lying, er selling, to get votes, it is when you actually start to govern in line with the way that you sold yourself. You acknowledge that he has run campaigns casting himself differently. I would say signing a document saying that you agree with the substance of the Roe v Wade decision (see http://infredheads.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-not-mitt-part-2.html) is more than just "selling" himself. He also allowed non-medically necessary abortions into the Mass Health Care plan. While there is some debate on whether or not Mitt's health care solution was "conservative" it is clear that Mitt favors (favored?) a government mandate type approach to solving problem. That wasn't him selling, it was governing. I don't know which one will show up to govern if he wins the Presidency. I THINK that it would be the conservative one, but I just don't know. To use your question: are you going to state otherwise definitively?
If someone can point to a time in which Romney as governor did not act as he sold himself, I could see being afraid of that. Don't forget; to get elected Governor he promised to maintain the status quo on abortion. That included he medial insurance stuff. So basicall you're hitting him both ways: you're suggesting he might be dishonest and flop back from his campaign promise flips, while at the same time attacking him for when he was honest and lived up to his campaign promises. HTML Help for Red Staters
I'm not accusing Romney of flip-flopping on promises, but clearly his positions have changed over time (either on principle or for convenience). He has only had the one elected office, so I don't know if he will flip on campaign promises later. But he has made campaign promises (in different elections) that disagree with each other. What evidence do I have that when a problem comes down the pike that we have not anticipated (i.e. on a subject that he has not made a promise), that he will lead in a conservative direction? Romney appears to make his decisions based on a pragmatism rather than principle. It is a valid approach, but I am more comfortable and enthusiastic about someone who is deciding on (conservative) principle.
There will never be *evidence* that any candidate will handle unforeseen problems in the 'right' way. That's why character counts. And you know what? I think this politics are practical, but I don't think he shows the marks of pragmatic progressivism at all. You don't pick the fights he picked in Massachusetts to be a pragmatic get along liberal Republican. HTML Help for Red Staters
That, of course, is the only way that you can evaluate character anyway. That is why Romney and Huckabee should at least be viewed circumspectly as they are running on promises that are different from their track records.
IF what Romney did was lie, then no, we shouldn't trust him. Or at the very least, that he proved a clever liar in the past isn't something we should praise him for. BUT, if what Romney did was not deceive, but persuade by merely emphasizing his points of agreement with his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts, while de-emphasizing his conservatism, I do not see any objection. It is a statemen's job to persuade, in part by not unnecessarily antagonizing the people. It is clear on abortion that Romney stated a different position in 1994, and, to a lesser extent, in 2002, from his current position. He has openly acknowledged this change of mind. Many of the other instances of alleged flip-flopping seem to me ot represent a change of emphasis or tone, and not a clear, material change of position. "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I can take any candidate (Ron Paul exception, of course). I want the candidate that will WIN in 11/2008. I remember the hell that was 1993-2000. Thank God we had some reasonable Republicans in Congress to put up some resistance. (Think welfare would pass now, or with a Dim president?) Imagine that redux with a Dim Congress, as we have now, or worse? No thanks! -------------------- Vista really sucks!
God Forbid.
"Leave Me The Heck Alone" = Social Libertarian Liberal = Pro-Choice at the state level = "So Be It" when it comes to gay marriage = Letting Schiavo die
the NRLC endorsement because he is PRO LIFE.
...They were in the tank for him since July. But the pro-lifers are with Huck. You should see the response of some of the state RTL organizations when they heard NRLC was supporting Fred. Fred is losing support -- he's gotten no bounce from this endorsement.
That's right, they're in the tank for him. All those grassroots leaders are in the tank for him becuase he's the *best* pro-life candidate in the field. You remind me of Baghdad Bob trying to talk down US advances in Iraq, heh. HTML Help for Red Staters
because while it is true that I am not an activist, I consider myself pretty hardline pro-life. And right now I'm with Fred over Huck and Mitt is my second choice. If I can't have either of them I'm with Bill Buckley and want the next president picked at random from the phone book.
And Huck is my last choice. ==== 13 ====
correct policy on life (I'm pro-life). I agree with Fred on every policy. National Security, Nathional Sovereignty, National Solvency. The trifecta. His plans are realistic and beneficial. I want him to win this election. Very much. www.fred08.com Redneck Hippie
I may steal it;)
I'm curious because on Earth, the idea that Erick is a social liberal is pretty nuts. HTML Help for Red Staters
I do not wish to impugn him.
