POLITICAL ISSUES

[texaspackerbacker]

It's my contention that leftists--both the posters in this and other forums and their political idols--scumbags like Obama and many many others--are so PATHETICALLY and DISGUSTINGLY wrong on the issues--from a criterion of What's Good For America--that they DON'T EVEN HAVE THE COURAGE TO DEFEND THE SICK ROTTEN POSITIONS their side takes. God damned Obama had the supreme gall to think he could coast to the nomination and presumably, to the election too, with the complicity of the leftist media, WITHOUT EVEN BETRAYING HIS OWN ROTTENNESS by exposing his horribly flawed positions on the issues. Fortunately, Hillary at least made inroads toward showing America the truly despicable anti-American leftist piece of crap that Obama really is.

What I intend to do in this thread is to describe the issues in as fair and balanced way as I can, with comparative positions of Obama and other leftists and conservatives--most of the time, but with notable exceptions, including McCain. You sick leftists feel free to rephrase those issues and the comparative views, if you don't like the way I describe them.

I JUST BET that most of you won't even have the courage to defend the rotten and basically indefensible--from a rational American point of view--positions of your pet leftists.

I'm listing the issues in what I consider the approximate order of importance. Feel free to re-order them if you disagree--in the unlikely event any of you have the balls to even show up and defend the rottenness of the left.

1. Protection of America, Americans, and our way of life against mass murder by terrorists:

Our side: Interventionist foreign policy, pre-emptive war as needed, continuing the current theaters of the War on Terror to a positive conclusion, negotiating only from a position of strength and NOT with sponsors of terrorism, enhanced domestic security--including but not limited to the Patriot Act, NOT affording OUR rights and freedoms to terrorists, warehousing them and harshly interrogating them as needed at Guantanamo, etc.

Your side: Negotiating unconditionally with sponsors of terrorism, pulling out of Iraq on a timetable, regardless of the consequences, disparaging the "Cowboy Approach"--America taking charge of its own security and position in favor of relying on the UN and other nations and international groups, favoring Kerry's "Police Approach"--waiting for the terrorist enemy to hit us, then merely tracking down the perpetrators--viewing terrorist attacks as criminal matters rather than acts of war, opposing the Patriot Act and virtually every other domestic security measure, opposing the warehousing at Guantanamo and harsh interrogation of terrorist prisoners, and bringing those terrorist prisoners into OUR judicial system--giving them rights reserved Constitutionally for Americans

2. Economic Policies:

Our side: cutting/not raising taxes being the most important element--including but not limited to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, NOT expanding, and reducing where possible spending for government welfare/entitlement/social programs, a commitment to eliminate "earmarks"--wasteful government spending

Your side: NOT making the Bush tax cuts permanent, increasing taxes regularly and routinely, promoting greatly increased spending on government social programs to at least pre-Reagan levels, no commitment on "earmarks"

3. Overall view and attitude about America, the American Way, our Judeo-Christian heritage and morality, and our free enterprise capitalist system:

Our side: Embracing American Exceptionalism--seeing America as the indisputable leader of the forces for all things good in the world, recognizing our role as having defended and upheld the civilized world in the face of evils such as Nazism, Communism, and radical Islam embracing OUR culture and way of life including Judeo-Christian heritage, values, compassion, etc., embracing OUR freedom and representative democracy, and embracing OUR free enterprise capitalist system

Your side: Denying American Exceptionalism, seeing America and all things American as no better than whatever other nations, ethnicities, religious groups out there, denying our role as the icon of all things good in the world, disrespecting Christianity and our values and heritage as morally equivalent to/no better than various other beliefs, philosophies, etc. out there--things like Sharia Law, socialist dictatorships, etc.--Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, Ahmedinijad, etc., opposing the promotion of American-style freedom and representative democracy, opposing American-style free enterprise capitalism in favor of socialism, referring to it as "inflicting" our way on whoever

4. Immigration, Border Control, Illegals Currently Here:

Our side: Establish control of the border FIRST, immediate deportation of illegals committing secondary crimes unless the offense is serious enough for imprisonment here, divided on deportation, leaving alone, or a path toward legalization and citizenship for illegals already here

Your side: No emphasis on taking control of the border, strong commitment toward what is generally referred to as amnesty, opposition to deportation of illegals

5. Energy Policy:

Our side: Using available American sources of oil--ANWAR, off Florida and California, various other areas, increasing refinery capacity, increasing use of nuclear power, limited emphasis on alternatives like ethanol, and then mainly non-food sources of ethanol, generally respecting and working with oil companies for the good of America

Your side: NOT using ANWAR or other new American sources, hating and disrespecting oil companies, disapproving of nuclear energy, emphasis on ethanol from corn and sugar, even at the expense of greatly increased food costs

6. The Theory of Manmade Global Warming:

Our side: Most (with exceptions unfortunately including McCain) view the MGW Theory as bogus and aimed at harming America and other western capitalist countries, thus, opposing the Kyoto Accords and other international "solutions" that would seriously harm our economy and comfortable lifestyle

Your side: Embracing expensive efforts mainly affecting America and other capitalist countries that hurt our comfort and lifestyle

7. Judicial Appointees:

Our side: Strict constructionist judges who follow the literal words of the Constitution for the most part, the ONLY exceptions being in favor of security and defense of America and our way of life

Your side: Favoring judicial activists who will promote changes in the American way of life such as gay marriage, abortion including partial birth, etc. even if these are opposed by the majority of Americans and NOT specifically outlined in the Constitution

8. Social and Moral Issues:

Our side: anti-abortion, anti-gay agenda--portraying homosexuality as an EQUAL alternative lifestyle and a CHOICE, opposing gay marriage being legitimatized by law

Your side: pro-abortion--or at least the choice to have them, even partial birth, pro-gay agenda--viewing homosexuality as just as equal and normal as heterosexuality--and teaching it that way in schools, favoring the legitimatizing of gay marriage, viewing homosexuality as genetic rather than a matter of choice

9. Regulation and Intrusive Government:

Our side: Generally opposes most regulation beyond the minimum necessary to protect our basic rights

Your side: Generally favoring a wide range of government regulations aimed at promoting safety, equality of RESULT--not merely of opportunity

Did I leave anything out? If so, feel free to bring it up.

On literally ALL of these issues, the views and positions of YOUR leftist politicians are so horribly flawed and deleterious to what's good for America as to be INDEFENSIBLE--IMO. If you disagree, have the balls to defend them with specifics--but I bet most of you will run and hide like the spineless demagogues that you are--or merely resort to namecalling and diversion of the discussion--as you characteristically do. Or if you want to take the old "I'm not a liberal" cop-out, try stating which of those issues you AREN'T liberal on.

I just bet you all wimp out and don't/won't/can't even present a rational defense for your sick liberal crap.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Our side: Embracing American Exceptionalism--seeing America as the indisputable leader of the forces for all things good in the world, recognizing our role as having defended and upheld the civilized world in the face of evils such as Nazism, Communism, and radical Islam embracing OUR culture and way of life including Judeo-Christian heritage, values, compassion, etc., embracing OUR freedom and representative democracy, and embracing OUR free enterprise capitalist system.

American Exceptionalism: another term for capitalistic imperialism, globalization, economic exploitation and dependency. In other words, enrichment through exploitation of third world resource.

[Tarlam!]

That # 4 of yours Tex really sucks beans when I am entering your fine country, after a minimum 8 hours on the plane. I hate queing for an entire hour just to get in! i also hate draining a bottle of scotch between flights 'cause "it's liquid".

I have to play that game, but, I think you guys are a lot paranoid since 9/11.

Just my opinion.

[MJZiggy]

#1. So now you'd have us believe that Bush started a war to distract terrorsts? Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't far more people died in this distraction than the terrorist acts they're defending us from? And who is distracting the Tim McVeys of our country?

#2. So we cut taxes and keep borrowing from China until they flat-out own us? Maybe the Dems want the tax money to balance the budget and pay off our debt??? You know the debt Bush incurred trying to distract the terrorists? Even discounting this ridiculous war, the man spent a whole lotta cash so I don't buy your position.

#3. You will never get the point, so it's not worth trying.

#4. For the most part I agree with you. People who are already here should have a path to stay, but any policy you attempt to make without having the border under control first will just be a hornets nest (And Tar, I'm not talking about the airport for people who are legally entering the country.) How we go about securing the border I have no idea since Bush spent all our border control money distracting the terrorists...Maybe China will give us some cash since we don't want to tax the citizens to pay for these government boondoggles...

#5. Maybe we should try to be a little creative to solve this problem instead of draining every drop of oil from the planet. It makes no sense to think that a limited resource won't dry up just because we might be dead first. I thought they stopped using nuclear energy because of that little unforeseen problem called nuclear waste...What do you intend to do with it?

#6. Maybe McCain is right? What if he is. This is another part of that religious right bit that I don't get. If you believe God created this joint, shouldn't you wanna take care of his stuff? (Don't tell me I don't get to make the argument because I don't believe either. I'm a confirmed Catholic, I've been taught about God and his kid and what they stand for.

#7 (God you're long winded) That is dependent on whom you elect. Welcome to democracy.

#8. Don't link abortion and gays. Two totally separate issues. Homosexuality is a physical issue (a difference in the brain--hypothalamus?), but if it were genetic, the causative gene would have been bred out as homosexuals don't reproduce so well.

#9. Please look at the differences in regulations and constrictions now as opposed to what they were in 2000 when your hero took office.

Some of us are capable of not being a leftist or a rightist. Are you telling me you've never looked at the opposing viewpoint on any given issue and said that it makes a certain amount of sense? If you haven't then I suggest that you might try opening your mind just a tad. America has survived just fine for a couple centuries now with a wide mix of views. It's part of what keeps this country sane and if we lost that it would be a horrid tragedy. What you've described as a wonderful America is not necessarily everyone's view of wonderful.

[CaliforniaCheez]

A shot over the bow is one thing but .....

I think you are looking to stir people up instead of convince them.

Liberals tend to be emotional creatures. Appeal to better emotions is more persuasive with them.

Even with an election this fall we are all Packer fans. After those elected leave office we will still be Packer fans.

Let's take it easy on politics. One issue at a time.

I sure as all am not going to vote for Hussien Obama, a Bear fan.

[Joemailman]

Tex hasn't quite figured out that if you want people to debate you, it might not be a good idea to start out by calling them pathetic, rotten and disgusting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

'describe the issues in as fair and balanced way as i can'

This sentence let's the reader know that we are now entering magical realism.

[red]

typical tex. take the stand of the far right and everything else is considered extreme liberalism

even mccain now is foolish for not agreeing with the extreme right on one issue

[Partial]

#1. So now you'd have us believe that Bush started a war to distract terrorsts? Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't far more people died in this distraction than the terrorist acts they're defending us from? And who is distracting the Tim McVeys of our country?[quote]

And how many terrorist attacks has it stopped? This number is impossible to calculate. The only way to stop Timothy Mcveighs is to hit them with some strict values and parenting instead of massaging his "different" "artistic" side.

[quote]#2. So we cut taxes and keep borrowing from China until they flat-out own us? Maybe the Dems want the tax money to balance the budget and pay off our debt??? You know the debt Bush incurred trying to distract the terrorists? Even discounting this ridiculous war, the man spent a whole lotta cash so I don't buy your position.

Keep raising taxes and watch all the industry leave to China. The key is to cut spending and balance the budget with EVERYONE paying an equal share, not just those who make more money.



#5. Maybe we should try to be a little creative to solve this problem instead of draining every drop of oil from the planet. It makes no sense to think that a limited resource won't dry up just because we might be dead first. I thought they stopped using nuclear energy because of that little unforeseen problem called nuclear waste...What do you intend to do with it?

Since when will oil dry up or become limited? It certainly will not. Ever. Think about how it is produced. Even once there is a global extinction, oil will once again flow like water.

I say drill and get your own oil and quit being the fickle bitch to some very greedy companies. Supply will bring down OPEC prices, and we can still use their oil while harvesting our own and keeping a large quantity of supply that we can do onto them as they have done to us when the time comes.

Nuclear energy is a great idea. I don't know why they don't use it more. They should keep reusing it until it approaches weapon grade like they do everywhere else in the world. As for what to do with the waste, what does France do? I honestly have no idea. But to think that nuclear waste is an issue is foolish. Blast it into space if you need to. Bury it in cement. Whatever. Just make it happen. That's for the PhDs to decide.


#6. Maybe McCain is right? What if he is. This is another part of that religious right bit that I don't get. If you believe God created this joint, shouldn't you wanna take care of his stuff? (Don't tell me I don't get to make the argument because I don't believe either. I'm a confirmed Catholic, I've been taught about God and his kid and what they stand for.

MGW is an idiotic thing. To think this planet has survived and was home to organic beings for millions if not billions of years with volcanos, meteors crashing down, etc spewwing up more 10000s of times more smog than any man has ever put on this planet. Global warming is a legit thing I believe, but man has very little to do with it.

The scientists making these claims that man are affecting it are a bunch of yahoos. Their data encompasses 0.000000023333333% of the time the earth has been around. Since then we've gone through ice ages, hot stages, etc.


#7 (God you're long winded) That is dependent on whom you elect. Welcome to democracy.

Since when did the constitution lose all meaning? This country was founded on its values. Yet the libs seem to think this is a load of garbage. In my opinion, if they don't like America, they can get the hell out :lol: . Why don't we tear up the constitution and disregard all moral and natural things and run a progressive society that will be defunct in ten years where every kid would rather play an instrument, get pierced, or have gay sex instead of build a bridge, start a company, etc.

