DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 22, 2008, 10:20:21 AM
-
The Facts in Iraq Are Changing
By Michael Barone - Sat June 21, 2008
As we enter the second half of the campaign year, facts are undermining the Democratic narrative that has dominated our politics since about the time Hurricane Katrina rolled into the Gulf coast -- most importantly, the facts about Iraq.
During the Democratic primary season, all the party's candidates veered hardly a jot or tittle from the narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can.
In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn't work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.
That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination -- but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the "benchmark" legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress -- all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.
I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon's orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.
That's not true of all critics of the Bush administration and its military leaders. The editorial writers of The Washington Post have been paying close and careful attention. And even though they may be temperamentally more inclined to favor Obama's candidacy over John McCain's, they have not been unwilling to take Obama to task for his inattention to American success. Obama, the Post noted tartly on June 7, "has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country -- a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained."
On June 18, a Post editorial made the same point again and noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaida and Iran. But Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper he said no such thing. Perhaps he's still trying to avoid facing facts that undermine his narrative. Which might also explain why he said he was willing to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while he has not been able to find time to meet with Petraeus.
Other examples of facts undermining Democratic narratives readily occur. Last week charges were dropped against the seventh of eight Marines accused of atrocities in Haditha. The narrative, peddled by Democratic Congressman (and Marine veteran) John Murtha, of depraved American soldiers massacring innocent Iraqis seems to be falling victim to the facts.
And the fact of $4 gasoline has undermined the narrative that alternative forms of energy can painlessly supply our needs. Public opinion has switched sharply and now favors drilling offshore and, by inference, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats are scrambling to argue that drilling wouldn't make any difference -- and that anyway the oil companies aren't drilling enough on federal land they currently lease.
All of this matters because the rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 elections was a verdict on competence more than ideology. The Republicans seemed incompetent at relieving victims of Katrina, producing success in Iraq and even policing the House page programs. The Democrats could not do worse and might do better. But in the 19 months since November 2006, some important facts have changed.
If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" What say you, Sen. Obama?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2008/06/21/the_facts_in_iraq_are_changing (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2008/06/21/the_facts_in_iraq_are_changing)
-
On June 18, a Post editorial made the same point again and noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaida and Iran. But Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper he said no such thing. Perhaps he's still trying to avoid facing facts that undermine his narrative. Which might also explain why he said he was willing to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while he has not been able to find time to meet with Petraeus.
=========================
I bey that he has not met with either Petreus or Ahmedinejad because (a) campaigning for president is pretty much more than a full-time job or (b) Petraeus is also a bit busy for a dog and pony show, and (b) he is not yet president.
The oil companies have THOUSANDS of places where they could drill both on land and offshore where they have not yet drilled. What would stop them from using up the places where they could drill before they go a-begging to despoil ANWAR and the coast of Florida/
McCain is clearly a whore of Big Oil.
It is good that Iraq has gone better than expected, because that way the next president can withdraw the troops. Except that McCain does not want to leave Iraq, not now or ever. He wants the US to stay in Iraq so that Iraq can be forced to ally itself against Iran and in favor of Israel, and to defend US Big Oil interests.
-
"McCain is clearly a whore of Big Oil"
And who is Obama a whore to?
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/obamapuppet.gif)
-
Sounds pretty fishy. One day there are 150,000 American invaders in the country and (say) 35,000 Iraqi Resistance fighters willing to sacrifice their own lives to drive them out. Maybe my numbers aren't accurate, but bear with me, I'm trying to establish a principle here, not a head count. Next day there are 20,000 more invaders and the Resistance vanishes? This just doesn't make sense.
Far from succeeding, it sounds to me like the Resistance is lying low and waiting for its moment. They know the surge can't be sustained. They know a U.S. election is coming. They know the history of the Vietnam War and the role of the Tet Offensive. Sounds to me - - and I sure as hell hope I'm right - - that the Resistance is planning a Tet Offensive timed to the U.S. election that will knock your country back on its heels, leave it reeling and end forever its dreams of a Middle East Oil Empire, incidentally handing a landslide victory to Obama with a wide mandate to restore sanity, decency and international law to U.S. foreign policy and break decisively with the neo-con/Israel lobby that has brought the country from disaster to disaster to disaster. Or is that too much to hope for?
-
Oh look! CU4g has found another racist piece of crap!
You are aware that this sort of sh*t convinces no one of anything, other than your own stupidity, racism and ignorance.
-
Oh look! CU4g has found another racist piece of crap!
Oh yeah it's ok for your to call McCain a whore, but if Obama is a whore
OMG it must be racist!
Why dont you MoveOn? Thats so last century. Are you like in a nursing home?
The Black man doesnt need to cry racism upon every obstacle
It's really quite pathetic of you to have such a low opinion of Blacks
In fact your views that they need the"crutch" is quite dated and racist in and of itself
You are aware that this sort of sh*t convinces no one of anything, other than your own stupidity, racism and ignorance.
I am aware that you can vomit crap but cry "wha wha wha" when you get punched back.
(http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn237/LarryMMeyer/obamaluggage.jpg)
-
Okay, just run around showing this crap to others and see how many minds you change.
How is Obama supposed to be responsible in any way for what Pfleger said?
There is proof that McCain is a whore to Big Oil. He was against offshore drilling, then he runs short of donations, and so he is for it.
He actually came down to Miami after voting agaist a bill to preserve the Everglades, and took a ride in an airboat. Supposedly people are supposed to be so goddamned stupid that they are going to vote for him because he enjoyed an airboat ride.
There is no way that issuing more permits for offshore drilling will make a bit of difference. There are hundreds of offshore sites where they could drill NOW, but haven't. It would take 5-10 years to get any oil they found into production.
Are McCain's cheeks are so puffy because he is hiding lobbyists in them?
-
That's enough of the personal garbage.
-
I think the cartoon should have gone on to say what the bags would cost - - Pfleger, Wright, Rezko, "Bittergate," wife's comments, etc. - - the check-in clerk tells Obama the total cost is something under $10, he fishes around in his pocket for the small change, gets on the plane and flies in triumph to Washington.
I don't think the electorate gives a shit about any of that stuff, which is really picayune, compared to the huge quagmire in Iraq and the massive slow-motion train wreck that is the U.S. economy.
-
I agree with Tee. The opinions of Wright and Pfleger are entirely separate from anything Obama might or might not do as president.
The comment about frustrated small town people, guns and God was right on the money, and was never intended to have been for public consumption.
It is entirely conceivable and even likely that Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are not actually infectuous minions of Satan, but actually possess positive qualities.
I think that anyone with even a teensy shred of imagination can imagine why a Black American woman such as Michelle Obama might have a different perception of reality vis a vis US history than, say, Cindy McCain. I tend to think that most Americans would find this entirely within the bonds of normality.
The "baggage" in this cartoon has been grossly exaggerated. I would say that it is more like a small overnight bag, and certainly less a danger than, say, a toenail clipper or an 8 oz. bottle of shampoo. Cartoons are, of course, supposed to exaggerate.
Cartoonists seem to be having a lot more trouble doing a credible cartoon of Obama than they do of McCain. There have been far happier days for cartoonists, such as when they had LBJ and Nixon and Humphrey to caricature.
The comment about McCain hiding lobbyists in his cheeks was purely facetious. Lamentably, no lobbyists were harmed (or partially digested) in the process of creating said comment.
-
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l51/malibubikehydros/This%20is%20album%202/ButNotBaraqGIF.gif)
-
Clarence Thomas for president? Surely you jest! I doubt if Clarence Thomas would vote for himself.
Condi is incompetent. 9-11 is the evidence of that. She's not running, either.
Powell won't run.
JC Watts? He is a quitter, isn't he?
