Huckabee, as Governor, wasn't economically conservative enough for many of the conservative leadership. He actually raised some taxes to cover more poor kids in Medicaid/S-CHIP. Imagine that!Originally Posted by Mikebert
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
First, I don't think the Romney plan is so bad that it won't improve the mess we have now. Second, the public thinks GOPpers are great, so they'll give it a lot of leeway. Third, being a rug is looked upon with disdain, regardless of party.
I'm not advocating ethanol for the Dems. It's a stupid idea for them, but great for the GOP. After all, why would the GOP want to harm the oil companies? They do want to get the environmentalists and End-of-Energy types off their backs, though. Ethanol is perfect. It even serves a GOP constituency by funding an ineffectual program that threatens none of their other constituents.
But the GOP doesn't, and it serves their needs to not be at times. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
That one may be a chink in the armor. Republicans are bullet proof ... up to a point. Beyond that, they lose their invincibility shields, and are even more naked than the Dems.
Osama-on-the-loose is a winner for the Dems, if they have the balls to use it ... a lot!
Gets what? They reported that Wall Street has had it with the GOP, at least for now. If I was a Rep running for anything shy of an iron-clad safe seat, I might be worried. A POTUS elect can have big coat tails, though I don't see Hillary having any coat tails at all. The GOP should be doing everthing they can to get her on the ballot. Infact, I think they are, in a back handed way.
There is a small window for the Dems to do well, and, as you admit your self, they had better do it right. I can't see a divisive character like Hillary being the Dem to do it. In fact, I see her as the one to push the hot buttons often and hard, and just maybe ... accidentally ... pushing the reset button that gives the GOPpers another shot - one they don't deserve.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 11-15-2007 at 10:18 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Marc is right. Republicans favor lots and lots of war-making capability. Fighting frequent wars is needed to justify all that war-making capability.He just told you why... he's AGAINST everything the "Republicans have an absolute requirment for," like:
- Continued wars: Warfare is a matter self-defense, conservatives, however, aren't as girly and squeemish about the residual effects as liberals.
- No national health insurance: No socialized "one-payer" system and no free lunch!
- No action on global warming: No socialist remedy, to a problem mankind can't fix anyway!
- No action on deficits: Have you seen the deficit falling like a rock, lately? Pro-growth economics works everytime!
- No action on alternate energy: We should start drillin' in places where environmental wackos say no, and we should increase refining capacity and decrease refining regulations now!
I dare say, Democrats are diametrically opposed to everything we are for.
On the other hand, war-fighting capability clearly does not provide defense. All the vast armament America has acquired at enormous expense was powerless to repel the most deadly invasion of the US in nearly two centuries. Indded, after the invasion it was tacitly acknowledged that the so-called "defense department" was utterly incapable of defending the homeland and so a new department was created for that purpose.
Marc opposes national health insurance, action on global warming or alternate energy. And deficits generated by tax cuts don't bother him.
All pretty much consonant with standard Republican beliefs. In fact he paraphrases Fred Thompson's slogan to imply that Thompson, like he, approves of the list he gives:
Responsible, sensible and strong national-defense government is what Republicans are for.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-15-2007 at 06:17 PM.
Response...
About the only thing you got right in that post was the correct spelling of my name. But for that I do thank you.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08168.pdf
Period Increase in Nat'l Debt ($billions)
2003-4 596
2004-5 539
2005-6 575
2006-7 500
Liar
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-15-2007 at 06:30 PM.
Pants on fire?
Change subject, eh? Funny, I've never heard ya bitch about the debt before.
Very gracious of you, Mark.About the only thing you got right in that post was the correct spelling of my name. But for that I do thank you.
I'm not bitching. You falsely claimed that the deficit was plummeting. Just calling a spade a spade.Change subject, eh? Funny, I've never heard ya bitch about the debt before.
I presented the actual statistics showing a modest decline in the deficit (trend rate 25 billion/yr) that predicts the current $500 billion deficit going away in 20 years--assuming no recession. Of course there will be a recession before then and it will go up, so its not really falling at all.
In any case, the deficit is not plummeting and you are spreading bullshit as usual.