Society needs to be smacked upside the head and take a firm look at the people walking the streets today. The common man is a loser who is in debt, doesn't have the drive to make it big, and is divorced, teaching their kids awful lessons.

We NEED a constitution so kids don't think getting an abortion is ok, etc.


#8. Don't link abortion and gays. Two totally separate issues. Homosexuality is a physical issue (a difference in the brain--hypothalamus?), but if it were genetic, the causative gene would have been bred out as homosexuals don't reproduce so well.

Agreed, but they should be taught that both are not natural and what the intended purpose of making love is. Maybe if they brought back the scarlet letter people would think twice about making immoral actions.


#9. Please look at the differences in regulations and constrictions now as opposed to what they were in 2000 when your hero took office.

Bush is a closet democrat. High spending, promoting socialism, pushing for the patriot act and stripping us of our rights. Please don't lump him in with the real conservatives.


Some of us are capable of not being a leftist or a rightist. Are you telling me you've never looked at the opposing viewpoint on any given issue and said that it makes a certain amount of sense? If you haven't then I suggest that you might try opening your mind just a tad. America has survived just fine for a couple centuries now with a wide mix of views. It's part of what keeps this country sane and if we lost that it would be a horrid tragedy. What you've described as a wonderful America is not necessarily everyone's view of wonderful.

Thats why we don't want the libs in office. They want to make everyone equal in schooling, education, things they experience in life, economic standing, etc. Having all of these factors being different is healthy, and thats what promotes different vantage points.

Really though, I can't say the new conservatives are that different. We need something totally new, like a Ron Paul, not more of the same like Barack Hussein Obama.

[Freak Out]

That # 4 of yours Tex really sucks beans when I am entering your fine country, after a minimum 8 hours on the plane. I hate queing for an entire hour just to get in! i also hate draining a bottle of scotch between flights 'cause "it's liquid".

I have to play that game, but, I think you guys are a lot paranoid since 9/11.

Just my opinion.

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=12518

[Tarlam!]

That # 4 of yours Tex really sucks beans when I am entering your fine country, after a minimum 8 hours on the plane. I hate queing for an entire hour just to get in! i also hate draining a bottle of scotch between flights 'cause "it's liquid".

I have to play that game, but, I think you guys are a lot paranoid since 9/11.

Just my opinion.

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=12518

Um, link not working. Or, I guess I don't know what you are saying.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Lyrics to "At the Extremes." I am reposting it here b/c the initial post is now buried in the garbage room, a room which no 1 reads.

I was inspired to write it after seeing "Rendition." Rendition is about the CIA's torture of an innocent man. It stars Brokeback Mountain star Jake Gyllenhaal. Awesome movie!!!

At the Extreme

Near the end of your merciless run
You gaze up at the sick sun
A meaningless child left behind
Rotting in the prison of your own mind
Life is a knife soaked in a tragedy
Bittersweet melodies cannot cure your morose malady
In this maze of emptiness, you will die in vain
O, the pleasure of your stain

Chorus (X 3):
A little to the right
Is a little too extreme
Buried beneath the moonlight
No one hears your scream

Feed all your needs and watch them swirl
A pill is all you’ll need in the brave new world
Humans like animals love promiscuity
Men and beast alike envy your beauty
But when it fades and you’re cold
Don’t forget that your soul has been sold
O, time’s too late to change your face
Follow us, follow us into outer space

Chorus (X 3):
Fuck the narrow-minded right
Cos they’re fucking extreme
Buried beneath the moonlight
No one hears your scream

A little to left
Is a little too extreme
Buried beneath the meth
We can hear your scream

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex hasn't quite figured out that if you want people to debate you, it might not be a good idea to start out by calling them pathetic, rotten and disgusting.

Joe, the p, r, and d labels are based on past performance where libs have consistently run and hid rather than defend what I consider the indefensible--the liberal positions described above. And most of ya'all have lived up to those labels in this thread so far.

Red, the whole point is that the "our side" positions, as I described them are indisputably rational, normal, and yes, moderate. However, lame leftists--whose own positions are so extreme as to be INDEFENSIBLE--tend to have the gall to label what is actually normal and moderate as extreme--which you just came through and did. As I said, defend the liberal crap--if you have the balls.

Which brings me to Ziggy--basically the only leftist so far who does have the ........ courage to make an attempt. I just got in from playing tennis, and am sweaty, tired, and hungry. I will give you a detailed response ASAP.

[red]

i have tried, and watched for almost 4 or 5 years as people try and reason or debate with you.

you absolutely will not tolerate anyone who as an opinion that differs from your own.

there is no point in trying to reason with you, none what so ever. i've heard for years you ask the question, why won't anyone back up what they say. i myself i've wasted hours of my life doing research and giving you cold hard facts, only to have you just label me as a typical liberal spewing typical liberal bs. and i know for a fact you've wasted many others times with the same shit.

you may just be the most closed headed person i have ever come across in my life

so why even bother? you get up on your soap box and spew you're holier then thou bull shit, and won't tolerate anyone else having an idea

yet you keep asking for it for some reason. you don't want democracy, you want a fucking dictatorship, run by folks that only share your ideas

go back to jso with the rest of the people who can't tolerate other people with ideas.

you're just as bad as tank, except you're on the other side of the political spectrum

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, red, go ahead and wimp out. It's OK. Trying to defend the indefensible--sick anti-American leftist policies is mission impossible anyway, and you merely fulfilled what I predicted for most of you lefties. If at some point, you grow a pair, feel free to state why you claim normal pro-American views are extremism and idiotic leftist hate-America speak is your cup of tea--preferably on an issue by issue basis. I'm not holding my breath, though.

I would hardly call it intolerant to give you guys every opportunity to defend you wrongheadedness. There is a huge difference between being intolerant--trying to shut up the opposition--kinda like you are--and trying to draw out those subscribing to hateful and anti-American views, then rub their noses in their own pathetic crap. How is that intolerant?

BTW, I don't recall you at JSOnline. Did you have another screen name there--the 4-5 year thing you mentioned?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Red was Red at JSO. He stopped posting there shortly after the 05 draft. He was pissed that I started a thread calling Thompson gay.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, Ziggy, let me start by saying, it is a lot easier to respect the few who make an effort than the many who are incapable of even trying--but still have the gall to whine about pristine normal American views and values as extremism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


#1. So now you'd have us believe that Bush started a war to distract terrorsts? Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't far more people died in this distraction than the terrorist acts they're defending us from? And who is distracting the Tim McVeys of our country?

#2. So we cut taxes and keep borrowing from China until they flat-out own us? Maybe the Dems want the tax money to balance the budget and pay off our debt??? You know the debt Bush incurred trying to distract the terrorists? Even discounting this ridiculous war, the man spent a whole lotta cash so I don't buy your position.

#3. You will never get the point, so it's not worth trying.

#4. For the most part I agree with you. People who are already here should have a path to stay, but any policy you attempt to make without having the border under control first will just be a hornets nest (And Tar, I'm not talking about the airport for people who are legally entering the country.) How we go about securing the border I have no idea since Bush spent all our border control money distracting the terrorists...Maybe China will give us some cash since we don't want to tax the citizens to pay for these government boondoggles...

#5. Maybe we should try to be a little creative to solve this problem instead of draining every drop of oil from the planet. It makes no sense to think that a limited resource won't dry up just because we might be dead first. I thought they stopped using nuclear energy because of that little unforeseen problem called nuclear waste...What do you intend to do with it?

#6. Maybe McCain is right? What if he is. This is another part of that religious right bit that I don't get. If you believe God created this joint, shouldn't you wanna take care of his stuff? (Don't tell me I don't get to make the argument because I don't believe either. I'm a confirmed Catholic, I've been taught about God and his kid and what they stand for.

#7 (God you're long winded) That is dependent on whom you elect. Welcome to democracy.

#8. Don't link abortion and gays. Two totally separate issues. Homosexuality is a physical issue (a difference in the brain--hypothalamus?), but if it were genetic, the causative gene would have been bred out as homosexuals don't reproduce so well.

#9. Please look at the differences in regulations and constrictions now as opposed to what they were in 2000 when your hero took office.

Some of us are capable of not being a leftist or a rightist. Are you telling me you've never looked at the opposing viewpoint on any given issue and said that it makes a certain amount of sense? If you haven't then I suggest that you might try opening your mind just a tad. America has survived just fine for a couple centuries now with a wide mix of views. It's part of what keeps this country sane and if we lost that it would be a horrid tragedy. What you've described as a wonderful America is not necessarily everyone's view of wonderful.

Starting with the last paragraph of your post: maybe you or whoever might shy away from being called a leftist. Hell, part of my point here is that I am not a "rightist". The extreme right wing is Nazis, skinheads, etc. Hell, I was told in another forum that I was a liberal, and the Ron Paul-types--the Libertarians--were the true conservatives. Whatever.

I am off the conservative reservation on several issues, and luke warm on several others. I'll save that for a different post or thread.

Yeah, America has survived a couple hundred years with a variety of views, and on most issues, that is still true.

However, the issue I put as #1--Bush's biggest success--the one liberals strangely ridicule--even though they pretend to care about human life--is the one that has the potential to really bring the house down on the American Way of life. I'm convince that a lot of leftists don't even care about the American Way, freedom, our great standard of living, and even American lives. Presumably--hopefully--that isn't you. What do you think would happen if we got hit with several--even one--nuclear act of terror? Even a few dirty bombs? Even a series of school or shopping mall attacks with plain old conventional bombs? Never mind the human tragedy of huge numbers of Americans murdered. Do you think our rights and freedoms would survive? All we consider fun and enjoyable--from football on down--would be destroyed or severely curtailed.

You take what Bush has done, and compare it to what Kerry said he would have done, and to what Obama says he will do, and it spells real risk of the unthinkable happening.

After that, all the other issues are gravy. However, in a sense they aren't, because the left has succeeded in diverting the electorate to discount success against terrorism to a myriad of lesser issues--NOT which Obama is any good on, but which they think they have a better chance of demagoguing and selling him on.

1. Where did you get "Bush started a war to distract terrorsts" from? I certainly didn't say it. While that certainly seems to have been the result, I doubt Bush, Cheney, or anybody else foresaw that al Qaeda would de-emphasize hitting us at home in order to screw up Iraq. How many repeats have there been of the McVey incident? Right, about the same number as repeats of 9/11--another element of Bush success.

2. The China or other countries debt issue is overblown. A couple decades ago, they were saying the same about Japan. At other times, liberals were "concerned" about too much debt to us by foreign countries that we might not be able to collect. This is much ado about very little, and an example of the left trumping up an issue when the war situation started to improve.

3. Shame you didn't choose to discuss this one, because it really goes to the heart of all the other issues--perspective on America, core views and values, etc.

4. This is one of those where I disagree with a lot of conservatives. The hornets nest would be trying to round 'em up and ship 'em out. Merely controlling the border shouldn't be all that hard. I'm luke warm on the "pathway to citizenship". It depends on the details.

5. I think we ARE being creative, but for the present, there is plenty of oil to use that liberals are preventing us from using. And I hope you admit, this debacle of using corn and sugar for fuel, as liberals are so in love with, just ain't a good idea.

6. I had to go back and look what you were commenting on. What does belief in God have to do with the theory of manmade global warming? It's all a sham. I've dug up evidence of that in other forums and might sometime if I get around to it here. The point is, liberals who push the idiocy can't/won't/don't provide a shred of evidence for their pet theory. The other point is the whole thing is aimed (intentionally, I think) squarely at the heart of our wonderful comfortable lifestyle.

7. You're pretty long-winded yourself, and I bet you type a lot faster than I do. Hell yeah, judicial appointments are dependent on who gets elected, which is all the more reason to elect the right ones--who won't pick activist judges that will screw up the country against the will of the people.

8. The reason these two were lumped together and so near the bottom is because I'm kinda luke warm on them. Aren't you making a great case against the liberal p.o.v.--genetic homosexuality--with your line about them not reproducing well and the gene being bred out? I wish I'd said that. The hypothalamus thing is at best, shaky and speculative--a straw to be grasped. As for abortion, I'm not as fired up about that as a lot of conservatives, but it's hard to get around the concept that it is murdering fetuses. How do you justify that?

9. Inconvenience for the sake of security i.e. Tarlam's post, and silly little nanny-state shit which liberals love so much are two very different things. One is potential life and death for huge numbers; The other is nitpicking and eroding away our comforts and freedoms for reasons which I'd like to hear liberals try to defend--but not much, since this is #9 on the list.

My point in posting all this (other than just for fun) was that liberals--not necessarily you--incessantly rant and spew that the good normal American point of view is extremism, when in fact, it is their own liberal positions which really are extreme to the point of being indefensible. And no offense, but even you really didn't do all that much to argue in favor of those wrongheaded positions.

[red]

no tex, i've wasted enought time trying to "discuss" politics with you. you always asked for in depth info, and i always gave it to you, with many other posters, only to have you dismiss everything as lies, and try and attack our credibility

and like tank said, i was red at jso. i left for many reasons, but the last straw was when people started to get hacked and have their personal info posted on the forum. but posters like you and tank really made it easy to leave that site and never look back

you were not missed, and at it was a sad day when you showed up here

[texaspackerbacker]

Strange, but I don't EVER remember you discussing issues--just whining and ranting about "extremism".