-
Shoulda morphed Watts and Thomas into one single grinnin', shuckin' and jivin' Uncle Tom with a polka-dotted bandanna around his neck, folding Massa's dinner napkin. Hopefully after one more generation, their kind will never be seen again. Black youth need a proud example of unapologetic, uncompromised black manhood, and IMHO they would be a lot better served by Barak Obama and better yet by Jeremiah Wright than by either of those two pathetic sycophants that the white racist author of the poster saw fit to lionize. What I love about Wright is that, unlike Obama, he's not running for office and so doesn't have to trim his sails for Whitey's benefit.
-
Shoulda morphed Watts and Thomas into one single grinnin', shuckin' and jivin' Uncle Tom with a polka-dotted bandanna around his neck, folding Massa's dinner napkin.
Yash uh, dats what we gots to do,hey we cant think on our owns
i mean we gots to be liberal or we be uncle toms
at least dats what dose smart racist liberal whiteys say
cause deys believes no one can comes to a different conclusion dan dem.
even if wees studies duh issues and wants school choice or no abortion
we stills gotta tote the line oar we be ostersized
nose sah, we gots to follow the line we ares tolds to
Hopefully after one more generation, their kind will never be seen again. Black youth need a proud example of unapologetic, uncompromised black manhood,
LOL what a crock!
The last thing Black Youth need is more of the welfare pimps.
The last thing Black Youth need is more people peddling victimhood & "the crutch".
The future is conservative blacks
Because once blacks are educated
shameful liberals are at the school house doors keeping the doors locked
once Blacks are able to reach their potential
they will not buy the snake oil of the welfare pimps
-
Funny isn't it how all the blacks seem to be flocking to the banner of Obama, very few want to be followers of J.C. Watts. But I guess they're too fucking stupid to respond to the conservative blacks who according to you are "their future." LMFAO. Tommin' sure paid off for JC and his ilk, though, they milked it for all it was worth and the only ones to buy into it were the backwards-looking suckas a.k.a. white conservative racists.
-
It is interesting CU4.
First you make a bizarre commentary, but a fair one on how blacks can think for themselves. Which need not be said because it is obvious.
Then you turn right around and insult the entire black community by claiming that they are uneducated victims of liberal snake oil salesmen and welfare pimps.
Wow.
As someone who is neither Republican or Democrat, it amazes me that Republicans say these things and then ponder why they receive such a pathetic percentage of the black vote. Notice that you make no reflection on how conservatism could be doing something better, no - it must be the fault of blacks and evil liberals.
Just...wow.
-
The comment about frustrated small town people, guns and God was right on the money, and was never intended to have been for public consumption.
Do beleive it is true , but not for public consumption? Should a politician like Barak Obama stick to pandering and falsehood or do we need to know what he really thinks?
It is entirely conceivable and even likely that Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are not actually infectuous minions of Satan, but actually possess positive qualities.
No , they are infectious indeed and Obama would be a wise politician to increase his distance from them .
-
"It is interesting CU4"
Yes I think so
"First you make a bizarre commentary"
I suppose "bizarre" is in the eyes of the beholder.
I think many of your views are "bizarre" to say the" least
"but a fair one on how blacks can think for themselves. Which need not be said because it is obvious"
No I don't think so at all.
A large part of Liberalism is elitism.
They think they know best
They dont think the masses are smart enough to run their on lives.
They wanna decide how much water is mandated for our toilets
They wanna decide where our thermostats should be
They wanna decide how many miles to the gallon our cars get
They wanna decide what ads can be on TV
They wanna decide food content
They wanna decide who and where people can smoke
They wanna decide how one gets medicine
They wanna run our lives cradle to grave
ect times 10,0000
So it's no surprise that they dont think Blacks can think for themselves
Hell deep down they dont think anyone can think for themelves
They think they know better
Then you turn right around and insult the entire black community by claiming
that they are uneducated victims of liberal snake oil salesmen and welfare pimps.
You guys are really funny.
Dont you know by now that the cheap reactionary crap wont work with me?
"Oh....I am a racist now" (because I dont buy your political correct crap ::) ....pathetic.
I dont insult the entire Black community, exactly the opposite, you do
It is you that insult the black community by not dealing with the facts
and taking the lame ass "cry/imply" racism cop-out
BTW - Do yo deny that Blacks in the US lag behind in the classroom? Am I now a racist
to state fact? However with that said, I think Blacks could make up that loss ground
very quickly if Liberal controls freaks would allow them to. I believe in Blacks and
think they have and are making great strides. The farther away they get from
the Rev Wright welfare pimp victimhood theory the better off they will be and
the sooner they will reach their full potential which is limitless.
Wow.
Yeah wow!
"As someone who is neither Republican or Democrat, it amazes me that Republicans say these things"
Oh yeah "we all be racist" while it is you(liberals) that stand at the school house door keeping Blacks in failing schools
the same way the disgraceful Democat George Wallace stood at the school house door to keep Blacks out.
"and then ponder why they receive such a pathetic percentage of the black vote"
I dont ponder why, I realize they have been hoodwinked into a culture of defeatism and victimhood
by liberal welfare pimps. However I have no doubt that eventually they will overcome this and
reach their potential that they deserve. Once they have a better success rate through education,
better family values, and forget about victimhood they will be well on their way to great success.
Once that happens they will vote in far greater numbers for Republicans. Democrats need victims
to win elections.
"Notice that you make no reflection on how conservatism could be doing something better, no -
it must be the fault of blacks and evil liberals".
More lies?
My post did make reference to school choice and abortion.
It is your side that will not allow Blacks school choice.
Yeah Ted Kennedy and Chelsea Clinton got to go to good schools
While their shameful parents denied Blacks the same type choice.
And it is your side that opposes almost all limits of the holocaust of black babies via abotion
Just...wow.
Yeah thats what I say about your racism!
-
"It is interesting CU4"
Yes I think so
"First you make a bizarre commentary"
I suppose "bizarre" is in the eyes of the beholder.
I think many of your views are "bizarre" to say the" least
"but a fair one on how blacks can think for themselves. Which need not be said because it is obvious"
No I don't think so at all.
A large part of Liberalism is elitism.
They think they know best
They dont think the masses are smart enough to run their on lives.
They wanna decide how much water is mandated for our toilets
They wanna decide where our thermostats should be
They wanna decide how many miles to the gallon our cars get
They wanna decide what ads can be on TV
They wanna decide food content
They wanna decide who and where people can smoke
They wanna decide how one gets medicine
They wanna run our lives cradle to grave
ect times 10,0000
So it's no surprise that they dont think Blacks can think for themselves
Hell deep down they dont think anyone can think for themelves
They think they know better
Then you turn right around and insult the entire black community by claiming
that they are uneducated victims of liberal snake oil salesmen and welfare pimps.
You guys are really funny.
Dont you know by now that the cheap reactionary crap wont work with me?
"Oh....I am a racist now" (because I dont buy your political correct crap ::) ....pathetic.
I dont insult the entire Black community, exactly the opposite, you do
It is you that insult the black community by not dealing with the facts
and taking the lame ass "cry/imply" racism cop-out
BTW - Do yo deny that Blacks in the US lag behind in the classroom? Am I now a racist
to state fact? However with that said, I think Blacks could make up that loss ground
very quickly if Liberal controls freaks would allow them to. I believe in Blacks and
think they have and are making great strides. The farther away they get from
the Rev Wright welfare pimp victimhood theory the better off they will be and
the sooner they will reach their full potential which is limitless.
Wow.
Yeah wow!
"As someone who is neither Republican or Democrat, it amazes me that Republicans say these things"
Oh yeah "we all be racist" while it is you(liberals) that stand at the school house door keeping Blacks in failing schools
the same way the disgraceful Democat George Wallace stood at the school house door to keep Blacks out.
