DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 11:24:54 AM

Title: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 11:24:54 AM
BARRY GET YOUR (or shall I say OUR PRIORITIES) IN ORDER!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6970574.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6970574.ece)

Hundreds of al-Qaeda militants are planning terror attacks from Yemen, the country’s Foreign Minister said today.

Abu Bakr al-Qirbi appealed for more help from the international community to help to train and equip counter-terrorist forces.

His plea came after an al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas Day airliner bomb plot.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, alleged to be behind the attempt to blow up an American-bound aircraft, spent time in Yemen with al-Qaeda and was in the country only days before the failed attack.

Dr al-Qirbi said: “Of course there are a number of al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen and some of their leaders. We realise this danger.

“They may actually plan attacks like the one we have just had in Detroit. There are maybe hundreds of them — 200, 300.”

Dr al-Qirbi said it was the “responsibility” of countries with strong intelligence capabilities to warn states such as Yemen about the movements of terror suspects.

The United States, Britain and the European Union could do a lot to improve Yemen’s response to militants on its own soil, he added.

“We have to work in a very joint fashion in partnership to combat terrorism,” he said. “If we do, the problem will be brought under control.

“There is support, but I must say it is inadequate. We need more training, we have to expand our counter-terrorism units and provide them with equipment and transportation like helicopters.”

Mr Abdulmutallab is said to have told US agents that there were more people “just like him” ready to carry out attacks.

An al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility yesterday for the failed attempt to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit as US President Barack Obama pledged to hunt down the plotters.

Photographs apparently showing the underpants worn by alleged bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and willed with explosives were broadcast today by ABC News.

The American government pictures show the singed underwear with a six-inch packet of a high explosive called PETN sewn into the crotch, the US network reported.

Mr Abdulmutallab was reported to be carrying about 80g of PETN, more than one-and-a-half times the amount carried by Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber”, in 2001 and enough to blow a hole in the side of an aircraft.

Mr Abdulmutallab’s former tutors at University College London, where he was a student between 2005 and 2008, described him as “well-mannered, quietly spoken, polite and able” and said that he never gave any cause for concern. He was president of the institution’s Islamic society between 2006 and 2007.

Nigerian-born Mr Abdulmutallab is being held at a federal prison in Michigan on a charge of trying to destroy an aircraft.

He apparently wrote of his loneliness and struggle between liberalism and Islamic extremism in a series of postings on Facebook and in Islamic chatrooms, the Washington Post reported today.

In January 2005, when he was attending boarding school, he wrote: “I have no one to speak too. No one to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said it was unlikely that Mr Abdulmutallab acted alone and revealed that he was banned from entering Britain and placed on a “watch list” this year.

Mr Johnson said that the alleged terrorist was refused a new visa and had been monitored since May after applying for a bogus course.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 29, 2009, 12:09:20 PM
A Tardy Wake-up Call for Spreading al Qaeda Menace

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

December 29, 2009

(http://www.debka.com/photos/1417.jpg)
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and his mother

The failure of Lagos and Amsterdam airport security to detect the explosives the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab carried aboard two flights on Christmas Day was only a small side-effect of America's flawed intelligence policies and performance with regard to al Qaeda.

DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources note that in the past year, Washington was strangely deaf to a flood of notices from Saudi, Egyptian and Yemeni security agencies warning that al Qaeda networks had established themselves in Yemen and so gained a jumping-off base into the Arabian peninsula and across the strategic Gulf of Aden. The network was now directly linked from Yemeni shores to Osama bin Laden at his new headquarters in Pakistani Baluchistan.

These warnings went unheeded by the relevant agencies in Washington.

Only two months ago, on Oct. 7, President Barack Obama told the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia: "We're making real progress in our core mission - to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and other extremist networks around the world."

Citing a counterterrorism expert, Obama added: ?Because of our efforts, Al Qaeda and its allies have not only lost operational capacity, they?ve lost legitimacy and credibility.?

Only three days before the US president's speech, on Oct. 3, the FBI arrested the Chicagoan David Headley at O'Hare Airport and charged him with targeting and conducting reconnaissance for the al Qaeda branch Lashkar e-Taibe's terror massacre in Mumbai of November 2008, which left more than 170 people dead.

A month later, US Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan shot dead 13 comrades at the Fort Hood base in Texas. Federal investigators persist in refusing to call the crime an act of terror although Hasan was shown to have been in regular correspondence with Anwar al-Awkali, the imam who was religious mentor to 9/11 hijackers and himself, from the time he relocated to Yemen in 2008.

The failed Christmas Day airliner bombing has strong leads to Yemen indicating that the attempt was plotted, planned and aided from that country.

A statement posted Monday, Dec. 28 on an Islamist website in the name of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attempt, named Abdulmutallab "our brother" and hailed him for his "heroic action."

The Yemeni government then disclosed that the young Nigerian had lived in Yemen from August to December on a visa to study Arabic. It is obvious now that what he really studied was the mechanics of an explosive device for crashing an airliner.

Yemen has been on US radar for some time, certainly since al Qaeda blew up the American destroyer USS Cole in Aden harbor on Oct. 12, 2000, killing 17 American seamen. Both the CIA and the FBI have maintained a covert presence in this Red Sea country in the past year at least, along with American civilian counter terror experts and small special units. Their mission is to help President Abdullah Salah's regime to survive in the face of two insurgencies, one fostered from Iran, and make sure that the burgeoning al Qaeda network is unable to repeat its USS Cole feat of destruction.

All of this, taken with the two warnings the Abdulmutallab family passed to the US embassy in Lagos about their fanatical kinsman, points to the serious malfunctioning of America's intelligence and anti-terror machinery.

The undercover US elements in Yemen were clearly not briefed about any imminent perils and therefore could not advise their masters in Washington that the future bomber was in Yemen or should be watched if he left. No one was still "connecting the dots" eight years after 9/11.

DEBKAfile's counter-terror experts are clear that the weakness is conceptual rather than technical or human. Because of this, President Obama interrupted his Hawaii vacation for a hard-hitting speech to the American nation. This time he vowed "to defeat" al Qaeda, a term he is normally loath to utter. And the US Homeland Secret Janet Napolitano was forced to correct her original expressions of satisfaction with US aviation security measures.

At the same time, the Obama administration is still playing it cool, refraining from elevating the orange alert level current in US airports for the past two years. And although security measures are to be reviewed and enhanced, nothing has been said about overhauling the agencies which fell down on the tasks they are taxed with to prevent and combat terror - or correct their fundamental approach to those tasks.

Americans should therefore not be surprised each time al Qaeda opens a new front against the West. Now it is Yemen which is finding itself dragged into the same boat as Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 29, 2009, 12:20:35 PM
(http://www.lotusespritworld.com/images/otherstuff/Newspapers/TimesOnline_logo.jpg)

"Hundreds of al-Qaeda militants planning attacks from Yemen"

From Times Online

December 29, 2009

Hundreds of al-Qaeda militants are planning terror attacks from Yemen, the country's Foreign Minister said today.

Abu Bakr al-Qirbi appealed for more help from the international community to help to train and equip counter-terrorist forces.

His plea came after an al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas Day airliner bomb plot.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, alleged to be behind the attempt to blow up an American-bound aircraft, spent time in Yemen with al-Qaeda and was in the country only days before the failed attack.

Dr al-Qirbi said: "Of course there are a number of al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen and some of their leaders. We realise this danger".

"They may actually plan attacks like the one we have just had in Detroit. There are maybe hundreds of them? 200, 300.? "

Dr al-Qirbi said it was the "responsibility" of countries with strong intelligence capabilities to warn states such as Yemen about the movements of terror suspects.

The United States, Britain and the European Union could do a lot to improve Yemen'" response to militants on its own soil, he added.

"We have to work in a very joint fashion in partnership to combat terrorism," he said. "If we do, the problem will be brought under control".

"There is support, but I must say it is inadequate. We need more training, we have to expand our counter-terrorism units and provide them with equipment and transportation like helicopters."

Mr Abdulmutallab is said to have told US agents that there were more people "just like him" ready to carry out attacks.

An al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility yesterday for the failed attempt to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit as US President Barack Obama pledged to hunt down the plotters.

Photographs apparently showing the underpants worn by alleged bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and willed with explosives were broadcast today by ABC News.

The American government pictures show the singed underwear with a six-inch packet of a high explosive called PETN sewn into the crotch, the US network reported.

Mr Abdulmutallab was reported to be carrying about 80g of PETN, more than one-and-a-half times the amount carried by Richard Reid, the ?shoe bomber?, in 2001 and enough to blow a hole in the side of an aircraft.

Mr Abdulmutallab's former tutors at University College London, where he was a student between 2005 and 2008, described him as "well-mannered, quietly spoken, polite and able" and said that he never gave any cause for concern. He was president of the institution?s Islamic society between 2006 and 2007.

Nigerian-born Mr Abdulmutallab is being held at a federal prison in Michigan on a charge of trying to destroy an aircraft.

He apparently wrote of his loneliness and struggle between liberalism and Islamic extremism in a series of postings on Facebook and in Islamic chatrooms, The Washington Post reported today.

In January 2005, when he was attending boarding school, he wrote: ?I have no one to speak too. No one to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.?

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said it was unlikely that Mr Abdulmutallab acted alone and revealed that he was banned from entering Britain and placed on a "watch list" this year.

Mr Johnson said that the alleged terrorist was refused a new visa and had been monitored since May after applying for a bogus course.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6970574.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6970574.ece)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 29, 2009, 01:26:10 PM


(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/159095.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 01:30:14 PM


can you actually believe that Obama called the guy a SUSPECT?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 29, 2009, 02:43:34 PM
Golly. I hope everyone is now appropriately living in fear.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
Golly. I hope everyone is now appropriately living in fear.

pick your fear

Obama is worried about your health care and Global Warming

Cheney & Bush saw terrorism as #1

Pick your fear, could be your own shadow
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 29, 2009, 02:53:16 PM

pick your fear

Obama is worried about your health care and Global Warming

Cheney & Bush saw terrorism as #1

Pick your fear, could be your own shadow


Personally, I am far more concerned about loss of liberty. Protecting liberty should be the government's primary concern, not catching the bad guys or making sure the wealthy are punished in the name of falsely helping the poor. So let me know when you start caring about liberty.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 03:08:43 PM

pick your fear

Obama is worried about your health care and Global Warming

Cheney & Bush saw terrorism as #1

Pick your fear, could be your own shadow


You want liberty? Bring back the Founding Fathers.
Your request can only happen with another revolution -- we need a good revolution about every 200 years or so, give or take 34 years.

Personally, I am far more concerned about loss of liberty. Protecting liberty should be the government's primary concern, not catching the bad guys or making sure the wealthy are punished in the name of falsely helping the poor. So let me know when you start caring about liberty.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 29, 2009, 03:34:22 PM

You want liberty? Bring back the Founding Fathers.
Your request can only happen with another revolution -- we need a good revolution about every 200 years or so, give or take 34 years.


Nah. We just need more honesty, which is to say, for people to stop lying about how the government is the people, and to stop telling lies about how liberty must be sacrificed for pragmatism, which almost never ends up being all that pragmatic except to the politicians and their political goals. If anyone really thinks we are safer now than we were pre-September 11, 2001, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. If anyone thinks the U.S. Congress is going to pass a bill that makes health care better for everyone, there is a bridge in San Fransisco I would love to sell you.

You can have either bridge really cheap too. There are secret plans (I know you won't tell anyone) to use stimulus dollars to build new bridges, and so the others will soon be demolished, and you will be guaranteed to double, no, triple your money as you sell the pieces to collectors and scrap metal yards. I'd do it myself, but, conflict of interest, ethics boards, you know how that goes. So speak up now, this deal won't be available for long.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 03:55:45 PM

You want liberty? Bring back the Founding Fathers.
Your request can only happen with another revolution -- we need a good revolution about every 200 years or so, give or take 34 years.


Nah. We just need more honesty, which is to say, for people to stop lying about how the government is the people, and to stop telling lies about how liberty must be sacrificed for pragmatism, which almost never ends up being all that pragmatic except to the politicians and their political goals. If anyone really thinks we are safer now than we were pre-September 11, 2001, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. If anyone thinks the U.S. Congress is going to pass a bill that makes health care better for everyone, there is a bridge in San Fransisco I would love to sell you.

You can have either bridge really cheap too. There are secret plans (I know you won't tell anyone) to use stimulus dollars to build new bridges, and so the others will soon be demolished, and you will be guaranteed to double, no, triple your money as you sell the pieces to collectors and scrap metal yards. I'd do it myself, but, conflict of interest, ethics boards, you know how that goes. So speak up now, this deal won't be available for long.

you got two choices
1. wave your magic wand
2. a revolution or it won't happen

we need to get people into the streets, get people involved, people to vote for good candidates. The teaparty groups are the beginning. It needs to multiply by 1,000,000 and then you will see liberty return.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 29, 2009, 06:24:48 PM

you got two choices
1. wave your magic wand
2. a revolution or it won't happen


Or it won't happen fast you mean. Don't assume I'm as impatient as you are.


we need to get people into the streets, get people involved, people to vote for good candidates.


That assumes there are good candidates for whom to vote. I suppose there are, but they are few in number, and most folks don't get the opportunity to vote for one.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 06:28:48 PM

you got two choices
1. wave your magic wand
2. a revolution or it won't happen


Or it won't happen fast you mean. Don't assume I'm as impatient as you are.


we need to get people into the streets, get people involved, people to vote for good candidates.


That assumes there are good candidates for whom to vote. I suppose there are, but they are few in number, and most folks don't get the opportunity to vote for one.

you like to assume a lot so let's assume that good candidates will come forward to replace the crap we currently have in Congress. Don't forget the "Sleeping Giant" is now stirring. We have the better half of 2010 to gear up.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 29, 2009, 06:53:50 PM

you like to assume a lot


Actually, I try to not assume.


so let's assume that good candidates will come forward to replace the crap we currently have in Congress.


And we are supposed to assume this because...?


Don't forget the "Sleeping Giant" is now stirring. We have the better half of 2010 to gear up.


I'll believe it when I see it. I still remember how the "Republican Revolution" turned out. They were going to reshape the government and bring fiscal responsibility to the Congress. Didn't happen.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 29, 2009, 06:57:01 PM

you like to assume a lot


Actually, I try to not assume.


so let's assume that good candidates will come forward to replace the crap we currently have in Congress.


And we are supposed to assume this because...?


Don't forget the "Sleeping Giant" is now stirring. We have the better half of 2010 to gear up.


I'll believe it when I see it. I still remember how the "Republican Revolution" turned out. They were going to reshape the government and bring fiscal responsibility to the Congress. Didn't happen.

because the sleeping giant is stirring
you need to have faith in humanity
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 29, 2009, 11:57:21 PM

because the sleeping giant is stirring
you need to have faith in humanity


I do have faith in humanity. Just not in politicians.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 30, 2009, 12:04:16 AM

because the sleeping giant is stirring
you need to have faith in humanity


I do have faith in humanity. Just not in politicians.

you just broke the code --- we don't want politicians we want honest intelligent caring citizens that want to do the right thing. not crooks.. have faith you will see them come forth in 2010. Thank you Obama, Pelosi & Reid for that.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 30, 2009, 12:27:35 AM

we don't want politicians we want honest intelligent caring citizens that want to do the right thing. not crooks..


Many of the people who supported Obama said the same thing. But beyond that, the problem is expecting people to get involved in politics and not be politicians.


have faith you will see them come forth in 2010.


I do not. I expect to see what I have seen before. Politicians rising up the polls on rhetoric that sounds real good, and then ending up acting like 99.99% of all other politicians these days. I would like very much to be wrong, but I have yet to see any reason that I am.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 30, 2009, 12:40:08 AM

we don't want politicians we want honest intelligent caring citizens that want to do the right thing. not crooks..


Many of the people who supported Obama said the same thing. But beyond that, the problem is expecting people to get involved in politics and not be politicians.


have faith you will see them come forth in 2010.


I do not. I expect to see what I have seen before. Politicians rising up the polls on rhetoric that sounds real good, and then ending up acting like 99.99% of all other politicians these days. I would like very much to be wrong, but I have yet to see any reason that I am.

conservatives are different than liberals. In a good way.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 30, 2009, 01:22:54 AM

conservatives are different than liberals. In a good way.


As a libertarian, I have watched both conservative and liberal politicians all do the same sort of things. As I said before, the "Republican Revolution" was going to reshape the government and bring fiscal responsibility to the Congress, and that didn't happen. George W. Bush was going to make a stand for conservative values and smaller government. That didn't happen. The result of both was basically more spending, more power in the hands of government, and expanded government run social programs. So tell me, when I see these good conservatives of strong moral character who will do what pretty nearly all other conservative politicians before them have not done actually do these things, then I will believe it will happen, and not before.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 30, 2009, 01:33:09 AM

conservatives are different than liberals. In a good way.


As a libertarian, I have watched both conservative and liberal politicians all do the same sort of things. As I said before, the "Republican Revolution" was going to reshape the government and bring fiscal responsibility to the Congress, and that didn't happen. George W. Bush was going to make a stand for conservative values and smaller government. That didn't happen. The result of both was basically more spending, more power in the hands of government, and expanded government run social programs. So tell me, when I see these good conservatives of strong moral character who will do what pretty nearly all other conservative politicians before them have not done actually do these things, then I will believe it will happen, and not before.

do you not understand none of that matters now? it's a new ballgame TODAY. the sleeping giant is stirring. was the giant awake with bush - nope, was the giant awake on 9/11, barely. Obama gets credit for waking us up. with ACORN, Obama, socialism, marxism, rev wright, bill aiyers, chicago politics, van jones, fort hood, caimbridge police, stimulus 123, reid, pelosi, barney fag, fanny & freddie, DEPRESSION around the corner YOU CAN BET YOUR SWEET ASS THE GIANT IS AWAKING. NOV 2010 WILL BE A BLOODBATH!
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 30, 2009, 01:39:02 AM

do you not understand none of that matters now? it's a new ballgame TODAY. the sleeping giant is stirring.


Given the opportunities the sleeping giant had to awaken in the past, from FDR on through GWB, I will, as I said before, believe it when I see it. I hope you are right, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on December 30, 2009, 01:49:07 AM

do you not understand none of that matters now? it's a new ballgame TODAY. the sleeping giant is stirring.


Given the opportunities the sleeping giant had to awaken in the past, from FDR on through GWB, I will, as I said before, believe it when I see it. I hope you are right, but I doubt it.

how confident am I? all I can say is I wish the entire senate was up for re-election in 2010. the house sweep could be so sweet that obama might start looking pretty good for re-electionin 2012 -- ha ha just kidding. I would hope for impeachment in 2011.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on December 30, 2009, 09:48:41 PM
>>As a libertarian, I have watched both conservative and liberal politicians all do the same sort of things.<<

As a libertarian you've wasted your vote on candidates who couldn't be elected dog catcher. Wouldn't it be more productive to work inside the Republican party to effect the changes you feel are nessessary rather than be nothing but a fringe candidate supporter?

Libertarians, I agree with much of their platform, are never going to be anything but a curiosity.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on December 31, 2009, 12:06:52 AM
  Can the government have a higher turnover , especially in congress, and perhaps be more responsive to the people thereby?