My point has been made. Marc can't answer it.
Pity, it must take a lot of existential gymnastics to avoid such cognitive dissonance.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
So those Palestinian terrorists attacked us on 9/11? He gave them WMD? The money he was supplying Hamas & Co rivaled what Iran was (and is) giving their various Hezbollah factions in magnitude and breadth?
I did not know that! That's really wild stuff.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
True dat. Call me loopy.
And I am happy to see that ignoring Sujatha's inanity still makes sense.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Zar, as I recall, you supported the Iraq invasion as well. But, but.... I didn't know it was gonna turnout to be this hard, bitch.. bitch.. piss and moan.. whine.. sniffle.. sniffle..point finger at me, Semo or DA and blame. Write a sob story proclaiming that I've now turned over a new leaf and have become an opposition Democrat really isn't going to change or undue what has already been embarked upon in the past or accomplished in Iraq.So those Palestinian terrorists attacked us on 9/11? He gave them WMD? The money he was supplying Hamas & Co rivaled what Iran was (and is) giving their various Hezbollah factions in magnitude and breadth?
I did not know that! That's really wild stuff.
Saddam Hussein is dead. Yippie! His massive army has been decommissioned. Yippie. We've now got air bases and military bases strategically located near both Iran and Syria. Yippie.
Did I support the invasion? Hell no, I anticipated many complications simply knowing the location and I certainly knew about the existance of the anti-war/anti-America crowds. Finding no WMD's in Iraq, well that particular major complication really sucked and I have to admit even shocked me.
Last edited by K-I-A 67; 11-17-2007 at 10:49 PM.
Three things.
One, we were lied to. And I have proven this. It's not hard to prove actually. And if you disagree, I am still waiting for you, or Chris, or HC, or the Trog, to disprove it.
Two, it's called evolution. It's called growing up. It's called adapting to new information. You wouldn't understand, apparently.
Three, why should I take any criticism seriously from an someone ignorant enough to think the constitution says the President can do what he wants with the military and Congress has no say?
You're right. We can't "undue" what has been done. But we can do what's right now. What would that be? One, getting the job actually done. Or two, leaving if we are not willing to do that. And why #2? Because our nation and our troops don't deserve the utter waste of blood, treasure, and sanity for something that's going to end up as screwed up as if we leave now anyway.
Oh, and impeaching, convicting, and jailing those who lied to us and got us into this mess would be good as well.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
One, you haven't prooven anything to anyone other than the anti-Bush krohnies. Yes, a mistake was made with not prooving or demanding proof beyond all reasonable doubt that WMD's actually still existed prior to invading Iraq. In my opinion, we invaded with high probability speculation and we got burned.
Two, in evolutionary terms, I'd say you're still have a long ways to go before you catch up with me in the growing up department. This is just my opinion based strictly on the 4T. Who knows, in real-life terms you might actually surprise me with your level of so-called personal evolution. I dunno, something just tells me that there is a major so-called evolutionary gap between the two of us.
Three, I've never actually stated that the congress has no say or legal ability to over-ride or check the power of the President. I've only stated a federal judge doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate to, undermine or hamper the President of the United States in matters involving our National Defense. Actually, you had to proove to me that some mid level federal judge had the Constitutional authority to check the Constitutional authority of the President of the United States. Zar, this may come as a surprise but we don't live in the Soviet Union.
Well, despite all the blunders, hurdles and mistakes, I happen to believe we are slowly but surely prevailing with our military efforts in Iraq. I don't see the need to commit more troops or increase our present financial commitment. Personally, I really don't care about the successfulness of the so-called neo-con Americanization social project that's currently going on within Iraq as well.
FWIW, the cost of this war goes up every day we are engaged, because the Army and Marine Corps are being ground into dust at both the personnel and materiel levels. The estimate of the full-cycle cost of these two wars is $1T and counting - to say nothing of the cost in lives. So the commitment is already made. The only choice we have is to either cut out losses or continue to roll the dice.