"and then ponder why they receive such a pathetic percentage of the black vote"
I dont ponder why, I realize they have been hoodwinked into a culture of defeatism and victimhood
by liberal welfare pimps. However I have no doubt that eventually they will overcome this and
reach their potential that they deserve. Once they have a better success rate through education,
better family values, and forget about victimhood they will be well on their way to great success.
Once that happens they will vote in far greater numbers for Republicans. Democrats need victims
to win elections.
"Notice that you make no reflection on how conservatism could be doing something better, no -
it must be the fault of blacks and evil liberals".
More lies?
My post did make reference to school choice and abortion.
It is your side that will not allow Blacks school choice.
Yeah Ted Kennedy and Chelsea Clinton got to go to good schools
While their shameful parents denied Blacks the same type choice.
And it is your side that opposes almost all limits of the holocaust of black babies via abotion
Just...wow.
Yeah thats what I say about your racism!
You still didn't answer JS's query as to how Conservatism would make those matters better. While it's nice and fine that you can list the downfalls of liberalism, most in here could do the same with conservatism, even conservatives. Why not propose an alternative, a positive change of some sort, or a new idea based on your political principles?
Or is ripping your opponent the only worthy accomplishment left here?
-
"The comment about frustrated small town people, guns and God was right on the money"
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/bitter.jpg)
-
Or is ripping your opponent the only worthy accomplishment left here?
It is one of the critical skills , but it isn't all that is possible.
Proverbs 27:16-18
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=27&verse=17&version=31&context=verse
You can also bring in something new to be debated.
Or something that you just want to share with your freinds.
-
It is one of the critical skills , but it isn't all that is possible.
You said it better than I could plane.
-
"You still didn't answer JS's query as to how Conservatism would make those matters better"
Number one JS did not ask me a question, but I did provide some HUGE factors that will improve Black's lot.
obviously you cant read if you didn't see them
But thats no surprise to me
I've noticed your pattern of not seeing what you dont want to
"While it's nice and fine that you can list the downfalls of liberalism, most in here could
do the same with conservatism, even conservatives"
Uh?
::)
Why not propose an alternative, a positive change of some sort, or a new idea based on your political principles?
Why not you read what I post before making critical statements that make you look foolish?
Again I did
But you cant read
You see what you want to because I dont tote your line
Or is ripping your opponent the only worthy accomplishment left here?
Oh I am the ripper?
LOL
Quite funny Fatman
You dont say squat when I am basically called a racist
but ooooooooh my when I punch back after getting punched
ohhhhhh now lets not get personal boooowhoooooo
your one sided blindness because you dont like me is funny as hell
but shown once again to not be grounded in fact
-
There you go again...
JS didn't call you a racist. He opined that you insulted the black community, that's not the same as calling you a racist no matter how you want to spin it.
I read what you posted. It was a rant against liberalism. That's fine, we all have our own opinions, but I didn't see you state what the positive effects of conservatism would have on those matters. For example, you stated They wanna decide what ads can be on TV. Are conservatives for open airwaves? Can I see titties and hear the F-word on TV? The same things that you accuse liberalism of (and rightly so, in most cases) could also be turned onto your political philosophy. That's not debate. That's just running down your opponent.
Nowhere did you state clearly what conservatism brings to the table, just a tirade.
And speaking personally, I'm sick of the personal name-calling and other horseshit that goes on here. I don't care if it comes from Rich, you, XO, or whoever. Everytime I log on, there are guests (13 at one point today). It's no wonder to me why they don't join. Now you want to sit there and try to get personal with me, stating that it's not a surprise to you that I can't read and being blind to opposing views, fine. Have at it. But it takes two to tango, and this fatman is no dancer. You're right, I don't like you, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your politics. I like sirs, and he's conservative. I like Plane, and he's conservative. Ami and BT, I don't know about their political identifications, but I like them too. I like pretty much everyone on here but a couple of people, and you're one.
Why not propose an alternative, a positive change of some sort, or a new idea based on your political principles?
Or is ripping your opponent the only worthy accomplishment left here?
Looks like you answered those questions for me. Thanks for your cooperation on this matter.
Also: when I said to knock off the personal garbage, I didn't list your name in front of it. I did that so that you both could take the hint, the fact that you think it was directed solely at you says a lot. You both give as good as you get, there's no need to single one out and absolve the other.
-
How could Conservatism help Black people?
Intresting question , since in recent years conservatism has bought Dr.MLKJr's idea of judgeing by content of caricter rther than color of skin.
Ideally Black people would benefit best from being people without seaparation for being black , no longer a subset , just people.
Can Conservatism accomplish this ?, still an open question in some ways it has been done , in some ways it is beyond the reach even of the powerfull who seriously try.
Does liberalism even still have this as a goal as it used to?
Sometimes it seems as if the political usefullness of the barriers gets them preserved , even by the people who were the intended victims of the barriers when they were first erected.
-
Intresting question , since in recent years conservatism has bought Dr.MLKJr's idea of judgeing by content of caricter rther than color of skin.
I agree. And that's how people should be judged, by their character. Man, that could even be applied...in here!
Can Conservatism accomplish this ?, still an open question in some ways it has been done
Out of curiosity, how so?
Does liberalism even still have this as a goal as it used to?
Sometimes it seems as if the political usefullness of the barriers gets them preserved , even by the people who were the intended victims of the barriers when they were first erected.
I think that conservatism and liberalism are different means to the same end. Everyone wants a good government and people to be treated fairly, the two camps just have differing mindsets of how to achieve it.
-
Intresting question , since in recent years conservatism has bought Dr.MLKJr's idea of judgeing by content of caricter rther than color of skin.
I agree. And that's how people should be judged, by their character. Man, that could even be applied...in here!
Can Conservatism accomplish this ?, still an open question in some ways it has been done
Out of curiosity, how so?
In law .
Jim Crow died and got replaced by his weaker cousin ,affirmative action. Some conservatives would like to bury affermative action in a grave next to Jim Crow but no one that can be taken seriously wants to see Jim reserected.
Does liberalism even still have this as a goal as it used to?
Sometimes it seems as if the political usefullness of the barriers gets them preserved , even by the people who were the intended victims of the barriers when they were first erected.
I think that conservatism and liberalism are different means to the same end. Everyone wants a good government and people to be treated fairly, the two camps just have differing mindsets of how to achieve it.
Conservatives understand the means diffrently alright, but in either camp the means should be considered to be more important than the ends.
The means are now and for years, when are ends?
-
Don't forget this guy. YES!
(http://www.brokennewz.com/2008election/keyes.jpg)
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l51/malibubikehydros/This%20is%20album%202/ButNotBaraqGIF.gif)
-
http://www.brokennewz.com/2008election/
Wacky! ;)
Even more
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_2008harmonic
Great site, Zoso.
-
This stupid "Black people I would vote for for president" is akin to a gas station advertises gasoline at 49 cents a gallon, but which has no gasoline to sell.
There is no way any of these Black people will ever run for president (and in some cases, any office whatever).
We observe that the clown that CU4 pirated this crap from seems to have deliberately misspelled "Barak". Or perhaps he is just stupid.
-
I'm not calling anyone racist.
What I'm saying is this: African-Americans are just as intelligent and informed as any other voter in America. Why do they vote for Democrats in large ratios?
To his credit, President Bush did not use the thinking expressed here and simply noted that his party had failed to reach out to blacks and Hispanic voters. He did not succeed with African-Americans, but he did do better with Hispanics. For Republicans or Conservatives to succeed with African-Americans they cannot talk about "welfare pimps" or "liberal elitism."