  Not very likely that the congress will enact anything to diminish the advantage of incumbancy.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 31, 2009, 12:11:11 AM
The sleeping giant is a drooling dolt if you are referring to the teabaggers.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 31, 2009, 12:11:27 AM

>>As a libertarian, I have watched both conservative and liberal politicians all do the same sort of things.<<

As a libertarian you've wasted your vote on candidates who couldn't be elected dog catcher. Wouldn't it be more productive to work inside the Republican party to effect the changes you feel are nessessary rather than be nothing but a fringe candidate supporter?

Libertarians, I agree with much of their platform, are never going to be anything but a curiosity.


I wouldn't be so sure, were I you. And you should not confuse the Libertarian Party with libertarians in general.

Work within the Republican Party? Is the Republican Party open to supporting libertarian ideas? The Republican Party took over Congress in the 1990s. They had a chance to show their smaller government standards. Did they shrink the government? No. When George W. Bush took office the Republican Party was basically in charge of the government. Did they shrink the government? Did they lessen regulations? Did they fight for individual liberty? No, no, and no. They helped grow government power and government intrusion.

Ron Paul has worked within the Republican Party for years. Where is his widespread support from party leadership? There is Jeff Flake, who is doing a good job though notably he too seems to lack significant support from party leadership. Unfortunately, I get to vote for neither one. There is the Republican Liberty Caucus, attempting to influence the Republican Party toward a more libertarian stance. And where is the Republican Party today? Same place it has been for the last few decades, paying lots of lip-service to libertarian ideas and working not at all to put any of them into practice.

I spend time in self-examination. I try to be honest with myself. I know a guy who doesn't eat meat not because he doesn't like it, but because he doesn't want to support the way animals are raised for meat. I have little to no problem with it. Yet I can understand the man's position. I don't want to support the way the Republican Party works. As best I can tell, it's separated from the Democratic Party in few ways and those separations are paper-thin. I've supported Republicans in the past who spoke long about individual liberty and fiscal responsibility within government and paring back the size and reach of government. And what did I get for that support? Republicans in office who neglected individual liberty, were fiscally irresponsible, and contributed to unabated growth of government. Part of the reason I consider myself libertarian and not conservative or Republican is because I've seen what the conservatives in the Republican Party do, and I cannot support it in good conscience.

Does that leave me on the sidelines, as you suggest? I think it does not. I'm the independent libertarian voter. I'm one of the folks the Republican Party needs to attract if it expects to reverse its decline. I've seen said a number of times the Democratic Party should stop taking African-American voters for granted. The Republican Party should stop taking libertarian voters for granted. A lot of those people at the Tea Parties are libertarian minded folks who are getting tired of the being taken for granted by the Republican Party. There are people within the Democratic Party who think they should be trying to pick up libertarian votes. So you may think someone like me has no power in the political realm, but people like me are getting more political attention. Yeah, it's gradual, and I doubt that 2010 will mark the dramatic swing to liberty within the Republican Party that Kramer wants to claim. But there are reasons to be optimistic about the long-term influence of libertarian ideas.

So you keep supporting the lesser of two evils, and I'll keep supporting the good ideas, and I'll have a clear conscience about it. In the short term, you may have the power, but in the long term, I believe we (small 'l' libertarians) will have the victory.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 31, 2009, 12:12:44 AM

The sleeping giant is a drooling dolt if you are referring to the teabaggers.


Xavier, you're a pig's ass.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on December 31, 2009, 12:23:53 AM
As best I can tell, it's separated from the Democratic Party is few ways and those separations are paper-thin.

I've said for many, many years that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they disagree in the order in which to take away our rights.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on December 31, 2009, 10:02:13 AM
>>I wouldn't be so sure, were I you. And you should not confuse the Libertarian Party with libertarians in general.<<

Given the evidence I think I can be very sure. The evidence being local and national elections over the past say ... 75 years?

>>Work within the Republican Party? Is the Republican Party open to supporting libertarian ideas?<<

I believe so. In fact, wouldn't you agree that "Republicans" have more in common with Libertarians then not? Obviously Libertarians and Republican have a common enemy in the democrat party. I'm no longer a Republican because, for one thing, they no longer support some very liberatian ideas. I think the question for Libertarians is whether or not they are willing to compromise in order to get the majority of their views put into action by a party that can actually do it. Isn't 75 percent better than nothing? Isn't it worth keeping the statists out of power and keeping them from destroying the America you and I love?

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on December 31, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 31, 2009, 01:35:06 PM
Libertarians favor leaving the abortion issue up to the woman in question, favor fewer controls on drugs, particularly marijuana, and oppose giving aid to religious affiliated groups. The Republicans generally take an opposing stand on each of these.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on December 31, 2009, 01:48:03 PM

Given the evidence I think I can be very sure. The evidence being local and national elections over the past say ... 75 years?

[...]

I think the question for Libertarians is whether or not they are willing to compromise in order to get the majority of their views put into action by a party that can actually do it.


Neither major political party will actually work to do that. The evidence being state and national politics over the past, say, 75 years.


Isn't 75 percent better than nothing?


It would be great if we could get it. At best the ideas get lip-service and are promptly forgotten the day after the election. That ain't 75%.


Isn't it worth keeping the statists out of power and keeping them from destroying the America you and I love?


That assumes that the Republicans are not also statists with agendas that could ruin the country. And that is an incorrect assumption.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on December 31, 2009, 08:09:21 PM
The Libertarian party has an important role to play even if it never acheives power.

By educateing the public at large it can get parts of its agenda to be well known and demanded by the public.

There are a lot of minor partys they serve as labratorys of thought free of the burden of leadership responsibility.

Incumbents seem preoccupied with job security.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on December 31, 2009, 09:24:27 PM
>>Neither major political party will actually work to do that. The evidence being state and national politics over the past, say, 75 years.<<

Wouldn't you agree that both parties have change their positions, or added or dropped different positions over the life time of the parties?

>>It would be great if we could get it. At best the ideas get lip-service and are promptly forgotten the day after the election. That ain't 75%.<<

Being cynical isn't going to affect change. Neither is sitting on the margin.

>>That assumes that the Republicans are not also statists with agendas that could ruin the country. And that is an incorrect assumption.<<

Fair enough. But don’t Libertarians agree with much of the Republican platform? At least much more than they agree with democrats? I suggest that you would be welcomed into the party and given that Republicans are much saner and open to discussion you would do much more good there. Hell, you could even give yourselves a cute nick name like the "Smarter Than You Caucus."

All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.


Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on December 31, 2009, 09:35:10 PM
"Smarter Than You Caucus."

All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.





hahahahahahaha!

Excellent thinking!

Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 01, 2010, 12:59:50 PM
>>Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?<<

Agreed. As far as timing goes, now would be the perfect time. There are hundreds of thousand (more?) people who used to be Republicans who have stepped out of the tent until someone comes along to make the changes they are calling for. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. She's seen as a real Conservative. An outsider who can right the ship. Libertarians could do the same. Fresh ideas, fresh faces, The GOP needs them now more than ever.

As for half a loaf, I say put your country first, not your party.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 01, 2010, 01:22:12 PM
>>Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?<<

Agreed. As far as timing goes, now would be the perfect time. There are hundreds of thousand (more?) people who used to be Republicans who have stepped out of the tent until someone comes along to make the changes they are calling for. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. She's seen as a real Conservative. An outsider who can right the ship. Libertarians could do the same. Fresh ideas, fresh faces, The GOP needs them now more than ever.

As for half a loaf, I say put your country first, not your party.


Sarah Palin has both marginalized herself and been successfully marginalized by the left-wing media.  She has about as much chance of getting elected in a general election as I have.  Had McCain not chosen her as his running mate, she might be an excellent up-and-comer.  But as it is, she was not ready for prime time and Obama was.  I do not look to her as the future of the Republican party - at least not a successful Republican party.  She isn't Presidential  - she's cute and stupid.  Not really stupid - just successfully portrayed that way - and the center will look at her as a living Barbie doll.  She is tippping her burning ambition far more than Hillary did, and HRC was putting out billboards.  But HRC, whatever her politics, is a highly-accomplished, very well qualified woman who could run for President with the best of them.  It sounds astounding to say this about a Clinton, but the Dems picked style over substance in the past primary season.  Sarah, in spite of her TV appearances, her best selling book and her moose-hunting governorship just won't get past the grind of a national election cycle.  She's a;ready fatally compromised and she can blame her erstwhile mentor for that.

Sarah's too cute, Romney's too Mormon, Huckabee's too religious and Paul's too fringe.  I have no idea how the Republicans can capitalize on the opportunity that the ghastly tactical error the Dems made in electing a doctored photograph to office gives us.  I doubt that we will.  We have a backlash going for us.  The Dems have inertia. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 01, 2010, 01:28:46 PM
Sarah Palin: a female Dan Quayle. But without a wealthy family like Quayle's to back her. Or perhaps she is a female, poor, and less intelligent and informed version of Ross Perot.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 01, 2010, 01:32:46 PM
Moose catcher is as far as Palin goes in the lower 48. She could have waited 20 more years and she'd still have been unelectable on a national level. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 01, 2010, 03:52:42 PM

Wouldn't you agree that both parties have change their positions, or added or dropped different positions over the life time of the parties?


I would agree with that. But both parties have also held in practice the basic position that a strong central government is needed to control things from the top down. Which is decidedly not a libertarian position.


Being cynical isn't going to affect change. Neither is sitting on the margin.


True, but if you want to change the situation, you need to start from an honest assessment of the situation.


But don’t Libertarians agree with much of the Republican platform?


In word, yes. In practice, no.


I suggest that you would be welcomed into the party and given that Republicans are much saner and open to discussion you would do much more good there.


Welcomed into the party, yes. Open to discussion, I am not so sure. I have had too many conversations where mentioning libertarian ideas results in being told basically there is no point in discussion libertarian ideas because they're all unworkable, impractical and libertarians don't understand the way the "real world" works anyway. I'm sure you've seen it here and elsewhere. Less restrictive immigration: Oh you want to give every illegal a free citizenship and to ignore the borders. End the "war on drugs": Oh, you want drug addiction and violence to overtake the entire country. Let homosexuals marry: oh you want to ruin the American family. Fight abuse of the law and abuse by law enforcement: Oh, you want to protect criminals and leave innocent people at the mercy of murderers and child rapists. And on and on. Some segments of the Republican Party seem to be coming around on ending the "war on drugs" but not party leadership.


All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.


Maybe. I don't see why I need to be part of the Republican Party to influence change. Frankly, I do not believe what needs to happen is for people like me to try to be part of the Republican Party and persuade it to change for us. What needs to happen, imo, is the Republican Party should come to people like me and persuade us that it is a party worthy of our joining it.

If you want my help to change your party, you've got to give me reason to believe it can change and that fighting for change will be worth my time. Right now, I don't see it. If I had seen the Republican leader respond to the Tea Parties by saying "Yes, we've been wrong, the Tea Partiers are right," and by taking serious principled stands on things like health care, rather than just waiting for the Democrats to make them a deal, I might be more inclined to accept your argument, Rich. But that didn't happen. The Republican Party did not start to change its ways. It just did what it always does, talk one set of principles and practice another.

I am reminded of the scene in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" where Sidney Poitier's character is arguing with his father. He says,
      You don't know how I feel, what I think. And if I tried to explain it the rest of your life you will never understand. You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! You understand, you've got to get off my back!                  
And I don't direct that at you, Rich. I mean the statist Republican leadership has got to get out of the way because they are not going to change the party. They are not going to now start practicing and fighting for libertarian ideas. They have to get out of the way because they don't understand the libertarian ideas that are finding a foothold at the base of the party and with the younger voters. However much they may have verbally supported such ideas, they have always, when push came to shove, defaulted to a statist, big government position. Until you get people like that out of the way, the Republican Party will not change its ways.

I cannot get those people out of the way. They look at me the same way you do. I'm just fringe to them. Crazy libertarians, who cares what they think. You've got to tell the leadership to get out of the way. They are not going to listen to me. It's up to you and people like you to make the leadership understand they are dead weight dragging the party down.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 01, 2010, 04:53:35 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Pooch.

I think Palin is as ready for the presidency as Obama was/is.

I think you will see that her grassroots support is far stronger than the MSM will lead you to believe.

I think there is just as compelling a story in coming from the PTA to the pinnacle, from housewife to White House as there is in Obama's journey. And her story has far more substance and detail. We will find out come Iowa, if she chooses to run, whether the people let the press and comedians pick their candidates or whether they believe their own eyes and ears.

It amazes me that the whole dumb barbie doll slur is allowed by to stand. Because it implies that  a woman's worth is based on her looks and her intelligence is based on whether she is of the aristocracy or sponsored by them. State Universities are sub par.

2012 is a ways off. 2010 will be a good harbinger of things to come. Don't be surprised if Obama has a challenger from the dem side. Palin will be a player in 2012 and she will help set the tone of the election. IMHO




Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 01, 2010, 05:04:00 PM
How many people share in the insult , when Palin is insulted?

All pretty women ?

All rural dwellers?

All State coledge graduates?

All hunters?

All parents of teens , handicapped or just plain parents?

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Religious Dick on January 01, 2010, 05:40:08 PM
The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass. Just as well, I doubt our politics in the future are going to be driven by ideology so much as they're going to be going to be driven by events.

The bottom line is, were broke. At some point in the not too distant future our creditors are going to be refusing to loan us any more money, and what happens then? Where does the money come from to finance all our public services, welfare programs and our big, shiny military? And how are people who rely on those things going to react when the plug gets pulled?

You already have squabbling factions divided up by ideological interests, ethnic interests, economic interests, cultural interests etc. When the going gets tough, tempers are going to be flaring up. And these are things that both parties have been loath to address. Our largest problems are taboo to discuss - how do you solve problems you can't even talk about? At some point, you run out of options.

As for the Libertarians, they are an utter waste of time. Libertarianism demands a confluence of circumstances that plain never conflate in the wild. You don't get to economic liberty by opening your borders to populations with a habit of voting themselves public services. You don't get less government by attacking the relationships that people have relied upon as an alternative to government. You don't get liberty by undermining the institutions that have secured us any liberty at all. Realistically, civilization has been a story of people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society, not by asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 01, 2010, 10:56:59 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Pooch.

I think Palin is as ready for the presidency as Obama was/is.

I think you will see that her grassroots support is far stronger than the MSM will lead you to believe.

I think there is just as compelling a story in coming from the PTA to the pinnacle, from housewife to White House as there is in Obama's journey. And her story has far more substance and detail. We will find out come Iowa, if she chooses to run, whether the people let the press and comedians pick their candidates or whether they believe their own eyes and ears.

It amazes me that the whole dumb barbie doll slur is allowed by to stand. Because it implies that  a woman's worth is based on her looks and her intelligence is based on whether she is of the aristocracy or sponsored by them. State Universities are sub par.

2012 is a ways off. 2010 will be a good harbinger of things to come. Don't be surprised if Obama has a challenger from the dem side. Palin will be a player in 2012 and she will help set the tone of the election. IMHO



By Prime Time I was not referring to the Presidency.  Sarah, having been a governor, is probably better prepared to lead than Obama.  I was referring to the campaign trail, where you have to convince people you can lead.  She lost credibility when she stared at Charlie Gibson like an idiot when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine.  If you are going on television against professional (and in the case of Republican candidates generally hostile) newsmen you had better be prepared - and Palin simply wasn't.  She was like a baseball prospect brought up from the minors too early.  The team was desperate.  They hurt a good prospect.

The Barbie doll image helps Democrats.  They will use it to good effect.  Republican women, they will say, may ACT liberated, but they all really just want to look pretty for their men and really can't think very well.  It is one of the not-very-well-kept secrets of the feminist movement that women use the negative stereotypes, double standards and general misogynism of our society against women to gain power just like men do.  Liberals do not feel bound by honor to maintain their own standards in a political battle.  Cries of sexism are only supposed to be used by "victims" - and Republicans are manifestly not victims.

As to the people choosing their candidates, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Republicans picked Sarah.  They picked McCain.  Much good it did them.  I am not really interested in who wins the primaries, except as it pertains to who wins the general election.  If Sarah is the candidate, she will not win.  It is always possible that a candidate can turn things around in an election cycle.  But generally, it goes from good to bad - not the other way around. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 01, 2010, 11:14:33 PM
Quote
But generally, it goes from good to bad - not the other way around. 

Nixon came back. Palin has nowhere the baggage that Nixon had. What she does have is a better understanding of the national press.

If she runs in 2012 she could just as easily win the election as lose, depends on what is going on with the economy and other kitchen table issues.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 01, 2010, 11:21:44 PM



By Prime Time I was not referring to the Presidency.  Sarah, having been a governor, is probably better prepared to lead than Obama.  I was referring to the campaign trail, where you have to convince people you can lead.  She lost credibility when she stared at Charlie Gibson like an idiot when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. 


What is the origin of the phrase "Bush Doctrine"?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 01, 2010, 11:41:44 PM
What has been exposed isn't some Nixonian personality problem, or the shortcomings of a rookie brought up to the bigs too early, even if that's true. What has been exposed is poor judgement, a lack of professionalism, an inability to take advice, sloppy management skills, and more. She unelectable as a presidential candidate.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 12:05:02 AM

Libertarianism demands a confluence of circumstances that plain never conflate in the wild.


Oh dear. Dick brought his truck of adult male bovine excrement. Thankfully, he tends to announce this up front with comments like the one quoted above.


You don't get to economic liberty by opening your borders to populations with a habit of voting themselves public services. You don't get less government by attacking the relationships that people have relied upon as an alternative to government. You don't get liberty by undermining the institutions that have secured us any liberty at all. Realistically, civilization has been a story of people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society, not by asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible.


Thank you, Dick, for illustrating a point I made to Rich earlier in the thread.

See, Rich? Dick thinks libertarianism is people "asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible." He even goes to far as to set up this entirely false dichotomy of "people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society" and people "asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible." Apparently, either one wants to maintain civil society Dick's way, or one wants to make civil society impossible, with no room allowed for any other options. Apparently, Dick thinks free trade in goods and labor creates a loss of economic liberty. Supporting more people having relationships that people have been relied on as an alternative to government is really, by Dick's accounting, an attack on those relationships. And if we follow Dick's logic, the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist. I'm sure Dick will deny some of what I said, but, Rich, his attitude is far more representative of the general Republican response to libertarian ideas than is yours.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 12:12:31 AM
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, I was a libertarian as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on January 02, 2010, 12:26:50 AM
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, I was a libertarian as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

how's that hope & change working for you?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 12:50:54 AM

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, I was a libertarian as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


You have my pity. You're clearly a confused person. You'd have to be to believe things like liberty and human rights are childish concerns.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 01:22:34 AM
Well first of all UP I didn't say you were childish. I said Libertarianism is childish. So I see no need for you posting that I personally am confused, or that you have pity for me personally. Not very libertarian of you, rather "upity" at first blush in fact. 

Second, Libertarianism is hardly the only political platform that takes liberty, and human rights seriously.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on January 02, 2010, 02:12:50 AM
Well first of all UP I didn't say you were childish. I said Libertarianism is childish. So I see no need for you posting that I personally am confused, or that you have pity for me personally. Not very libertarian of you, rather "upity" at first blush in fact. 

Second, Libertarianism is hardly the only political platform that takes liberty, and human rights seriously.



democrats are childish
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 02:14:53 AM

Well first of all UP I didn't say you were childish. I said Libertarianism is childish. So I see no need for you posting that I personally am confused, or that you have pity for me personally. Not very libertarian of you, rather "upity" at first blush in fact.