G'narr has warned you before about using your telepathic mind-reading abilities in front of the Earthlings. Unless you want to be re-assigned, skinning small reptiles in the ship's kitchen, leave discussion of your empathic discoveries to your briefings for The Old Ones. Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
he seems to be the same guy with the same positions for as long as I have known about FDT. Which is when he Al's seat. I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
where he is running very close to Hillary. See latest Rasmussen: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_electi...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H. L. Mencken
I like him on all the issues, 1. Pro-life (and the Federalist approach, taking one battle at a time, get the Fed out of the discussion. Same as gay marriage.) You are either a Federalist or not... you can't say there should be a constitutional amendment (which we know won't happen) and say you are for state rights. 2. No nonsense on War on Terror. Doesn't promote "stay on the offensive" he says we need to actually get offensive! Most Republicans are okay on this issue, but after watching Fred on Chris Wallace's show, I'm confident this guy shoots about as straight as they get. 3. Not only is he not kissing the tails of ever faction of voters, he is clearly not doing it with the media. 4. Taxes/Social Security etc... strong on all. 5. Illegal Immigration- I've yet to see such a comprehensive plan that meets my desires better. 6. I have no concern that he is going to change his positions because he has had them for a long time (the only candidate that can say "look at my record.") FINALLY- The issue du jour... the 2nd amendment. We are at war ladies and gentlemen, and as Michael Savage would say, we also have an "Enemy within." Hitler and Stalin took away guns from the citizens of Germany and Russa... then what happened? We need to be prepared in this country for outside aggressors, inside aggressors, and those who want to control our every move. The 2nd amendment issue will become bigger now with this DC gun case, and the voters are going to go to the man they feel will protect their rights to bear arms, especially in the South. The 2nd amendment should be considered the top issue if you are looking for a "leave me alone" candidate. Allowing citizens to carry guns has risks... but none of those risks amount for a greater threat to our country than taking away the right to bear arms. A candidate who is consistent and strong on this issue, should easily be considered the best "leave me alone" candidate. www.fred08.com
What so many people are missing is Rudy is not "socially liberal." Rudy is a former federal prosecutor and a big believer in upholding the laws of the land. (His Second Amendment battle with the gun industry withstanding.) At one time the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion was legal. Rudy wasn't "for" this procedure; he was simply for upholding the law as it exists. The same with gay marriage. He doesn't support a constitutional ban because, in his view, it's not needed at the moment. Mr. Giuliani said, he would support a ban if several states began legalizing gay marriage. As stated here, Rudy is not a social activist. It is my belief, however, that he will appoint "original intent" justices that will stick to the Constitution, and since conservatism comes from the Constitution...you do the math. I'm siding with Rudy because he is the only true governing conservative in the race. Senators McCain and Thompson haven't run a state, or a city with the population larger than some states. Huckabee and Romney's tenures as governors weren't conservative in their own respects. What Mr. Giuliani accomplished in New York as mayor is practicing conservatism at its best. Go back and read the articles and decide for yourself.
One of the telltale characteristics of a congenital liberal is a willingness to tolerate no results or even horrible results provided that the intentions are good. This is what scares me about those who call themselves 'conservatives' but who advocate in favor of candidates whose intentions are pure but whose platform consists of tilting at windmills in the name of 'principle.' That is the behavior of someone who is mentally a liberal. It is the behavior of someone who would for decades support the AFDC program because it meant well, even as empirical evidence mounted that the program was institutionalizing poverty instead of curing it. The particular windmills under attack by our own liberals may be different  they may even sound like conservative causes  but fundamentally a preference for good intentions over good results reveals a liberal mindset. A person who thinks like that will see merit in programs that any conservative would recogize instantly as meeting the Gorbachev Test for Socialism: "It is a beautiful idea. But it does not work." I find myself laughing out loud at the participants here who loudly call Giuliani a liberal while exhibiting themselves multiple characteristics of a seriously liberal mindset. Were they ever to gain power, I have no doubt they would immediately set out to "use government to make the world a better place." To build Utopia, in other words. Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
--- Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Did Romney make out with a tranny on the stump to out-gay Teddy? That is an interesting phrase. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H. L. Mencken
His wife is too pretty and he's not possessed of an insatiable lust for power. After a few months in the race if this is the worst that can be said of him, Fred Dalton Thompson deserves the nomination for having the least negatives on the ticket. On the real issues he has issued several position papers that are flat out the best in the field. So glad to see Eric come out in favor of Fred. Now if we can get those folks hung up on the wife and ambition part to stop complaining and start writing checks for him we can shift focus to winning in November and do exactly that.
