Originally Posted by Alioth68

50,000, versus how many hundreds of thousands or millions with a single nuclear weapon of that time period on Hanoi? But of course, American lives are more valuable than civilian lives of the "enemy" nation. They're Exceptional!

How many people in Hanoi would have deserved getting vaporized or irradiated? Oh, but teh communism was going to knock down dominoes all the way to the shores of California if we didn't do something there, right? That doesn't just look ridiculous in hindsight, either--many people at that time were dubious about the whole idea, and the dubiosity grew as the war progressed. But Eisenhower warned us about certain people getting their way regardless.... So, especially in light of that dubiosity, I don't think it was a cause worthy of using a nuke. I cannot really think of any that would be, as far as a first strike goes. Whether or not the Soviets would have responded in kind (if they would have, that mistake would've bit our own ass pretty badly, wouldn't it?)--even if not, it would have been an atrocity just the same.

Of course, as implied somewhat above, I thought the whole war was a dubious venture, so that even one life lost to it was too many.

Back then, it was fighting communism. Now the message is that we must fight terrorism. Even if it means that we become the terrorists. It's a shame that we don't put the faces of our loved ones on the faces of those precious lives that are considered collateral damage.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A great many liberals here and elsewhere are convinced that the Tea Party are simply manipulated by the Republican establishment. That theory, in which I do not believe, is about to be put to the test. The Republican Party and its media arms have created a monster that is about to devour them. Newt Gingrich is hated by just about everyone who knows him at all well--including Ann Coulter!--but he looks an increasingly good bet to be nominated. A great many of my Republican friends are quite depressed about it--but they have only themselves to blame.

Nate Silver gets into the "whys" of this here. Interesting piece.

I've been a bit befuddled by the GOP putting up 1st string candidates in '08 when even Ron Ray-gun would have likely lost; and putting up, at best, 3rd stringers in 2012 when it should have been a cakewalk for the GOP candidate over Obama.

I think Krugman gets to the truth of the matter - the candidates reflect the level of 'thinking' in their base -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Send in the Clueless
.
.
The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process.
.
.

He goes on to what that means should the GOP capture the Presidency - what happens when the dog actually catches the car it is chasing. Not pretty.

However, what he doesn't note is that the true cluelessnes of today knows no political boundary. Right now, the only thing keeping the economy from sinking into contraction again is net federal government spending. And yet, it is very hard to find any one across the entire political spectrum that doesn't bow down and worship the false anti-deficit gods through tax increases, spending cuts or austerity regardless of any rational logic as to how that would grow the economy.

It really simple comes down to us getting what we deserve. Ignorance wants ignorant leaders.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Jonathan Alter, the long-time Newsweek correspondent now with Bloomberg, was a student of mine many years ago and we have remained close. He heard the following story from John McCain, covering McCain in 2000.

McCain was running for Senate for the first time and Goldwater was his campaign manager. Goldwater began speculating about what would have happened had he won in 1964. "You know, John," he said, "if I'd won, you'd never have had to spend all those years in a North Vietnamese prison camp."

McCain smiled. "You're right, Barry," he said. "If you'd won, I would have spent them in a Chinese prison camp."

My view is that wars should be avoided if at all possible. If not, then we should only go to war when our national interests are at stake. Then we should fight the war to win. Johnson's strategy for the Vietnam war was terribly flawed. We can only speculate what would have happened if Goldwater had been president.

Originally Posted by radind

My view is that wars should be avoided if at all possible. If not, then we should only go to war when our national interests are at stake. Then we should fight the war to win. Johnson's strategy for the Vietnam war was terribly flawed. We can only speculate what would have happened if Goldwater had been president.

I'll give you a break for not being around then, but think for a minute. Red China, and it was in full Maoist regalia at that time, was just north of Vietnam. It was also just north of Korea in the '50s, and we know how that war turned on a dime when thye decided to pit waves of soldiers against modern arms. Second, and no less important, the Soviets still held sway too ... and they had as many nukes as we did.

So you can forget about a nuclear war. It was never in the cards, and if it had been, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

It was briefly in the cards in 1962. Thankfully, President Kennedy ignored his hawkish advisers and decided to compromise after a show of strength.

The President's speech yesterday in Kansas took a huge step in the right direction. Although he channeled Teddy Roosevelt (I don't know why he's afraid of FDR), he sounded like FDR. It took him only three years to get where FDR was when he was inaugurated! However, better late than never, and he laid out a good set of ideas for the campaign.

I found the President's speech encouraging.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The President's speech yesterday in Kansas took a huge step in the right direction. Although he channeled Teddy Roosevelt (I don't know why he's afraid of FDR), he sounded like FDR. It took him only three years to get where FDR was when he was inaugurated! However, better late than never, and he laid out a good set of ideas for the campaign.

This smells like strategy by image consultant. Position yourself along side one of your opponent's heroes. Dare him to take a shot.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This smells like strategy by image consultant. Position yourself along side one of your opponent's heroes. Dare him to take a shot.