You say what I believe is childish, but you didn't mean anything personal by it. Now pull the other one.

Your "witty" little paraphrase of Paul seemed supercilious, but you're objecting to me being supposedly uppity. So you don't like it turned back you. Huh. Go figure.

But maybe you're right. Perhaps I should simply have said something like "Bless your little heart, aren't you clever?"


Second, Libertarianism is hardly the only political platform that takes liberty, and human rights seriously.


I am sure it isn't. But you seem to think the game is to feign superior maturity by being condescending about what other people think. That's okay, because I can play too.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 02:34:37 AM
"You say what I believe is childish, but you didn't mean anything personal by it.."

That's exactly right. I don't know about you, but most people I know don't consider themselves to be their political take.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 02:53:48 AM
another poster "democrats are childish"

"Libertarianism is childish"

Big differnce.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 02:54:53 AM

I don't know about you, but most people I know don't consider themselves to be their political take.


Oh, I don't either. But I've been around enough to know when someone uses 1 Corinthians 13:11, or a paraphrase thereof, in a derogatory manner, it generally carries the meaning, "I'm mature, and you're childish." If that was not your meaning, I suggest you phrased your thought poorly.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 03:26:21 AM
"I suggest you phrased your thought poorly"

I suggest you brought your own take on the phrasing. Further evidence of that would be the fact that you never even asked me why I think Libertarianism is childish. You were only concerned with your point of view.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 05:46:05 AM
Quote
What has been exposed is poor judgement, a lack of professionalism, an inability to take advice, sloppy management skills, and more. She unelectable as a presidential candidate.

Be nice to have some examples of these fatal flaws, so we can see how similar faux pas affected successful candidates. 

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 06:33:51 AM
There has never been a successful presidential candidate with those fatal faux pas, and there won't be this time either. I will, though, sum them all up with one example, and in one word, quitter.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 06:39:18 AM
So did Obama complete his single Senate term? If not, was he a quitter?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 07:24:17 AM
Obama is Obama, Palin is Palin.

When it comes to Palin I only have personal observations and anecdotal evidence, like most everybody else, BT. From those two I drew my opinions, which I doubt will change. Although, I supported McCain for years, but voted for Obama in the end so, never say never.

 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 07:38:33 AM
Hardly seems fair to damn Palin for doing the same thing Obama did.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 02, 2010, 09:25:47 AM
>>See, Rich? Dick thinks [...]<<

So you're not interested in changing the GOP. Suite yourself.

You've chosen to avoid dealing with the only system that can actually effect change. To bad, we could use a guy like you.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 09:50:56 AM
What is the origin of the phrase "Bush Doctrine"?

Wikipedia cites this column by Neil Coates from Sep 30, 2001 as the first reference:  http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html (http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html)  It looks like a credible claim, given the date, tne logic of the article and the title:


The Bush Doctrine: New policy to ensure our safety must be examined

By Neal Coates

A defining moment in American foreign policy occurred after the morning of Sept. 11. President George W. Bush declared the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., had triggered a new foreign policy focused on fighting terrorism.

This statement is of such significance we will soon call it the “Bush Doctrine.”



It also makes this rather prescient statement:


What if Saddam Hussein helped bin Laden? Would we invade Iraq? As articulated to date, it appears America would.


An interesting read, given our persepctive even a short 8 years later.
 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 02, 2010, 10:17:26 AM
What is the origin of the phrase "Bush Doctrine"?

Wikipedia cites this column by Neil Coates from Sep 30, 2001 as the first reference:  http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html (http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html)  It looks like a credible claim, given the date, tne logic of the article and the title:


The Bush Doctrine: New policy to ensure our safety must be examined

By Neal Coates

A defining moment in American foreign policy occurred after the morning of Sept. 11. President George W. Bush declared the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., had triggered a new foreign policy focused on fighting terrorism.

This statement is of such significance we will soon call it the “Bush Doctrine.”



It also makes this rather prescient statement:


What if Saddam Hussein helped bin Laden? Would we invade Iraq? As articulated to date, it appears America would.


An interesting read, given our persepctive even a short 8 years later.
 

So It was not Bush , the Adminisration nor even any Republican who termed the idea " Bush Doctrine"?

Why is Palin supposed to be ready to comment on a "policy" or "doctrine" that Bush himself wouldn't recognise?

 At least not by that label.

I beleive that this incident illistrates the sophistication of Palins attackers.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Religious Dick on January 02, 2010, 10:54:15 AM

Thank you, Dick, for illustrating a point I made to Rich earlier in the thread.

See, Rich? Dick thinks libertarianism is people "asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible." He even goes to far as to set up this entirely false dichotomy of "people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society" and people "asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible." Apparently, either one wants to maintain civil society Dick's way, or one wants to make civil society impossible, with no room allowed for any other options.

That's a rather funny comment coming from someone who describes themselves as a "libertarian", a group that has apparently appointed themselves the arbiters of all things that constitute liberty, and dismiss all competing visions as "statist" or "anti-freedom".

Doubly funny because they mostly seem to be in the business of petitioning the state to inflict on their citizens policies the citizens have never, ever chosen for themselves.

You think you don't have open borders or gay marriage because governments are standing in the way? Is that a joke? Governments have imposed those things on their citizens at every chance they've gotten! Any time they've been put to a referendum, they've been soundly defeated. Who's the "statist" there?

It seems to me a large portion of "libertarianism" is the same politically correct crap governments have been trying to shove down the throats of their unwilling citizens for decades, sexed up with a veneer of sex, drugs and rock and roll and a leather jacket to make it appealing to gullible college students. No government ever had a better shill on the payroll than the Cato Institute or Reason magazine.

Hint: Liberty is an abstract concept, not a checklist of agenda items. There is no such thing as absolute liberty in civil society, nor could there possibly be. The domain of permissible liberties within civil society is a legitimate object of debate. Whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" whenever your your pet agenda item is rejected is not.

Apparently, Dick thinks free trade in goods and labor creates a loss of economic liberty.

So, presumably, you would object to a government policy prohibiting a private entrepreneur from selling nuclear and biological weapons to third-world dictatorships hostile to the United States? Personally, I would consider getting nuked off the face of the earth a rather significant loss of my economic liberty, to say the least.

Another hint: You will never enjoy absolute liberty within any society. Before you enjoy any liberty at all, you have to facilitate an environment where liberty is possible. Some economic transactions are very much detrimental to facilitating that environment. I consider restricting the 5% of transactions that are damaging to that environment in return for maintaining an environment where the other 95% of transactions can flourish a very reasonable trade-off indeed.

Humans need water to live. However, a drink of water and getting drowned in a swimming pool are two different things.

Supporting more people having relationships that people have been relied on as an alternative to government is really, by Dick's accounting, an attack on those relationships.

Presumably, you are referring to gay marriage, which is hardly the extent of the range of examples I was referring to.

There is a good reason our political dichotomy is divided between conservative and liberal, and libertarian not at all. There are some functions necessary to society that will never be profitable from a economic perspective. Raising children or caring for infirm elders will never be economically profitable enterprises. However, they are necessary for a functioning society. The liberal views those activities as the appropriate domain of government. The conservative considers them more appropriately managed by traditional families, and therefore advocates policies which facilitates or strengthens the traditional structures.  How does the libertarian propose to manage them? Markets don't cater to unprofitable activities.

Nobody is advocating telling anyone what kind of relationship they can form, and what kind of contracts they can make between themselves. But some relationships are valuable enough to society at large that society protects and privileges them. In the case of heterosexual relationships, they provide the means for a society to perpetuate itself. The law privileges them because, in return, they provide a value to society. What value do gay relationships offer society? None. That is why few, if any, societies grant them a privileged status. It's a demand of something for nothing.

And if we follow Dick's logic, the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist.

So, a society where I can shoot anybody who annoys me, rape my neighbors daughter, and help myself to his property is a civil society? The point here, is that *some* restrictions on personal liberty are required for civil society. Nobody besides maybe the anarchist fringe disputes that. And the domain of what restrictions are required, and what liberties are permissible, is very much a legitimate debate.

I'm sure Dick will deny some of what I said,

No, but I'll certainly clarify your mischaracterization of it.


Rich, his attitude is far more representative of the general Republican response to libertarian ideas than is yours.

There are libertarians, and libertarians. I voted for Ron Paul. But if the Reason crowd started voting for my party, I'd wonder what was wrong with my party!

I see no reason why the Republicans should be bothered cultivating that kind of libertarian. A platform of Acid, Amnesty and Abortion did nothing for the Democrats - ask George McGovern - and I have no reason to believe it will improve the prospects for Republicans, either. Whatever votes they win from the more libertine branch of the libertarians will not compensate for the votes they lose from the sane.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 11:18:53 AM
So It was not Bush , the Adminisration nor even any Republican who termed the idea " Bush Doctrine"?

Why is Palin supposed to be ready to comment on a "policy" or "doctrine" that Bush himself wouldn't recognise?

 At least not by that label.

I beleive that this incident illistrates the sophistication of Palins attackers.


Oh, come one!  That's a terrible argument, Plane.  You're grasping at straws.  EVERYBODY recognized the term "Bush Doctrine" by 2008 (except, of course, Sarah Palin - and apparently you).  I'm not sure what party (if any) Croates belongs to, but what has that got to do with it?  The term comes from the Monroe Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine and other such foreign policy "doctrines" created by Presidents in the past.  And as the cited article clearly demonstrates, it had been around for at least seven years.  At first I can understand that Palin thought he might have meant Bush's "doctrine" on a particular issue, though "policy" would have been a more likely term to use in that case.  But when he asked her several times after she said "the doctrine about what?" or words to that effect, she was still lost.  Had she said "Oh, you mean the Capital "D" doctrine - the foreign policy."  I would have thought she had just had a momentary misunderstanding.  This doesn't indicate the sophistication of her attackers - it illustrates her lack of sophistication.  

I strongly doubt that Charlie Gibson was laying in wait to spring this question on her.  I think it was a routine question and he was shocked and (perhaps happily) surprised to find she didn't understand the term.  The question was eminently relevent and fair.  If he had said "What do you think of Bush's foreign policy, and specifically the idea that the US has the right to pre-emptively strike countries who pose a threat or harbor terrorists" she would have, I suspect, been prepared to answer.   But he used a perfectly valid and well-known term instead of all the excess verbage - in the same way that he might ask a candidate today "Do you think TARP helped the economy?" instead of "Do you think that the policy of the government buying up portions of the debt of troubled companies blah, blah, blah . . ."   You wouldn't go to  a job interview without being aware of the jargon in your field.  Palin blew that one, and there is no excuse - for her or those who prepared her.

Somebody else coined the term "Al Quaeda."  I'll bet she knows that one.   If someone asks her in 2012 what she thinks of the "teabaggers" will she be justified in not knowing who they are because somebody else coined the term?  Even if this term (Bush Doctrine, I mean) were meant in a derogatory way and invented by detractors (and it was neither) she ought to know that as well.   The fact is, Palin is not stupid, she's just human.  It shocked me that she made the gaffe with the Bush Doctrine but what shocked me most about it was that she should have been well-briefed on it in the first place.  It may well be that everyone just assumed she knew the term, just like nobody is likely to ask a potential 2012 candidate "Say, you do know what "stimulus package" means, don't you?"  

Nominating Palin in 2012 will be a mistake.  In the immortal words of Rowlf the Dog (who was, coincidentally, also talking about the fairer sex) "I hope that somethin' better comes along."
    
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 02, 2010, 11:20:13 AM
Quote
Raising children or caring for infirm elders will never be economically profitable enterprises. However, they are necessary for a functioning society. The liberal views those activities as the appropriate domain of government. The conservative considers them more appropriately managed by traditional families, and therefore advocates policies which facilitates or strengthens the traditional structures.  How does the libertarian propose to manage them?


I think that is a good question.

And generally do Libertarians want the government to influence social mores at all?
Any exceptions?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 11:27:28 AM
Quote
Nominating Palin in 2012 will be a mistake.

Not if she successfully runs the gauntlet of the primaries.
Then it will be the will of the people.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 02, 2010, 11:28:22 AM
Quote
Oh, come one!  That's a terrible argument, Plane.  You're grasping at straws.  EVERYBODY recognized the term "Bush Doctrine" by 2008 (except, of course, Sarah Palin - and apparently you).  


You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.

No I do not recognise even yet "Bush Doctrine" as a product of the Bush Administration or as a term that refers to any specific and actual thing.

To me "Doctrine" implys a specific policy chosen to be put forward as important and overrideing to other policys.

I really doubt that a Quote for George Bush in which he declares a doctrine can be found , nor any single definition of what it means that is widely recognised.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 02, 2010, 11:30:25 AM
Neil Coates


 


By the way, I also don't really know Neil Coates.

Why don't we call this the Coates doctrine?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 02, 2010, 11:46:44 AM

>>Oh, come one!  That's a terrible argument, Plane.  You're grasping at straws.  EVERYBODY recognized the term "Bush Doctrine" by 2008 (except, of course, Sarah Palin - and apparently you).<<

I think what you're missing here is, what did Sarah Palin expect going into an interview with Katie Couric and/or Charlie Gibson? Had she gone into those situations thinking they would be fair and aboveboard you'd be right, she's stupid. What happened was Pailn knew they would be hostile and was suspicious of every question they asked. What is the Bush Doctrine? "Well Charlie, I think it's safe to say you and I might have polar opposite definitions of that term. What do you think it means?

Personally I think anyone who really isn't a leftist drone Kool-aide drinker who thinks she's stupid is operating from an East Coast, or West Coast hubris that has more to do with Palin’s accent than anything else. They do the same thing with people from the South. They're stupid because of their accent. She hunts moose ... they watch NASCAR ... it's all the same.

It appears those of us in the Great Fly Over country know a genuine person when we see one. We can also pick out the frauds from a mile and a half away.

Can she be elected President?

Obama was.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 12:55:57 PM
Quote
Nominating Palin in 2012 will be a mistake.

Not if she successfully runs the gauntlet of the primaries.
Then it will be the will of the people.


The will of the people is often a mistake.

If she wins the Presidency then it will not be a mistake (provided, of course, that she is a good President).  Winning the nomination is a mistake if it results in losing the presidency.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 01:25:11 PM

I suggest you brought your own take on the phrasing.


Yeah. Most people do. That hardly lets you off the hook for poor communication.


Further evidence of that would be the fact that you never even asked me why I think Libertarianism is childish. You were only concerned with your point of view.


Was I? You seem only concerned with proving you're better. First you're too adult for libertarianism, now your poor communication is all my fault. Notably, other than to say I must be wrong, you haven't bothered to explain your position. And unless you have something new to say I've never heard before, which I doubt, I have no motivation to ask you why you think libertarianism is childish.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 01:59:16 PM
You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.


No, Plane, I did not make up the term "Bush Doctrine" anymore than I made up "Monroe Doctrine" or "Carter Doctrine."  Your lack of knowledge of these common terms does not support your argument.  We are not discussing the meaning of the term "doctrine."  We are discussing the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine."



Quote
No I do not recognise even yet "Bush Doctrine" as a product of the Bush Administration or as a term that refers to any specific and actual thing.


Then allow me to educate you.  The term "Monroe Doctrine" refers to President Monroe's stated intention to intervene in any attempt by European powers to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.   This was delivered in a speech to Congress in 1823 and was invoked by Theodore Roosevelt and by John F. Kennedy:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.   http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=23&page=transcript (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=23&page=transcript)

At no point did this speech declare this the "Monroe Doctrine" nor call it a "doctrine" at all.  Yet any historian, of any political stripe, instantly and clearly recognizes it - and its implications and applications.


The Bush Doctrine is that we hold nations that support terror groups equally responsible for terror acts as the terrorists themselves.  We may act preemptively to thwart an impending threat, and we will do so unilaterally if required.   It was developed (as one would expect in an emerging situation) over a period of time, starting on 9-11 (though some libs insist it began before this and was all part of some neo-con conspiracy).  


I happen to support the Bush Doctrine, btw, in pretty much every point.  Basically, Bush was declaring independence from the United Nations - and well past time if you ask me.  And he was making the perfectly sensible claim that if we knew somebody as a threat, we had the right to stop them fro hurting us - not wait for them to hurt us and then retaliate.  

Here are some of the points where Bush stated these policies and how they developed.


Nations who support terrorists will be accountable:  Bush stated this several times, here are two well known examples:


"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."  Sep 11, 2001

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.  . .  This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.  It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.  We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
"  Sep 20, 2001

It also includes the idea of Pre-emptive strikes against perceived threats. Here is what Bush said to West Point in June 2002 (the first class after the attacks):

". . . Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."

Here is how it was stated in our National Security Strategy, published in 2002:  (The NSS has been updated by Bush and Obama since then.  I do not know if this policy is in the present strategy and I don't care to study it at this time.)

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

Quote
To me "Doctrine" implys a specific policy chosen to be put forward as important and overrideing to other policys.

That is your personal definition of one word.  It is irrelevent to the recognized meaning of the full term "Bush Doctrine."   Before Nixon most people would have defined "Watergate" as a hotel in DC.  But in fact, your definition of the word doctrine describes Bush's policies in response to 9-11 quite well.

Quote
I really doubt that a Quote for George Bush in which he declares a doctrine can be found , nor any single definition of what it means that is widely recognised.

The former is an invalid argument and the latter a weak one.  Bush declared the elements of the doctrine as I stated above, and Monroe did the same thing.   Even an undeclared war is still a war.  There is no recognized method for "declaring" a doctrine under our constitution, parliamentary procedure or any other system that pertains as far as I know. Perhaps you can educate me.  Is there such a thing?  As to the doctrine itself, there may be disagreements about some aspects of the Doctrine or how they may be applied or interpreted.  But people throughout the political spectrum recognize the term and the basic ideas that Bush developed.  Most educated people, even before the Palin gaffe, understood the general meaning of the term (just as most educated people understand the general meaning of the Monroe Doctrine).  After the gaffe it is far more well known, of course, since people who didn't immediately understand it went to their favorite search engine to find out what the fuss was all about.

The fact is, many of our woefully undereducated masses probably STILL have no idea what the BD is, or what Monroe Doctrine is, for that matter.  But a Vice Presidential candidate should have known.   The term was common enough then to make sense.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 02:48:55 PM
Was I? You seem only concerned with proving you're better. First you're too adult for libertarianism, now your poor communication is all my fault. Notably, other than to say I must be wrong, you haven't bothered to explain your position. And unless you have something new to say I've never heard before, which I doubt, I have no motivation to ask you why you think libertarianism is childish.


UP, I have to say something.  I have the utmost respect for you, in spite of our different viewpoints concerning your political position.  I do not mean to join a gangbang here, but I think there is a fundamental flaw with your objection to the characterization of your ideology as "childish" or any other thing, and that is that you personalize it.  Many people consider Mormonism as "brainwashing" or foolish or even delusion (A certain type of metal being used to disguise a face comes to mind!).  But in order to allow for a rational debate about the issues involved, one must allow one's beliefs to be challenged without assuming that calling an ideology childish immediately indicates all adherents thereunto must be considered childish as well.  Had he said "libertarians" are childish, you would be right to object.  But his is not an ad hominem attack.  