HTML Help for Red Staters
I used to believe that our system of political campaigning was ridiculous. I saw no relationship between the skills needed to wage a campaign and the skills needed to execute the office. But the more campaigns I've seen, the more I have come to respect our seemingly silly process. Like many here, I find Fred to be the best fit for the issue positions I hold. I don't agree with Fred on everything, but I don't agree with any of the candidates on everything. Once I start doing the calculus on the compromises I'm willing to make, Fred wins. Trouble is, Fred isn't winning. He is failing the "can he run a campaign" test. I wish it were not so, but I cannot deny that several other candidates are proving better at getting others to back their causes to the point of parting with money; at getting others to work toward a common goal in an organized way even when remuneration is not an issue; and in inspiring the kind of passion that causes volunteers to go 'above and beyond the call of duty' in pursuit of the win. Without those things, I don't see Fred winning the nomination. And if he somehow did, I have little faith he could advance all the positions Fred and I hold in common. I would like nothing better than to see this change. Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Every candidate will have to work with Democrats. Until we are a one-party state that is going to happen. It is more than likely that the Republican president will have a Democrat Congress. So every one of your heroes will have to work with them and make your head explode. McCain has a firm SoCon record. He doesn't support tax increases. Wants to eliminate pork spending. He has the best image among independents. Without a doubt, is the most battle-tested and possesses the best resume. Doesn't have the Rudy baggage, Fred's laziness, Romney's flip-flopping, or Hucakbee's socialism. McCain backed Bush in 04 rather than splitting the party. McCain backed the war no matter what, ALWAYS. He was out front on the surge. He is a true leader it seems that has a great chance in the general. ------------------------------------------------------------- I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
he still backs embryonic stem cell research, and will not reconsider his position even after the breakthroughs this week: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjIwMDM2OTdiMTliNmQ4YTRkZWNlMjF...
Small pill to swallow when you consider the horse pill otherwise known as Huckabee's fiscal policy. ------------------------------------------------------------- I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
As I recall, McCain may have "backed" the war all along, but he was one of the first R's to complain and attack the war effort. While it is true that his criticism was a demand for more troops, he was as negative as many others. Further, he still isn't right on the war. He either doesn't understand the nature and timing of the surge, or he is deliberately obfuscating so he can say he was right all along.
In case you didn't notice, the war was going badly because of bad decisions from the start. Can you imagine how things would be today if McCain would've been in charge? We would have surge level troops in Iraq from the beginning and this mess would've never happened. McCain was right that we didn't have enough troops and that Rummy and crew were mishandling the reconstruction. Just one more way he proved his leadership and wisdom on those matters. ------------------------------------------------------------- I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
If McCain had been in charge and we had surge levels from the beginning, we would probably be out of Iraq now with double or triple the number of caualties and a mess in the middle east. If you think the surge strategy that worked is 30,000 additional warm bodies, then I am afraid you have received too much of your military strategy courses from the MSM. Our current success is the result of three things - 4+ years of experience and relationship building, the "surge" showing the Iraqis that despite our political turmoil we are not leaving, and GEN Petraeus' leadership and CI strategy. McCain was wrong then and is wrong now. He gets kudos for wanting victory and not backing down. He gets kudos for standing for the fight. He gets my middle finger for his self-aggrandizing behavior, and his nonsensical charge against torture - framing the debate as if torture was actually something we did, so he would have something to complain about.
The surge has led to a decrease in army deaths. Mostly because we have enough force to overwhelm the overmatched enemy. With that logic, if we had came in overwhelming from the start, the insurgency would've died before it began because we could've occupied hotbeds like Falluja and Ramadi with overwhelming force from the beginning. Rather than have too few troops to cover every area, allowing insurgents to train and mass in places we couldn't occupy. It wasn't the last four years that led us to this moment. It was having enough forces to employ the Petraeus strategy. ------------------------------------------------------------- I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Read my post again. Those three things are THE reasons we are being successful in Iraq right now. The additional troops are part of the strategy, without the strategy, they are just potential casualties. Iraq is extermely complicated, and everybody wants to reduce it to sound bites and campaign slogans. The "surge" is not and was not ever about additional troops. Its PRIMARY function was telegraphing to the world that we would not back down. It infused the "good guys" in Iraq with the confidence to open themselves to more risk, and it discouraged people from joining the "bad guys" team, since if the U.S. isn't a paper tiger, fighting us is a losing proposition.
We still don't have enough troops to do as you said. The additional 30,000 is almost meaningless in a country that size. It is part of the strategy because it gives us additional flexibility, it come nowhere near overwhelming force anywhere in Iraq.