The truth is that African-Americans tend to believe in a strong sense of community and society. There are problems with racism in this nation.
-
In law .
Jim Crow died and got replaced by his weaker cousin ,affirmative action. Some conservatives would like to bury affermative action in a grave next to Jim Crow but no one that can be taken seriously wants to see Jim reserected.
That's a good answer, and somewhat expected. Does the desired demise of Jim Crow justify affirmative action? I've personally never quite agreed with affirmative action, but I can understand the reasons for its implementation. The main problem that I have with it is the precedent, we all know how hard it is to get rid of a program or policy once it's in place. I think that this goes back to one of your original points.
Conservatives understand the means diffrently alright, but in either camp the means should be considered to be more important than the ends.
The means are now and for years, when are ends?
The means are certainly important, though I'm not sure that they are as important as the end. Sometimes it seems like (to some people at least) the means become the end: that goes back to the precedent idea that I referenced above. I think that both sides have some laudable ideas for achieving the end, and both sides have some bad ones. I guess that's why I'm generally a moderate on most things.
While I can understand your point about the means being more important, I don't think that I agree with it. What is important is to eliminate the confusion inherent when the means become the ends.
-
Affirmative action is not the brother of Jim Crow. It's the antithesis of it.
It certainly did not benefit me. In the early 1960's, there was a shortage of Spanish teachers in the US.
Two events then occurred: practically the entire Cuban middle class was given entry to the US, and someone decided that because Mexican-Americans were mistreated for blue collar work in the 1940's and 50's, Hispanics (not just Mexicans) were to be given preference in hiring.
Many blue-collar employers didn't pay any attention to this, but schools, most of which were government controlled or governmentally financed did. The best place to put a Hispanic in the school was as a Spanish teacher or professor. So by the time I get my MA degree, I apply for jobs and they hire some guy who just arrived from Peru, Chile, or Costa Rica. (But, so far as I know, never Mexico).
So I get a job with a minority college that pays about 25% less per year for the next 32 years.
The thing is that the Mexicans that were discriminated against did not and most still do not have college degrees, so they could not be given jobs as Spanish teachers and professors.
-
That's enough of the personal garbage.
Gotta love this board! Nice Intermde, FM.
Love your rainbow too, dude!
Cindy
-
Thanks
-
Great site, Zoso.
I wouldn't know. I took the image off of Google. I have no idea what site it came from.
-
Thanks
You're welcome.
-
It is Pride week after all. I don't do the Parades, but I thought an avatar change might be appropriate.
-
Affirmative action is not the brother of Jim Crow. It's the antithesis of it.
Strange, I thought "antithesis" was a synonym of "opposite".
-
It is Pride week after all. I don't do the Parades, but I thought an avatar change might be appropriate.
Well, I am proud of you, Fatman. You are a true American...and a good egg.
-
Great site, Zoso.
I wouldn't know. I took the image off of Google. I have no idea what site it came from.
What was the point you were trying to make, just curious? ( with the image, that is)
-
Strange, I thought "antithesis" was a synonym of "opposite".
Jeez. No, it is not an opposite, it indicates a reaction.
Jim Crow was the stimulus, Affirmative action was the reaction to Jim Crow.
This is a process known as the Hegelian dialectic, which describes how ideas progress in a historical context.
Here is what Wikipedia says about this:
Although he never used the terms himself, the triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It is often erroneously[1] thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic.
It is usually described in the following way:
* The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
* The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis.
* The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by Fichte the neo-Kantian. The idea is often said to have been extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; yet Marx referred to them in The Poverty of Philosophy as speaking Greek and "Wooden trichotomies".
-
So "antithesis" is something like , "recriprocal", a term multiplied by its recripricol produces unity, so does a term divided by its recriprocal.
What synthesis do you look for that might solves the conflict between the Jim Crow and the Affirmative action?
-
What synthesis do you look for that might solves the conflict between the Jim Crow and the Affirmative action?
The election of Obama would certainly be a start.
Certainly not the crap that RR and 4CU have been posting.
Every action provokes a reaction. Eventually the two combine in a synthesis, which becomes a new action.
Obama himself is a synthesis: Black (but not Black American) father, white mother, raised in the Midwest and Hawaii without the Southern/ ghetto conflicts. A Black politician that understands White folks at the level of his own family.
In Hegelian terms, to oppose Obama's election is antihistorical in a variety of ways.
There are three major themes in American politics: Black vs. White, War vs. Peace, Rich vs. poor.
McCain: White, War, Rich.
Obama: Black, Peace, poor.
Of course Obama was raised as White as a Black man could be raised.
He was poor as a child, and overcame his poverty.
He does not represent the long tradition of war after war after war as McCain does.
-
The election of Obama would certainly be a start.
Reparations might be cheaper.
-
"Nowhere did you state clearly what conservatism brings to the table, just a tirade"
Come on Fatman, it's almost funny, can you not read? I say that half-jokingly.
Or again do you just ignore what you want to? Honestly did ya miss it?
I spoke about school choice and ending the holocaust of Black babies (abortion).
How can you possibly ignore those two issues?
And speaking personally, I'm sick of the personal name-calling and other horseshit that goes on here.
Did you have a change of heart with the F-bombs for the time being?
Oh yeah I think i do remember your Jimmy Swaggert "I have sinned" concerning that.
Ok Fatman what have I said so so horrible that equaled your F-bombs?
I have called someone a racist that implied or said I was?
I have said somone is last century because they cant "move on"?
Oh my how horrible?
"I don't care if it comes from Rich, you, XO, or whoever"
Or you?
Everytime I log on, there are guests (13 at one point today). It's no wonder to me why they don't join.
I wonder how many were lurking when you dropped an F bomb or when you are posting about how you dont like people personally?
Oh nuts just if XO didn't call the Republican nominee a "WHORE" or the sitting President and Vice President "war criminals"
all the lurkers would come running in to join! If Michael wasn't F-this and F=that when he is either excited or drunk I really
dont know which it is, yep they'd all join up.
Now you want to sit there and try to get personal with me,
Only after you mischaracterize my views and posts and pretend you are on some high dignity horse
when you almost never say anything about what XO, and others say but seem consumed to call
out Rich and myself. I dont care I just want to point out what a fraud your high horse is.
You preach about civility but it is you that have used the F bomb and that is something I have NEVER done in here.
It's just a bit ironic and funny to see the sinner suddenly be the high and mighty preacher screaming down from the pulpit
about the sinners.
But it takes two to tango, and this fatman is no dancer.
Oh I know that very well.
You like it one way.
Thats fine and dandy when it's one of your "buds".
You "suddenly" condemn the insults ONLY after I counter-punch.
Then pretend to be some fraud "high horse".
You're mostly no where to be found about it when it involves others.
You're right, I don't like you, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your politics. I like sirs, and he's conservative.
Oh yes it does.
I am an Ann Coulter/Mark Levin type of conservative.
We are not liked by your type.
Plus you are probaly aware I consider homosexuality disgusting and do not approve of it.
It's a hot button issue with you like Michelle Obama is CONSUMED with race.
So you become a hater because I dont buy into the homo agenda.
Ask me if I care?
I dont want to be your friend or seek your approval.
Nah Nah Nah whose the most popular?
Jezzz
"I like Plane, and he's conservative. Ami and BT, I don't know about their political identifications, but I like them too.
I like pretty much everyone on here but a couple of people, and you're one"
Awesome!
I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
Or wait a minute, maybe I'm crushed
Booo whoooooooo. :'(
Why not propose an alternative, a positive change of some sort, or a new idea based on your political principles?
See above Fatman I did you just cant read or pretend it's not there when you dont like it.
Or is ripping your opponent the only worthy accomplishment left here?
As far as "ripping" I counter-punch.