Like I said, if you ever grow a pair, try arguing the issues ...... but I really doubt you ever will.

[MJZiggy]

1. You keep bringing up the distraction as some sort of justification for the war, but you're also failing to realize that first off, the terrorists are not killing Chinese people in Iraq--they're killing Americans, not just military, but civilian as well. There are also a whole lotta Iraqis dying.

2. I don't believe that it's overblown for a second. They have hard and fast numbers as to how much we owe them and if the Chinese choose to call in that debt, what are we to use to pay them off? This issue has nothing more to do with the war than the fact that it's the war draining our resources.

3. I'd have discussed it, but the concept I refer to is a psychological one and you refuse to look at it as pure psychology without the bias blowing through.

4. I don't think we're all that far apart here.

5. Just because there happens to be oil somewhere doesn't mean we have to suck it dry. No, ethanol is not the answer. I stopped supporting its use when I found out that it takes more energy to make it than it produces--but at least they're trying something...

6. You've told me before that I don't have the right to bring up religion with you because I'm agnostic and I'm just calling bullshit on that. I believe Christians should act the part first and live by example. I believe that God gave us a planet and it's our responsibility to take care of his toys if there is ANY possibility that we are the cause of his problems. I feel the same way about the human body. It's a gift you have to take care of. If global warming doesn't exist, why are polar bears endangered? And if there's the slightest possibility that us driving smaller cars and using public transportation or alternative energy (solar or wind) could slow it, then what's the real argument against it, other than that your convenience is more important?

7. I do type a lot faster than you. Bitch to keep up, ain't it?

8. I've never believed homosexuality to be genetic, though I could very soon be proven wrong about that...Even if the hypothalamus thing is shaky, it's still out there and you have to respect it. I don't justify abortion. I believe that after the point of viability (I believe around 20 weeks) it should be absolutely outlawed. The mother would have to deliver anyway, so she may as well deliver a live fetus and give it up if she doesn't want it. Killing the baby at that point makes no sense.

9. You were defending Bush. You don't want intrusion of government, but this is the guy who approves of illegally wiretapping the conversations of American citizens, locking them up with no cause and a whole lot of minutiae that is more to serve his agenda than to keep us secure. I'm for measures that keep the terrorists out and the citizens safe, but some of the stuff he's done is far and away beyond that. I don't believe that the good normal American point of view is extremism, but I don't believe you represent it either.

It's the mix of views and the occasional shakeup in Washington that keeps us healhty I think...

So on what issues are you off the conservative reservation?

[Bretsky]

TEX

You should change the title of this to FYI for good ole times sakes

[Deputy Nutz]

Strange, but I don't EVER remember you discussing issues--just whining and ranting about "extremism".

Like I said, if you ever grow a pair, try arguing the issues ...... but I really doubt you ever will.

How do you know Red is not a woman and is incapable of growing a pair?

[texaspackerbacker]

Bretsky, is it possible to do that?

Nutz, is it not possible to do that--surgically, I mean?

[texaspackerbacker]

1. You keep bringing up the distraction as some sort of justification for the war, but you're also failing to realize that first off, the terrorists are not killing Chinese people in Iraq--they're killing Americans, not just military, but civilian as well. There are also a whole lotta Iraqis dying.

2. I don't believe that it's overblown for a second. They have hard and fast numbers as to how much we owe them and if the Chinese choose to call in that debt, what are we to use to pay them off? This issue has nothing more to do with the war than the fact that it's the war draining our resources.

3. I'd have discussed it, but the concept I refer to is a psychological one and you refuse to look at it as pure psychology without the bias blowing through.

4. I don't think we're all that far apart here.

5. Just because there happens to be oil somewhere doesn't mean we have to suck it dry. No, ethanol is not the answer. I stopped supporting its use when I found out that it takes more energy to make it than it produces--but at least they're trying something...

6. You've told me before that I don't have the right to bring up religion with you because I'm agnostic and I'm just calling bullshit on that. I believe Christians should act the part first and live by example. I believe that God gave us a planet and it's our responsibility to take care of his toys if there is ANY possibility that we are the cause of his problems. I feel the same way about the human body. It's a gift you have to take care of. If global warming doesn't exist, why are polar bears endangered? And if there's the slightest possibility that us driving smaller cars and using public transportation or alternative energy (solar or wind) could slow it, then what's the real argument against it, other than that your convenience is more important?

7. I do type a lot faster than you. Bitch to keep up, ain't it?

8. I've never believed homosexuality to be genetic, though I could very soon be proven wrong about that...Even if the hypothalamus thing is shaky, it's still out there and you have to respect it. I don't justify abortion. I believe that after the point of viability (I believe around 20 weeks) it should be absolutely outlawed. The mother would have to deliver anyway, so she may as well deliver a live fetus and give it up if she doesn't want it. Killing the baby at that point makes no sense.

9. You were defending Bush. You don't want intrusion of government, but this is the guy who approves of illegally wiretapping the conversations of American citizens, locking them up with no cause and a whole lot of minutiae that is more to serve his agenda than to keep us secure. I'm for measures that keep the terrorists out and the citizens safe, but some of the stuff he's done is far and away beyond that. I don't believe that the good normal American point of view is extremism, but I don't believe you represent it either.

It's the mix of views and the occasional shakeup in Washington that keeps us healhty I think...

So on what issues are you off the conservative reservation?

1. I thought YOU were the one who kept bringing it up. I merely referred to it as a nice unintended consequence of the war. True, tragically, the number of volunteer troops who have given their lives--eyes wide open--to protect their loved ones and ALL of us has now risen in five or so years to more than the total of innocent civilians killed one morning in September 2001. Who's to say repeats of 9/11, however, wouldn't kill many times more--not to mention the distinct possibility of ruining everything we hold dear in this country--freedom and rights, comforts and enjoyment, sports and activities, normalcy in all ways?

2.What's to stop us from defaulting--as many nations have to us over the years? Trust me, time will prove it is no big deal. If taxes are raised, however, as the libs DEFINITELY by their own words want to do, the economy will suffer significantly.

3. You don't think it is tangible truth--that America is the greatest country in the world by just about any criterion you can name, and America is the primary force for good in the world preventing the forces of evil from bringing a new dark age of tyranny, ignorance, poverty, etc.? How is that "psychological"?

4. Good. Which one was that? Immigration?

5. The government is working on all those--hydrogen fuel cells, fusion, ethanol from non-food sources, nuclear, wind, solar, etc., but for now, oil is by far the cheapest. We supposedly have 60 years worth in known reserves in this country alone, with the strong possibility of more to be discovered. By then, for sure, something else will be feasible. Why not make people's lives less expensive by using the oil in the short term?

6. I don't recall saying that. I've always said, anything can be said in a forum--freedom of speech and all. I seem to recall you saying something I considered ridiculing religion, particularly Christianity, and I ridiculed the concept of an atheist or agnostic ridiculing religion. If you are that, how can you say, "I believe that God gave us a planet and it's our responsibility to take care of his toys ...."? Global warming MAY exist, although even that, in a global sense, is shaky. It is natural cycles, though, not manmade. Also, it is a net wash, with some ice caps expanding in some areas (Greenland) and contracting in others. They have only been measuring ocean temperatures since 1937, and for the first four decades--the time of worst pollution, the sea temp was COOLING. The small increase since the late 70s is not even back to the '37 level, and there is evidence of a leveling off in the last few years. Beyond that sea temperature increase from the late 70s on and localized decrease in ice packs--while others increase, there is virtually NO EVIDENCE at all of gw, and none whatsoever of it being manmade.

7. I'm effectively retired--all the time in the world--eat your heart out! Besides, this is FUN.

8. Glad to hear you think that way about abortion. You know, ironically, the last thing the homosexuals want is a gay gene, as they are afraid people would abort fetuses who had it--see, there is a link. If homosexuality is shown to be biological, I'm not sure what the implication would be--I'm not sure I care--hence, this issue being #8 of 9 with me.

9. See Issue #1. A little bit of inconvenience/government intrusion is small price to pay. It's things like OSHA and handicap crap and dozens and dozens of other silly little regulations, etc. that are hard to take.

What exactly of the things I'm for and against do you see as extreme and NOT representing good American normalcy?

As I stated, I'm "off the conservative reservation" on immigration to some extent--not strongly opposing some kind of a guest worker program, if not actual pathway to citizenship for illegals already here. I'm also a lot less enthusiastic than most conservatives about abortion, gun control, tolerance of gays, prostitution, porn, gambling, etc. And the biggest thing is I believe in Keynesian Economics--deficits and debt NOT being harmful--just like corporate leverage and individual mortgage and consumer debt--as long as economic growth is greater than debt increase, there won't be significant inflation. Real world evidence supports that concept.

I appreciate your give and take of discussion--especially in comparison to the losers of the left who run and hide.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Violet Hill political music video (Bush, other politicans dancing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9WqQL5WFN20

[Zool]

My dad can beat up your dad.

[Bretsky]

Bretsky, is it possible to do that?

Nutz, is it not possible to do that--surgically, I mean?


I think you can just go edit the origninal post if I'm not mistaken

[Deputy Nutz]

Bretsky, is it possible to do that?

Nutz, is it not possible to do that--surgically, I mean?

Well growing nuts might be hard, but I guess anyone can get a fake set of nuts stitched on.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just listened to some Obama supporters (who shall remain nameless) complain that the Republicans are running an ad criticizing Michelle Obama's "proud of America for the very first time" comment. Spouses of candidates should be off-limits, they claim, Republicans are playing dirty.

WTF!? The Obama camp just spent 4 months savaging Bill Clinton. He's a spouse of a candidate. Michele OBama is out there making political speeches, just like Bill, why the hell should her political comments not be criticized?

The Obama supporters have waged the dirtiest campaign I've every seen. Columnists who suppoted the Clintons in the past turned them into a racist version of Bonnie and Clyde. They took every ambiguous comment and spun it as pure evil. Obama cultists have spoken of Hillary in vicious terms, and then complain about the "dirty politics" of the Clintons and the coming "Republican sleaze machine."

I hate everything about the Obama movement. They treat Obama like a Messiah who is beyond criticism, and they ironically have declared themselves the children of the Light, the vanguard of New Politics. If you look at history, it's always the True Believers who are most harmful.

[GrnBay007]

WHY did the chicken cross the road?

OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The chicken wanted CHANGE!

JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One! -- that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.......

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must f irst deal with the problem on 'THIS' side of the road before it goes after the problem on the 'OTHER SIDE' of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his 'CURRENT' problems before adding 'NEW' problems.

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of
life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. The really is no middle ground here.

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...

ANDERSON COOPER - CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now and will remain against it.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.


ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain. Alone.

JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth?' That's why they call it the 'other side.' Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will
become gay, too. I say we boycott all chi ckens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like 'the other side.' That chicken should not be
crossing the road. It's as plain and simple as that.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together in peace.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2007, which will not only cross roads but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of "Chicken".

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with THAT chicken.

AL GORE: I invented the chicken

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

TEX: That LIBERAL chicken is so PATHETICALLY and DISGUSTINGLY wrong on the issues!! The chicken needs to grow some balls and defend that liberal crap.
I will never eat any of the SICK ANTI-AMERICAN eggs from that sick damned left-biased chicken. Just listen to it spew that vile, despicable, crap. Who cares if it crosses the road, damned LIBERAL!!

:P :P :P

[GoPackGo]

^^^^^^
:lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

WHY did the chicken cross the road?

Nice.

[HarveyWallbangers]

A shot over the bow is one thing but .....

I think you are looking to stir people up instead of convince them.

Tex's methodology isn't ideal. To be fair, it seems like you see more of this nowadays. The "your stupid" approach. Kind of strange that Harlan is probably the person that I'd most enjoy sitting down and having a political discussion with.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well well well.

Very Nice, 007 I believe it was one of the 3 Stooges who said, "I resemble that remark".

Nutz, articial ones oughta be good enough for a liberal.

Bretsky (and Harvey and California), I didn't start this thread to reprise the old FYI from JSO. I prefer the idea of NOT having one big conglomeration thread, but having individual topics of politics.

The reason for putting all those issues here, as well as the reason for the admittedly nasty labeling, was kinda like the old joke about the farmer and the mule. He wasn't hitting him over the head with the 2 by 4 because he hated the mule or because that's what made the mule work. He just had to get the mule's attention.

Left wingers/liberals/whatever you want to call them, on ALL levels--from national politicians and media right down to forum flunkies just NEVER want to discuss the issues. If they don't run and hide completely, they resort to whining and ranting about extremism, etc. You never see me or anybody else on our side shy away from vigorously defending Americanism and all aspects of the issues.

Well, it was simply my purpose to put up a side by side comparison of the crap spewed by trash like Obama--which even he himself tries to duck and dodge and avoid discussing most of the time, AND the pristine normal pro-American positions I referred to as "our side". The fact that all of the forum lefties except Ziggy lived up the labels I beat them over the head with only underscores that those sick anti-American leftist positions are the ones that are EXTREMIST--extremist to the point where they are indefensible in any rational what's-good-for-America way.

[Deputy Nutz]

Well well well.

Very Nice, 007 I believe it was one of the 3 Stooges who said, "I resemble that remark".

Nutz, articial ones oughta be good enough for a liberal.

Bretsky (and Harvey and California), I didn't start this thread to reprise the old FYI from JSO. I prefer the idea of NOT having one big conglomeration thread, but having individual topics of politics.