I do not, as a rule, debate doctrines (except the Bush Doctrine in the other thread and that's DIFFERENT!).  I do not do so because certain aspects of my faith are too sacred to me to want to get into insulting battles about.  I really get offended by people who trash Joseph Smith as a person or a prophet, who belittle the atonement and divine nature of Christ, who ridicule our temples or our doctrines.  Yet if I engage in religious discussion, those are open and fair game.  But when I mention Mormonism and someone invariably says "That religion is so stupid." or something like that I do not take that to mean "YOU are so stupid" because it doesn't necessarily.  In fact, I have often been told something along the lines of "How can someone as intelligent as you believe in something so stupid?"  I tell them that's a good question, and maybe they should try to find an answer.  I have this book that might help . . .

Just because a person is factually wrong, naive, slanted by upbringing or circumstance or just easily led does not mean they are evil, stupid or lazy.  A person can see in any ideology aspects that ring true to his experience.  I completely understand the appeal of libertarism - and I like some of the basic principles IN principle.  But I think that the ideology goes way too far, and ignores realities that override ideals.  That's why I consider the ideology to be rather foolish.  That does NOT mean, however, that I think YOU foolish for believing or advocating it.  I think you have a different perspective from me, and have concluded that this ideal is superior to others that I might substitute.  I have no doubt of your intelligence, so I conclude that an intelligent person with a different perspective from mine believes in something I consider to be foolish.  Most of my friends think me an intelligent man who believes in God and tries to act decently but one who believes in a religion that is going to send him to hell.  This doesn't bother me, provided, of course, that they are wrong about the hell part!  I also believe that homosexual behavior is evil - but that doesn't mean I think homosexuals are evil.  

Now if I said libertarians were god-hating anarchists who wanted to do drugs and have gay sex you would have a legitimate beef.  But if I say that libertarianism supports gay marriage, drug use, atheism and the end of government, you would be obliged to defend the misperceptions, where they existed, but not to take personal offense.  Libertarians oppose the war on terror.  Neil Boortz is a Libertarian.  Yet he supports the war.   The religious right wants prayer in school.  I am religious and right-wing.  But I oppose school prayer.  We are not all cookie-cutter thinkers.  

Stop taking criticism of your beliefs as criticism of you personally.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 03:03:21 PM
I would think that the Republican Governor of the great state of Alaska should have known why, according to what principles, and according to her parties president, we were at war in Iraq.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 03:20:47 PM

That's a rather funny comment coming from someone who describes themselves as a "libertarian", a group that has apparently appointed themselves the arbiters of all things that constitute liberty, and dismiss all competing visions as "statist" or "anti-freedom".


You forgot "authoritarian".


Doubly funny because they mostly seem to be in the business of petitioning the state to inflict on their citizens policies the citizens have never, ever chosen for themselves.


That right there shows you don't know what you're talking about. Libertarians generally don't want the government to inflict anything. They want the government simply to get out of the way.


You think you don't have open borders or gay marriage because governments are standing in the way? Is that a joke? Governments have imposed those things on their citizens at every chance they've gotten! Any time they've been put to a referendum, they've been soundly defeated. Who's the "statist" there?


Bogus. We don't have the immigration policy that we have because of a referendum. In any case, you're countering an argument that was not made.


It seems to me a large portion of "libertarianism" is the same politically correct crap governments have been trying to shove down the throats of their unwilling citizens for decades, sexed up with a veneer of sex, drugs and rock and roll and a leather jacket to make it appealing to gullible college students.


Oh, you're jealous of Nick Gillespie. Isn't that cute?


No government ever had a better shill on the payroll than the Cato Institute or Reason magazine.


Oh pshaw. You're just saying that to be mean.


Hint: Liberty is an abstract concept, not a checklist of agenda items.


Hint: No one said otherwise.


There is no such thing as absolute liberty in civil society, nor could there possibly be.


Another hint: No one said otherwise this time either.


The domain of permissible liberties within civil society is a legitimate object of debate. Whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" whenever your your pet agenda item is rejected is not.


Whining and making up nonsense because other people want more liberty than you do isn't really debate.


So, presumably, you would object to a government policy prohibiting a private entrepreneur from selling nuclear and biological weapons to third-world dictatorships hostile to the United States? Personally, I would consider getting nuked off the face of the earth a rather significant loss of my economic liberty, to say the least.


I can play this game too. So presumably, you think the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist. You support total authoritarian control over every aspect of life?


Another hint: You will never enjoy absolute liberty within any society.


One more hint for you: No one except you is talking about absolute liberty.


Before you enjoy any liberty at all, you have to facilitate an environment where liberty is possible. Some economic transactions are very much detrimental to facilitating that environment. I consider restricting the 5% of transactions that are damaging to that environment in return for maintaining an environment where the other 95% of transactions can flourish a very reasonable trade-off indeed.


A bogus description of the nature of the situation. Once again, you're trying to argue against having no restrictions when no one has argued for it.


Humans need water to live. However, a drink of water and getting drowned in a swimming pool are two different things.


Figure that one out by yourself?


Presumably, you are referring to gay marriage, which is hardly the extent of the range of examples I was referring to.


Oh? Do tell.


There is a good reason our political dichotomy is divided between conservative and liberal, and libertarian not at all. There are some functions necessary to society that will never be profitable from a economic perspective. Raising children or caring for infirm elders will never be economically profitable enterprises. However, they are necessary for a functioning society. The liberal views those activities as the appropriate domain of government. The conservative considers them more appropriately managed by traditional families, and therefore advocates policies which facilitates or strengthens the traditional structures.  How does the libertarian propose to manage them? Markets don't cater to unprofitable activities.


More evidence of your ignorance of libertarian ideas. And your description of the conservative position is just a flat out lie. The conservative also views raising children or caring for infirm family members as the domain of government. This is why conservatives oppose letting homosexuals adopt children, support drinking age laws, and why that Terri Schiavo situation was turned in such a circus. And "advocates policies" in this case means, advocates things like marriage are to be something defined, and therefore controlled, by government.

In any case, your question is flawed. You have clearly assumed libertarian thought begins and ends with markets. Here is yet another hint: Your assumption is wrong. If you had done a modicum of research into this, you would see the libertarian position on things like marriage is that it not the government's business who is and is not married. If one church wants to not allow homosexual marriage, that's okay but not a reason to prevent another church from allowing it. If two people want to enter into a private legal agreement, the extent of the government's involvement would be protection against fraud and the like, i.e. infringements on individual rights. See? Nothing to do with markets at all.


Nobody is advocating telling anyone what kind of relationship they can form, and what kind of contracts they can make between themselves.


If you're opposing homosexual marriage, yes, you are.


But some relationships are valuable enough to society at large that society protects and privileges them. In the case of heterosexual relationships, they provide the means for a society to perpetuate itself. The law privileges them because, in return, they provide a value to society. What value do gay relationships offer society? None. That is why few, if any, societies grant them a privileged status. It's a demand of something for nothing.


That is a very narrow-minded view of marriage. So, presumably, you favor law against all childless marriage. Tell me, if a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? Presumably, you favor going back to really traditional marriage practices, arranging marriages for for teenagers so they can have more time to produce plenty of offspring. That is the whole point of marriage, right? All that stuff about love and romance and two people choosing to spend their lives together, that is all just a liberal corruption of traditional values, right?


So, a society where I can shoot anybody who annoys me, rape my neighbors daughter, and help myself to his property is a civil society?


Again, not an argument anyone made.


The point here, is that *some* restrictions on personal liberty are required for civil society. Nobody besides maybe the anarchist fringe disputes that.


What you're either missing or deliberately trying to be misleading about is that no one at all is advocating that everyone be allowed to do anything and everything they want. You keep arguing against that, but no one argued in favor of it, not at Reason, not at Cato, and not here at the Three Dead Horses Saloon. So you're arguing against something no one wants. Congratulations on a job almost well done.


And the domain of what restrictions are required, and what liberties are permissible, is very much a legitimate debate.


I agree. That is why I find so juvenile the nonsensical attitude like yours that wants to dismiss libertarianism with distortions and outright lies sans any real discussion at all.


I'm sure Dick will deny some of what I said,

No, but I'll certainly clarify your mischaracterization of it.


More like you'll make up a lot of nonsense to blow smoke at the discussion and hope no one notices.


I voted for Ron Paul. But if the Reason crowd started voting for my party, I'd wonder what was wrong with my party!


They like Ron Paul at Reason. A lot of Reason readers probably voted for him. Reason also likes Jeff Flake. I wonder if any Reason-reading libertarians voted for Jeff Flake. Your party could be in serious trouble already!


I see no reason why the Republicans should be bothered cultivating that kind of libertarian.


And y'all know what kind of libertarian he's talking about. (nod, nod, wink, wink)


A platform of Acid, Amnesty and Abortion did nothing for the Democrats - ask George McGovern - and I have no reason to believe it will improve the prospects for Republicans, either. Whatever votes they win from the more libertine branch of the libertarians will not compensate for the votes they lose from the sane.


There it is. The accusation of lack of morals and mental soundness. This is what lies at the back of all the rest of your objections. You complain about libertarians having "appointed themselves the arbiters of all things that constitute liberty, and dismiss all competing visions as 'statist' or 'anti-freedom'." Meanwhile, you sit there apparently having appointed yourself arbiter of what is moral and sane. What a hypocrite you are.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 03:26:49 PM
Richpo: "bitch"

Put up or shut up, midget.

Natick, Mass
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 03:41:54 PM
Quote
Winning the nomination is a mistake if it results in losing the presidency.

Again, not if it is the will of the people. I wonder if Reagan could have been President if Goldwater had won?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 02, 2010, 04:04:06 PM

UP, I have to say something.  I have the utmost respect for you, in spite of our different viewpoints concerning your political position.


Thank you, Pooch. I respect you too.


I do not mean to join a gangbang here, but I think there is a fundamental flaw with your objection to the characterization of your ideology as "childish" or any other thing, and that is that you personalize it.


Calling libertarianism childish wasn't really the problem I had with BSB's comment. It was the "but I'm mature" context of his phrasing. I've had enough sly and "witty" insults directed at me to generally recognize the makings of one. And I suggest again if that was not BSB's intent, then his comment was poorly worded. It's one thing to say "that's childish" and another to say the equivalent of "but I'm more mature than that." That makes it personal, imo, because it's not just a comment on the ideas, it carries the implication of comparison between the other person and me. The implication being while he is mature enough to know better therefore I must not be.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 02, 2010, 04:30:42 PM
You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.


 
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."  Sep 11, 2001

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.  . .

[/b] From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
"  Sep 20, 2001








I do feel as if I am learning something, I myself had never heard this term before the interview with Palin made it popular and I didn't ever see it described so well untill just now.

I don't think I am severely isolated , but I would have been at a loss to express an opinion on the term "Bush Doctrine" yesterday.

Perhaps it was being used a lot in circles I am not privvy to , or perhaps you overestimate the spread of the term as it was at the time.

Perhaps both , but if it is Historians that produce these phrases, how is a canadate responsible to know them?

  That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter doesn't offend me so much as attract me. There is much more to how the world works than what happens inside the city limits of Washington D.C..
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 06:22:07 PM
"That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter"

The "inside ball of Washington chatter"? The whole premise behind invading Iraq was as a preemptive strike from the "Bush Doctrine". She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 06:37:58 PM
Quote
She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.

As a Republican Governor was it her job to know that?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on January 02, 2010, 06:39:05 PM
"That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter"

The "inside ball of Washington chatter"? The whole premise behind invading Iraq was as a preemptive strike from the "Bush Doctrine". She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.



no wonder your life sucks, you live in a narrow mind. You need to discover life isn't just black & white and that some gray exists. Then you will become less self-obsorbed. Go out and help a needy person, do something kind, but stop living in your me me me world. Step out of that dark box you dwell in.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 07:35:16 PM
"just black & white"

Yeah, I'm white, and you're a nigger.
Euphemistically speaking, of course.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 07:39:02 PM
Her job to kow that, BT? I would yes. As a Governor she should know why the soldiers from her state are being sent off to war.   
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 07:43:38 PM
I'm pretty sure she did. Her own son was deployed.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 07:48:29 PM
Exactly right, her own son was over there. Just another reason she should have been paying better attention.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 07:53:47 PM
The Bush Doctrine is not why her son is there.

He is there because of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 07:55:42 PM
Oh no, were aren't going to go through that again, are we?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 07:59:29 PM
That's the prevailing legal authority.

Of course for those that say the war was about oil then it seems the Carter Doctrine would prevail.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 08:31:36 PM
Quote
Winning the nomination is a mistake if it results in losing the presidency.

Again, not if it is the will of the people. I wonder if Reagan could have been President if Goldwater had won?


How would it not be a mistake to nominate Palin if it is the will of the people?    I go from the premise that the Republican party wants to win back the White House.  If that is not a correct assessment they should let Obama run unopposed.   If it is correct, nominating Palin is, imo, a mistake.   

How does the will of the people equate to a correct decision?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Kramer on January 02, 2010, 08:36:47 PM
Exactly right, her own son was over there. Just another reason she should have been paying better attention.

yeah right every parent who's kid went to Iraq knew the Bush Doctrine. Maybe 1 out of 10,000 if your lucky. Hell you didn't know what it was till you Googled it.

And of the ones that lost life or limb I bet they wished they had studied harder on the Bush Doctrine test top prevent the event.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 08:50:33 PM




I do feel as if I am learning something, I myself had never heard this term before the interview with Palin made it popular and I didn't ever see it described so well untill just now.

I don't think I am severely isolated , but I would have been at a loss to express an opinion on the term "Bush Doctrine" yesterday.

Perhaps it was being used a lot in circles I am not privvy to , or perhaps you overestimate the spread of the term as it was at the time.

Perhaps both , but if it is Historians that produce these phrases, how is a canadate responsible to know them?

  That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter doesn't offend me so much as attract me. There is much more to how the world works than what happens inside the city limits of Washington D.C..


Well, as to usage, I cannot explain why someone who uses this board wasn't familiar with it.  I certainly knew it.  I cringed when I heard she had flubbed it.  It had been used numerous times - was kind of a buzz word for a while in fact.   I certainly heard people on TV news shows, talk radio and the newspapers using it.  I was actually kind of proud of it, as I thought it was nice to see it given the same sort of status the Monroe Doctrine was given.  Like any buzzword, though, it wasn't coined by historians, but by pundits.  If Neil Croates is indeed the originator of the phrase, it would be a political scientist in the academic world that coined it - but he did so within three weeks of 9-11.  By the time Palin came along, it was well known.  

As to whether a governor or a candidate should know it, yeah, I think they should.  Palin was catching hell about not being up on foreign policy.  She famously claimed her state's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience.  For her to be unaware of the phrase describing the major foreign policy of her parties incumbent President was a gaffe as big as a moose.  

Your darn right a candidate needs to be aware of what the current buzzwords are because the lack of such knowledge makes her look stupid - or worse - uninformed.  If Sarah Palin is nominated for President next election, I will vote for her because I want the Republican party to win.  But the Democrats will have as much success vilifying her to independents as the Republicans did with HRC.  Hillary was a lock for the nomination until the Dems figured out that she could easily lose the independent vote and  Obama was both unknown (and therefore undiscovered - except for his admirable pseudobipartisan address in 2004) and sexier than Hillary (including his minority status).  If somebody sexy comes along Sarah becomes an instant has-been.  Sarah is sexy in appearance only.  Obama looked good, politically, in his 2004 speech.  He even had me thinking, Wow, this guy could be something.  He was.  A liberal in moderate clothing.  But Sarah has baggage coming out of the box in 2012.  

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 08:54:59 PM
The Bush Doctrine is not why her son is there.

He is there because of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.


So the authorization to use force against a regime that had not attacked us, based on the justification that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and that the regime supported terrorism, made against the wishes of the United Nations, was NOT a product of the Doctrine that said we would unilaterally and preemptively attack regimes that supported terror or posed an imminent threat?

The apple didn't fall because of gravity, it was because Newton bumped the tree.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 09:01:20 PM
I fail to see how Palin winning the nomination equates to her losing the election.


Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 09:07:03 PM
Quote
So the authorization to use force against a regime that had not attacked us, based on the justification that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and that the regime supported terrorism, made against the wishes of the United Nations, was NOT a product of the Doctrine that said we would unilaterally and preemptively attack regimes that supported terror or posed an imminent threat?

Only if you consider the Bush Doctrine to be the beginning of the conflict with Iraq.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 09:38:20 PM
Quote
So the authorization to use force against a regime that had not attacked us, based on the justification that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and that the regime supported terrorism, made against the wishes of the United Nations, was NOT a product of the Doctrine that said we would unilaterally and preemptively attack regimes that supported terror or posed an imminent threat?

Only if you consider the Bush Doctrine to be the beginning of the conflict with Iraq.



I disagree.  Congress did not authorize an attack on Iraq simply because the elder Bush didn't finish the job.  They didn't authorize it because of the ignored UN resolutions concerning inspections either.   These were PART of the reasoning, but the attack on Iraq was based on: 1) the perceived presence of WMD in Iraq, and their potential use and; 2) the support of Iraq for terrorists.   Further, after trying to convince the UN (a mistake, imo) Bush decided to go in in spite of intenational opposition (kudos).  Bush attached these ideals as justification and they are exactly in line with the Bush Doctrine.   The wishy-washiness of the UN and the previous adminstration were done when Bush announced that he was changing the rules for conflict.   The invasions of both Afghanistan AND Iraq were heralded as two fronts in one war, and they were both based on the Bush Doctrine.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 09:40:37 PM
I fail to see how Palin winning the nomination equates to her losing the election.


That's my opinion, as I think I stated, but if I didn't allow me to state it now.  To clarify, I believe that Palin cannot win a general election; therefore, I believe it would be a mistake to choose her as our candidate in the next election. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 09:45:43 PM
Quote
To clarify, I believe that Palin cannot win a general election; therefore, I believe it would be a mistake to choose her as our candidate in the next election.

I don't see why not. Her favorables are within points of Obama.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 09:48:04 PM
Congress urged regime change in 98, signed into law by Clinton. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine is more accurately the Clinton Doctrine.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 09:50:47 PM
Quote
To clarify, I believe that Palin cannot win a general election; therefore, I believe it would be a mistake to choose her as our candidate in the next election.

I don't see why not. Her favorables are within points of Obama.


Are her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 09:54:30 PM
Congress urged regime change in 98, signed into law by Clinton. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine is more accurately the Clinton Doctrine.

Did we invade Iraq in 1998?   I was busy retiring from the Army so maybe I missed that.

Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?  If so, perhaps we CAN call that the Clinton doctrine.  But I am pretty confident that is not the case.

We invaded Iraq in 2004 based on the principles stated in the National Security Strategy of 2002 - not any resolution passed in 1998.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 09:56:20 PM
Quote
Are her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?

It's not November 2008. Obama's blank slate is starting to look like the artwork of a three year old on an etch a sketch
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 10:00:40 PM
Quote
Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?

No but he did launch a ton of missiles aimed at Iraq.

On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

President Clinton stated in February 1998:

    Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998 [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
Quote
Are her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?

It's not November 2008. Obama's blank slate is starting to look like the artwork of a three year old on an etch a sketch


So if it is not 2008, which was an election year, and its not 2012 which will be an election year, why are we comparing an incumbent president with a non-candidate?   Things change in a season, much less in two to three years.  If Obama had the ratings in 2008 he has now, he would never have been nominated.  If Obama is Obysmall in 2012, there is always HRC.  Sarah Palin is riding high now, among conservatives.  It remains to be seen if she can win a national election.  So far she is 0-1.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 10:05:28 PM
Since when do vp candidates win or lose elections?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 10:07:43 PM
Quote
Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?