XO calls my guy a "WHORE" and implies/says I am a racist( which by the way you say NOTHING about...where's the outrage? ::)
Then I defend myself and my candidate.
If thats what you call "ripping" so be it.
(http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc46/gearyb/voteracist.jpg)
-
Reparations might be cheaper.
That is snide bullsh*t and you know it. There will never BE any reparations.
Racism will continue to fester until the racists know that they have lost and their time has ended.
The middle class will continue to decline until serious changes are made about how the wealth is distributed.
What could possibly cost more than another couple of terms of Iraq War, with Halliburton & Co. robbing us blind for every item, private mercenary companies ripping us off, the dollar spiraling down into an endless black hole?
If we are going to piss money away, let's piss it away here in the USA, not in Iraq.
-
"What could possibly cost more than another couple of terms of Iraq War, with Halliburton & Co. robbing us blind for every item, private mercenary companies ripping us off, the dollar spiraling down into an endless black hole?
If we are going to piss money away, let's piss it away here in the USA, not in Iraq."
After what I witnessed today....this makes so much sense!
-
What synthesis do you look for that might solves the conflict between the Jim Crow and the Affirmative action?
Every action provokes a reaction. Eventually the two combine in a synthesis, which becomes a new action.
Obama himself is a synthesis: Black (but not Black American) father, white mother, raised in the Midwest and Hawaii without the Southern/ ghetto conflicts. A Black politician that understands White folks at the level of his own family.
In Hegelian terms, to oppose Obama's election is antihistorical in a variety of ways.
There are three major themes in American politics: Black vs. White, War vs. Peace, Rich vs. poor.
McCain: White, War, Rich.
Obama: Black, Peace, poor.
Of course Obama was raised as White as a Black man could be raised.
He was poor as a child, and overcame his poverty.
He does not represent the long tradition of war after war after war as McCain does.
Reparations might be cheaper.
That is snide bullsh*t and you know it. There will never BE any reparations.
Racism will continue to fester until the racists know that they have lost and their time has ended.
The middle class will continue to decline until serious changes are made about how the wealth is distributed.
What could possibly cost more than another couple of terms of Iraq War, with Halliburton & Co. robbing us blind for every item, private mercenary companies ripping us off, the dollar spiraling down into an endless black hole?
If we are going to piss money away, let's piss it away here in the USA, not in Iraq.
Affirmative action is reparations , stretched out over decades.
The Middle class is not declineing.
Looseing Iraq to Al Queda or Iran would be the most expensive result possible from the choices we make in the next few years. If we leave but have to go back , it will not be so easy next time.
Don't worry about the Dollar , its value has not been fixed since Nixon's presidency its flux is upsetting more than it is harmfull.
-
"What could possibly cost more than another couple of terms of Iraq War, with Halliburton & Co. robbing us blind for every item, private mercenary companies ripping us off, the dollar spiraling down into an endless black hole?
If we are going to piss money away, let's piss it away here in the USA, not in Iraq."
After what I witnessed today....this makes so much sense!
On the very eve of victory let us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory , who wants to win anyway?
During the Civil war that were scandals of war profiteers, some selling terribly substandard equipment to soldiers , tainted food , shredded blankets,.... , that is why the North lost!
-
We can supervise money being pissed away here.
It's a lot harder to supervise anything in Iraq. The deal is, we send money over there, they stuff it in their hidey-hole and one of their pals steals it.
They order trucks of gasoline, they sell it on the black market, and then they blow up the empty trucks so they can order more trucks.
Naturally, they blame the "insurgents" for everything.
It's a piece of cake ripping off Uncle Sugar in Iraq. The witnesses mostly speak Arabic, and they can be bribed, intimidated and shot, so as to not be witnesses at all.
This is hard to conceal in the US. We have witnesses when a welfare queen buys an Escalade, after all.
-
We can supervise money being pissed away here.
It's a lot harder to supervise anything in Iraq. The deal is, we send money over there, they stuff it in their hidey-hole and one of their pals steals it.
They order trucks of gasoline, they sell it on the black market, and then they blow up the empty trucks so they can order more trucks.
Naturally, they blame the "insurgents" for everything.
It's a piece of cake ripping off Uncle Sugar in Iraq. The witnesses mostly speak Arabic, and they can be bribed, intimidated and shot, so as to not be witnesses at all.
This is hard to conceal in the US. We have witnesses when a welfare queen buys an Escalade, after all.
So half or more attacks are actually frauds?
-
"What could possibly cost more than another couple of terms of Iraq War, with Halliburton & Co. robbing us blind for every item, private mercenary companies ripping us off, the dollar spiraling down into an endless black hole?
If we are going to piss money away, let's piss it away here in the USA, not in Iraq."
After what I witnessed today....this makes so much sense!
On the very eve of victory let us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory , who wants to win anyway?
During the Civil war that were scandals of war profiteers, some selling terribly substandard equipment to soldiers , tainted food , shredded blankets,.... , that is why the North lost!
What?
Plane, please explain the war in terms of " the American civil war" and this issue!
...with all the very depth of precise and accurate facts, please.
This is NOT YOUR civil war of the mid 19th century.
-
There may never be any reparations but mainly because it wouldn't work.
If it would work, I agree Plane it would be well worth it.
Hell in many ways I think African Americans deserve reparations,
but one of the problems is, it wouldn't work very well. It may
help maginally, but not any where near a solution.
Unfornately Black Americans or so called "African Americans" have been infected with a "crutch".
That "crutch" is deeply ingrained in who they are.
Difficult things happen in life, but they have been conditioned to
think "racism first" for any failures in life. When in reality
many times failure happens for reasons not related to race.
If you or I get turned down for a job we think "oh well".
If they get turned down the automatic response many times is "well it must be because I'm Black".
It is very harmful for a race and or culture to never look in the mirror for failures and always
blame a boogy man. Sure the boogy man still exists to some degree and did exist big time in the past,
but to almost never accept failure as your own damn fault, well in my opinion it is very detrimental to
so called "African Americans".
There is great hope though. Through education, real education, not the union controlled gvt
failure we now have, African Americans can reach their full potential. They have shown
to be quite talented in so many pursuits and when they produce excellence they are many
times greatly rewarded by a nation that is overwhelminbly White. If Blacks will ever grasp
the notion that excellent results, even if they must for the time being pay a higher price,
or walk a tougher road, it is excellence that will pave the road to their dreams of high
achievement for more of the entire race in America. Being driven to excel in education
is their best hope to emerge and become what they are capable of.
-
Affirmative action is reparations , stretched out over decades.
No, it isn't. That is utter nonsense.
==========================
The Middle class is not declineing.
Of course it is. Visit Detroit or Lansing sometime.
=======================
Looseing Iraq to Al Queda or Iran would be the most expensive result possible from the choices we make in the next few years. If we leave but have to go back , it will not be so easy next time.
We are not at war with Iran. If we have any damned sense, we never will be. The US cannot win a war with a nation of 77 million without a draft, and probably not with it. Americans will refuse to be drafted to attack Iran, which has not threatened a single American in America.
The US cannot win an Iraqi Civil War.
There will be no going back. We will end our dependency on foreign petroleum soon or we will decline rapidly. McCain is a buddy of Big Oil. There will be no solution if his ancient ass gets elected.
===================
Don't worry about the Dollar , its value has not been fixed since Nixon's presidency its flux is upsetting more than it is harmfull.
I am very worried. $5.00 Diesel is not upsetting it is truly harmful. We will have rampant inflation as a result of fighting a useless war on credit. Anything over 5% inflation is disastrous, and we are already there for some people.
Juniorbush is incompetence personified. Cheney is a one-man military industrial complex. And McCain is just a sixth act to what has been a very, very bad play.