One of the reasons I'm worried about this election is that I think we could elect someone who believes that the "surge" itself was what turned Iraq around. Even though the anti-war people are full of it, they have a point: Mindless aggression is not a successful strategy. I'd rather have a president that would abandon Iraq (in 2009 that might not be so bad) than have a president who will enter a poorly-thought-out war. For the record, I think invading Iraq was a stroke of genius, although the execution doesn't impress.
McCain was critical of Rumsfeld, the shortage of troops, and the strategy employed, and rightfully so. Unlike Hagel and Lugar and other weak-kneed Republicans (as well as most Democrats), he wasn't calling for timetables or phased surrender. He was proposing ways for us to prevail, which is ultimately a constructive criticism of Bush & Co. If Bush had actually taken that criticism to heart and changed tack earlier, we may not haven been pushed into the minority. What's more, he was and is right on the current surge strategy (cite). Way back in November 2003, McCain said this: To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It's a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity." Emphases mine.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
I addressed this above.
You gave a hypothetical that, if McCain were in charge, we'd be out of Iraq by now with double or triple the casualties and a worse ME. Sorry, Mac, I don't do hypotheticals. And how did "relationship building" help our situation in the pre-Petraeus days? We were hunkered down in FOBs, stuck in a failed strategy. How do you build relationships in that environment? By cell phone? McCain proposed a "focused counterinsurgency strategy" over four years ago, with attendant increases in manpower. This was not only a criticism of the current plan, but a proposal for a more workable solution. If you call that "negative", well, then Bush needed to hear some more of that particular negative. As it is, he bumbled his way along, helping us lose our majority in Congress and sticking ourselves with an ungodly mess. Bush-Rumsfeld talked a good game about security and secure-hold-build, but damn little came of it, and Rumsfeld made sure that anyone under his command who proposed major troop increases would have a dead-end career. Are you implying that the current strategy is just a warmed over PR campaign? And please, tell my why treating detainees humanely is nonsensical. Do you not see the exorbitant political price we've paid by violating that standard? Why would a person who is in pain to this day because of torture be "self-aggrandizing"? Don't you think there might be some principle involved in his position?
"We were hunkered down in FOBs, stuck in a failed strategy. How do you build relationships in that environment? By cell phone?" I was watching relationships being built in Iraq pre-surge. We were not out to the extent we should have been to do what needed to be done, but there are many more pieces to this puzzle than the MSM, the Dems, McCain, or a whole lot of people understand. More troops in 2004 or 2005 or even 2006 would not have gained us any more stability, but would have gained us more casualties. McCain was calling for a "comprehensive counter-insurgency campaign", but neither he nor anyone else knew what that meant on the ground in Iraq. 4 years of sweat, blood and sacrifice taught us how to deal with the Iraqi people, and gave us the credibility to be listened to. It may be fun for all the armchair generals to bash Rumsfeld and Bush, but the reality is they did very well overall, and I bet no one else would have done better if they truly had to decide. As to your other point, reading comprehension would serve you best. I defined what I meant by nonsensical, and it had nothing to do with how anyone should or shouldn't be treated. If torture were the institutional standard in our Armed Forces that John McCain tried to make it out to be, I would grant that he was standing on principle. Instead, he was using his history as a tortured veteran (which I honor and respect him for) to give legitimacy to his crusade against something that wasn't an issue. It was mounatin out a mole hill, and it wasn't done on principle, it was done for media coverage. "Do you not see the exorbitant political price we've paid by violating that standard?" Political price? For violating that standard? We've paid an enormous political price and we didn't violate that standard. Lastly, you chastise me for using a hypothetical - when I was responding to a hypothetical, and you rebut it with another hypothetical. You can't have it both ways friend.
how come the results were so pitiful? We were understaffed from the get-go, letting the environment become chaotic, which in turn allowed an insurgency to grow, and further allowed al Qaeda to grow in strength. Security was a number one priority for the Iraqi people, and we didn't deliver. Our leaders were too late in recognizing the seriousness of the insurgency and too slow in remedying the situation. Then we failed to recognize the seriousness of the Golden Mosque bombing, and failed to adequately respond. The civilian casualty numbers are a testament to this piss-poor strategy. Going into fall of 2006, the administration was still saying "stay the course" even though it was all too clear that this course was taking us two steps forward and one or two steps back. McCain was right in pointing this out and right in telling the administration to get its act together. As for our standards on treatment of detainees, we do (or at least did) have a problem. It was very much an issue, and remains so. You're right about the hypothetical, but at least I have a basis for my conclusion. More troops and a proper COIN strategy has succeeded, and there's no reason why it shouldn't have succeeded in Iraq in prior years. It actually did work in places such as Haditha (before your fellow Marines were jerked around (twice) and redeployed to Fallujah) and in other locations. We are probably still understaffed, but 30,000 more troops is doing the job.