The reason for putting all those issues here, as well as the reason for the admittedly nasty labeling, was kinda like the old joke about the farmer and the mule. He wasn't hitting him over the head with the 2 by 4 because he hated the mule or because that's what made the mule work. He just had to get the mule's attention.

Left wingers/liberals/whatever you want to call them, on ALL levels--from national politicians and media right down to forum flunkies just NEVER want to discuss the issues. If they don't run and hide completely, they resort to whining and ranting about extremism, etc. You never see me or anybody else on our side shy away from vigorously defending Americanism and all aspects of the issues.

Well, it was simply my purpose to put up a side by side comparison of the crap spewed by trash like Obama--which even he himself tries to duck and dodge and avoid discussing most of the time, AND the pristine normal pro-American positions I referred to as "our side". The fact that all of the forum lefties except Ziggy lived up the labels I beat them over the head with only underscores that those sick anti-American leftist positions are the ones that are EXTREMIST--extremist to the point where they are indefensible in any rational what's-good-for-America way.

Here is the deal most liberals believe in a Utopian society where everyones needs are taken care of and funded by the government, Everyone is safe and kept sound. The problem and the reason they don't want to discuss this with you is because they have no fucking idea how to accomplish this! It should just be the way it is, it is easy, no problems, no worries, just make it happen. Sure lets reduce the need for foreign oil, ok how? Well ride your bike to work!

We have a lot of devils advocates here Tex, most of the posters here stand more toward the middle on a lot of issues but then you come along with a firm stance on a certain side of the pendulum and they feel the need to argue with you. They were doing the same to Harlan and his more liberal stance on issues before you got here. The fact is I don't see Harlan as that liberal. Liberal is my wife.

[texaspackerbacker]

Acknowledged, Nutz.

My point still is, though, and this is especially true if whoever you may have in mind are moderates disguised as liberals, rather than the real thing, some of them have truly FLAWED ideas of what constitutes Left Wing Extremism and Right Wing Extremism.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

no tex, i've wasted enought time trying to "discuss" politics with you. you always asked for in depth info, and i always gave it to you, with many other posters, only to have you dismiss everything as lies, and try and attack our credibility

and like tank said, i was red at jso. i left for many reasons, but the last straw was when people started to get hacked and have their personal info posted on the forum. but posters like you and tank really made it easy to leave that site and never look back

you were not missed, and at it was a sad day when you showed up here

I heartily concur.

[hoosier]

no tex, i've wasted enought time trying to "discuss" politics with you. you always asked for in depth info, and i always gave it to you, with many other posters, only to have you dismiss everything as lies, and try and attack our credibility

and like tank said, i was red at jso. i left for many reasons, but the last straw was when people started to get hacked and have their personal info posted on the forum. but posters like you and tank really made it easy to leave that site and never look back

you were not missed, and at it was a sad day when you showed up here

I heartily concur.

I think Tex's rants have their odd charm, so I'm not completely on board with the anti-Tex bandwagon. But, as with anyone delusional, it gets repetitious and boring quickly. Especially if you fool yourself into thinking you're having a dialogue with someone. I think one Tex rant per month is about the right doseage.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Glenn Beck (CNN Talk show idiot): I'm a conservative fuck and I hate chicken but I'd fuck one anyday.

I wish CNN, a liberal network, would get rid of that fuck.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Nancy Grace (another CNN talk show idiot): Where were you, chicken? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day? Go and get run over by a car for all I care!

[texaspackerbacker]

no tex, i've wasted enought time trying to "discuss" politics with you. you always asked for in depth info, and i always gave it to you, with many other posters, only to have you dismiss everything as lies, and try and attack our credibility

and like tank said, i was red at jso. i left for many reasons, but the last straw was when people started to get hacked and have their personal info posted on the forum. but posters like you and tank really made it easy to leave that site and never look back

you were not missed, and at it was a sad day when you showed up here

I heartily concur.

I think Tex's rants have their odd charm, so I'm not completely on board with the anti-Tex bandwagon. But, as with anyone delusional, it gets repetitious and boring quickly. Especially if you fool yourself into thinking you're having a dialogue with someone. I think one Tex rant per month is about the right doseage.

Did I mention the 3 Stooges?

I don't know whether these pathetic excuses own up to the dirty word, liberal, or whether they are among the ones Nutz had in mind. Either way. it's pretty obvious they have neither the competence nor the courage to even try to defend a cowardly piece of shit like Obama or the incipid positions of America-hate that he and other leftists spew.

Maybe that's a good thing. I STILL haven't felt the need to label anybody in this forum an "America-hater". If these guys or others actually ever showed some balls and conjured up a defense for the indefensible, they might become that.

What IMBECILES like this don't realize is that this isn't about me. It isn't even about them. It is about ISSUES--those things which liberals just can't bear to talk about because they are so horrendously out of tune in a harmful to America direction on.

[GrnBay007]

Tex, it's funny, my Dad (RIP) was a registered Democrat his whole life but was so far from what you call a liberal it's crazy. Some...not all of your, can I call them rants? remind me of him and you crack me up at times. I hope you didn't take any offense to the little chicken funny. I just couldn't resist. :D

[HarveyWallbangers]

Lots of old-time Democrats that are Democrats in name only. I have some on my Mom's side of the family. Grandparents were FDR Democrat, and passed it down to a couple of my Mom's siblings--even though they might be more conservative than me.
:D

[texaspackerbacker]

007, didn't you notice my comment about your chicken thing--"Very Nice"?

007 and Harvey, I have at least three uncles who were just like that. Fortunately, my dad was enlightened enough to be a Republican, even though he was a UAW member for 37 years.

When I was a kid, I'd go to the barber shop with my dad and hear these union guys expressing these wonderful pristine conservative views. Then election day would roll around, and they'd almost all do what they dilettante union propaganda commisars told them to do: vote for the damn liberal Democrats who weren't remotely close to their own wonderful views.

Nowadays, the same thing happens with blacks--most of whom are devout moral Christians, most of whom love America, and many of whom have competed very well in our free enterprise capitalist system. Yet, come election day, and their overseers on the liberal plantation faithfully deliver over 90% of their votes to the sick America-hating immoral Democrats.

It's a damn shame how that sort of thing happens.

[GrnBay007]

Daddy was big on Unions. I'm a Union member. :P


007, didn't you notice my comment about your chicken thing--"Very Nice"? I thought maybe your feelings were hurt and you were being sarcastic.

[texaspackerbacker]

Daddy was big on Unions. I'm a Union member. :P

Unions had a large part in making this country great. But that was a hundred years ago. From 60 or 70 years ago down to the present, they have become infested with insidious liberal leaders and "organizers" (one of those scumbags is running for president).

If the question is "how can a party so elitist and hateful to good normal Americans and their beliefs get so many votes?", then unions are a large part of the answer.

[GrnBay007]

Actually our union was/is backing Hillary

[Freak Out]

Fact Sheet: Strengthening Diplomatic Ties with Saudi Arabia
United States And Saudi Arabia Improve Peace And Stability In The Region Through Nuclear Cooperation


RSS Feed White House News

Today, President Bush met with King Abdallah to commemorate the 75th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Since 1933, these two nations have enjoyed formal relations. In 1945, during the waning months of World War II, King Abdallah's father – King Abd al-Aziz – met with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt aboard the U.S.S. Quincy in the Red Sea, and the two leaders chose to deepen the strategic relationship between the two countries. The President's visit today builds on this tradition of friendship and close cooperation.

* It is in the spirit of that meeting that the United States and Saudi Arabia have completed four critical agreements to strengthen the protection of energy resources, enhance peaceful nuclear cooperation, broaden the fight against global terrorism, and bolster nonproliferation. These agreements further cement the longstanding U.S.-Saudi friendship and close cooperation to help bring peace and stability to the region and its people.

The United States And Saudi Arabia Will Work Together To Further Our Relationship

The Saudis bear a special responsibility for protecting key energy facilities of global importance and the world benefits from their abundant energy supplies. Our global economy depends greatly on Saudi Arabian energy. The U.S. has a keen interest in helping the Saudis protect their energy infrastructure against terrorism, as demonstrated by the unsuccessful terrorist attack against the Kingdom's Abqaiq Plants in February 2006. To this end, the United States and Saudi Arabia have agreed to cooperate in safeguarding the Kingdom's energy resources by protecting key infrastructure, enhancing Saudi border security, and meeting Saudi Arabia's expanding energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner.

1. Saudi Arabia will join the 70 partner nations of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. As a partner in this multilateral initiative, Saudi Arabia will:

* Enhance its accountability and physical protection of nuclear systems
* Advance its capability to search for and confiscate unlawfully held nuclear material
* Improve its ability to detect nuclear material to prevent illicit trafficking
* Enhance its means to secure civilian nuclear facilities
* Deny safe havens and economic resources to terrorists
* Create legal frameworks to enforce criminal liability for terrorists
* Improve its response and mitigation capabilities in the event of a terrorist attack
* Promote information sharing to suppress acts of nuclear terrorism

2. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will also join more than 85 states participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The PSI is a response to the growing challenge posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery vehicles, and related materials worldwide. PSI participants will now include Saudi Arabia and all states that border it.

3. The U.S. will help the Saudis develop both human and infrastructure resources in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidance and standards.
* In order to ensure a smooth supply of energy to the world, Saudi Arabia must be able to effectively safeguard its borders and coasts, and ensure consistent supplies of water and power to its citizens.
* Under the Critical Infrastructure Protection agreement, the two nations have agreed to establish a Joint Commission on Infrastructure and Border Protection to facilitate training, the exchange of experts and specialized knowledge, and other support services as needed.
* The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will also conclude a security agreement that will allow for broadened cooperation between the Saudi Ministry of Interior and the U.S. Government.

4. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will sign a Memorandum of Understanding in the area of peaceful civil nuclear energy cooperation. This agreement will pave the way for Saudi Arabia's access to safe, reliable fuel sources for energy reactors and demonstrate Saudi leadership as a positive non-proliferation model for the region.

* The United States will assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to develop civilian nuclear power for use in medicine, industry, and power generation.
* The Government of the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will establish a comprehensive framework for cooperation in the development of environmentally sustainable, safe, and secure civilian nuclear energy through a series of complementary agreements.

[texaspackerbacker]

Wonderful.

Is there a point to posting this?

[Freak Out]

Just spreading the news in your thread Texas...I thought you might be interested. From what I heard elsewhere Dubya got guarantees from the Saudis to increase production by 300,000 barrels a day.

[Freak Out]

Wonderful.

Is there a point to posting this?

Is there a point to most of the crap posted in this forum?

[texaspackerbacker]

I like the idea of the article. I was just wondering if you were either for or against it--since you brought it up.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html

There's been a lot of hinting and speculation lately that the Clinton twins are interested in the vice-presidency. I believe this is true.

I think that the division in the Dem party runs very deep, and that Obama would be wise to choose Clinton.

For myself, I'm going to stick with McCain regardless of Obama's choice for a running mate. Although this will be a very painful vote. The Dems have such excellent VP candidates: Clinton, Webb, Biden ... I only wish one of them was at the top of the ticket. I just can't bring myself to support Obama as a Pres this year. He was only in Washington for a year before he started running for President.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html

He was only in Washington for a year before he started running for President.

And that makes him different from Bush, Clinton, Reagan?

If longevity was the criteria..guess you woulda voted for Helms. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

Strom...

[Harlan Huckleby]

From what I've seen of Obama he is second rate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And that makes him different from Bush, Clinton, Reagan?

All three were governors of states.

Obama is ridiculously under-qualified.

I've heard Obama supporters mention Lincoln, who ran with similar background. Lincoln was lightening in a bottle. And in the Lincoln-Douglass debate three years prior to his presidential run, it was clear he was a mature, intellectual giant. I've seen Obama in action in the Senate, he is green.

[texaspackerbacker]

What makes him different from Reagan, Clinton, and Bush? What a question!

Obama is evil personified, America-hate personified.

I would never even come close to portraying Bill Clinton--with ALL his scandals and bad positions--as remotely as horrific as Obama. The country literally would be very lucky to survive 4 or 8 years of an Obama presidency.

If anybody would respond that I'm indulging in vague generalities here, the specifics are all there in the original post of this thread.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If longevity was the criteria..guess you woulda voted for Helms. :roll:

McCain is a rare republican who I would consider voting for.

Experience is just one factor that keeps me away from supporting Obama. Too many of his supporters have been extreme in their behavior and ideology.

[MJZiggy]

What has Obama done to earn such ire? and such an unfavorable comparison to Clinton?

[Harlan Huckleby]

What has Obama done to earn such ire? and such an unfavorable comparison to Clinton?

Their formal positions are the same. Clinton is much deeper in her understanding of the world. The question of negotiating with IRan, Cuba....was instructive.

I don't know who Obama is, really.

[MJZiggy]

Sorry, Harlan. I was referring to Tex's comparison to Bill...I'm curious as to what (besides his suggestion that people might drive smaller cars) he's done to garner such vehemence.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sorry, Harlan. I was referring to Tex's comparison to Bill...I'm curious as to what (besides his suggestion that people might drive smaller cars) he's done to garner such vehemence.

You mean you want to understand Tex's mind in greater detail!? :lol:

[hoosier]

And that makes him different from Bush, Clinton, Reagan?

All three were governors of states.

Obama is ridiculously under-qualified.