-
There is great hope though. Through education, real education, not the union controlled gvt
failure we now have, the African Americans can reach their full potential. They have shown
to be quite talented in so many pursuits and when they produce excellence they are many
times greatly rewarded by a nation that is overwhelminbly White. If Blacks will ever grasp
the notion that excellent results, even if they must for the time being pay a higher price,
or walk a tougher road, it is excellence that will pave the road to their dreams of high
achievement for more of the entire race in America. Being driven to excel in education
is there best hope to emerge and become what they are capable of.
Yeah, what is your plan, genius? Tell teachers they cannot have unions?
Hand over the schools to the nuns?
Being as I have been teaching Black people for the past 32 years, I can assure you that those who fail to learn do so because they lack the gumption to do so. Teachers care about their students learning more than I bet you have cared about anything. What would you do when a 20 year old student decides to get pregnant and drops out forever? It's not like there is anyone forcing anyone to get pregnant or even stay pregnant. What do you do when a student misses half the semester or refuses to buy the book or even copy pages from the book in the library so they can actually learn in class?
Do unionized teachers make students stay out of class, spend their money on designer clothes and fancy nails instead of books, or get knocked up? Lemme tell you my own professional opinion: you don't know Jack. I am pretty sure you will never know him, either.
Black people get educated the same way anyone else does: they get the book, they come to class, they study and master the subject. Many do, a lot do not. The same is true for any group of students. Each one is an individual. Each one makes their own decisions.
-
Oh yes it does.
I am an Ann Coulter/Mark Levin type of conservative.
We are not liked by your type.
Plus you are probaly aware I consider homosexuality disgusting and do not approve of it.
It's a hot button issue with you like Michelle Obama is CONSUMED with race.
So you become a hater because I dont buy into the homo agenda.
If you think that I base my political beliefs solely on a candidate's support of gay rights, would you like to explain to me why I've voted for a Republican President ever since I was able to vote (1996)? I make no apologies to you or anyone else for being gay, and I could care less if you find it disgusting. I don't hate you. I just don't like you. And it has nothing to do with you buying into the homo agenda. Again, I like Plane and he is about as far from the "homo agenda" as you can get. The reason that I don't like you is that you're childish, your postings bring nothing to the debate, you seem to be incapable of original thought, you latch onto trivialities like saying fuck (though I notice that never dimmed your support of Rich), instead of posting an article that may provoke thought you post doctored pictures that are supposed to be funny (I'm assuming they're supposed to be funny, I've never thought they were).
Again it has nothing to do with your politics. And you've got a lot of nerve to accuse me of being myopic.
XO calls my guy a "WHORE" and implies/says I am a racist( which by the way you say NOTHING about...where's the outrage?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6549.msg65773#msg65773 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6549.msg65773#msg65773)
Frankly, I don't know why anyone bothers to answer your posts. I know that I'm done doing so, starting now.
-
"If you think that I base my political beliefs solely on a candidate's support of gay rights, would you like to explain to me why I've voted for a Republican President ever since I was able to vote (1996)?"
Making stuff up again? Where did I say you base your political beliefs on homo rights?
Just more grabbing stuff out of thin air that does not exist?
I said it was possibly a factor in your dislike of me.
It's obvious your "eaten up" with the issue.
Waving your little rainbows, whatever ::)
"I'm gay"...so what?! Like a freaking 3rd grader wanting attention.
Hey everybody "I'm hetro"....big friggin deal.
"I make no apologies to you or anyone else for being gay"
And I did not ask for nor would I accept an apology.
I dont want an apology from a homo.
What would that prove?
I just think the lifestyle is disgusting, sinful, and in many cases unhealthy.
But they certianly have the right to live a disgusting lifestyle.
I have homo friends and have hired homos.
To each his own as long as they are not granted "special rights".
"and I could care less if you find it disgusting"
and I could care less what you care less about
"I don't hate you. I just don't like you"
Yeah sure.
And it has nothing to do with you buying into the homo agenda.
I suspect it is a part of it
and btw it's me NOT BUYING INTO
Again, I like Plane and he is about as far from the "homo agenda" as you can get.
Plane is great, but he is much more "politically correct".
He has some intention to "get along" with the other side.
I have no intention to "get along" and will fire back when fired on.
Myself, Ann Coulter,Mark Levin don't allow others to set the ground rules of debate.
And that is something some cant handle.
"Whatta ya mean you think the conservatives have the higher moral ground"
"That cant be, I thought we start from the point Liberals are more caring"
Uh no.....we Coulter/Levin/CU4 do not accept the traditional BS "ground rules".
And yes that ruffles some feathers.
The reason that I don't like you is that you're childish
Name calling again.
Hey all you lurkers, the high horse is on a roll again.
Ooooops but this time he didnt say F-ing childish.
your postings bring nothing to the debate
Is that why some of the posts I start have multiple pages
of responses? Again Fatman reality is what it is.
you seem to be incapable of original thought
can you give me an example of an original political thought that you have?
something that has never been thought of or said in human history?
"you latch onto trivialities like saying fuck"
LOL oh now it it's a "trivialty" if you act the jerk, but get on the high horse to condemn others.
(though I notice that never dimmed your support of Rich),
Firstly Rich is not normally on the high horse condemning others.
If Rich was one saying "hey now lets cut out the personal stuff" after he
used the Fword and used selective outrage...then yeah you'd be correct.
Plus I have advised Rich in the past.
Go ahead ask him Fatman if he did not withdraw a post about XO 100% because I convinced him it was inappropriate. I am not bragging, you made a false charge and I am responding. Ask him Fatman?
You think you know what you're talking about but once again are DEAD WRONG. Just recently I
directed a post to Rich concerning his words about the death of Tim Russsert. Again FATMAN is
DEAD WRONG.
"instead of posting an article that may provoke thought you post doctored pictures that are
supposed to be funny (I'm assuming they're supposed to be funny, I've never thought they were)."
Number one I probably post more articles than anyone else on this messsage board.
If I'm not number 1 am in the top 2 or 3 when I frequent this site.
Remember your little tantrum about copyrights and sourcing?
That was about posting articles not cartoons.
So once again your statement is DEAD WRONG.
Plus I find it very telling that you and others have no problem with this
other poster Hnumph or how ever it's spelled posting cartoons and such (someone
PM'd me and said there has been cartoons for years making fun of President Bush or
Vice President Cheney) and oh boy thats A-OK! Yeah sure thats so ha ha ha funny, but
when the counterpunch is served, showing funny stuff or make fun of stuff about
the other side HERE COMES THE OUTRAGE, SELECTIVE OUTRAGE.
"Again it has nothing to do with your politics"
I believe it does, but we can certainly agree to disagree.
"And you've got a lot of nerve to accuse me of being myopic"
Uh? where did I do that?
XO calls my guy a "WHORE" and implies/says I am a racist
( which by the way you say NOTHING about...where's the outrage?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6549.msg65773#msg65773
Oh boy that was really calling XO out!
That was harsh.
LOL
Frankly, I don't know why anyone bothers to answer your posts
Frankly I say the same about you.
You rarely add anything to cause debate.
You are like a jackyl, you dont start the fun, you sit back to nit pick.
We can compare threads started and the pages of discusssion those caused.
Now I am sure since I have brought this up you'll suddenly start getting more threads started
to cover. But we know the truth.
"I know that I'm done doing so, starting now"
Now that pleases me.
It's too easy finding the DEAD WRONGS.
Please try to keep your word this time though.
-
::)
-
I thought he was criticizing me for saying that McCain was hiding lobbyists in his ample cheeks, as a squirrel carries acorns.