After you have planted the grain must grow before it can be harvested. To a naive person planting looks an awful lot like throwing away seed. Allowing the grain to grow is little more than benign neglect. Harvesting the acknowledgment of a hopeless situation and the elimination of the evidence of mistakes made. To apply the current strategy at the beginning may have worked. It certainly would have provided more targets for the insurgents to shoot at. As to your detainee problem statement, NO WE DO NOT. Not by any sane measure. ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Kudos to Mac for pointing out that McCain was one of the first and most vocal critics. He could have advised and critiqued Bush without doing it in front of a microphone. This hurt Bush as CinC and the overall war effort by giving the dems the ammo of calling Bush incompetent. Overwhelming force from the start could have branded us as an occupation force in the Arab world and AQ as liberators. Lots of things could have happened. Mac may be right and this was the best way in the long run to fight a very complicated war.
Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold) Judges (Gang of 14) Global Warming (see Erick's post today) Calling questioning terrorists 'torture' Immigration (McCain-Kennedy) And those are just items I was able to think of in the last three minutes. These are all items that John McCain has been actively promoting the wrong side of. Sorry, that's too many for me. --- Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
What if Democrats could've used the nuclear option on Republicans after 2006 to kill obstruction? I think McCain's fear of torture is valid considering his experience. I think he deserves all due benefit of the doubt on that one. There are issues where we all disagree with candidates and I do disagree with McCain on things. He has the best resume. Best reputation with independents. Most experience on foreign policy. Anti-tax. Anti-pork. Most electable Republican. That is enough for me. I don't agree with his SoCon views and I am an isolationist. But I respect his ability to hold to his views and be a leader. ------------------------------------------------------------- I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
The democrats will use it if it ever suits their needs, and what the R's did or didn't do has no impact on it. Compare Bork and Ginsburg. Enough said.
McCain threw some judges under the bus in order to get others. If he was President, would he nominate someone like Robert Bork? No; he'd nominate a Kennedy or Souter that he could get easily approved by the Senate. Rudy, for all his moderate social positions, would nominate better judges than McCain. If you think that a Democratic Senate would wait even as much as 10 seconds to use the Nuclear Option to get a Hillary judge approved, you're way more optimistic than I am. And McCain's experience with torture has clouded his vision on the issue. Aggressive questioning techniques such as waterboarding have broken the best of al Qaeda and given us invaluable intelligence information. That McCain would give all that up for vague moral posturing says to me all that needs be said. --- Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
McCain also said he appoint USSC judges in the vein of Roberts and Alito. Why would you believe Giuliani and disbelieve McCain?
As I said, McCain showed with the Gang of 14 that he's willing to throw good people under the bus instead of fighting for them. That to my mind shows how serious he is about nominating good judges and fighting for them. Rudy hasn't been in a situation like that. He might not end up any better than John, but Rudy has a history of fighting for what he believes in, and he's made very vocal promises about what kinds of judges he would appoint. If he doesn't live up to that, well, he can just look to Bush Sr.'s "no new taxes" line to see where he'd end up. --- Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
First, the term "nuclear option" was created by liberal Democrats and the Partisan Press. It was designed to disparage conservatives, intimidate moderate Republicans and confuse the electorate. Second, the "constitutional option" is the correct terminology. Third, the "constitutional option" is limited to the Executive calender. Fourth, the filibuster is addressed in the Senate Rules and pertains solely to legislation before the Senate. Finally, the filibuster of judicial nominees is an usurpation of the constitutional authority reserved for the Executive and exceeds the Senate's constitutional authority regarding "advise and consent" because the filibuster requires a super-majority for the confirmation of Executive appointments. *** Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.  Ronald Reagan
EOM -J
I have had my own share of contemplation over the stable of Republicans running in '08. Fred is my guy for the same reasons that you have listed. I also look at Mike as my least favorite candidate. Now John comes in as my second least favorite because of taxes. I agree that John is for small government and cutting out pork in spending. What I really don't like about John is his love for soaking the rich with taxes. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, and to this day he believes the US revenues went up in spite of not because of the Bush tax cuts. I am having a hard time putting one above the other when it comes down to Rudy and Mitt. They both have pluses and minuses. Perhaps I give Rudy an edge because of his endorsement from Steve Forbes. I do not like the way Mitt trashed Forbes in his run for POTUS in '96, but peace can be made between Mitt and Steve. Now there's no more oak oppression, For they passed a noble law, And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, axe, and saw.