I've heard Obama supporters mention Lincoln, who ran with similar background. Lincoln was lightening in a bottle. And in the Lincoln-Douglass debate three years prior to his presidential run, it was clear he was a mature, intellectual giant. I've seen Obama in action in the Senate, he is green.

I'm not buying it. What ever happened to your spiel from before the primaries ridiculing people who vote based on candidate persona when we all know that elections are really about putting one or the other party apparatus in power? Does the vote-for-the-party-not-for-the-candidate logic only hold for people who are swayed by persona instead of "experience"?

[texaspackerbacker]

What has Obama done to earn such ire? and such an unfavorable comparison to Clinton?

Ziggy, after reading and responding two my original post and the followups, you still ask that question? Everything I referred to as "their side" in those posts were essentially Obama. Never mind inexperience; Never mind associations with an unrepentant terrorist or a horrendously anti-American minister; Never mind the sick anti-American words of his wife. Obama's stated and admitted positions are enough to cast him to the trash heap of history.

Comparison to Clinton (Bill)? Bill was first and foremost a political animal with a hunger for power and what the power brought him--NOT an ideologue.

Obama, at least as I read him, actually BELIEVES the horrendous things he spews (see the original post). And THAT is just not acceptable.

It's all about ISSUES--did I not make that perfectly clear in the original post? Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of importance of issues. On that criterion, Obama is an absolute America-hating piece of shit.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, (you may have missed this post from a while back)I've said before that I'm not paying much attention to the Clinton/Obama wars as I don't belong to either party and therefore cannot vote in the primaries so it makes no sense to get emotionally invested in a candidate when I have no power to choose which one wins. Therefore I don't really pay attention to what the big O stands for until he wins the nomination. Then I officially care. But in the meantime, it means that I don't know what he's said or done unless it makes big news.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hard to tell the two parties apart anymore. The Republicans are spending our money like drunken soldiers too. I disagree with Democrats on about 90% of issues, but the Republican leadership isn't doing much to keep me with the party. Where's my viable 3rd party?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_funding;_ylt=As86UMdDYA4iBXvqszJGJAI E1vAI

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, (you may have missed this post from a while back)I've said before that I'm not paying much attention to the Clinton/Obama wars as I don't belong to either party and therefore cannot vote in the primaries so it makes no sense to get emotionally invested in a candidate when I have no power to choose which one wins. Therefore I don't really pay attention to what the big O stands for until he wins the nomination. Then I officially care. But in the meantime, it means that I don't know what he's said or done unless it makes big news.

As I said, what I referred to as "their side" in the original post is virtually up and down the line, Obama's positions. By the fact that you seemed to agree with (although really didn't come right out and logically defend) those positions, you'll probably end up as part of the abomination that is Obamanation.

Harvey, NO DIFFERENCES? Did YOU read my original post? Granted, spending is one of those issues where there is some overlap--and in fact, I am one of the overlappers. Ditto that for illegal immigration. However, ALL the rest of those issues, the differences are extremely large and clear.

[MJZiggy]

Didn't you used to say you were a libertarian?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Didn't you used to say you were a libertarian?

No. I've said I'm fundamentally a Libertarian, but they aren't viable, so I generally vote Republican. It's frustrating. The left has moved the center to the left.

[texaspackerbacker]

Didn't you used to say you were a libertarian?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Hell No!!!! I referred to the damn Ron Paulists as total loons. I said that in a different forum, a Libertarian actually claimed I was liberal, and that the Libertarians were the REAL conservatives.

Out of curiosity, what made you ask that question?

Oh, you meant Harvey? OK, never mind (Gilda Radner voice).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think she was talking to me, old man.
:D

[MJZiggy]

Out of curiosity, what made you ask that question?

The fact that I was asking Harvey!! :mrgreen:

[Joemailman]

Hard to tell the two parties apart anymore. The Republicans are spending our money like drunken soldiers too. I disagree with Democrats on about 90% of issues, but the Republican leadership isn't doing much to keep me with the party. Where's my viable 3rd party?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_funding;_ylt=As86UMdDYA4iBXvqszJGJAI E1vAI

Which brings to mind McCain's comment that statements like yours are unfair to drunken sailors. :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not buying it. What ever happened to your spiel from before the primaries ridiculing people who vote based on candidate persona when we all know that elections are really about putting one or the other party apparatus in power? Does the vote-for-the-party-not-for-the-candidate logic only hold for people who are swayed by persona instead of "experience"?

I believe strongly in two ideas that have come into direct conflict:
1) Elections choose parties first and foremost.
2) Obama is an unacceptable choice to be president.

This is a dilemma. I am forced to compromise one of my deeply felt views. The fact that I'm throwing my lot in with the Republicans reflects how negatively I view the Obama candidacy.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, seriously--not merely a rhetorical question, are you against Obama because of his positions on the issues--which I have described as Horrendous? Or do you oppose him simply because of various quirks about him as an individual?

I hope it's the former, but I think it's the latter.

Elections IN GENERAL choose parties first and foremost. However PRESIDENTIAL elections are not like that. If you go back the last 50 or 60 years, probably well over half that time, we had a president from one party and a Congressional majority from the other. It sort of looks like we are headed for that again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, seriously--not merely a rhetorical question, are you against Obama because of his positions on the issues--which I have described as Horrendous?

I really don't have any problem with Obama's offical positions. But then again, he's so new on the scene I'm not sure what he is about. He's made some real gaffs reflective of his inexperience.

I'm a little concerned that he might pull troops out of Iraq too quickly. But I'm ready for a timetable for withdrawal, as long as it is long enough, say 4 years. So difference between him and McCain may not really be so great.

I think that Obama is unqualified to be president. He had only been a big league politican for a year before he started running for president.

But honestly, my strong allegiance to the democratic party would probably allow me to grit my teeth and overlook his experience shortcoming if I wasn't so turned-off by some of his supporters. I think the process by which he got the nomination was quite ridiculous, the media was completely slanted. Pundits who supported the Clintons in the past decoded their recent remarks and discovered they are racist devils.

The atrocity of the Bush Adminsistration has fueled the rise of the left in the democratic party. They are feeling their oats. I agree with them on many policy issues, but the venom with which they have pushed "the Obama Way or the Highway" has me choosing the highway.
I'm comfortable with four years of McCain - or until death do us part.

[gex]

:lol: 'till death do us part :lol: thats fuckin funny Harlan.
Here's one I got textd to me today:
.........................BREAKING NEWS..........................
Today Barack Obama said he may not be able to fix the American economy, but he can nigger-rig it. :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What makes him different from Reagan, Clinton, and Bush? What a question!

Obama is evil personified, America-hate personified.

I would never even come close to portraying Bill Clinton--with ALL his scandals and bad positions--as remotely as horrific as Obama. The country literally would be very lucky to survive 4 or 8 years of an Obama presidency.

If anybody would respond that I'm indulging in vague generalities here, the specifics are all there in the original post of this thread.

If you can't read and comprehend, please refrain from posting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Watching McCain is a little like seeing Muhammad Ai at the end of his career. He floats like a bee, stings like a butterfly. McCain's time was 2000. We'll see in the debates if he still has enough of his marbles to get the job done. I like McCain a lot.

[hoosier]

I'm not buying it. What ever happened to your spiel from before the primaries ridiculing people who vote based on candidate persona when we all know that elections are really about putting one or the other party apparatus in power? Does the vote-for-the-party-not-for-the-candidate logic only hold for people who are swayed by persona instead of "experience"?

I believe strongly in two ideas that have come into direct conflict:
1) Elections choose parties first and foremost.
2) Obama is an unacceptable choice to be president.

This is a dilemma. I am forced to compromise one of my deeply felt views. The fact that I'm throwing my lot in with the Republicans reflects how negatively I view the Obama candidacy.

OK, I reiterate my "I'm not buying it" in relation to your point #2. In the larger context of US politics, Obama and Hillary are nearly indistinguishable on the issues. Your first choice is Hillary and your second is McCain??? Come on! The real reason, IMO, that you find Obama "unacceptable" is that you're pissed that your side didn't win the primary. The other stuff you trot out (Obama's inexperience, Obama's campaign playing dirty, Obamamania as cultural pathology equalled only by 1930s fascism) are all rationalizations.

[Joemailman]

Watching McCain is a little like seeing Muhammad Ai at the end of his career. He floats like a bee, stings like a butterfly. McCain's time was 2000. We'll see in the debates if he still has enough of his marbles to get the job done. I like McCain a lot.

Our recent Presidents have visibly aged considerably during their time in office. Doesn't the fact that McCain, as you acknowledge, appears to be past his prime now give you pause as to how well he will be able to handle the stress the job brings for the next 4 years?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Our recent Presidents have visibly aged considerably during their time in office. Doesn't the fact that McCain, as you acknowledge, appears to be past his prime now give you pause as to how well he will be able to handle the stress the job brings for the next 4 years?


this is a serious concern. I'm gonna watch McCain closely this summer. I don't care about his health so much as his mind.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Your first choice is Hillary and your second is McCain??? Come on! The real reason, IMO, that you find Obama "unacceptable" is that you're pissed that your side didn't win the primary. The other stuff you trot out (Obama's inexperience, Obama's campaign playing dirty, Obamamania as cultural pathology equalled only by 1930s fascism) are all rationalizations.

I'm driven more by emotion than reason, but you are off in suggesting I'm mostly disappointed that Clinton lost. I went through a period of imaging Obama at top of the ticket, and with an experienced hand like Clinton or Biden in VP, and I thought that might be an effective team. But about then the campaign turned even uglier. I'm really disgusted with the dirty politics.

More developments today!

First Clinton fed rumor mill of Obama's Muslim ties with clever "as far as I know" subliminal message.
Then she inflamed racist passions by noting she has strong support of white working class.
Today she topped herself by suggesting possible assasination of her opponent.

I just took a look at Huffington Post and am reminded why I will never have anything to do with Obama supporters.

[Freak Out]

If you think this primary is ugly just wait...Mac is loading up with the worst in the biz...it's going to be interesting to see how Hussein handles himself. I think Mac loses it at some point and people get a little freaked.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you think this primary is ugly just wait...Mac is loading up with the worst in the biz...it's going to be interesting to see how Hussein handles himself. I think Mac loses it at some point and people get a little freaked.


The campaigns haven't been dirty, its the pundits and the supporters.

The republicans are not going to do anything to Obama worse than what OBama supporters have been repeating about Clinton for months. The "Republican Sleaze Machine" is not dirtier than Maureen Dowd or Bob Herbert.

[Freak Out]

If you think this primary is ugly just wait...Mac is loading up with the worst in the biz...it's going to be interesting to see how Hussein handles himself. I think Mac loses it at some point and people get a little freaked.


The campaigns haven't been dirty, its the pundits and the supporters.

The republicans are not going to do anything to Obama worse than what OBama supporters have been repeating about Clinton for months. The "Republican Sleaze Machine" is not dirtier than Maureen Dowd or Bob Herbert.

Of course the candidates have kept it pretty clean...just like Dubya did in 2000.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course the candidates have kept it pretty clean...just like Dubya did in 2000.


well ya, that's always the way. But I didn't see any evidence of much dirty business between Clinton and Obama. It was the people themselves that organized themselves into vicious cheering sections.

[texaspackerbacker]

So typical.

The pathetic leftists have ventured out from under their rock--Tyrone, Joe, Hoosier, but NOT to discuss issues--the loser leftist positions which cause forum leftists and leftist politicians alike to run and hide, but to spew a few inane one liners and whine about the non-issue of McCain's age.

Obama is an incompetent America-hating piece of shit--for all the reasons outlined in post #1 of this thread, and you whiney piss ants don't even have the balls to defend the scumbag's positions.

Harlan, you described Bush's presidency as an "atrocity". How about you? would you care to discuss issues? Like how protecting America from repeats of 9/11? Like the turnaround in the war that has caused leftists and their media buddies to stop even talking about it? Like how BAD the economy would have gotten after 9/11 if some idiot like Gore would have RAISED taxes instead of lowering them? Like how the propagandists of the leftist media have switched to promoting economic problems when other than gas prices, things are fine? Like how they can get away with blaming Bush for high gas prices when the God damned idiot America-hating environmentalists have prevented using so much American oil and building new refineries and nuclear power plants? Like if you could possibly cite anything I didn't mention to rag on Bush about? Like how any of those things come remotely close to being atrocious?

[Harlan Huckleby]

after a good night's rest, I've softened my position. If I live long enough, I'll give fair consideration to Obama's daughters if they run for public office.

[Joemailman]

after a good night's rest, I've softened my position. If I live long enough, I'll give fair consideration to Obama's daughters if they run for public office.

Great idea! I think there is no reason why Chelsea Clinton couldn't be a part of that ticket...as far as I know.

[hoosier]

So typical.

The pathetic leftists have ventured out from under their rock--Tyrone, Joe, Hoosier, but NOT to discuss issues--the loser leftist positions which cause forum leftists and leftist politicians alike to run and hide, but to spew a few inane one liners and whine about the non-issue of McCain's age.

Obama is an incompetent America-hating piece of shit--for all the reasons outlined in post #1 of this thread, and you whiney piss ants don't even have the balls to defend the scumbag's positions.