You're behind the times. TR is Glenn Beck's number one hate figure--he ragged on Newt the other day for having praised him.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

TR is Glenn Beck's number one hate figure....

TR was a progressive and Glenn Beck thinks progressism is inherently evil.

Bully!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This smells like strategy by image consultant. Position yourself along side one of your opponent's heroes. Dare him to take a shot.

The genesis of this idea was discussed here:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...035#post410035

Obama demonstrated long ago that he can talk the talk. I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate that he can also walk the walk.

Ron Paul Still Ignored - Jon Stewart Daily Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B0QPcoTZg8&feature=player_embedded

Originally Posted by playwrite

I've been a bit befuddled by the GOP putting up 1st string candidates in '08 when even Ron Ray-gun would have likely lost; and putting up, at best, 3rd stringers in 2012 when it should have been a cakewalk for the GOP candidate over Obama.

America missed a Silent Presidency, and I can think of some GOP Silent (John Warner, Richard Lugar, George Voinovich, maybe Colin Powell) who would have been far better than Dubya. That is the problem. The Republicans got a second-string pol barely elected with chicanery and got away with it. What happened was that the GOP cultivated the votes of the superstitious, undereducated, fear-driven, and mean-spirited while failing to elevate the awareness of such voters. Dubya almost invariably preferred a convenient falsehood to a disconcerting reality and set a tone for low expectations for the electorate.

I think Krugman gets to the truth of the matter - the candidates reflect the level of 'thinking' in their base -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

He goes on to what that means should the GOP capture the Presidency - what happens when the dog actually catches the car it is chasing. Not pretty.

But here is the problem -- the fools eventually get increasingly out of touch with reality. Worse, they ratify the pablum that they are spoon-fed, and they insist upon more of it even if it makes them malnourished. It's like cornbread -- it is tasty, but you cannot live on it without getting health problems. People not sold on the pablum reject it.

However, what he doesn't note is that the true cluelessnes of today knows no political boundary. Right now, the only thing keeping the economy from sinking into contraction again is net federal government spending. And yet, it is very hard to find any one across the entire political spectrum that doesn't bow down and worship the false anti-deficit gods through tax increases, spending cuts or austerity regardless of any rational logic as to how that would grow the economy.

Habits that Americans have practiced for as long as anyone knows -- indeed, going back to at least the latter part of the 19th century and thus beyond the memory of any living persons -- create a snare for us. We expect compromise to work... but there is no good result from compromise with extremists. Successful compromise depends upon the opposing sides recognizing the legitimacy of the other side. No compromise is possible between liberals and either Commies or fascists who seek the eventual and complete obliteration of any opposition, and no viable compromise between slave-owners and abolitionists was easily available in 1861. (The British solution of buying the freedom of the slaves might have been what Lincoln wanted -- but the Southrons would have never accepted anything that challenged their "sacred" way of life).

It really simple comes down to us getting what we deserve. Ignorance wants ignorant leaders.

Ignorance must prove itself a failure as such and not simple 'fate' or 'luck'.

Originally Posted by Tone70

I found the President's speech encouraging.

I always found Obama's *speeches* encouraging, it was his actions that discouraged me.

Talk is cheap. Actions are the gauge of true character.

I can't argue with you.

Talk is cheep. I want to see actual progressive POLICY from Obama.

Originally Posted by Odin

Talk is cheep. I want to see actual progressive POLICY from Obama.

Your talking my language.

Originally Posted by Odin

Talk is cheep. I want to see actual progressive POLICY from Obama.

So do I. However, I would still much prefer him in the White House for four more years to the obvious alternatives in any case. . .

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

So do I. However, I would still much prefer him in the White House for four more years to the obvious alternatives in any case. . .

What, Rick Perry doesn't seem reasonable? Like in this new hateful commercial:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfVqGBE6JI&sns=em

I am rethinking that last comment after seeing this endorsement of Perry:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljvyaqa5Mfo&sns=em


She might be right, although I have no idea what she said.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I am rethinking that last comment after seeing this endorsement of Perry:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljvyaqa5Mfo&sns=em


She might be right, although I have no idea what she said.

Interesting. For some reason I expected her to be topless by the of the video.

Check out Coulter's latest column, about Newt. There's obviously something going on here and I am extremely curious about what it might be. She usually reserves language like that for Democrats.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Check out Coulter's latest column, about Newt. There's obviously something going on here and I am extremely curious about what it might be. She usually reserves language like that for Democrats.

I believe that the "professional GOP" types like Coulter see the possibility of a reverse redux of the 1972 election outcome as likely if newt gets the nomination.
The "professional conservative" like Limbaugh must at lest for now pretend to be happy with where the remains of the rightist populism from the 2010 midterm has landed.
It may take a while for all of them to sing from the same hymnal again.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Interesting. For some reason I expected her to be topless by the of the video.

And what was with the image rotating between color and a black and white image?
Or was that a technical problem with my modom?
But yeah, she was dumb as a stump, but she had a balcony you could do Shakespere off of. :