-
<<Looseing Iraq to Al Queda or Iran would be the most expensive result possible from the choices we make in the next few years. If we leave but have to go back , it will not be so easy next time.>>
I find that "have to go back" intriguing. Under what circumstances would the United States of America "have" to go back to Iraq?
What kind of imperative could possibly exist for invading a small country thousands of miles away which has absolutely zero realistic capacity of ever attacking you? Or do you people just never learn?
-
I find that "have to go back" intriguing. Under what circumstances would the United States of America "have" to go back to Iraq?
I agree Michael thats just a lie some elected offcials on the Left use to pretend
they are not "cut and runners". People like Murtha "oh we'll redeploy and be ready
closeby if needed". What a bunch of BS.
-
<<People like Murtha "oh we'll redeploy and be ready
closeby if needed". What a bunch of BS.>>
Like Murtha? OBAMA'S saying pretty much the same shit. Out-ruckin-FAY-jiss.
-
What kind of imperative could possibly exist for invading a small country thousands of miles away which has absolutely zero realistic capacity of ever attacking you? Or do you people just never learn?
Gulf War I was for the money: we got the Arabs and the Kuwaitis, the Japanese and the Europeans to pay for that one. It took the Emir of Kuwait down a notch or two, as he was getting uppity ad threatening to move his money,
Gulf War II seems to be for the show, as in "We sure showed thet Ay-Rab Saddam a thing or two."
Gulf War III, if Elvis' paen to his celestial hued footwear has any relevance here, would be "Go, cat go".
I think "they never learn" is the operative term here.
Gulf War I was provoked when Olebush told his ambassador April Glespie (who we have never heard from since) to tell Saddam that"The US does not take any position on the borders of Middle Eastern countries", knowing that to Saddam it meant "Invade at will".
The Kuwaitis were drilling diagonally under Iraqi oil deposits, with the help of American companies, like well, Halliburton.
The Oligarchy knows what this was all about, and it is and has always been money. Our money, paid at the pump and sent on to the oil companies and their Arab buddies that ends up in their hands. They have made a mighty killing selling arms and all manner of crap to the Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Saudis and others.
Our troops have been among those killed.
We have the manipulative oligarchy that gets their minions elected and our people propagandized, and we have the saps that somehow believe that all this has been for the greater good of all Americans.
And elect more ancient warriors, who will call for yet more wars.
What the hell, them dead Americans, they are just ignorant inbred hillbillies. That is what Dick Cheney thinks, isn't it? Might as well put 'em to good use. We already stripmined their farms, so they can't grow taters and ramps no more.
One cannot underestimate the stupidity of the American people, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken.
-
<<One cannot underestimate the stupidity of the American people, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken.>>
Thought it was P.T. Barnum, "No man ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the average American."
-
What the hell, them dead Americans, they are just ignorant inbred hillbillies. That is what Dick Cheney thinks, isn't it? Might as well put 'em to good use. We already stripmined their farms, so they can't grow taters and ramps no more.
That sounds more like Obama or Mikey T.
I had never heard of a ramp farm - everyone I know of that eats 'em picks 'em wild. However, I did google it, and there is ONE ramp farm (http://www.rampfarm.com/). "Hello, we are Glen and Norene Facemire, and we have the distinction of having the only ramp farm in the world. We are located on the north slope in the quaint little town of Richwood, along the prominent trout stream of the South Fork of the Cherry River."
-
"I thought he was criticizing me for saying that McCain was
hiding lobbyists in his ample cheeks, as a squirrel carries acorns"
nObama will raise more from special interests than McCain
Isn't nObama just taking special interest money now?
XO we can end lobbyist by shrinking gvt
You dont lobby what doesn't exist
If we abolish most of the Fed Gvt I promise you there will be a lot less lobbyists.
Shrink gvt = shrink lobby power
-
If we abolish most of the Fed Gvt I promise you there will be a lot less lobbyists.
===============================================================
Yeah, and if your grandmother had wheels, she's be a bicycle. Get real.
No one is going to do this. Not even the Libertarians could do it. Not that anyone is going to elect Bob Bar, Ron Paul or any other of them.
I wrote Reagan with a clever plan to do just this, back in 1980. I suggested moving the national capital to Juneau, Alaska, where there is absolutely no room for growth between the glaciers and the sea. He did not even bother to thank me. He was not sincere about shrinking the government, and neither is anyone else.
McCain will grow the government and is likely to start more wars. He is the son and grandson and great grandson of warmongers, just as Juniorbush was the son and grandson of thieving wheeler-dealers.
-
<<One cannot underestimate the stupidity of the American people, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken.>>
Thought it was P.T. Barnum, "No man ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the average American."
====================================
P. T. Barnum was famous for saying "There's one born every minute", the "one" being a sucker.
H. L. Mencken's most famous quote was, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".
-
<<Looseing Iraq to Al Queda or Iran would be the most expensive result possible from the choices we make in the next few years. If we leave but have to go back , it will not be so easy next time.>>
I find that "have to go back" intriguing. Under what circumstances would the United States of America "have" to go back to Iraq?
What kind of imperative could possibly exist for invading a small country thousands of miles away which has absolutely zero realistic capacity of ever attacking you? Or do you people just never learn?
Afghanistan was one of the greatest successes of any war program started during the Carter Administration. And one of the greatest failures of the Reagan era .
Once Afghanistan was free of the Soviets , it was cut adrift , it had no indigenous government because of all that war , and the collaborators with the Soviets got the treatment typical for collaborators.So for some years banditry was the rule in every province , when the Taliban took over they were an improvement , not because they were good government but because they were some government.
The Taliban did things that won them world opprobrium , but most of what they did we were all going to tolerate,they even did us a favor when they suppressed the poppy crop. But they took Osama Bin Laden in and let him build a huge base from which to attack the US , since Ossama was determined to drag the US into a war on turf he was familiar with , Afghanistan was doomed to have war Return , this time with Americans instead of Russians. Whether it is worse to fight Americans or Russians there are few to tell , mostly they are Afghanis who have the sad distinction of having had to battle both.
If Iraq is abandoned to chaos there is no reason to suppose that something friendly and reasonable will emerge , very likely instead another chaos will give birth to another monster better only than nothing , hateful to us or Else hospitable to our enemies so much that we will have to return , and in returning earn again the position we seem so eager to give away for nothing, having earned it with blood and tears , we should consider carefully the potential to pay the same price again with more intrest.
-
<<If Iraq is abandoned to chaos there is no reason to suppose that something freindly and reasonable will emerge . . . >>
So now you are claiming the right to invade any country that you do not find "friendly" and "reasonable?"
<<very likely instead another chaos will give birth to another monstr better only than nothing , hateful to us or elese hospitable to our enemys so much that we will have to return . . . >>
OK, if the "chaos" is replaced with "another monster" (presumably a ruler hostile to your interests, not a creature half-man and half-beast) who you find to be "hateful" or who chooses to be on good terms with your enemies, then you will "have to return." This is really interesting.
<<OK, so , and in returning earn again the popsition we seem so eager to give away for nothing haveing earned it with blood and tears , we should consider carefully the potential to pay the same price again with more intrest.>>
So you "earned" Iraq and now it's yours. You can choose to "give it away" (presumably back to its own people) but since you own it now, you should get some kind of prize for giving it back. A permanently friendly government.
It's kind of sad that you think you have this natural entitlement to control by the application of overwhelming lethal violence the lives and destinies of other sovereign people, but it's very revealing of a certain American mindset. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Thank God you will never succeed in your objectives and soon, when you are driven out of Iraq as you were driven out of Viet Nam, most of the American people will learn to have a little more respect for international law than you apparently do. Thanks for your honesty.