Harlan, you described Bush's presidency as an "atrocity". How about you? would you care to discuss issues? Like how protecting America from repeats of 9/11? Like the turnaround in the war that has caused leftists and their media buddies to stop even talking about it? Like how BAD the economy would have gotten after 9/11 if some idiot like Gore would have RAISED taxes instead of lowering them? Like how the propagandists of the leftist media have switched to promoting economic problems when other than gas prices, things are fine? Like how they can get away with blaming Bush for high gas prices when the God damned idiot America-hating environmentalists have prevented using so much American oil and building new refineries and nuclear power plants? Like if you could possibly cite anything I didn't mention to rag on Bush about? Like how any of those things come remotely close to being atrocious?

Yawn. Same old belligerence, same old boring ad hominem attacks, but Tex, surely even you realize there's nothing that can actually be debated in what you're saying. It's either speculative assertions that can neither be proven nor disproven (Bush prevented further terrorist attacks, the economic downturn would have been even worse with Gore in office) or its patriotic hyperbole that has no connection to the real world ("God damned idiot America-hating environmentalists"). Then, when no one steps forward to object "Wait a minute, those aren't America-hating environmentalists, they're patriotic environmentalists!" you accuse your "opponents" of being afraid or unable to defend their positions. Have you ever considered that the silence that follows your posts around like a shadow just might be a reflection of the quality of thought that goes into your posts in the first place? And that you would stand a much better chance of getting a response if you would (a) ground your posts in facts or opinions that can be meaningfully discussed; (b) show some intellectual honesty when your positions are challenged with real facts (I'm thinking specifically of your response to the homosexuality and drug use statistics, where you dismiss studies done by the highly respected Urban League because it was founded by a liberal, LBJ.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hoosier, the clear simple question is do you have the BALLS to discuss the issues--you know, those horrendously anti-American positions of your guy/your side?

I doubt you do--and well you shouldn't because the Dem/lib positions on pretty much any issue you can name, from the most important ones on down are VIRTUALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sound of crickets.

Someday Tex will figure it out.

[hoosier]

Hoosier, the clear simple question is do you have the BALLS to discuss the issues--you know, those horrendously anti-American positions of your guy/your side?

I doubt you do--and well you shouldn't because the Dem/lib positions on pretty much any issue you can name, from the most important ones on down are VIRTUALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

Let's define exactly what the issues are, in terms free from hyperbole and empty rhetoric ("God damned America-hating" has no place in a debate). If we can agree on a definition of the issues, and if we can agree on some mutually recognized criteria for truth (e.g. you can't dismiss fact claims just because they come from an institute founded by a Democratic president, just as I couldn't legitimately dismiss something for the sole reason that it came from an institution led by a former Reagan appointee), then sure, let's get it on. But only as long as those criteria are followed. Otherwise it's crickets.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes, let's do that, Hoosier. I said in the first post of this thread, if any of you guys didn't like the way I characterized things, feel free to rephrase or re-order the issues.

Of course, none of you guys did. Are you now going to show some courage? If so, define away--anyway you want to. Anyway you cut it, your side's positions are horrendously bad for America to the point of being indefensible in a what's-good-for-America criterion. You don't agree? Well, how about some details, maybe a lot of details why.

For the record, "God damned America-hating" indeed DOES have a place in the debate. "America-hating" accurately describes the result and very probably the motivation of your side's positions (feel free to DETAIL your disagreement). And ANYTHING or ANYONE that is hateful of America absolutely NEEDS to be damned by God--or don't you agree?

As for "fact claims", anything proveable or so obvious as to be mutually agreed to is a fact. Anything which is the position of a biased commission or whatever is not--not automatically, anyway. I could come up with plenty of those kinds of "facts" that I'm sure you wouldn't accept--and that includes things put out by the U.S. Government and the U.S. Military.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I'm near libertarian, but I have mainly voted republican in the past so read my 2cents accordingly.

Tex, one point you miss BIG TIME is that most elections are a referendum on the GOP. If they stick to their guns they win, if they act like liberals they lose. Thats been a fact as long as I've been alive (1970 on). Trying to prove to liberals they are wrong on the issues is pointless, their faith (on most, not all issues) is not based on debate, but what they want/feel. (see taxes, tax rates and revenues which proves with hard data that raising taxes does NOT raise revenues to the treasury but DOES deflate growth) You won't win their votes, you have to win by sticking to what the GOP does well.

You however have figured out that they are inherently wrong most of the time, but you fail to see when the GOP is wrong. And when they are wrong, people either don't vote, or vote the other way to "cleanse" the party. This is part of McCains problem, he wants to be "middle of the road" and most of america is actually conservative (fiscally). The referendum on him won't be favorable.

OK, starting with the war, first understand why we actually have to get involved....we aren't energy independent, but don't misread that as we are fighting for oil, read it as the middle east has oil and that equates wealth. First you have to realize that radical islam wants us dead, not just islam in the middle east, but in africa and even small pockets of asia too. The difference is that the radical muslims in the middle east has a valuable resource that we rely on and that equates wealth which equates the ability to make weapons of mass destruction....following? You don't see us taking out dictators in Africa who are just like saddam do you, cuz they have no wealth which equals ability to create nukes.

So what do we do, attack Iran? (the country closest to having a nuke, but much bigger than iraq) No, we make saddam out to be pure evil, take over his country, and build a MONSTER air base 12 minutes flight from Iran...get it, this whole war was about Iran (axis of evil and all). See Korea we could attack diplomatically, they have NOTHING we need, we merely cripple them economically (even worse than they are) and they can't afford to continue their nuclear proliferation (nor can any country not wealthy enough). Another difference is that korea isn't radical islam and actually worries about repercussions if they ever did nuke us.

Now liberals might think this is unacceptable, I personally don't, but I wish the debate had been formed honestly by bush from the start. He nor anyone else was ever worried about a terrorist attack killing 3000 people, they were worried about the attack on our financial systems. (how many people die heinous deaths every year without terrorism?) They were also worried about the next clinton selling iran the technology to actually get a nuke over here once they can create one, or nuking israel throwing the middle east into disarry choking off oil supplies.....WE CAN'T LET A RADICAL MUSLIM REGIME GET A NUKE!!

Ok, now lets look at it closer, what might have been a better strategy, but the leftists wouldn't let us take that course, and I'm not sure the rightys wanted to. How about instead of spending a ton of money on a war and inflating oil prices by not drilling here we drill like crazy, anwar, offshore, backyard everywhere. We also make a national innitiative to increase nuclear power dramatically. While we are at it we offer BILLION dollar prizes for certain benchmark improvements in solar, wind and any renewable energy source.

The purpose of drilling and going nuclear is to deflate the global price of oil NOW thus financially damaging the middle east in the short term thus reducing our need for them, while maintaining their need for us. The purpose of the benchmark prizes is to get us off dirty and non renewable power long term as demand for energy worldwide continue to climb. It also makes us the world leader in the most valuable resource on the planet.....ENERGY (always has been, always will be)

I have faith in the american people and I think if bush had framed the debate this way we never would have had to go to war and the people would have spoken loudly giving him a huge re-election and we would be nearly there already. Thats enough of a post for now, I don't even want to get started on the other topics.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I showered and shaved now I'm ready to rant some more, although I hope I'm not too late to this thread as I'm just getting warmed up.

How about George Bush and his wonderful medicare prescription drug add-on. Lets see our country is already 46 TRILLION behind on social programs and unfunded liabilities but we might as well tack on more.

Libs scream its a give away for big pharma as though somehow we were supposed to pass a part D drug plan that didn't pay the companies that created the drugs. The GOP, who claims to be for personal responsibility decided that even though joe shmoe blew his money all life long and didn't save for prescription drugs he still deserves for me to pay for them.

sidenote: do you really want the company that constantly cuts back on SS benefits and has bankrupted the simplist scheme in history running your healthcare? I'm a finance guy so if you want me to start a new thread on what SS benefits would be if you put the money in a frickin bank CD I will (but warning, you will be REALLY pissed at LBJ and the rest for raiding your ss trust fund)

Yep, pursuit of life liberty and gov't sponsored health care. Look I'm not cruel, I wish everyone had good healthcare, I'm even for DEREGULATING IT in an effort to make it more affordable. Look, the market takes care of itself with time, and you can't expect big pharma to pay for research into blockbuster drugs then not be able to collect the rewards. When the patents expire you can buy generic zocor at sam's or walgreens for $5.90 a month, not a bad deal. But until the patents expire, no one has a god given right to get it for free, the market just won't allow for it to ever get created if there is no profit in it.

The reason the GOP got wasted in the last election and will again in November has nothing to do with democrats, it was, as I said earlier, a referendum on them. They passed a huge social program, porked up the budget, bush couldn't veto anythiing that spent money it seemed, and they took a bath.

If they had cut taxes (they did) reduced spending (not even close) and horsed thru a social security reform in the way of privatization (can you say crumbled at the first critique) they would have won in a landslide. Big deficits are not the way of the GOP if they want to win.

Tex, you said the GOP was against earmarks, but I don't see it, the minority party regardless of who it is SAYS they are against earmarks and pork, but when they get in, FEED THE PIG!! The exception to this was the Gingrich led house who was doing well before that snake in the grass Bob Dole went behind his back and negotiated a deal with Clinton. We see how that worked out, House GOP won a big re-election.....Clinton slaughtered Dole.

sidenote: if I have to hear one more liberal claim clinton balanced the budget I'll scream, he fought gingrich every step of the way to a balanced budget.

Ok, thats all i got on taxes and spending, more later.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, I read and devoured both of your "rants" with great interest. Debating politics is unbridled FUN, in addition to being relevant and significant.

I have grudging respect for traditional Libertarians with regard to domestic issues. However, I sincerely hope you don't turn out to be a follower of the loon, Ron Paul and his anti-American/anti-interventionist views.

I agree with what you said about Iraq very possibly being all about Iran. The question is, do you write that from that point of view that it is a wonderful idea? Or are you disparaging the idea?

The leftists in this forum and otherwise are so blinded by their Bush-hate that they don't seem to realize what you stated--that Bush has gone a long way in their direction in terms of social programs, etc. that he has proposed and gotten pushed through.

Where I differ with Libertarians--and many other Republicans--is that I don't see great harm in government spending/deficit spending. Economically, it helps far more than hurts in a Keynesian Multiplier sense. As for the "Nanny-state" programs, I'm with you guys in the sense that with government help comes inefficiency, dependence, regulation, and increased government intrusion in our lives. Still, if administered properly--which I admit is very unlikely to happen, the boot-strapping of Americans by direct government aid is not that horrible a thing.

The biggest danger, as I see it, is that the leftist candidate--Obama, most likely--uses the attractiveness to voters of these nanny-state programs to get in and execute a horribly anti-American agenda in the more critical areas of defense, security, and foreign policy.

I know that runs directly contrary to what you said about elections being referendums on the Republicans and conservative/Republican ideals. To an extent, you are right in the sense that national level liberal politicians are just like our gutless forum leftists--they run and hide and fail to even discuss and directly defend the crap they stand for--and they get away with it because of the ability of their media allies to shape the playing field of the election.

You were also on target with that regarding the election of Ronald Reagan. The libs were so damned elitist that they didn't take Reagan seriously. They just couldn't believe that the electorate would fail to buy the liberal programs they had been foisting on people for 50 years. It may even have still been that way when the first Bush was elected, as libs thought Reagan was an aberration and they could return to business as usual. The '94 Congressional elections--the Gingrich Revolution seemed to finish them off once and for all and make "LIBERAL" the dirty word that it should be. However, never under-estimate the power of the elitist leftist mainstream media to demagogue, propagandize, and generally corrupt the electorate.

George W. Bush did NOT get elected twice so much as a referendum on pristine conservative principals as he got in by a combination of pro-American security and foreign policy and pandering to desires for "compassionate conservatism"--a slightly lighter version of those left wing programs the Dem/libs were pushing.

The bottom line IMO is that McCain--who would seem to be the fulfillment of all the fears of you Libertarians--is not only exactly what we need to win the election and defeat the worst electoral threat to our way of life since McGovern, but he also is NOT harmful to the country himself because he is strong on the most important issues--security, defense, and interventionist foreign policy--and in spite of the fact that he, like Bush, may be a little bit squishy on liberal social programs. The key is if he is as good as his word on NOT raising taxes.

You mentioned earmarks. I didn't say "Republicans" were against them--just that McCain was against them. He has at least, made a major point of that in his campaign.

[bobblehead]

I don't think Ron Paul is a loon necessarily and I think if the media had covered him more fairly (including the right wing media) you would have found out that what he stands for is similar to what I called my solution where we would have dominated the energy market and dismissed the middle east as irrelavent. Where I break from Paul is that given the current climate of NO DRILLING at any cost war was the only reasonable option left.

Problem with the war was we used the rumsfeld model of a sleek high tech military and tried to occupy with it cuz bush naively thought the iraqis would simply rebuild and live happily ever after even though guys like patreaus were telling him all along we needed more ground troups if we were gonna nation build. In the very beginning of the war I told my friends if we are serious we have to disarm the nation and seal the borders for 2 years after saddam is toppled while we rebuild....now if I could see it coming, bush and rumsfeld should have.

I guess, to answer your question, I write from the point of view that it was nowhere near wonderful idea, but necessary and then boy did we piss all over ourselves in execution (until patreaus took over). I also thought we should have built our base, then let the country fall into civil war if they can't work it out since our goal all along was a military presence in the region.

As far as bush hate goes, he is naive there too, he thought he could make the left like him by being a liberal social spender, but they still hate him, and now his own party does too. He has spent the last year and a half trying to get the deficit back down and vetoing superfluous spending because....now its the democrats proposing such spending instead of his own party, and he (and the congressman) cost themselves the majority by not knowing my rule.....the election is a referendum on them, not democrats.