No but he did launch a ton of missiles aimed at Iraq.

Yes, I know.  Some people called this the "wagging the dog" IIRC but I never took it as such.  But that is not the reason why we invaded in 2004.  Bush ordered the invasion, not Clinton, and he did it based on intelligence from 2003-4 not 1998.  He did it based on (as you said) an authorization congress gave him in 2004, not 1998.  Nobody disputes that troubles with Iraq had been going on for over a decade.  But after the Storm we did not invade Iraq until Bush changed our strategy to the Bush Doctrine.  
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 10:09:55 PM
Since when do vp candidates win or lose elections?

I define losing an election this way.

You run for office.

People vote for you.

More people vote for the other guy.



I define the Vice Presidency as an office - as designated above.


I am pretty certain Sarah Palin ran for Vice President in 2008.


I know for certain she isn't VP now.


I'm going to call that losing.  Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 02, 2010, 10:17:44 PM
"The invasions of both Afghanistan AND Iraq were heralded as two fronts in one war, and they were both based on the Bush Doctrine"

Well, Iraq certainly, Afghanistan not realy IMO. I don't see any need to call up the Bush Doctrine in regards to Afghanistan. Our invasion of that country was in response to an attack on our mainland. Iraq, on the other hand was sold on the basis of it being a preemptive attack against a potential friend to Al Qaeda, and one with the ability to assist/greatly benefit terrorist organizations with men, material, scientific knowhow, WMD, and so forth.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 10:18:15 PM
The authorization came in 2002 preceded by the resolution for regime change in 98, preceded with Saddams non compliance with the terms of the cease fire of the first gulf war and the subsequent placement of UN sanctions.

The first gulf war never ended, the second gulf war was the logical end.

You act like the Bush Doctrine was a major departure from the Clinton Administration. It wasn't.


Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 10:22:26 PM
Quote
I define losing an election this way.

You run for office.

People vote for you.

More people vote for the other guy.

My ballot did not give me the choice to vote for Palin directly. It was either the McCain ticket or the Obama ticket or a third party ticket.




Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 10:27:19 PM

My ballot did not give me the choice to vote for Palin directly. It was either the McCain ticket or the Obama ticket or a third party ticket.


Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.  Nevertheless, I don't exactly remember so I won't dispute that point.  What I do know is that she ran and didn't win.  I think the rest is semantics.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 10:30:54 PM
Quote
Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.

So you could have voted for McCain and Biden?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 10:45:14 PM
Quote
Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.

So you could have voted for McCain and Biden?


Theoretically, IIRC, but again I may be wrong.  Even if I had, I expect it might have invalidated the vote. 

This does not change the underlying premise, however, if McCain wins, Palin wins.  If McCain loses, Palin loses.  0-1.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 11:00:56 PM
I've never considered giving the blame or the credit for a win or loss to anyone other than the head of the ticket.

I'm not sure if many people have.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 02, 2010, 11:28:02 PM
I've never considered giving the blame or the credit for a win or loss to anyone other than the head of the ticket.

I'm not sure if many people have.



I'm not really talking about blame or credit - just the result.  Sarah was a choice - like any other running mate - designed to help the Prez candidate's chances.   It didn't work.  If the point of picking a running mate is not increasing the ticket's chances, then she really was just a cute-looking nothing.  And all that talk every election about the significance of the "first choice" a potential president makes is just so much talk.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 02, 2010, 11:32:19 PM
The choice of Palin gave McCain a much needed bump in the polls. Why do you think the crass vitriol against her and her family was so ferocious?
.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 03, 2010, 12:01:54 AM
The choice of Palin gave McCain a much needed bump in the polls.

They lost.

Why do you think the crass vitriol against her and her family was so ferocious?

It worked.


Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 03, 2010, 12:04:02 AM
Quote
It worked.

Worked with Romney too. Didn't make it right.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BSB on January 03, 2010, 12:23:51 AM
The notion that the invasion of Iraq during Bush II's time in the oval office was merely a continuation of Gulf War I, is a ruse. While that GW benefited both politically, and militarily, from Gulf War I, is without question. But the Iraq war itself is a book written entirely by Bush II, and his predecessors, and only under certain particular historical perspectives would it be a sequel to his fathers book.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 03, 2010, 12:35:23 AM
Quote
But the Iraq war itself is a book written entirely by Bush II, and his predecessors, and only under certain particular historical perspectives would it be a sequel to his fathers book.

Never said it was sequel, said it was a continuation. Just as Bush1's war was a continuation of policies going back to the 70's with the ascension of Saddam and his war with Iran.

Same goes for Bin Laden and Al Queda. History isn't an event it is a series of events.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 03, 2010, 02:16:17 AM
Congress urged regime change in 98, signed into law by Clinton. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine is more accurately the Clinton Doctrine.



I recall that there was something called the "Clinton doctrine" but I don't recall what it was about.

The "Powell Doctrine " was to have a clear goal and to bring enough to win.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 03, 2010, 02:26:31 AM
I thought that Dean did not deserve to loose because of that scream. I thought that Quaile was a lot sharper than he looked on outtakes.

And a canadate that doesn't know one buzzword does not bother me a-tall.

There is a jargon for every profession , comeing in from the outside is indeed one of the really appealing things about Palin , so her not being up on jargon is also appealing to me , no matter that it offends insiders like talking heads or pundits of pundits.

It does not prove her unwise , it is a bit ot ignorance that proves she is from the outside of the political incestuous cyclone.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 03, 2010, 10:38:25 AM
>>I'm not really talking about blame or credit - just the result.  Sarah was a choice - like any other running mate - designed to help the Prez candidate's chances.   It didn't work.<<

I'd say it did. We all remember the problems McCain had with the base of the Republican party. Bringing Palin to the ticket energized the base and brought a lot of the base back iunto the Republican fold. In my case it made me hold my nose for little less time in the voting booth when I voted for McCain.

So as far as the ticket goes, Palin won, and ultimately McCain lost.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 03, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Choosing Palin did NOT WORK.

Had it worked, McCain would have won.

It's really that simple.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 03, 2010, 04:34:16 PM
Choosing Palin did NOT WORK.

Had it worked, McCain would have won.

It's really that simple.


So Chooseing Biden is the real reason that BHO is president?

Or was Quaile the important factor in the 41 Bush election?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 03, 2010, 05:54:52 PM
No, you're really that simple.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 03, 2010, 11:24:37 PM
Quote
It worked.

Worked with Romney too. Didn't make it right.




So what does right have to do with it.   Romney lost because he was a Mormon - at least partially.  It would have been morally right to nominate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964.  And it would have been a ridiculous mistake.


I am not talking about what is right, what is fair, what is noble or what is the will of the people.  I am talking about nothing more nor less than what will get the White House back in 2012.   I'd vote for Romney in 2012 too, but I doubt that it would be any better a choice.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 03, 2010, 11:38:23 PM
>>I'm not really talking about blame or credit - just the result.  Sarah was a choice - like any other running mate - designed to help the Prez candidate's chances.   It didn't work.<<

I'd say it did. We all remember the problems McCain had with the base of the Republican party. Bringing Palin to the ticket energized the base and brought a lot of the base back iunto the Republican fold. In my case it made me hold my nose for little less time in the voting booth when I voted for McCain.

So as far as the ticket goes, Palin won, and ultimately McCain lost.


That's all so much semantics.  Sarah Palin helped a little to gain McCain some points inside the party.  She even made the term "maverick" seem sexy.   So what?  Nothing was going to get a Republican elected in 2008 except a strong, well-supported, exciting leader who brought out Republican voters and appealed to the independents.   Sarah Palin was interesting as a sideshow to Republicans.  She was nothing more.  Anybody who still thinks that the way to get a Republican in the White House is to nominate a strong conservative is deluded.  Part of the younger  Bush's initial appeal to the masses was that he had a reputation for being "A uniter -not a divider" in his home state.  In 2004 he stayed in place because nobody trusted Kerry and we were all still concerned about security.   Obama won in 2008 because he was able to get out the vote and his ultra-left mindset was in stealth mode.   Nancy Pelosi couldn't get elected dogcatcher by the American electorate because everybody knows what she is about and only the far left would vote for her.   Jesse Helms would never have had a chance.  Just because a candidate appeals to a large enough section of a party to get the nomination does NOT mean s/he will win a general election.

I maintain that Sarah Palin will not win a general election, and the growing perception that she is the future of the Republican party makes me see Obama as a two-term President.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 04, 2010, 02:49:31 AM
Quote
Nothing was going to get a Republican elected in 2008 except a strong, well-supported, exciting leader who brought out Republican voters and appealed to the independents. 

Sounds like Palin to me.

What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?

I have never claimed she is the future of the GOP. What she is, is a viable candidate.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Religious Dick on January 04, 2010, 05:22:26 AM
Whether or not Palin can get elected will have a lot to do with how pissed off people are with Obama by 2010.

It was said about Reagan that he was too conservative, too outside the mainstream to get elected. All of which usually would have been true. I can't see him having got elected in 1968, 1972 or 1976. But by 1980 people were so fed up with Carter the Republicans could have nominated a lamp post and still handily won.

Of course, whether it's to the Republican's advantage to win the presidency in 2012 is a whole 'nother question. By the end of that president's term, a lot of entitlement spending is going to come due for retiring boomers, and likely by then the Chinese will have cut up our credit card. There are problems that won't go away no matter who's in power. And whoever is in power is going to carry the can for it, fairly or not.

It might very well be a good idea for the Republicans to sit this one out, and leave the Democrats holding the bag for the collapse. My take is that they have nothing to lose by nominating the lady moose hunter. Politicians have overcome bigger obstacles than blowing an interview with Katie Couric. It doesn't matter how much people hate your candidate - as long as they hate the other guy's candidate more.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Religious Dick on January 04, 2010, 07:49:23 AM

That right there shows you don't know what you're talking about. Libertarians generally don't want the government to inflict anything. They want the government simply to get out of the way.

*snicker*

Is there effectively a difference between legalizing burglary, and making it illegal for a home owner to defend his home? You can take a look at Britain for the answer to that.

There's no such thing as "the government getting out of the way". In any conflict of interests, the government will have to protect one set of interests over the other. In the case of illegal immigration, are these "libertarians" defending the right of property owners to defend their property, or the "right" of illegal aliens to break into the country?

We have the answer to that right here (http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/dhs-secretary-illegals-really)

Whining and making up nonsense because other people want more liberty than you do isn't really debate.

I'm not making up a goddam thing. I can cross-reference and support every claim I've made.

I can play this game too. So presumably, you think the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist. You support total authoritarian control over every aspect of life?

You already did play that game. Spare me, please.

A bogus description of the nature of the situation. Once again, you're trying to argue against having no restrictions when no one has argued for it.

Indeed? Then what restrictions do you favor, under what conditions?

In any case, your question is flawed. You have clearly assumed libertarian thought begins and ends with markets. Here is yet another hint: Your assumption is wrong. If you had done a modicum of research into this, you would see the libertarian position on things like marriage is that it not the government's business who is and is not married. If one church wants to not allow homosexual marriage, that's okay but not a reason to prevent another church from allowing it. If two people want to enter into a private legal agreement, the extent of the government's involvement would be protection against fraud and the like, i.e. infringements on individual rights. See? Nothing to do with markets at all.[/color]

Better tell that to the libertarians.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/27/sadly-the-predictably-lame-arg (http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/27/sadly-the-predictably-lame-arg)
http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-debate-mangles-en (http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-debate-mangles-en)
http://reason.com/blog/2009/04/03/iowa-supreme-court-strikes-dow (http://reason.com/blog/2009/04/03/iowa-supreme-court-strikes-dow)

One by Gillespie, one by Mangu-Ward, and one by Sullum. And not a word in any of them about "getting government out of marriage".


Nobody is advocating telling anyone what kind of relationship they can form, and what kind of contracts they can make between themselves.


If you're opposing homosexual marriage, yes, you are.

No, I'm not. You do understand the difference between civil law and contract law, don't you? Marriage is civil law, not contract law. I repeat, there's nothing stopping anyone from forming any relationship they like, and making whatever contract they want between themselves.


That is a very narrow-minded view of marriage.

I certainly hope so! I have this thing about handing out public dispensations without a clearly demonstrated public benefit.


So, presumably, you favor law against all childless marriage. Tell me, if a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? Presumably, you favor going back to really traditional marriage practices, arranging marriages for for teenagers so they can have more time to produce plenty of offspring. That is the whole point of marriage, right? All that stuff about love and romance and two people choosing to spend their lives together, that is all just a liberal corruption of traditional values, right?[/color]

Presumably, you favor abolishing all laws that don't produce the optimum result 100% of the time, which is pretty much every law on the books.

It is generally agreed that stop signs at intersections reduce accidents. It is also likely true some stop signs have stopped no accidents, and some of them are probably situated such that they've actually caused accidents.

That is not an argument for abolishing stop signs, and even less of an argument for placing them in the middle of corn-fields, where they will certainly stop no accidents at all.

The measure of a law isn't whether it produces a desirable result 100% of the time, but whether they produce a desirable result more often than not. And I hardly see that laws that don't produce a desirable result 100% a justification for creating laws that produce the desired result 0% of the time.

It's called "playing the averages". True, not every heterosexual marriage will produce children. That is not a justification for creating marriages that are guaranteed to produce no children at all.


What you're either missing or deliberately trying to be misleading about is that no one at all is advocating that everyone be allowed to do anything and everything they want. You keep arguing against that, but no one argued in favor of it, not at Reason, not at Cato, and not here at the Three Dead Horses Saloon. So you're arguing against something no one wants. Congratulations on a job almost well done.

But then, you're pretty elusive as to what should be prohibited.

More like you'll make up a lot of nonsense to blow smoke at the discussion and hope no one notices.

I haven't made up anything. I'm perfectly happy to document every claim I've made, time permitting.

They like Ron Paul at Reason. A lot of Reason readers probably voted for him. Reason also likes Jeff Flake. I wonder if any Reason-reading libertarians voted for Jeff Flake. Your party could be in serious trouble already!

Bwahahaha!

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d)
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul)
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)

What you mean is, they hated him until they realized he had a lot more support in the libertarian community than they did.

And I have a pretty good idea *why* they hate him. It had nothing to do with the newsletters, they've been quite willing to dismiss more egregiously racist rhetoric, notably from the likes of Barack Obama and his associates. No, what they hate him for is what The New Republic hated him for - Ron Paul, whatever you think of his politics, is a patriot. He sees the role of government as looking out for the interests of America and Americans. Not every illegal immigrant that marches in the door, not Israel, not anyone else.

I recognize the Reason crowd very well. Like the communists and the ACLU claiming, "We only want to make America live up to it's ideals", they're quite good at whistling Yankee Doodle and hiding behind quintessentially American values like "freedom" and "capitalism" while pulling out all stops to kick the dominant culture in the nuts. They've been around for years - as communists, as the New Left, and now they've reinvented themselves as libertarians. Thanks, but the last people I people I want running the nation are people who are openly contemptuous of the very concept of nation or national identity. (http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/06/reason-writers-around-town-nic) These are people with no particular love for this country, to them a country is just a warm place to take a shit, and if they fuck this one up, they'll just move on to the next one, rinse, lather, repeat. What makes them doubly obnoxious, and dangerous IMHO, is that they've managed to hoodwink a fair number of conservatives and patriotic libertarians into believing that, because they support free markets, that also by definition they're also supporters of America and Americans. Not true - they've made themselves quite clear that they like capitalism not necessarily because it's good for America, but specifically for the potential for unbridled capitalism to be disruptive.

I'll vote for a free-market patriot if I can, but the operative word is "patriot". I happen to like my country. Between a free-market cosmopolitan of the Reason variety, and a patriotic socialist like Dennis Kucinich, I'd vote for the socialist every time.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2010, 09:00:50 AM
Quote
It worked.

Worked with Romney too. Didn't make it right.




So what does right have to do with it.   Romney lost because he was a Mormon - at least partially. 


Did you know Romney has published a book?

Title "no Apology"   I look for some book signings in New Hampshire..
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 04, 2010, 09:39:11 AM
>>Sarah Palin was interesting as a sideshow to Republicans.  She was nothing more.<<

This is obviously misguided. Before Palin was put on the tickets Republicans were speculating daily about how McCain could satisfy the Conservative base. They knew he would have to bring a VP candidate on board who would satisfy the base. He did just that with Palin. Gov. Palin was more popular with Conservatives than McCain himself and without her he would have done mush worse. McCain didn’t lose because of Bush. He lost because the media had been slandering and libeling Bush for eight years and they were successful in fooling enough people into voting for a man with no qualifications and a Socialist to boot.


>>Anybody who still thinks that the way to get a Republican in the White House is to nominate a strong conservative is deluded.<<

The country club Republicans believed the same. The gave us McCain, never confused with a Conservative Republican. When given the choice between a Conservative (Reagan), or one who claims to be (Bush 41 & 43), the people have always chosen the Conservative.

You'd have to be deliberately obtuse to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 04, 2010, 10:46:07 AM
The teabaggers are morons. They will be co-opted by the Republicans or they will simply vanish. 100.000 Teabaggers in the streets would have the same significance as 100,000 zombies in the street.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 04, 2010, 12:10:54 PM
How enlightening.

 ::)

He is though. His attitude is a reflection of what he's been taught. To hate the average American. Where did he learn it? From his statist rulers. It's evidence of how isolated they are from reality. Given that the majority of Americans oppose government run healthcare, and Osama’s has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his presidency in the history of this country, the socialist party is so insulated by it's yes men and sycophants they fail to see it.

So what do they do? They do what this drone does. They attack America. Smart move.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 04, 2010, 09:23:14 PM
>>Sarah Palin was interesting as a sideshow to Republicans.  She was nothing more.<<

This is obviously misguided. Before Palin was put on the tickets Republicans were speculating daily about how McCain could satisfy the Conservative base. They knew he would have to bring a VP candidate on board who would satisfy the base. He did just that with Palin. Gov. Palin was more popular with Conservatives than McCain himself and without her he would have done mush worse. McCain didn’t lose because of Bush. He lost because the media had been slandering and libeling Bush for eight years and they were successful in fooling enough people into voting for a man with no qualifications and a Socialist to boot.


No, McCain lost because the Republican party was not behind him fully and the rest of the country had had enough of Republicans.  As I stated, Palin was interesting to Republicans.  Nobody else cared a bit for her.  That's the way it will be in 2012 as well.


>>Anybody who still thinks that the way to get a Republican in the White House is to nominate a strong conservative is deluded.<<

The country club Republicans believed the same. The gave us McCain, never confused with a Conservative Republican. When given the choice between a Conservative (Reagan), or one who claims to be (Bush 41 & 43), the people have always chosen the Conservative.

You'd have to be deliberately obtuse to believe otherwise.


Or just familiar with history.  Reagan wasn't elected because the people wanted a conservative in office.   He was elected because Carter was bitch-slapped by, in succession, inflation, the Ayatollah Khomeni and Ted Kennedy.  People had watched Carter roll over for four years and were sick of it.  Reagan was the ABC candidate.  The Democrats did to Carter in 1980 what the Republicans did to McCain in 2008.  Reagan won in 1984 because he had proven himself as a leader, and the country trusted him.  Bush won on his coat-tails in 1988 and even with the great job he did in Iraq couldn't hold on enough to beat Clinton because Pat Buchanan was more interested in looking tough than seeing a Republican victory.   Bush II won because Gore wasn't sexy enough to overcome how oversexed Bill had been.  And he won again in 2004 because people trusted him a hell of a lot more than Kerry in wartime.  Obama won in 2008 because he was sexy and McCain was not.