-
<<If Iraq is abandoned to chaos there is no reason to suppose that something freindly and reasonable will emerge . . . >>
So now you are claiming the right to invade any country that you do not find "friendly" and "reasonable?"
<<very likely instead another chaos will give birth to another monstr better only than nothing , hateful to us or elese hospitable to our enemys so much that we will have to return . . . >>
OK, if the "chaos" is replaced with "another monster" (presumably a ruler hostile to your interests, not a creature half-man and half-beast) who you find to be "hateful" or who chooses to be on good terms with your enemies, then you will "have to return." This is really interesting.
<<OK, so , and in returning earn again the popsition we seem so eager to give away for nothing haveing earned it with blood and tears , we should consider carefully the potential to pay the same price again with more intrest.>>
So you "earned" Iraq and now it's yours. You can choose to "give it away" (presumably back to its own people) but since you own it now, you should get some kind of prize for giving it back. A permanently friendly government.
It's kind of sad that you think you have this natural entitlement to control by the application of overwhelming lethal violence the lives and destinies of other sovereign people, but it's very revealing of a certain American mindset. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Thank God you will never succeed in your objectives and soon, when you are driven out of Iraq as you were driven out of Viet Nam, most of the American people will learn to have a little more respect for international law than you apparently do. Thanks for your honesty.
Thank you for finding more meaning in my words than I invested them with.
Natzi Germany ,Facist Italy and Imperial Japan were invaded for being unfreindly to the US , it is a matter of degree.
Should we indeed think on the merits of invadeing reasonable and freindly countrys?
-
He has some intention to "get along" with the other side.
I have no intention to "get along" and will fire back when fired on.
Myself, Ann Coulter,Mark Levin don't allow others to set the ground rules of debate.
And that is something some cant handle.
LOLOLOLOLOL
I needed a good laugh. Thanks man.
-
<<Natzi Germany ,Facist Italy and Imperial Japan were invaded for being unfreindly to the US , it is a matter of degree.>>
OMG, WHAT have you been smoking?
Japan was invaded in consequence of launching a devastating aerial assault on U.S. ships. Germany by Britain and France in consequence of invading Poland, Italy by Britain and France in consequence of invading France, and both of them by the U.S.A. in consequence of declaring war on the U.S.A. after their ally bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S.A. then declared war on their ally.
None of them were invaded for mere unfriendliness to the U.S.A.
Nobody is disputing that if Iraq were to invade the U.S.A. or attack a U.S. base as the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor, or attack an ally that the U.S. was bound by treaty to defend, as Britain and France were bound by treaty to defend Poland, that the U.S. would "have to" go back. But that is hardly the issue here, because these events are so unlikely. Your claim that the U.S. would "have to" go back into Iraq merely because a future Iraqi government could be "hostile" to the U.S. or "friendly" to its enemies, is mind-boggling. It's certainly one of the things Obama must have had in mind when he said that America needed to change.
-
Iraq shot at US aircraft patrolling the UN mandated no fly zones a number of times.
-
Iraq shot at US aircraft patrolling the UN mandated no fly zones a number of times.
Israel blew apart a U.S. Naval vessel and I don't recall us going to war with them.
-
::)
-
::)
Thanks for your useful insight.
-
As if implying we went to war because Iraq took shots at are planes was why we went to war, was useful
-
Israel blew apart a U.S. Naval vessel and I don't recall us going to war with them.
Once is a mistake. 30+ times is aggression.
-
"LOLOLOLOLOL ...I needed a good laugh. Thanks man"
You are quite welcome.
It pleases me to no end.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/186553055_f13f863076_o-1-1.jpg)
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/annmark.jpg)
-
Oh come on SIRS you warmonger, whats wrong with shooting at American Aircraft on an almost daily basis?
-
Israel blew apart a U.S. Naval vessel and I don't recall us going to war with them.
Once is a mistake. 30+ times is aggression.
How many pilots were killed or wounded?
Israel killed 34 sailors and wounded 173.
-
As if implying we went to war because Iraq took shots at are planes was why we went to war, was useful
I never implied such.
-
Oh come on SIRS you warmonger, whats wrong with shooting at American Aircraft on an almost daily basis?
Is that all you got? I thought you "have no intention to "get along" and will fire back when fired on?"
To use a sports metaphor, you're going to the hoop with that weak garbage?
-
"How many pilots were killed or wounded?"
Ridiculous analogy.
US & British Aircraft were fired upon by Iraqis over 250 times while enforcing the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and while monitoring compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949 and 1441. Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. pilots were being routinely fired upon.
But if no one is killed I suppose it's ok to shoot at US Aircraft hundreds of times. ::)
-
Is that all you got?
Thats all I need.
I thought you "have no intention to "get along" and will fire back when fired on?"
Are you speaking english because you are making no sense, but I appreciate you
helping your little friend, he certainly needs it. ::)
To use a sports metaphor, you're going to the hoop with that weak garbage.
If it's so weak whats your answer?
Send Barbies to enemies firing on US Aircraft?
-
As if implying we went to war because Iraq took shots at are planes was why we went to war, was useful
I never implied such.
Strange.......took an ACCIDENT created by one of our strongest allies, that ACCIDENTALLY killed U.S. servicemen, comparing it to consistent acts of aggression by a country we had gone to war with, and despite clear provisions in their surrender, consistently shot at ours and our allies' jets in a no fly zone, and you question why we we didn't go to war with Israel?
Yea, no implication there ::)
-
Natzi Germany ,Facist Italy and Imperial Japan were invaded for being unfreindly to the US , it is a matter of degree.
=============================
No, they weren't.
The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and when the US declared war on the Japanese, the Germans and Italians declared war on the US, as the three were all allied.
There was no reason to invade Iraq. It posed zero threat to any American living in America.
-
"There was no reason to invade Iraq. It posed zero threat to any American living in America"
(http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/story.clinton.jpg)
President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)
Al Gore: "No Doubt Saddam's Weapons Are Grave Threat"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc)
Senator John Kerry:
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-
But....but.....CU4, they didn't actually do anything about it. Which is why they get a complete free pass about lying to us about it
-
I repeat: Iraq posed ZERO threat to any American in America.
There was no reason to invade.
I said that in 2003, and I still say it. I do not give a rat's ass what silly crap you choose to post.
-
I repeat: Iraq posed ZERO threat to any American in America.
There was no reason to invade.
I said that in 2003, and I still say it. I do not give a rat's ass what silly crap you choose to post.
Iraq was clearly a gun runner toward the almighty $, via the all American corp dollar. VP Cheney was not supposed to cross those lines, he's a law breaker, from what I read lately.
Damn those loop holes that save the "arzz" of the rich.
Not right. . .and certainly not what the founding fathers intended.
-
<<Oh come on SIRS you warmonger, whats wrong with shooting at American Aircraft on an almost daily basis?>>
Those American aircraft were regularly taking out Iraqi AA and radar stations in preparation for the pre-planned invasion of Iraq which as we now know was already well advanced in secret while the U.S. planes were "monitoring" the no-fly zone. The Iraqis were merely exercising legitimate rights of self-defence, which of course now serves as one more excuse for the U.S. aggression.
-
<<President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998
. . . called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.>>
<<Al Gore: "No Doubt Saddam's Weapons Are Grave Threat">>
<<Senator John Kerry:
<<. . . I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his [Saddam's]hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security . . .
<<Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
<<"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.">>
So a bunch of Democratic leaders spouted the same lies as Bush did. Big deal, why not? Don't they all draw their water from the same well?
I'm reasonably certain that if you could dig out the archives of the German Reichstag from 1939, you'd see that Hitler wasn't the only one screaming support for the invasion of Poland either. It was in the interests of Albright, Clinton, Gore and Kerry to support an attack on Iraq, and it was in the interests of their donors too.