If you don't care about any possible positive outcomes, then why do you support these wars? Are you a war fan?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The Constitution speaks pretty clearly to the powers of the judicial branch. In addition to the Supreme Court, Congress has established a system of federal courts which have clear jurisdiction in these matters. If they judge a congressional action or executive order to be unconstitutional, they are clearly within their constitutional and moral rights to do so.
These kinds of checks are what the Founders intended, so that one branch of government doesn't go completely out of control. It's easy to cry out "national security" in these matters (Nixon tried this, too), but a good judge won't automatically fall for that argument.
That was not my point. Almost everyone thought some kind of WMD was going to be found. Nice strawman. I have shown that the Bush Administration said that the threat from Iraq was "imminent", or "immediate", or some permutation of extra special. They were insisting that there was a direct connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda and that WMD could be coming our way at any moment. They knew at the time that the data did not support that conclusion; at the very least they were caught in hysteria at the time -- but they still stand by their conclusion even now, which is lying.
I have supplied links and quotes upthread. See for yourself.
I said nothing about achieving any "level" of evolution. You criticized me for changing my mind and my worldview. I was pointing out that changing opinions based on new information and/or new perceptions is evolutionary. You still seem to have trouble comprehending that concept. I don't know what you're like in "real life" and from what I have experienced here I don't care to know.
I will leave it to Kiff to education you on these matters. As for living in the Soviet Union, if you want an executive branch that does whatever it wants overseas and domestically without oversight, then these here United States will become no better than the Soviet Union in time. But again, I don't expect you to understand.
Unless we have better control of the borders, and can much, much more adequately protect the oil and power infrastructures, it's all for nought. How do you "succeed" in a country where contraband and foreign fighters and agents are pouring in? . . . where there is chronically less oil revenue than under Saddam? . . . where there is only a few hours of electricity a day for years?
And the adminstration's claims of "progress" are overstated, to say the least (especially if you get information outside of the American media).
I can see why you and Sujatha get along.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Peacekeeping?
From the international Herald Tribune, In Basra, violence is a tenth of what it was before British pullback, general says. For discussion purposes.
Now, Basra is in a largely Shiite area. There would be very little ethnic cleansing violence, which has been more common up north. Up north there has also been a cut in the violence, but that too may not be due to foreign troops. Foreign troops have never been able to prevent the kidnap and murder scenarios that intimidate whichever sect is the local minority into heading for Jordan, Syria, refugee camps or areas where there sect is majority.BAGHDAD: Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.
"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.
Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.
"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.
Still, it is looking like the ethnic cleansing is fairly complete. Most neighborhoods are now ethnically pure. Thus, ethnic violence is going down.
So, the question is, if the ethnic violence is nearing completion, can the attacks on foreigners be slowed by moving the foreigners out?
This would be a radical shift in tactics. The common wisdom being pushed by the Administration is that more troops stationed among the people created the lower levels of violence. I'm just not sure whether that common wisdom is right. The Administration and main stream media predicted that the British withdrawal would result in shiite on shiite civil war, as the pro local and pro Iranian factions went at each other. Apparently, not true.
Just another piece that suggests we are stepping into another Friedman Unit. The public debate on what is wrong in Iraq and how to fix it might properly move beyond 'Is The Surge Working."
I heard Thomas Ricks on the radio this morning. He was in Iraq earlier this month and reported that the level of violence is down and security is improved since the last time he was there. However, there is a lot of concern that the Iraqi government is basically twiddling its thumbs and doing little or nothing to figure out how Sunnis and Shiites are going to get along in the new regime.
The "imminent" threat was clearly defined as Iraq's or Saddams possession of and ability to manufacture WMD's. The facts were he had the ability and infrastruture to manufacture WMD's. The speculation was that he still possessed WMD's. The point you made about lies and imminent threat centered on the point WMD's existed and known capabilities to manufacture WMD's.
Are you saying or projecting that you don't/didn't view Saddam as being the type who would have indirectly supported Osama's war against us? I've seen no evidence that prooves or clearly shows Saddam was morally or ethically above the realm of all possibilities to actively, via covert or under the table type means, take part in or play an indirect yet accomdating, supportive or feeding type role in Osama's terrorist campaign against the United States.