OK, so now for the harm in gov't spending. The only good spending is infrastructure, you know, things that actually grow an economy. Bridges, commerce, possibly hospitals (but not run by gov't). I believe in public education, but they even seem to screw that up, gov'ts latest trick is to spend as much on they can on anything but education, build in waste, then use schools as an excuse to tax us more. We spend something like 8k per student and have 30+ in a classroom, you do the math, its sufficiently funded. Gov't spending on social programs to help people out is good in principal but rarely works as intended. The keynsian multiplier only applies where the spending expands an economy...again, infrastructure...there is no multiplier effect in taking money from bill gates and giving it to joe blow. Now if you pay for joe's education it will have an effect. (of course once the gov't efficiencey multiplier is factored in I could argue its still a net negative). A better idea is having gates keep the money, reinvest in his business and create a few hundred more jobs.

sidenote: funny you said libertarians call you leftist, i can explain why. You have bought into the "compassion" of social programs when all they really do is create a subclass of people. The money taken from the economy to run said program costs jobs hurting the populace further. I don't stand against social programs cuz I'm cruel or even because it upsets me to have a welfare mom get my money, I'm against them cuz they don't work and hurt those they purport to help.

Medicare part D will get too expensive down the road, the gov't will "dictate" prices to the drug companies, the companies won't be making sufficient profits, they will stop reinvesting in new drugs and technology will hold still. Sure this is probably about 15 years away, but you can see where its heading already.

I do give mccain credit for never having slipped in an earmark. He is a rock on the subject....global warming, illegal immigrants, 1st ammendment crushing campaign finance reform, callling the bush tax cuts "tax cuts that benefit the wealthy".....these are all issues where he disgusts me. Remember immigration refore in 1986? It looked IDENTICAL to mccain's bill, but we never actually did any of it except for amnesty. Do you know any foreigners? People with brothers and sisters on 9 year waiting lists to come here? I do, and NO WAY will i ever support any candidate who wants to let some people stay because they snuck in and broke the law. I don't blame the illegals one iota, I would have done the exact same thing in their shoes, but that doesn't mean we let them stay. Simply dry up the jobs with crippling fines and the problem will solve itself.

Ok, fingers are sore, maybe later I can do a thread on the succession of elections and how each one was a referendum on republicans. Contrary to what most people think, the voters are NOT in favor of big social programs.

[Kiwon]

...It's either speculative assertions that can neither be proven nor disproven (Bush prevented further terrorist attacks,...

And the award for bad timing goes to.....Hoosier!

.................................................. ......................................

May 25, 2008

Are We Safer? by John Hinderaker

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020600.php

[hoosier]

...It's either speculative assertions that can neither be proven nor disproven (Bush prevented further terrorist attacks,...

And the award for bad timing goes to.....Hoosier!

.................................................. ......................................

May 25, 2008

Are We Safer? by John Hinderaker

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020600.php

I don't have the time or the patience to address each of the cases of supposed "terrorist attacks" on US interests prior to the Dubya regime. But I have to ask, if Hinderaker is willing to discount the DC snipers as "lone wolves" (itself a highly arguable proposition; "lone nuts" would seem just as plausible) why does he get to include the Empire State and CIA shootings as well as the Egypt Air crash? The two shootings were never convincingly linked to any organized terrorist group, and the Egypt Air crash was never definitely linked to any cause whatsoever. Just because a deranged person makes allusions to "jihad" or "Allah" while going off doesn't make it a terrorist attack...unless, I guess, you have an ideological agenda to sell :roll:

But by far the most questionable premise here is one that has already been debated in other threads. Of course there have been fewer attacks on US and US interests since the start of the war! Iraq has become the main front for Islamic extremism. How then is it possible for this Hinderaker guy to say "Wow, no more violence against US interests"??? Do US military casualties during the insurgencies not count as US interests? Is his real argument that it's better to inflict enormous destruction, suffering and death on Iraqis so that we in the US can return to pre-9/11 "normalcy"? Let me guess: Hinderaker is also a Bible-thumping, moralizing right-wing Christian.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well, Bobblehead, given the patheticness of our testiclularly challenged forum leftists, I guess we just have to discuss issues from a couple different shades of conservatism.

I refer to Ron Paul as a "loon" because of his non-interventionist foreign policy and his distinct tone of hate and disdain for America. While oil was certainly a factor in the war, it was far from the only one. I have a degree of respect for Paul's position on government spending /intrusion, although I don't have near the problem with it that he does.

The "Rumsfeld Model" worked fine for the actual war. It was working fine for the nation-building, until al Qaeda decided to prioritize screwing up Iraq over hitting us at home. That cost us dearly there, but undoubtedly saved a lot of lives here at home. I remember writing for the first year or two how all the scheduled landmarks were being met on time. Then al Qaeda blew up the mosque at Samarra and all hell broke loose.

I, too, would have been just fine with getting rid of Saddam, and just letting the chips fall while we were holed up in our secure base, but can you imagine the crap the elitist America-hating leftists in this country would have spewed about American cruelty or whatever if we had done that? In hindsight, I also would have been fine with not totally disbanding Saddam's military and using it to help control things. That would have saved the several year period we have been reconstructing the Iraq military.

One way of looking at it is that Bush was naively trying to placate the liberals with his domestic programs. The other way is the Bush just is what he is, and the libs demagogued it and irrationally hated him, even though he pushed out of real compassiona lot of the same stuff they push. Six of one half a dozen of the other.

I disagree with you about the government spending/Keynesian Multiplier stuff. Whether it is leaving money in people's hands with tax cuts or injecting it with spending, that money is SPENT or INVESTED. Thus, it becomes income for somebody else who also spends it or invests it, having it become income for another somebody--and so on and so on. The tax revenue generated from all that additional income ends up being more than the original tax cut or spending program. It worked like a charm for the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II tax cuts. It didn't work for the massive poverty programs of the pre-Reagan era because the libs stupidly "paid for" their spending with tax increases that had a horrible reverse multiplier effect, culminating with the rottenness of the Carter years.

Deficits are no more harmful than corporate debt--euphemized as leverage--or personal debt like mortgages, credit cards, and consumer debt. It's actually less harmful, because the government will never default. Inflation, you say? It isn't happening to any significant extent at all as long as economic growth outstrips the increase in debt--which it always does, unless the Dem/libs screw the pooch by raising taxes--again, see the Carter era.

Regarding buying into the liberal idea of "compassion" for the recipients of government largesse, I heartily subscribe to what Rush says--that the intention and result of those programs was to keep people in marginal poverty and dependent so they would vote for the Democrats pushing the programs. However, I also look at it like this: This is America. Nobody should do without the basics. Keeping people out of the depths of depravity is a luxury we CAN afford--like when I bought a swimming pool long before I could really afford it--but while my kids were still young enough to get full benefit from it. Look at the before and after of Social Security, for example. It would really be a stretch to still be opposing that after all the good it has done for so many.

While I oppose socialized medicine, for example, because of what I've seen personally of the inefficiency of government-provided healthcare in the military. However, I really think that NO AMERICAN should ever have to do without needed treatment. Thus, some kind of program--undoubtedly not the Hillary or Obama method--should be put in place, even if it is extremely costly. And it should be done WITHOUT people having to sacrifice through the stupidity of tax increases.

As I said, the true nightmare scenario is that the Dem/libs get in power by advocating those types of programs, and then procede to ruin the country by their horrendously bad policies on security, defense, and foreign policy.

[bobblehead]

Agreed, for crippling an enemy and winning a war, the rumsfeld model is second to none. For nation building....not so much. You need ground troops to survey the population constantly. You need to beat down dissent (I know the libs are going nuts on that one), and you need to dissarm the populace while you rebuild.

The main difference between you and I is that I am able to set aside my compassion and analyze a little bit more....I would say honestly, you might say brutally. When looking for solutions you have to look at the big picture and be able to accept statements like "the world needs ditch diggers too". I used to be a boss who tried to make all my employees happy all the time and it didn't work. Now I'm more of a hard ass and 90% of my employees are very happy and the malcontents who can't accept that nothing is perfect get moved along. It is a better model than constantly trying to placate the malcontents and ending up with only 70% of your workforce happy. I do make exceptions to the rules sometimes, and when someone complains about it my answer is "tough, you better hope I make an exception when you need it"

Deficits aren't the same as corporate debt, corporations leverage returns, there is minimal return on gov't spending therefore no mulitiplier (read leverage) is possible. If you leverage an investment and it loses money you have a bigger net negative. If you leave it with the people who may (or may not) invest it you will always get a better net return than government. And everytime the government borrows money, they are effectively making that money unavailable to real world people who would borrow it and do something positive with it. The only exception is when government simply prints (or taps on a keyboard) money into existence which has the negative effect of debasing the dollar, thus weakening purchasing power, thus reducing the keynsian multiplier effect.

quick sidenote before I leave: I sometimes think GW intentionally debased our dollar to hurt china...call it punishment for that little stunt early in his presidency where they knocked down our spy plane. Now all those TRILLIONS that china is holding in our gov't bonds is worth about 60% of what it was before they did that......but maybe I am giving him too much credit.

[MJZiggy]

I seem to be missing the coordinated subway attacks in London and Spain on this list...

[hoosier]

I seem to be missing the coordinated subway attacks in London and Spain on this list...

There were no "US interests" directly affected by those events, so they don't count.

[MJZiggy]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

[texaspackerbacker]

I seem to be missing the coordinated subway attacks in London and Spain on this list...

There were no "US interests" directly affected by those events, so they don't count.

It's a shame when bad things happen to good people, but what those events do more than anything else are highlight our security compared to their security. Also, they serve as a reminder of the tip of the iceberg of how bad it could be if that was allowed to happen here--as would be highly probable, given the STATED policies of Obama and everybody else on your side of the spectrum.

[MJZiggy]

What did he say he'd do that would allow it to happen here? Which policy in particular are we discussing?

[HarveyWallbangers]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

You are not this naive, are you? Any thoughts on the attempted attacks that were thwarted in France and Germany? Two countries that haven't exactly supported us. Go on believing that appeasing the terrorists works. Blame America left at its finest. When Reagan was in office, we were supposedly hated. When Clinton was in office, we were supposedly loved (yet the World Trade Center, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassy in Kenya were bombed). Much of Europe is so far to the left that they make California look like a red state. I'm happy when they hate us.

[hoosier]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

You are not this naive, are you? Any thoughts on the attempted attacks that were thwarted in France and Germany? Two countries that haven't exactly supported us. Go on believing that appeasing the terrorists works. Blame America left at its finest. When Reagan was in office, we were supposedly hated. When Clinton was in office, we were supposedly loved (yet the World Trade Center, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassy in Kenya were bombed). Much of Europe is so far to the left that they make California look like a red state. I'm happy when they hate us.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Much of Europe so far to the left? I guess that leaves out England, where the Conservative party is now fully back, and Spain, which recently had a right-center government, and France, which recently elected a conservative, and....

And yes, the terrorist attacks in Spain and England were directly tied to those countries' participation in Iraq, and were clearly intended to sway popular opinion (further) against the Spanish and English conservative governments' positions. Saying that isn't "blaming America," it's stating the obvious truth that everyone from Ted Kennedy to Donald Rumsfeld is capable of recognizing.

[MJZiggy]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

You are not this naive, are you? Any thoughts on the attempted attacks that were thwarted in France and Germany? Two countries that haven't exactly supported us. Go on believing that appeasing the terrorists works. Blame America left at its finest. When Reagan was in office, we were supposedly hated. When Clinton was in office, we were supposedly loved (yet the World Trade Center, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassy in Kenya were bombed). Much of Europe is so far to the left that they make California look like a red state. I'm happy when they hate us.

Uhhh Harvey? I was talking about London and Spain...They go after Western countries. Democracies. Last I checked both France and Germany qualify and last I checked, a huge amount of our military works out of Germany--like the ones about to be deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan...

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, I respect your thinking on this. However, I still say, this being America, we can "afford" to be compassionate in the sense that although to be brutally honest, some people "deserve" to go down the toilet, we CAN prevent it in this country without sacrifice by the rest of us, so why not do that?

While the sick class warfare pushed by the leftists is wrong, so, too, is the unreasoned and unnecessary social Darwinism that some on our side would like to see.

In hindsight, I have to agree with you on the nation-building thing. However, before we had the benefit of that hindsight, and before al Qaeda made the decision to prioritze screwing up Iraq, the limited force pushed by Rumsfeld was not going too badly.

Corporate LEVERAGE is actually DEBT--which by definition, does NOT have a return. The investment made with that debt is what is supposed to have a return in a profit-making business. Government is NOT a profit-making entity--by design. The equivalent is in government is economic growth--which clearly DOES result from spending--deficit or otherwise, or tax cutting.

You are wrong about money being unavailable to the "real world" when the government borrows. It is just the opposite. Our money supply is backed by government debt instruments. Every time the government borrows a dollar, the money supply expands by a dollar--which logic says is inflationary, EXCEPT for the fact that economic growth inevitably results at a greater rate than inflation--unless some idiot Democrat raises taxes.

Damn straight Bush intentionally let the dollar decrease in value> That's what I've been saying all along. China rigged the Yuan to be artificially low as an economic advantage for them for a long time. Bush basically played the same game back at them--thereby HELPING American producers selling in China--and everywhere else.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Much of Europe so far to the left? I guess that leaves out England, where the Conservative party is now fully back, and Spain, which recently had a right-center government, and France, which recently elected a conservative, and....