American elections are NOT about an informed electorate making careful choices.  It is about a largely uneducated mass of people deciding which of the shrill voices from the left or right they will listen to, and which candidate looks most cool.   The informed voters who actually take the time to understand the issues and the candidates do not make up anywhere near enough of a force to elect a President, and even if they did, we have no choice but the one the image consultants and market analysts decide to present to us.

So I say again, Palin will not win a general election in 2012. 



Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 04, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Whether or not Palin can get elected will have a lot to do with how pissed off people are with Obama by 2010.

It was said about Reagan that he was too conservative, too outside the mainstream to get elected. All of which usually would have been true. I can't see him having got elected in 1968, 1972 or 1976. But by 1980 people were so fed up with Carter the Republicans could have nominated a lamp post and still handily won.

Of course, whether it's to the Republican's advantage to win the presidency in 2012 is a whole 'nother question. By the end of that president's term, a lot of entitlement spending is going to come due for retiring boomers, and likely by then the Chinese will have cut up our credit card. There are problems that won't go away no matter who's in power. And whoever is in power is going to carry the can for it, fairly or not.

It might very well be a good idea for the Republicans to sit this one out, and leave the Democrats holding the bag for the collapse. My take is that they have nothing to lose by nominating the lady moose hunter. Politicians have overcome bigger obstacles than blowing an interview with Katie Couric. It doesn't matter how much people hate your candidate - as long as they hate the other guy's candidate more.


That's an interesting, if bleak, take on the subject.  And it's true that if Obama turns out to be another Carter (and the scent is familiar) ANY conservative could win in '12.  But we shall see.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 04, 2010, 09:31:46 PM
Did you know Romney has published a book?

Title "no Apology"   I look for some book signings in New Hampshire..

I don't think Romney is a good candidate, from a strategy standpoint, either.  I'd love to see an LDS president but a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives would hate that for different but expediently complementary reasons.

And I can't think of any Mormon that would vote for Mike Huckabee - I certainly won't.

Who's out there besides them?  Could we bring in Colin Powell?  How about Condi?  They were both Bush babies but have a lot going for them and not so much question about intelligence.  Pure speculation, though.  I can't imagine who could effectively lead this party.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 04, 2010, 09:37:36 PM
What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?

If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.  But the center voted Dem last cycle.  I'm not sure whether the inclusion of Sarah on the ticket turned off any undecideds but it sure didn't turn them on. 


I have never claimed she is the future of the GOP. What she is, is a viable candidate.

I only meant the immediate future.  I disagree with your last statement.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2010, 09:45:23 PM
Did you know Romney has published a book?

Title "no Apology"   I look for some book signings in New Hampshire..

I don't think Romney is a good candidate, from a strategy standpoint, either.  I'd love to see an LDS president but a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives would hate that for different but expediently complementary reasons.

And I can't think of any Mormon that would vote for Mike Huckabee - I certainly won't.

Who's out there besides them?  Could we bring in Colin Powell?  How about Condi?  They were both Bush babies but have a lot going for them and not so much question about intelligence.  Pure speculation, though.  I can't imagine who could effectively lead this party.

A black person has a lessor prejudice problem than an LDS member?

Would you cheer up?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 04, 2010, 10:25:55 PM

A black person has a lessor prejudice problem than an LDS member?

Would you cheer up?


LOL!  Well, in this day and age that may well be true, Plane.  Unlike African-Americans, who have earned their civil rights through decades of persecution and dignified and not-so-dignified struggle, Latter Day Saints aren't really looked on as victims - and compared to blacks shouldn't be.  Most of what people know about Mormons is polygamy, Brigham Young and guys knocking on their doors at inconvenient times.  (in fact, a surprising amount of people get us confused with the Jehovah's witnesses or other religions).  But the prejudices against Mormons that would affect Romney (and did) are that Evangelicals and others on the religious right, a huge force in the Republican party still, think we are a devil-worshipping, non-Christian cult.  On the left, we are being especially singled out for our opposition to Gay Marriage.  Those who are old enough also remember our opposition to the ERA and the prohibition against Black priesthood holders.  So those prejudices are actually based on our social application of our beliefs, which is actually a legitiimate beef.  Between the two bigotries, I prefer the left side.  At least theirs is politically relevent.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 04, 2010, 10:32:17 PM
Quote
If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.

Like Palin didn't unseat a sitting GOP Governor. And how did she do it, by challenging the status quo.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 04, 2010, 10:48:28 PM
What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?

If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.   

I beg to differ, Pooch, as much as I my hate doing so with you.  Hated NOT for his "indepedence", near as much as his lack of conservative credentials, while trying to lay claim to being a Reagan-like Conservative.  Now, you probably could pull some examples of his conservative legislative efforts.  But I could likely match that with an equal amount of moderate, when not liberal legislative efforts.  Don't even get me started on his class warfare rhetoric in 2000, or CFR.  Point being, he was "all over the ball park", ideologically, when his campaign was sputtering in 2008.  Palin gave him some psuedo conservative cred, while still being a McCain-like maverick. 

And that's PRECISELY what this country is in need of.  A candidate/politican with solid conservative credibility, that can make an effort at standing up to lobbiyests & Congress.....to say no to the hard left (AND hard right), but to govern with an effort reinvigarate fiscal responsibility & national pride.  To facilitate conservative ideals that are the foundation of this country and the constitution     *cue the band to start playing God Bless America*      8)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Universe Prince on January 04, 2010, 11:42:51 PM

Is there effectively a difference between legalizing burglary, and making it illegal for a home owner to defend his home? You can take a look at Britain for the answer to that.

There's no such thing as "the government getting out of the way". In any conflict of interests, the government will have to protect one set of interests over the other.

Once again, you're trying to confuse the issue. No one here is arguing for the elimination of laws or of government. And no, the government does not have to protect one set of interests over another in any conflict of interests. There are many where the government has no business sticking its dirty nose. Performance enhancing drug use policy in sports, for example.


In the case of illegal immigration, are these "libertarians" defending the right of property owners to defend their property, or the "right" of illegal aliens to break into the country?

We have the answer to that right here (http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/dhs-secretary-illegals-really)

No you don't. We do, however, have an example of you making things up. No one argued, even at your link, for a "right" to break into anything. In general what Reason argues for, regarding immigration, is that immigration law should be less restrictive, which would result in more people being able to come here legally.


I'm not making up a goddam thing. I can cross-reference and support every claim I've made.

Yes you are. Like the above example, you've repeatedly made up some either/or comparison that has no basis in reality. And if, as in the above example, that is what you call supporting your claims, then, no, I do not believe you can support them at all.


Then what restrictions do you favor, under what conditions?

At last a real question. I favor the protection of individual rights. Which means I favor laws and law enforcement that protects individual rights. Laws against murder, theft, fraud. Laws that protect the individual's right to own property and to protect his privately owned property. Laws that protect the individual's right free speech and freedom of religion (or of no religion as the case may be), et cetera. So a more direct answer would be I favor restrictions on the infringement of individual rights by other individuals and by other entities like corporations and even governments, local, state and federal. Which means, I'm not arguing for allowing anyone to do anything anytime anywhere, not arguing for "absolute liberty" (whatever that is). And as best I can tell, no one at Reason argues for that either. They're not even anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard or the folks at LewRockwell.com who want to do away with government.


One by Gillespie, one by Mangu-Ward, and one by Sullum. And not a word in any of them about "getting government out of marriage".

And not a word in any of them about markets either. And also none of them are advocating using the government to impose anything on anyone. The articles are, in point of fact, discussing the way the conflict over homosexual marriage is playing out. None of them are actually policy advocacy pieces.


You do understand the difference between civil law and contract law, don't you? Marriage is civil law, not contract law. I repeat, there's nothing stopping anyone from forming any relationship they like, and making whatever contract they want between themselves.

Marriage, in our society, is a legal contract between two parties. In most places in this country, marriage between people of the same sex is not allowed. Therefore there is something stopping some people from making a marriage contract between themselves.


So, presumably, you favor law against all childless marriage. Tell me, if a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? Presumably, you favor going back to really traditional marriage practices, arranging marriages for for teenagers so they can have more time to produce plenty of offspring. That is the whole point of marriage, right? All that stuff about love and romance and two people choosing to spend their lives together, that is all just a liberal corruption of traditional values, right?

Presumably, you favor abolishing all laws that don't produce the optimum result 100% of the time, which is pretty much every law on the books.

It is generally agreed that stop signs at intersections reduce accidents. It is also likely true some stop signs have stopped no accidents, and some of them are probably situated such that they've actually caused accidents.

That is not an argument for abolishing stop signs, and even less of an argument for placing them in the middle of corn-fields, where they will certainly stop no accidents at all.

The measure of a law isn't whether it produces a desirable result 100% of the time, but whether they produce a desirable result more often than not. And I hardly see that laws that don't produce a desirable result 100% a justification for creating laws that produce the desired result 0% of the time.

It's called "playing the averages". True, not every heterosexual marriage will produce children. That is not a justification for creating marriages that are guaranteed to produce no children at all.

You are avoiding the questions. If a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? She would be in a marriage guaranteed to produce no children at all. Is your opinion that the point of marriage is to create children, or is that not your opinion?


They like Ron Paul at Reason. A lot of Reason readers probably voted for him. Reason also likes Jeff Flake. I wonder if any Reason-reading libertarians voted for Jeff Flake. Your party could be in serious trouble already!

Bwahahaha!

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d)
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul)
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)

What you mean is, they hated him until they realized he had a lot more support in the libertarian community than they did.

And I have a pretty good idea *why* they hate him. It had nothing to do with the newsletters, they've been quite willing to dismiss more egregiously racist rhetoric, notably from the likes of Barack Obama and his associates. No, what they hate him for is what The New Republic hated him for - Ron Paul, whatever you think of his politics, is a patriot. He sees the role of government as looking out for the interests of America and Americans. Not every illegal immigrant that marches in the door, not Israel, not anyone else.

Which might be a valid argument if not for the fact that it is entirely wrong. Reason wrote about Ron Paul before the scandal concerning his newsletters in late 2007/early 2008. And what Reason wrote about Ron Paul was generally positive. Nick Gillespie even notes this in the first sentence of the article of his for which you gave a link. And much of their writings about Ron Paul are clearly in admiration of the man. (http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/13/identity-crisis (http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/13/identity-crisis), http://reason.com/blog/2006/07/10/two-cheers-for-ron-paul (http://reason.com/blog/2006/07/10/two-cheers-for-ron-paul), http://reason.com/blog/2008/04/07/dr-no-coverage (http://reason.com/blog/2008/04/07/dr-no-coverage)) He was even named one of Reason's 35 Heroes of Freedom (http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/01/35-heroes-of-freedom/singlepage). So, no, they did not hate him, nor do they hate him now.


Thanks, but the last people I people I want running the nation are people who are openly contemptuous of the very concept of nation or national identity. (http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/06/reason-writers-around-town-nic)

If that link is the best you've got, you're going to have to work a lot harder to prove your point. That Gillespie likes poetry by an American poet who wrote poetry about the history of and leading up to the founding of the U.S.A. is hardly, if at all, indication that Gillespie and/or Reason in general are contemptuous of the concept of nation and/or national identity.


These are people with no particular love for this country, to them a country is just a warm place to take a shit, and if they fuck this one up, they'll just move on to the next one, rinse, lather, repeat. What makes them doubly obnoxious, and dangerous IMHO, is that they've managed to hoodwink a fair number of conservatives and patriotic libertarians into believing that, because they support free markets, that also by definition they're also supporters of America and Americans. Not true - they've made themselves quite clear that they like capitalism not necessarily because it's good for America, but specifically for the potential for unbridled capitalism to be disruptive.

I will now wait for you to document/cross-reference/support all of this, because frankly, what you've written there looks like little more than ferret excrement.


I'll vote for a free-market patriot if I can, but the operative word is "patriot". I happen to like my country. Between a free-market cosmopolitan of the Reason variety, and a patriotic socialist like Dennis Kucinich, I'd vote for the socialist every time.

Yes, I am sure you would. You seem to have no philosophical commitment to ideas of freedom or liberty. Your philosophical anchor seems to be excessive nationalism. Country first, before liberty, before rights, before human beings. It is a position I find untenable, callous and fearful. Needless to say, I am not persuaded by your arguments on its behalf.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 05, 2010, 02:21:31 AM
What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?

If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.   

I beg to differ, Pooch, as much as I my hate doing so with you.  Hated NOT for his "indepedence", near as much as his lack of conservative credentials, while trying to lay claim to being a Reagan-like Conservative.  Now, you probably could pull some examples of his conservative legislative efforts.  But I could likely match that with an equal amount of moderate, when not liberal legislative efforts.  Don't even get me started on his class warfare rhetoric in 2000, or CFR.  Point being, he was "all over the ball park", ideologically, when his campaign was sputtering in 2008.  Palin gave him some psuedo conservative cred, while still being a McCain-like maverick. 

And that's PRECISELY what this country is in need of.  A candidate/politican with solid conservative credibility, that can make an effort at standing up to lobbiyests & Congress.....to say no to the hard left (AND hard right), but to govern with an effort reinvigarate fiscal responsibility & national pride.  To facilitate conservative ideals that are the foundation of this country and the constitution     *cue the band to start playing God Bless America*      8)


Feel free to differ whenever you wish, sirs.  I like to think that one of the hallmarks of the right is the ability to disagree among ourselves without resorting to political civil war.  This, in fact, is one of the reasons the current internal polarization within my own party is so distressing to me.  It is so reminiscent of the Democratic party tradition.

But I would say that what you describe as a "lack of conservative credentials" and being politically "all over the ballpark" is precisely what made him an independent.  McCain did, frequently, stand up against the far right in our own party.  Many described him as a RINO, a term I detest, because he did not toe the line.  Personally I had respect for the man because of his service, his political courage and his willingness to flout the party and the electorate for what he believed in.  My only problem with him as a candidate was that I knew teh Republicans would beat themselves up trying to stop his campaign and he wouldn't be a sexy as Obama.  Frankly, I think he would have beaten Hilary hands down.

This country is far too closely and evenly divided between those who vote blue and those who vote red.  Nobody can get the White House because of an extreme position, because the cener will shy away from them instinctively.   Nobody with any baggage can get elected nowadays because of the ubiquitous nature of the media, the internet and the pundits.  And nobody can afford to be looked upon as having failings because the Tiger Woods story has only so much more interest before the bloodthirsty mobs need another victim.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 05, 2010, 11:16:53 AM
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals.  Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country.  I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals.  I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges.  Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book.  I'm a conservative.  Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.

No, I'm not looking for a Michael Savage to lead this country, and no, I don't think I'd have any problem with a Condi Rice as President either.  I did, at one time support a Colin Powell for president.  That would no longer be an option given his recent rhetoric and support of such a leftist, like Obama, to run this country,  But as I said before, I have no problem with a President saying "no" to the hard right.  McCain however, far too often supported leftist causes/legislation.  As much respect I may have for the man, that doesn't bode well for this country, and why Palin gave him a plausble shot at becoming President.  Alas, the economy started nose diving right at the end of the campaign, which took any chances he had down as well.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 05, 2010, 03:43:14 PM
>>No, McCain lost because the Republican party was not behind him fully and the rest of the country had had enough of Republicans.<<

No, McCain lost because the media was successful in fooling enough people into believing Bush was Hitler. Conservatives on the other hand never liked McCain and only reluctantly voted for him because he put a fresh conservative face on the ticket.

>>Or just familiar with history.  Reagan wasn't elected because the people wanted a conservative in office.   He was elected because Carter was bitch-slapped by, in succession, inflation, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Ted Kennedy.<<

Of course they wanted a conservative, They elected one. they heard the conservative message and realized it was the best thi8ng for the country. The conservative message works every time it's tried. you'd have to be blind not to see that. History should teach you that Carter was certainly a bust however,  inflation, interest rates, and Khomeini were not seen as separate from Carter. We saw them as part and parcel to Carter and his ridiculous party. History shows us that Reagan brought a strong, positive message of renewal. that's what got him elected more that anything else. By the time 2012 comes around the country will certainly be in similar, or worse shape then Carter left it. The door will be wide open for a conservative to remind people how great America is and can be. that candidate could certainly be Palin, or someone not yet known to us.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 05, 2010, 09:25:24 PM
>>No, McCain lost because the Republican party was not behind him fully and the rest of the country had had enough of Republicans.<<

No, McCain lost because the media was successful in fooling enough people into believing Bush was Hitler. Conservatives on the other hand never liked McCain and only reluctantly voted for him because he put a fresh conservative face on the ticket.

>>Or just familiar with history.  Reagan wasn't elected because the people wanted a conservative in office.   He was elected because Carter was bitch-slapped by, in succession, inflation, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Ted Kennedy.<<

Of course they wanted a conservative, They elected one. they heard the conservative message and realized it was the best thi8ng for the country. The conservative message works every time it's tried. you'd have to be blind not to see that. History should teach you that Carter was certainly a bust however,  inflation, interest rates, and Khomeini were not seen as separate from Carter. We saw them as part and parcel to Carter and his ridiculous party. History shows us that Reagan brought a strong, positive message of renewal. that's what got him elected more that anything else. By the time 2012 comes around the country will certainly be in similar, or worse shape then Carter left it. The door will be wide open for a conservative to remind people how great America is and can be. that candidate could certainly be Palin, or someone not yet known to us.


Then why wasn't Reagan elected in the several runs he made before?   It took the incompetence of a Jimmy Carter to get people to look at the conservatives again.  The entire decade of the seventies (I dont even want to think about the sixties) was a liberal love-fest.  You say they "wanted a conservative" and back that with "they elected one."  I guess that means America wanted a black President this year.  But I disagree.  America wanted a President that wasn't Republican and the center didn't trust HRC.  Obama was sexy.  He came along at the right moment.   The media had successfully portrayed Bush as Hitler, but Talk Radio had done pretty much the same for Hillary. 

Reagan was a conservative.  That's not why he was elected.  He had failed before, but all that talk about him being crazy enough to lead us into a war sounded pretty appealing after the Ayatollah.  It was, in the end, the kindest thing a Muslim fanatic ever did for America.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 05, 2010, 09:42:55 PM
And yet Palin has a snowballs chance in hell of bouncing back?

That is not the pattern history presents.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 05, 2010, 09:59:20 PM
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals.  Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country.  I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals.  I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges.  Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book.  I'm a conservative.  Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.

And there's the problem.  I am not confusing Independence with a lack of principles.  You are confusing principles with conservatism.  John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.  Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.   If you ask a Democrat they will claim I'm right about Spector and wrong about Lieberman - and a Republican would say just the opposite.  Yet the two are cut from the same cloth.  

Tim Kaine, here in Virginia, won my vote by recognizing the difference between a principled stand and an inability to compromise. Unfortunately, I won't vote for him again.  I've seen what national politics did to Mark Warner.  He is not, as Senator, anything like he was as one of the best governors this state ever had.  Kaine's burning ambition will not allow him to stay the Virginia Democrat he was.

I know an awful lot of highly principled men - Paul Tsongas comes to mind - who were flaming liberals.  I would never cast a vote for him, but I will always respect him.