You're the one who mentioned evolution in a context that also transmitted personal maturity that promoted the idea that you were somehow now higher than me on the maturity scale. Zar, you can attempt or try to wiggle, weasle, manipulate, spin, lie, deceive or deny your way out of perceived trouble or hole created with your mouth or actions.
Well Kiff, above all, should be smart enough based simply on her wriiten language to figure out when a person or poster is well versed and educated in the basics. Kiff doesn't even appear to know that a federal judge is mid level employee of the Legislative Branch and not a member of the Supeme Court who alone wouldn't even have the Constitutional authority or power to over-ride the authority or Constitutional powers of the President of the United States. The funny thing, you and Kiff are both supporting the formation of a centralized power form of government by advocating more power to Legislative branch and reducing the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches.
We isn't the right word to apply to the situation or issues within Iraq. They is the right word to apply to the situation and issues in Iraq. We simply created an opportunity. Now, they have to be willing to act upon, step up and assume control of the opportunity that we (Americans) have created for them (Iraqi's).
Zar, the fact of the matter is that we entered Iraq with a relatively small expeditionary/experimental sized force vs a large occupation, establish total social command and control size of force. Are you the type who jumps into a world of unknown's or do you enter with cautious conservative type restraint with the idea that we might not be able to stay long term?
Last edited by K-I-A 67; 11-20-2007 at 03:34 PM.
How far the "constitutional powers" of the President extend is most certainly a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the courts. Richard Nixon found that out the hard way.
How can power be centralized and diffused at the same time?The funny thing, you and Kiff are both supporting the formation of a centralized power form of government by advocating more power to Legislative branch and reducing the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches.
In any case, I am not advocating what you suggest. It may be helpful for you to think that way, but all it shows me is that you don't have a clue. The Founders did not want a unitary executive, and that's why they set up the system of checks and balances.
I've been leaving this alone, but no more ...
You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'fact'. Nothing you list here qualifies as fact, since it all has been shown to be not true. The correct appellation for that kind of argument is speculation. So, to recap, we invaded a sovereign nation based on speculation - all of which proved false.
Saddam was not about to share power with anyone. He had all potential opponents killed, whenever one was stupid enough to make that opinion known. Why would you or anyone think that Osama bin Laden would be due any different treatment.?
Uh, Federal judges are all members of the Judicial, not the Legislative Branch of our government. The fact that you think they are is a bit disturbing, to be perfectly frank.
FWIW, US District Court judges make rulings in cases that are then appealed to the Circuit Court in their respective circuits. Small panels of Circuit Court judges review those cases, and may decide to review the case as seated, or refer it to a panel of the whole. After that ruling, an appeal to the SCOTUS can be made ... and not before.
In a convoluted way, that's true, though the issue of why we created an opportunity for them in the first place is still germane. Whether it was by lie or by error or by stupidity, we were sucked into a war we had no business entering and one that will cost us dearly. I want an apology, damn it! If I had been asked to go there several times, like many have, I'd want that apology to be public, humiliating and in person, with the entire cast in attendance: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Franks and Bremer.
H-m-m-m. Your idea of a small force and mine are rather different. A BCT or two might be small in this context, but that's less than 10,000 troops. We went in with 300,000. How, by any stretch of the imagination, is that 'small'?
BTW, I corrected your spelling along with mine. I hope you don't mind.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 11-20-2007 at 05:04 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
In my opinion, a positive outcome doesn't have to include the complete formation of two American proto-type states currently known as Iraq and Aphganistan.
Saddam Hussein did have nerve gas
The claim that Saddam had WMD was bolstered by the documented fact that he used nerve gas against the Kurds in the 80s. They must have been destroyed in 91 however, since they certainly weren't found in 03. Either that, or the insurgents got to them before we could.
Now, the Bomb, which is what most Americans were scared of, is another story.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
H-m-m-m. OK. What is acceptable then? We've spent a lot of blood and treasure, but I can't see any outcome that's markedly different than what we went in to replace. What's your take?In my opinion, a positive outcome doesn't have to include the complete formation of two American proto-type states currently known as Iraq and Aphganistan.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