There are true conservatives of great principle too.  Ronald Reagan stands out most in my mind.  

But there are many whose principles do not fall in one party or the other.  I have no problem with a President who compromises, reaches out to the oppositiion or sees (and applies) the merits of the opposite party.  I detest the current deliberate exclusion of the Republican party from Obama's "negotiations" about health care reform.  I have lost all respect for the man, and I did have some to start.  


No, I'm not looking for a Michael Savage to lead this country, and no, I don't think I'd have any problem with a Condi Rice as President either.  I did, at one time support a Colin Powell for president.  That would no longer be an option given his recent rhetoric and support of such a leftist, like Obama, to run this country,  But as I said before, I have no problem with a President saying "no" to the hard right.  McCain however, far too often supported leftist causes/legislation.  As much respect I may have for the man, that doesn't bode well for this country, and why Palin gave him a plausble shot at becoming President.  Alas, the economy started nose diving right at the end of the campaign, which took any chances he had down as well.

Well, that can hardly be discounted, but I don't think it would have made a difference.  I think Obama was preordained in 2004.  We just didn't know it at the time.  As for Colin Powell, I would support him immediately, even if he ran as a Democrat.  I have no problem with Powell distancing himself from the Bush administration or supporting this President.  Those are principled stands too.  And I respect Colin Powell as a military man a lot more than I do George W. Bush.  I never bought that "AWOL" nonsense but if I had to go to war under the leadership of a General, there isn't even a contest.

Bottom line, sirs, is that I do not think one has to be in lockstep with any party to have principles.  My principles say there should be no school prayer.  My principles say we are not - and were never meant to be - a Christian nation.  My principles also say we should be allowed to build manger scenes and crosses in public parks.  My principles say two men or two women should never be prohibited from making any contract they want together - and they also say that should exclude marriage.   My principles say the Constitution should be the only basis for law in this country - and that it is a living, changeable document that is subject -as all government should be - to the will of the people, be that right or wrong.  

My principles say that if the people of a state vote to change their constitution to make gay marriage unrecognized and a court overturns that, it is permissible to take up arms and forceably overthrow that government.  They also say that if the people vote to amend a constitution to allow gay marriage and a court overturns it, I would pick up my weapon and fight alongside the gays (though maybe not TOO close!)

Not all ideals are left or right, democrat or republican or libertarian.  I've seen the excess of the right and the left, and I have only to imagine (thank God) the excess of the libertarians.  I feel like Robert Ludlum:  Power concentrated in the hands of one person or group of persons scares me - not matter what their politics.  Someone who recognizes that he owes neither allegiance nor his vote to either side is my idea of an American.  
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 05, 2010, 10:02:23 PM
And yet Palin has a snowballs chance in hell of bouncing back?

That is not the pattern history presents.



Anything's possible, BT.  I wouldn't cry if I had to eat crow where Palin is concerned.  (and just think of how pissed Hillary would be if she lost her destiny - lol!)  But at the risk of sounding like I'm "quayle-ing" her, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

He was nowhere near as cute.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM
>>Then why wasn't Reagan elected in the several runs he made before? It took the incompetence of a Jimmy Carter to get people to look at the conservatives again.<<

You mentioned history, this would be a good place to study some. Of course Carter played a role in his own demise. He was an incompetent boob. However, the Conservative message was gaining ground long before Carter screwed things up. The momentum began with Goldwater and culminated in Ronald Reagan. The Conservative message is so popular that every time it’s tried, it wins.


>>The entire decade of the seventies (I don’t even want to think about the sixties) was a liberal love-fest.<<

Didn’t you mention Carter? Hardly a love-fest, in fact it was more of a hate-fest. Was Lyndon Johnson a liberal? Hardly. Ford? Nixon? A liberal favorite? I'm not sure you're thinking about the right decade.

>>You say they "wanted a conservative" and back that with "they elected one." I guess that means America wanted a black President this year.<<

You don’t think so? Combine the media attack on Bush with the love-fest for a Black man and you’ve got our first Black president. If they didn’t want a black guy, they could have elected a White woman. So I guess America prefers their socialist be of color.

>>But I disagree. America wanted a President that wasn't Republican and the center didn't trust HRC. Obama was sexy. He came along at the right moment. The media had successfully portrayed Bush as Hitler, but Talk Radio had done pretty much the same for Hillary.<<


Hell, I VOTED for Hillary in the primary so talk radio didn’t have much of effect on me. Down the stretch Conservatives would much rather have had Hillary get the nomination. At least Hillary isn’t a statist/communist.

>>Reagan was a conservative. That's not why he was elected.<<

Yes it was. His message got him elected. If Conservativism wasn’t appealing we would have gotten four more years of Jimma Carter.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 05, 2010, 10:38:44 PM
>>Then why wasn't Reagan elected in the several runs he made before? It took the incompetence of a Jimmy Carter to get people to look at the conservatives again.<<

You mentioned history, this would be a good place to study some. Of course Carter played a role in his own demise. He was an incompetent boob. However, the Conservative message was gaining ground long before Carter screwed things up. The momentum began with Goldwater and culminated in Ronald Reagan. The Conservative message is so popular that every time it’s tried, it wins.

You mention Goldwater and then say "every time it's tried, it wins."  Bad form. 

>>The entire decade of the seventies (I don’t even want to think about the sixties) was a liberal love-fest.<<

Didn’t you mention Carter? Hardly a love-fest, in fact it was more of a hate-fest. Was Lyndon Johnson a liberal? Hardly. Ford? Nixon? A liberal favorite? I'm not sure you're thinking about the right decade.

Lyndon Johnson was elected - after replacing JFK - in 1964.  That's hardly the seventies - and not even well into the '60's as they played out.  He defeated a conservative and supported the civil rights bill and created the Great Society.  You're really calling him a non-liberal?  Maybe YOU don't remember that decade.  Nixon was probably the most liberal Republican president in my lifetime.  He backed away from a war we should have won (though in many ways that was bigger than him).  He opened ties with a communist regime and even, IIRC, nominated some ummm, less-than-conservative voices to the SCOTUS.  I wouldn't call him a liberal, but he was no arch-conservative either.  Ford was a non-entity. Carter was Carter.    But underlying all of that was the steady drumbeat of the Kennedy legacy, the Democrat-controlled congress, the anti-war movement, women's lib, the sexual revolution, the "ecology" movement and the start of "earth day."  1967 wasn't called the Summer of Love because God is love.  Roe vs. Wade didn't happen because conservatives controlled the court.  Madeline Murray O'hare wasn't successful because of the strength of the Christian right.

I don't need to study that history.  I lived through it.  True, for much of that time I wasn't quite old enough to get it - and years of retrospect have sharpened my understanding.  But I sure remember saying prayer in school one year and then not being allowed to the next.  I remember the anti-war protests and staying out of school for the "moritoriam."  I remember that stupid green, lower-case "e" looking ecology flag.  I made a kite with that symbol on it one year.  The string broke and it got stuck up in a tree in the park.  For weeks it shredded up there, making an unsightly mess in an otherwise lovely tree.  If only I had understood the irony at the time.

Yeah, the seventies were seriously liberal.  I suppose if you were deep enough in the south or something it might not have been as visible, but it was certainly there.


>>Reagan was a conservative. That's not why he was elected.<<

Yes it was. His message got him elected. If Conservativism wasn’t appealing we would have gotten four more years of Jimma Carter.



His message was appealing because it wasn't Carter.  Reagan  didn't get elected because the country was conservative again  He MADE America conservative again. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 05, 2010, 11:08:44 PM
Quote
But at the risk of sounding like I'm "quayle-ing" her, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

No she is Sarah Palin, she doesn't need to be anyone other than who she is. And who she is is everyman in a skirt.

Do you really think she is stupid?

No more stupid than any other citizen who played a little sports in high school, took some time to get her degree, raised a family, got involved in the PTA, then a stint on City Council, then Mayor then a State Commission then a reform candidate for Governor.

You do realize that every step of the way she was vetted, tested and approved by those that mattered most, the voters.

And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?

 Maybe we need more people who know what aisle the Cheerios are on . Maybe we need more people who aren't embarrassed to be seen in a WalMart, who eat the food they grow or hunt or catch.

Maybe we need less Harvard and Yale and more Boise State and UGA. Maybe we need less elitism and more realism. Because we have had the law professors and the MBA's and the career politicians and how well has that served us?

Hmm? You happy with the shape we are in?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 06, 2010, 12:01:58 AM
Quote
But at the risk of sounding like I'm "quayle-ing" her, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

No she is Sarah Palin, she doesn't need to be anyone other than who she is. And who she is is everyman in a skirt.

Sounds like a gay dream . . . lol.   Every man can't be President, in spite of the slogan.



Do you really think she is stupid?


I've already said I don't believe that.  Furthermore, whether she is or not is  not relevent to my argument.


No more stupid than any other citizen who played a little sports in high school, took some time to get her degree, raised a family, got involved in the PTA, then a stint on City Council, then Mayor then a State Commission then a reform candidate for Governor.

You do realize that every step of the way she was vetted, tested and approved by those that mattered most, the voters.

Just like every serious candidate who ever lost a Presidential election - that would be roughly half.  The voters in Massachusetts chose Kerry and Kennedy repeatedly.  The nation never did.  Kennedy couldn't even get nominated by his own party.  Same (so far, at least) for Hillary Clinton.  What Alaskan voters did doesn't necessarily translate out to what a national audience will do.  I meant, "electorate" but I said "audience."  That was a pointed Freudian slip. 



And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?


Because she comes off like an amateur.  This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol.  (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)



 Maybe we need more people who know what aisle the Cheerios are on . Maybe we need more people who aren't embarrassed to be seen in a WalMart, who eat the food they grow or hunt or catch.


I don't think so.  Those are really appealing qualities in a friend.  They mean nothing when you are sitting across the table from a Putin or even a Reid or Pelosi.  I'm thinking we need people who understand current events, know how to handle themselves under pressure and appeal to more than  just partisans.  I'm not seeing that in Sarah.

Maybe we need less Harvard and Yale and more Boise State and UGA. Maybe we need less elitism and more realism. Because we have had the law professors and the MBA's and the career politicians and how well has that served us?



Better, over the last couple of centuries, than most "real" people like to admit.

Hmm? You happy with the shape we are in?


No.  I never have been.  That's part of the price of liberty - never being satisifed or having it all your own way.  OTOH I'm pretty happy the shape I myself am in (well, not physically or financially but those are my own doing).   I feel like, over five decades I have never been under a serious threat of major attack, complete loss of freedom, getting imprisoned or burned for what I believe or shot for posting my political opinion online.  Every time we have opted for the so-called "outsider" it has been a disaster.  I don't think I want Sarah Palin (at least just yet) being in charge of my freedoms, my country, my life.  I am NOT impressed with her.  I think she made the correct decision to quit the governorship, but I do not think that is a good decision of the sort I would want made by my President.   
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 06, 2010, 12:17:02 AM
Quote
Every time we have opted for the so-called "outsider" it has been a disaster.

Some examples please.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 06, 2010, 12:27:40 AM
Quote
Every time we have opted for the so-called "outsider" it has been a disaster.

Some examples please.



Jimmy Carter
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 06, 2010, 12:37:21 AM
And not Reagan?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 06, 2010, 12:45:50 AM
And not Reagan?


Reagan had been involved in National Politics for several years - I believe he ran twice for President - before he actually got elected.  He was not a new face.  Carter was.  After Watergate and the pardon any new face was welcome.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 06, 2010, 12:54:39 AM
Reagan was no more a DC Insider than you or I. He ran unsuccessfully in 76 and then successfully in 80.

Clinton was an outsider too.

So we have two reasonably successful outsider administrations against one failed outsider administration.

I don't think your outsider bias withstands scrutiny.





Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 06, 2010, 01:04:13 AM
Reagan was no more a DC Insider than you or I. He ran unsuccessfully in 76 and then successfully in 80.

Clinton was an outsider too.

So we have two reasonably successful outsider administrations against one failed outsider administration.

I don't think your outsider bias withstands scrutiny.

I wouldn't call Clinton's Presidency successful, but you can certainly argue that if you want to.  Reagan was a known face in national politics.  I was a teenager and I knew who Ronald Reagan the candidate was long before I knew he was a former movie star.  Jimmy Carter was a true unknown.  He was elected because everyone wanted a new face.  He wasn't ready.  Btw, isn't this newbie an outsider?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 06, 2010, 01:26:33 AM
Quote
Btw, isn't this newbie an outsider?

He's a newbie, as a former Senator, he isn't an outsider.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 06, 2010, 08:36:07 AM
Quote
Btw, isn't this newbie an outsider?

He's a newbie, as a former Senator, he isn't an outsider.



That's true, but he seemed to want to portray himself as one.  He promised a change in the way politics was done.  He's doing that.

Off-topic, is there a record to the number of posts and views on a particular thread?  I was noticing the views on this one are heading towards the Kilo-view mark!
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 06, 2010, 11:16:08 AM
Quote
He promised a change in the way politics was done.  He's doing that.

How so?

Quote
Off-topic, is there a record to the number of posts and views on a particular thread?  I was noticing the views on this one are heading towards the Kilo-view mark!

Not that i am aware of.

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 06, 2010, 11:21:59 PM
>>Nixon was probably the most liberal Republican president in my lifetime.<<

<chuckle>

Nixon ... enjoying a liberal love-fest ... Talk about bad form.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 06, 2010, 11:40:29 PM
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals.  Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country.  I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals.  I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges.  Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book.  I'm a conservative.  Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.

And there's the problem.  I am not confusing Independence with a lack of principles.  You are confusing principles with conservatism.  John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.

Nooooo, not exactly correct.  as I was hoping to make clear, my problem with McCain is his lack of Conservative principals, while attempting to campaign on them.  And his attempt to "stand up" to the conservative base is precisely opposite of the Principled leader I would want as my President


Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.  

Not really...in either case.  Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical.  Lieberman, while I applaud his support of Bush and the war in Iraq, largely parroted the leftist Gore in all his campaign rhetoric, in 2000.  Now it's not as politically as tasty to do so.  Same with Specter.  He largely supported Bush & the war, but all his domestic support was largely center left.  He's since likely shot his re-election chances by NOT remaining princepled, and switched parties.  Now you can argue that he changed parties because of principals...I'd argue he did because it was politically helpful for him at the time.  I doubt very seriously he'd have changed if the GOP was the majority party.


If you ask a Democrat they will claim I'm right about Spector and wrong about Lieberman - and a Republican would say just the opposite.   

As you can see, I disagreed.  Then again, I'm neither a Dem or a Repub.  Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch.  McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican.  Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise.  I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology.  Civil Unions being a perfect example.  Support of certain level of taxation, being another.  Point is, McCain is NOT as "independent" as you might think.  He's a politician 1st and formost, and a moderate in his ideology. 

But at least he's not a hard core liberal


Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 06, 2010, 11:46:53 PM



And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?


Because she comes off like an amateur.  This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol.  (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)








Not a few people are tired of the professional pols whos main experience is talking to others of their own ilk , it seems like a grand conspiricy of old cronys , who feel as if they need not understand how anything other than politics works.

If Sara is elected in the tradition of Davy Crockett I would be pleased witht he whole idea , would I feel as if a good president were garunteed that way? , no , not at all , but a good president is not being pulled from the pros all that often either.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 07, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?  

Because she comes off like an amateur.  This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol.  (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)


Sarah Palin: Wrong prescription for America?
Posted: January 07, 2010

"Sarah Palin, do you guys really like her?"

My dad's doctor asked me this a couple of weeks ago. His smile seemed to shout, "Are you guys crazy?" I had taken my 94-year-old Republican father to see him several times, but politics never came up. Did the doc really want to go there? It went something like this:

"What's the problem with her?" I said.

"Well, she's, she's ?"

"Stupid?"

"All right."

"Really? Why, because she isn't as glib or articulate as you elites like? She didn't answer Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson the way President Obama would have?"

"Yes ? I'm one of those elites."

"How stupid do you have to be to take on the establishment in Alaska and win? How stupid do you have to be to have ? at the time Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked her ? an 84 percent popularity rating in Alaska? She had more executive experience than Obama."

"Well, she doesn't come across as prepared."  

"I don't know what qualities you look for. But I'll tell you what counts for me: character, competence and vision. She's likable. She has a strong, stable marriage with a down-to-earth husband. She has convictions that I agree with. Government too big? Check. People taxed too much? Check. Stay on offense in the war on terror? Check. For me, what's not to like?"

"I'd worry about her judgment."

"Do you worry about Vice President Joe Biden's?"

"No, why should I?"

"Where do I start? Put aside all the gaffes. He's the one who, during their debate, cited the wrong part of the Constitution when asked to describe the role of the vice president. As a new member of Congress, he voted to cut off funding to the South Vietnamese. This helped lead to the slaughter of millions in that country and Cambodia. Biden routinely challenged President Ronald Reagan on fighting the Cold War, even though even some Reagan haters now believe Reagan's policies helped speed up the fall of the Soviet Union. Biden opposed the first Gulf War. Wrong. He supported the Iraq War, then argued that Iraq should be divided into three parts, then opposed the surge ? said it wouldn't work ? and then opposed the war that he earlier voted for. Wrong."

"C'mon, you're entitled to change your opinion."

"You are. But we are talking about judgment. And Palin has taken a consistent and defensible position on the war. You may disagree, but at least she's clear. And the surge did work. Iraq might just make it. We'll see what the Middle East is like in 20 years. So far this month (of December), zero coalition combat deaths in Iraq. Pretty impressive."

"Yeah, it is."

"And I don't know how you feel about abortion. But Palin is, as I'm sure you know, strongly pro-life. She learns she's pregnant with a child with Down syndrome. Even many pro-lifers would have aborted that child. Palin didn't. That's talking the talk and walking the walk, and yes, 'us guys' think it's admirable."

"I, I don't know whether she's bright enough."

"And a lot of people on the left thought President George W. Bush was dumb, too. Are you one of them?

"I admit it."

"Did you know he had better grades in college than Al Gore?"

"He did?"

"Did you know he scored higher on his military IQ test than did John Kerry?"

"No."

"Did you know he got a higher SAT score than did Rhodes scholar Bill Bradley?"

"No."

"Obama is clearly smart," I said.

"Yeah, and he doesn't turn people off. He's brilliant."

"OK. And it took Obama nearly three months to decide how to respond to the request for more troops in Afghanistan. In making important decisions ? things that matter ? a president spends more time than it takes to answer a reporter's question on what the 'Bush Doctrine' means. Oh, and about turning people off, Palin's popularity is now about equal to Obama's."

"Well, I just feel more comfortable with him."

"Would you feel comfortable with him if he were a low-tax, low-regulation, limited-government, strong-national-security Republican ? same guy, different views?"

"Probably not."

"OK, then this is really about ideology."

"Well ?" he laughed.

"Were you OK with bailing out all those banks?"

"No, but Bush did it, too."

"He shouldn't have, but how we got there is about government butting into the housing business. What about bailing out GM?"

"No."

"Do you think the stimulus package truly 'created or saved' a bunch of jobs?"

"No."

"Are you OK with Obamacare?"

Dad's doctor suddenly turned into Mr. Hyde. He teed off on the government dictating how he should practice medicine. He predicted that costs would go up, not down. He predicted that quality would go down, not up. He talked about the importance of the profit incentive.

"Sarah Palin feels the same way you do."

As for my dad, some swelling, occasional dizziness ? not bad for a 94-year-old. Thank you for asking.



Still think she's 'just an amateur'? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=121165)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 07, 2010, 04:37:07 PM
John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.  Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.  

Not really...in either case.  Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical.....Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch.  McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican.  Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise.  I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology.   

Ouch (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 10:30:57 PM
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals.  Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country.  I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals.  I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges.  Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book.  I'm a conservative.  Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.

And there's the problem.  I am not confusing Independence with a lack of principles.  You are confusing principles with conservatism.  John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.

Nooooo, not exactly correct.  as I was hoping to make clear, my problem with McCain is his lack of Conservative principals, while attempting to campaign on them.  And his attempt to "stand up" to the conservative base is precisely opposite of the Principled leader I would want as my President


Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.  

Not really...in either case.  Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical.  Lieberman, while I applaud his support of Bush and the war in Iraq, largely parroted the leftist Gore in all his campaign rhetoric, in 2000.  Now it's not as politically as tasty to do so.  Same with Specter.  He largely supported Bush & the war, but all his domestic support was largely center left.  He's since likely shot his re-election chances by NOT remaining princepled, and switched parties.  Now you can argue that he changed parties because of principals...I'd argue he did because it was politically helpful for him at the time.  I doubt very seriously he'd have changed if the GOP was the majority party.


If you ask a Democrat they will claim I'm right about Spector and wrong about Lieberman - and a Republican would say just the opposite.   

As you can see, I disagreed.  Then again, I'm neither a Dem or a Repub.  Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch.  McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican.  Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise.  I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology.  Civil Unions being a perfect example.  Support of certain level of taxation, being another.  Point is, McCain is NOT as "independent" as you might think.  He's a politician 1st and formost, and a moderate in his ideology. 

But at least he's not a hard core liberal





I inadvertantly capitlaized Independent in my original post.  I was not suggesting McCain was an "Independent" but rather that his thinking was independent of party.  That was my fault. 

As to the rest of your analysis, I respectfully disagree.  Also, I happen to think that strict adherence to either a conservative or liberal ideological mindset is NOT a good thing.   It is, however (and I do not mean this disrespectfully) something that one ought to expect from you,  given that your screenname, IIRC, once included the very Politically Incorrect "PC".   :D   Now there's a blast from the past!
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 10:33:48 PM
John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.  Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.  

Not really...in either case.  Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical.....Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch.  McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican.  Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise.  I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology.   

Ouch (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx)


Did something get deleted here?  It looks like you are quoting youself.  If that IS what happened, I'm not sure what the "Ouch" is all about. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 10:36:43 PM



And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?


Because she comes off like an amateur.  This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol.  (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)








Not a few people are tired of the professional pols whos main experience is talking to others of their own ilk , it seems like a grand conspiricy of old cronys , who feel as if they need not understand how anything other than politics works.

If Sara is elected in the tradition of Davy Crockett I would be pleased witht he whole idea , would I feel as if a good president were garunteed that way? , no , not at all , but a good president is not being pulled from the pros all that often either.

I would be fine if the Republlicans win back the White House - with Sarah or anybody else.  It seems apparent that the point of my objection to Sarah Palin as a candidate is not getting through to the Palinites on the site.  I have no personal problem with her.  I just don't think she can win.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 10:39:28 PM
Quote
He promised a change in the way politics was done.  He's doing that.

How so?



Well, I could be wrong, since I've never really made a study of it.  But it seems to me that in the past when the Senate and House were trying to reconcile a bill it included both parties - and  not the executive branch.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 10:51:58 PM
Still think she's 'just an amateur'?[/url]

Yes I do.  Further (and more to my point)  I think she COMES OFF as an amateur. 

Incidentally, the article you posted was a very poorly reasoned piece of propaganda.   It made no viable arguments to refute the idea tha Sarah Palin looks foolish to voters.  Rather, it attempted to take exception to that very mindset. The summation of that approach goes like this:  "Voters do NOT think Sarah Palin looks foolish - and anyway they're wrong about that!" 

As to the arguments presented, they are weak, slanted and defensive.  I will not refute them point by point because many of them I already have in this thread and others are just not worth the effort.  But I will say that among other things, it made the ridiculous and irrelevent argument that Palin's popularit NOW is close to Obama's (a sad claim, given that our side is crowing about how LOW his popularity is).  Frankly, I suspect that this dialogue is a "composite" one, which never actually took place. 

Again, I have no problem with Sarah and will vote for her absent a better choice, but I do not think she is a good candidate and I hope that something better . . . well, you know.

I am reminded of how this club got its name.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 10:57:32 PM
>>Nixon was probably the most liberal Republican president in my lifetime.<<

<chuckle>

Nixon ... enjoying a liberal love-fest ... Talk about bad form.


Lol.  Well, you  may have me there.  But after all, he DID go on Laugh-In.  Senator Inouye took the suggestion Nixon made on that show a tad seriously, I think!
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 07, 2010, 11:01:06 PM
Did something get deleted here?  It looks like you are quoting youself.  If that IS what happened, I'm not sure what the "Ouch" is all about. 

The "Ouch" is a link.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 07, 2010, 11:24:11 PM
Did something get deleted here?  It looks like you are quoting youself.  If that IS what happened, I'm not sure what the "Ouch" is all about. 

The "Ouch" is a link.

OH!  Thank you.  I didn't realize that. 

I am intrigued by the self-described "moderates."  I wonder how many of them really are, and how many just think they are.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 07, 2010, 11:57:23 PM
I wonder how many of them really are, and how many just think they are.

I know I am, because I have positions that piss off both sides.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 08, 2010, 12:26:38 AM
I wonder how many of them really are, and how many just think they are.

I know I am, because I have positions that piss off both sides.

lol.  I know the feeling.  My ultra-conservative brother thinks I am a flaming liberal, and my liberal daughter thinks I am a Rush Limbaugh clone.  Whaddayagonnado?  But my son defines himself as a moderate because he agrees with the right on some issues and the left on others.  OTOH I know some people who are way left or way right and consider themselves moderate (and moderates as way out on the opposite side's fringe).

I define a moderate position as one which sees the merits of both sides and attempts to accomodate those merits as far as possible.  But that's probably just the staunch conservative flaming liberal in me.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 08, 2010, 12:58:10 AM
A moderate is someone who let's someone else make up his/her mind for them.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 09, 2010, 04:50:45 AM
A moderate is someone who let's someone else make up his/her mind for them.


Nonsense.  That would be a partisan.  A moderate doesn't have to please his party elders.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 09, 2010, 10:28:17 AM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 09, 2010, 11:15:53 AM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak.

Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).

Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 09, 2010, 11:59:18 AM
>>Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).<<

You have that exactly backwards. Weak people allow others to form opinions and then pick the path of least resistance. That's a moderate.

Remember, being a Conservative or liberal doesn't mean being in lockstep (well, at least not Conservatives), there is room for differing opinion. Moderates however, don't form their own opinion. They allow others to do it for them.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 09, 2010, 12:22:41 PM
Remember, being a Conservative or liberal doesn't mean being in lockstep (well, at least not Conservatives), there is room for differing opinion. Moderates however, don't form their own opinion. They allow others to do it for them.

A moderate is someone who has a differing opinion from the partisan view. A partisan, by definition, is someone who follows the party line, ie, allows someone else to form their opinion.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 09, 2010, 12:33:16 PM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).
Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.

Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down.  A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony   ;)  ).  Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to.  The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see.  Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says.  Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 09, 2010, 06:45:43 PM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).
Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.

Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down.  A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony   ;)  ).  Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to.  The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see.  Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says.  Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led

Interesting.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 09, 2010, 06:49:48 PM
Not to be confused with being civil or civility.  No reason one couldn't be a civil partisan or a rude moderate
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 10, 2010, 01:20:43 AM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak.

Ridiculous.  A partisan is someone who cannot think beyond the strict bigotry of his mindset.  The reason partisans call moderates weak is because partisans are incapable of processing more than one aspect of an issue.  It is far more simple, and requires far less effort, to take a "stand" (which is to say, rigidly and stubbornly stick to a position) than to consider alternatives.   Partisans confuse rigid thinking with strength.  It isn't.

Moderates take stands too, they just don't take orders from partisans.  I think public prayer should be kept out of schools.  Conservative partisans often think it should be allowed in schools.  I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother.  Conservative partisans often insist that there should be no exceptions.   I believe anti-sodomy laws should be repealed.  Conservative partisans often believe they should be strengthened.   I believe the Constitution is a living document, this is NOT a Christian nation and was never intended to be, and that Wiccan chaplains have as much right in the service as Christian ones.  Conservative partisans often go ballistic over those views, even going so far as to call me a "RINO."  My response is, I am a Republican and a Conservative, but I can THINK as well as vote, and if you don't like it, get the hell out of MY party.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 10, 2010, 01:31:56 AM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).
Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.

Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down.  A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony   ;)  ).  Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to.  The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see.  Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says.  Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led

There is no sin or weakness in compromise.  In fact, it is usually preferable to strict partisanship.  I let nobody make up my mind for me.  I look at the facts and decide what makes sense based on my own experience.  As an example, let's look at gay marriage.  I am completely against it because of my religious convictions and personal values.  But I see the dichotomy of believing firmly in the American principle of freedom of choice and the conservative principle of limited government and still keeping to my position on Gay marriage.  In spite of my revulsion towards gay behavior, I DO believe that if two people love (or think they love) each other it's none of my business (or the government's business) and we should stay out of it.  If they want to live together, have sex with each other and combine their assets, I see no compelling reason why the government should get involved.  But, in spite of that, I draw the line at marriage.  Have civil unions or committments or whatever else you want to call it, and let health benefits, hospital visitations and probate all recognize those contracts as valid.  But marriage is a sacred ordinance and it should not be imposed by the government on anyone.  So I come to the conclusion that where gay marriage comes into play, I have to deicde on one principle or another.  I choose to say civil unions are acceptable but marriage is not.  That's a compromise.  If I had unrestricted rule I would probably ban all gay activity, but that would be tyrannical. 

Like I said, Ia partisan has to follow the partisan line.  A moderate gets to examine the facts and go where he will.  That's a pretty good definition for freedom.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 10, 2010, 01:45:22 AM
Perhaps the debate should not be about the ends but the dogmatic emphasis on the means to that end.

Let's say the goal is national health care. A partisan might be dogmatic about funding the program with a surtax on the rich, the other end might say do all in their power to kill the program demonizing anything that might change the status quo and protect those who might profit from keeping things the way they are.

A moderate might say if we must have National Health Care then fund it universally via sales tax so that everybody pays.

Nation Health Care means the provision of health services universally and NOT the insurance coverage package that is currently being debated.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 10, 2010, 02:37:39 AM
Perhaps the debate should not be about the ends but the dogmatic emphasis on the means to that end.

Let's say the goal is national health care. A partisan might be dogmatic about funding the program with a surtax on the rich, the other end might say do all in their power to kill the program demonizing anything that might change the status quo and protect those who might profit from keeping things the way they are.

A moderate might say if we must have National Health Care then fund it universally via sales tax so that everybody pays.

Nation Health Care means the provision of health services universally and NOT the insurance coverage package that is currently being debated.



That's an interesting take, BT, and a pretty good example.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 10, 2010, 05:21:22 AM
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak.

Ridiculous.  A partisan is someone who cannot think beyond the strict bigotry of his mindset.  The reason partisans call moderates weak is because partisans are incapable of processing more than one aspect of an issue. 

I know you have heard this one before.


Where are the statues of the great Moderates?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 10, 2010, 05:34:25 AM
Quote
Where are the statues of the great Moderates?

Where would you place JFK on the spectrum, or Truman or Eisenhower or GHWBush?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 11, 2010, 02:27:10 AM
Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down.  A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony   ;)  ).  Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to.  The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see.  Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says.  Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led

There is no sin or weakness in compromise.  

Never said there was.  Even provided some examples of such while still maintaining some assemblence of conservative convictions


In fact, it is usually preferable to strict partisanship. 

There, I would disagree.  Then again, that's why I'm a proud partisan conservative, and allow nothing but MY OWN Princpals, help me make decisions....note, not someone else, but me


Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 11, 2010, 01:15:21 PM
>>A moderate is someone who has a differing opinion from the partisan view.<<

I don't think so. A moderate is someone who is unwilling or unable to form an opinion on his/her own. His only conviction is to not be convicted. So the moderates waits for a concensus and then follows the popular view.


>>A partisan, by definition, is someone who follows the party line, ie, allows someone else to form their opinion.<<

No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 11, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
I don't think so. A moderate is someone who is unwilling or unable to form an opinion on his/her own. His only conviction is to not be convicted. So the moderates waits for a concensus and then follows the popular view.

You seem to be confusing "moderate" with "undecided". I suggest you learn English.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 11, 2010, 01:47:03 PM
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Partisan (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Partisan)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on January 11, 2010, 05:44:34 PM
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/1aaa37.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 12:02:10 AM
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 12, 2010, 12:22:00 AM
Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???

Moderate or independent.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 12:41:53 AM
DEFINATELY, not a moderate.  I guess that makes me an Independent
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 12, 2010, 03:00:38 AM
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???

The definitions that you and Rich keep giving have two fatal flaws:  The first is that a partisan comes to some sort of conclusion and then sticks with it.  In itself, that is a perfectly fine statement.  But then you contrast that with a moderate who, apparently, DOESN'T come to a conclusion.  That's ridiculous.  A conservative comes to the conclusion that prayer should be allowed in school.  A liberal comes to the conclusion that prayer should be prohibited in school.  A moderate may decide that a compromise can be made by allowing a moment of silence wherein a student may chose to pray silently or not at all.  By your definition, the conservative and liberal are making up their own minds and the moderate is allowing someone else to make up his mind for him.  Who?  Why cant a person of reasonable intelligence decide that both sides are being bigotted and a rational middle ground may be formed?   A conservative decides that gay unions of any kinds should be abolioshed because God hates them.  A liberal decides that God doesn't exist or absolutely loves gays as they are and insists gays have a right to marriage like any other couple.  A moderate may decide that, while his religious convictions or traditional views frown on homosexuality, his beliefs about freedom make individual rights ring true to him.  So he decides that a civil union best resolves the conflict.  Who made up his mind for him? 

The second fatal flaw is that idea that "I made up my mind and a lot of people just happen to agree with me."  This contrasts with "I considered the issue from both sides decided that there are solutions that can effectively serve both sides."  You view the first stance - the one that follows the party line - with "making up your own mind" but the second, free from the narrow constraints of either end of the spectrum, as somehow giving your free will to someone else.  WHO?  I favor civil unions and oppose gay marriage.  Who made up my mind for me?  The liberals?  Hell, no.  They want full gay marriage.  The conservatives?  Not a chance, they want homosexuality to get no recognition at all.

I do not mean to say that a person cannot make a full-blown partisan decision by intelligent reasoning and independent thought.  But that same process can be used by partisans from the other side of the aisle who come to completely opposite conclusions based on the same set of facts.  A moderate can equally view those facts and come up with a third solution- or he may choose one side or the other on any given issue.  Being free from partisan obligations he can vote for either side of an issue, or work towards compromise on any issue, wiothout having to answer to some party chairman or political group.

Partisanship is based on the simplistic ideal that everything is black or white and there is no middle ground - and the even more foolish idea that anyone who can see more than two possible solutions for a problem is "unwilling to take a stand."  It is the epitome of intellectual laziness - not to mention arrogance. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Stray Pooch on January 12, 2010, 03:01:51 AM
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/1aaa37.jpg)

That's hilarious!
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 05:13:58 AM
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???

The definitions that you and Rich keep giving have two fatal flaws:  The first is that a partisan comes to some sort of conclusion and then sticks with it.  In itself, that is a perfectly fine statement.  But then you contrast that with a moderate who, apparently, DOESN'T come to a conclusion.  That's ridiculous.  

Because you're not allowing for the aspects of what brought that moderate to their final decision....one not of ideological conviction but frequently of appeasement.  One not of a foundation of what they believe in, but a foundation of seeking compromise.  See the difference?


The second fatal flaw is that idea that "I made up my mind and a lot of people just happen to agree with me."  This contrasts with "I considered the issue from both sides decided that there are solutions that can effectively serve both sides."  You view the first stance - the one that follows the party line - with "making up your own mind" but the second, free from the narrow constraints of either end of the spectrum, as somehow giving your free will to someone else.  WHO?  I favor civil unions and oppose gay marriage.  Who made up my mind for me?  The liberals?  Hell, no.  They want full gay marriage.  The conservatives?  Not a chance, they want homosexuality to get no recognition at all.

As I said already, I'm a proud PARTISAN Conservative, but willing to recognize civil unions.  See?, a Partisan CAN compromise, and still hold hard to their ideologcal faith.  Wow, who'd a thunk it    8)



Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 12, 2010, 11:32:31 AM
As I said already, I'm a proud PARTISAN Conservative, but willing to recognize civil unions.

That's a moderate position. So, who made up your mind for you on this issue?
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 11:48:29 AM
It's a compromise, I made, while still holding on to some assemblence of my conservative convictions, since I can still support that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor have to respect someone simply because they are gay
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 12, 2010, 11:53:35 AM
It's a compromise, I made, while still holding on to some assemblence of my conservative convictions, since I can still support that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor have to respect someone simply because they are gay

So, you're backing off on moderate positions only coming from someone unwilling to form their own opinions?

You have a moderate position on this issue; according to your previous arguments, it CAN ONLY COME from someone else making up your mind for you; You can't come to that position yourself.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 12:00:05 PM
It's a compromise, I made, while still holding on to some assemblence of my conservative convictions, since I can still support that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor have to respect someone simply because they are gay

So, you're backing off on moderate positions only coming from someone unwilling to form their own opinions?

Not sure where you got that notion.  Perhaps you're getting me confused with someone else


You have a moderate position on this issue; according to your previous arguments, it CAN ONLY COME from someone else making up your mind for you

Naaaa, it doesn't work that way, since I never claimed such.  I have a compromised view on this issue.  We partisans can actually make the occasional compromise, as long as we're not folding on our core principals

Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 12, 2010, 12:04:58 PM
>>You seem to be confusing "moderate" with "undecided". I suggest you learn English.<<

I'm not sure why you felt that was neccessary Ami.

I suggest ask someone what they term "friendly disagreement" means.

Unless you don't understand English?  ???
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 12, 2010, 12:54:19 PM
I'm not sure why you felt that was neccessary Ami.

Because you were just constantly repeating yourself without adding any new content.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 12, 2010, 04:01:10 PM
Whatever fatman.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Amianthus on January 12, 2010, 04:07:42 PM
Whatever fatman.

He hasn't been around for a while.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 04:09:05 PM
Yea, I miss 'em.  Provided some great objective commenatry
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Rich on January 12, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
So he wasn't a moderate.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 04:30:17 PM
I wouldn't have classified him as such. 
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: Plane on January 12, 2010, 06:51:18 PM
I always saw a partizen as someone who has chosen a side , joined with the like minded and contributes effort to the cause.

A moderate as someone who wants peace more than he wants either side to win.
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: sirs on January 12, 2010, 07:31:00 PM
A moderate as someone who wants peace more than he wants either side to win.

That's a fair summation
Title: Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
Post by: BT on January 12, 2010, 07:42:00 PM
Quote
A moderate as someone who wants peace more than he wants either side to win.

Again it seems that we lose sight of the goal.

In Christianity, the central message is love one another.

Does it really matter whether you are baptized with sprinkles or dippped in deep water?