Too funny. You do realize that the Torries in the United Kingdom are far from what we would describe as conservative, right? There are factions that are truly conservative, but most would be classified as moderates or even left of center here. (By the way, it's the same way in France and Spain.) Also, the United Kingdom has a boatload of political parties. Most of them are liberal. Just because the Torries have a plurality doesn't mean "conservatives" are in the majority.


And yes, the terrorist attacks in Spain and England were directly tied to those countries' participation in Iraq, and were clearly intended to sway popular opinion (further) against the Spanish and English conservative governments' positions. Saying that isn't "blaming America," it's stating the obvious truth that everyone from Ted Kennedy to Donald Rumsfeld is capable of recognizing.

The implication being that those countries wouldn't be attacked if they:
didn't participate in Iraq.

(didn't support the U.S.)
(weren't democracies)
(didn't ban burqas in school)
(didn't allow women to vote)
(add any other hard-line Muslim edict you want)

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, I respect your thinking on this. However, I still say, this being America, we can "afford" to be compassionate in the sense that although to be brutally honest, some people "deserve" to go down the toilet, we CAN prevent it in this country without sacrifice by the rest of us, so why not do that?


You missed my point, when we set up social programs the effect is often to hurt the very people intended to help. And also it takes tax dollars to provide said compassion which has a deflationary effect on the economy.



While the sick class warfare pushed by the leftists is wrong, so, too, is the unreasoned and unnecessary social Darwinism that some on our side would like to see.

Again, I'm not pushing social darwinism, I'm rejecting the premise that social programs help those in need, they actually hurt others by stagnating the economy and costing jobs.


In hindsight, I have to agree with you on the nation-building thing. However, before we had the benefit of that hindsight, and before al Qaeda made the decision to prioritze screwing up Iraq, the limited force pushed by Rumsfeld was not going too badly.

Corporate LEVERAGE is actually DEBT--which by definition, does NOT have a return. The investment made with that debt is what is supposed to have a return in a profit-making business. Government is NOT a profit-making entity--by design. The equivalent is in government is economic growth--which clearly DOES result from spending--deficit or otherwise, or tax cutting.

You are wrong about money being unavailable to the "real world" when the government borrows. It is just the opposite. Our money supply is backed by government debt instruments. Every time the government borrows a dollar, the money supply expands by a dollar--which logic says is inflationary, EXCEPT for the fact that economic growth inevitably results at a greater rate than inflation--unless some idiot Democrat raises taxes.

Damn straight Bush intentionally let the dollar decrease in value> That's what I've been saying all along. China rigged the Yuan to be artificially low as an economic advantage for them for a long time. Bush basically played the same game back at them--thereby HELPING American producers selling in China--and everywhere else.

I thought I was clear about the debt incurred by corporations was reinvested and thus created the return....but anyway, I agree. BUT, when govn't incurs debt, they do not reinvest it, they give it away (pretty much always). Only when they reinvest in infrastructure does it have an expanding effect on the economy. And again our gov't either creates the money, taxes us for it, or borrows it, every one of which has a negative connotation of some form. The only way to make things expand is leaving the money in the hands of the doers. Guys who actually create things to raise our standard of living. You know, the evil rich guy, the guy who creates things that make our lives easier, cuz in reality the only true wealth creation is something tangible that we can enjoy.

The reason the bush cuts were so good is that he cut capital gains too. This caused a bevy of developement around the country which created jobs which created many things for all of us to enjoy (you know, things created by people). Him spending money on medicare part D did nothing to increase the wealth of the country, it merely handed certain people money. I know you get, you are just clinging to wanting to be compassionate even though you are increasingly seeing my point that being compassionate doesn't work (or at the very least it works for a few, at the expense of us all including those few)

[bobblehead]

Actually in case any are missing the point on leverage here is an example/lesson:

You invest 25,000 in a stock, but you leverage it for 5,000 more.

total invested 30,000. You are paying 8% on the debt(leverage) of 5,000.

at the end of the year the stock went up 20% to 36,000. You sell it pay back the 5,400 (5,000 debt + 400 interest)

You are left with 30,600 which is a return of 22.4%...higher than the 20% the stock made cuz you leveraged it.

HOWEVER if the stock drops 20% you are losing even more. You will lose 24% cuz you leveraged it.

So, when the govn't borrows money to GIVE to someone and takes it out of the hands of someone who would create, they lose said creation return, PLUS pay interest. Handing it out has zero net effect on the GNP.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, you seem to be confusing buying stock on margin with corporate leverage. Both are debts. What you described, though, was what individuals do to buy more stock than the cash they put up.

Leverage is when a corporation goes into debt through loans, bonds, etc. to finance projects, inventory, etc.

Both need profit on the money invested to be successes.

Government money spent is the SAME whether it is for infrastructure or plain old payments to people--salaries, welfare, whatever. The way THAT money works is when it is spent by the recipient--contractor, employee, welfare case, etc. Then it becomes somebody else's income--and somebody else's and somebody else's and so on and so on--the Multiplier. All that income amounts to economic growth. It also gets taxed, increasing revenue to the government, even if the tax rate is lower. You don't expect government to have a return/profit in the business sense, but you do expect the spending/tax cutting to generate far more growth than actual government money paid out.

Thus, government spending, whatever it goes for, is NOT deflationary, does NOT take additional tax dollars--unless they are stupid enough to raise taxes to "pay" for the spending, and does NOT cost jobs. Rather, the money generates MORE jobs as it is spent, creating demand for more products, bringing more income, more jobs, etc.--again, the Multiplier.

It works every time.

As for NOT bootstrapping the undeserving poor simply out of "fairness" or whatever you would call it other than Social Darwinism, I would agree with you that there are cases where it seems to hurt in the sense that the recipients become dependent and slothful, but what are you going to do, make that assumption and let them live in squalor when they can't/won't/don't apply themselves and survive on their own? That is the "luxury" I'm talking about--being able to keep these people from going down the drain, even if they would be going down the drain because of their own laziness, etc. As I have demonstrated, the money being spent does NOT mean sacrifice for the rest of us, but greater income and economic growth all around--as long as no damn Democrat gets in and screws things up by raising taxes.

[bobblehead]

Again, you aren't seeing it right. Wether a corporation leverages a project to create a bigger gain or an individual leverages a stock buy, there is no difference, I simply used stock leverage because its easier to understand and explain. Corporations generally leverage a much higher percentage, but the point is the same.

What you are describing in gov't handouts is actually called the velocity of money, not the keynsian multiplier. And gov't spending is fine, but gov't handouts are no different than if the original owner of the money kept it. The big difference is when its taken from an individual who might invest/build with it cuz now you have stopped a real asset from being created (and maybe jobs too) which has repurcussions for years to come. A handout simply has a velocity factor which is minimal in a net gain sense, and negative in a long term real asset factor. Leaving it in the hands of the original owner would be a better net gain.....unless we are printing or borrowing said money in which case I stand by either debasing the dollar or removing money from the normal credit markets, either way, a net negative effect.

My point is the gov't doesn't create jobs, they don't create wealth (other than infrastructure), and they take money from the people who do with nearly every tax dollar (not to say no taxes are good, a state run police and military and judicial for instance must be funded to properly run a capitalistic society)

[Kiwon]

Let me guess: Hinderaker is also a Bible-thumping, moralizing right-wing Christian.

Hmm.....Is that a bad thing?

http://bp0.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R5TrN0RTKFI/AAAAAAAAAfE/OcHrLrst7z4/s400/obama2.png

"And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him.."

Barack says that he is "Called To Bring Change...Called To Serve."

Called by whom or Whom?

Obama says that he is God's instrument and that it is God's will that he become POTUS.

Hoosier, you wouldn't vote for such a Bible-thumping, moralizing Christian nut as this, would you? You're much too intellectual and enlightened to do that.

[hoosier]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Much of Europe so far to the left? I guess that leaves out England, where the Conservative party is now fully back, and Spain, which recently had a right-center government, and France, which recently elected a conservative, and....

Too funny. You do realize that the Torries in the United Kingdom are far from what we would describe as conservative, right? There are factions that are truly conservative, but most would be classified as moderates or even left of center here. (By the way, it's the same way in France and Spain.) Also, the United Kingdom has a boatload of political parties. Most of them are liberal. Just because the Torries have a plurality doesn't mean "conservatives" are in the majority.....

Only if you define the center somewhere to the right of Pat Robertson. It's true that British politics hasn't become infested by Christian fundamentalists and as a result the debates over social issues are less polarized. But by any reasonable measure.the British Conservative party is a right-center party.



And yes, the terrorist attacks in Spain and England were directly tied to those countries' participation in Iraq, and were clearly intended to sway popular opinion (further) against the Spanish and English conservative governments' positions. Saying that isn't "blaming America," it's stating the obvious truth that everyone from Ted Kennedy to Donald Rumsfeld is capable of recognizing.

The implication being that those countries wouldn't be attacked if they:
didn't participate in Iraq.

(didn't support the U.S.)
(weren't democracies)
(didn't ban burqas in school)
(didn't allow women to vote)
(add any other hard-line Muslim edict you want)

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view? [/quote]

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

The IRaq War was a bad misstep in the fight against terrorism. But it certainly became a centrally front even if it was of our own creation.

It's important to keep in mind that terrorists are not active in Europe because of United States policy. I know you didn't state that, but some may take that implication.

There's nothing we can do about Europe. If they don't want to send troops to Afghanistan, its probably because they figured out that they can get away with it. But I think the European governments are far more vulnerable to terrorism than we are, and our expending greater efforts than us to combat it domestically.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

Ummm... What's so hard to figure out? She was implying that Spain and England were attacked because they supported us. Yet, there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

[hoosier]

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

Granted this point is only marginally related to the discussion at hand, but I have to say that you've bought into a sadly mistaken version of things in Spain. Aznar didn't lose the election because the Spanish people "caved in." The Partido Popular lost because they got caught in a clumsy lie: that the Madrid attacks were carried out by ETA. The PP thought that version of things would drum up more popular support for a party with a rep for being tough on (Basque) terrorism. When it quickly became pretty clear that ETA wasn't behind the attacks, the PP (deservedly) screwed itself.

[hoosier]

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

Ummm... What's so hard to figure out? She was implying that Spain and England were attacked because they supported us. Yet, there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

She wasn't talking about all European terrorism, only about two cases where the attacks were clearly designed in response to national government support for US. Saying that doesn't mean one thinks all terrorist attacks in Europe share the same motives, or that the US is to blame for the attacks.

[Tarlam!]

(..)there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

Um, apart from Spain and the UK, what other countries were attacked? My memory fails me.... Oh, Indonesia? As in Bali? Yes, well, that would almost be Australia, wouldn't it?

So, apart from those 3, who got attacked?

[HarveyWallbangers]

(..)there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

Um, apart from Spain and the UK, what other countries were attacked? My memory fails me.... Oh, Indonesia? As in Bali? Yes, well, that would almost be Australia, wouldn't it?

So, apart from those 3, who got attacked?

Terrorist attacks were thwarted in Germany, Denmark (Copenhagen), and Turkey. Al Qaeda posted on their website that they were targetting Euro 2008 in Switzerland. Which of these countries supported the U.S. in Iraq?

Let's be real here. If it isn't one excuse, it's another. Unless you all want to live by strict Muslim edicts, then appeasing the likes of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is tremendously stupid.

[Tarlam!]

Actually, Turkey was hit.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What you are describing in gov't handouts is actually called the velocity of money, not the keynsian multiplier.

Exactly. THis has been told to Tex many times, but he still insists on using the "money multiplier" term incorrectly.

Perhaps this is just another reason the "liberals" shy away from "debating" him. When you can't even use correct economic terms, and you have been shown the TEXTBOOK definition, and you still continue to believe you are right...well, what is the point?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

Granted this point is only marginally related to the discussion at hand,

You are sounding like an arrogant ass. The topic got to terrorism in Europe, one way or another.


but I have to say that you've bought into a sadly mistaken version of things in Spain.

I know it was a complex situation, but it is not sadly mistaken to suggest that the bombing further hardened public opinion against the Spanish participation in Iraq. Are you suggesting Spaniards became more enthusiastic about fighting Islamic extremism in Iraq & Afghanistan? No, to the contrary. They retreated to isolationism.

And BTW, the politics of what happened in a three-day window between the bombing and election is impossible to know. I just did some reading, there are theories both ways. But that controversy on which I am "sadly mistaken" is besides the big picture.

[MJZiggy]

(..)there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

Um, apart from Spain and the UK, what other countries were attacked? My memory fails me.... Oh, Indonesia? As in Bali? Yes, well, that would almost be Australia, wouldn't it?

So, apart from those 3, who got attacked?

Terrorist attacks were thwarted in Germany, Denmark (Copenhagen), and Turkey. Al Qaeda posted on their website that they were targetting Euro 2008 in Switzerland. Which of these countries supported the U.S. in Iraq?

Let's be real here. If it isn't one excuse, it's another. Unless you all want to live by strict Muslim edicts, then appeasing the likes of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is tremendously stupid.

Who said anything about appeasing bin Laden?

[the_idle_threat]

I did. I expect you all to do it immediately.

[hoosier]

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

Granted this point is only marginally related to the discussion at hand,

You are sounding like an arrogant ass. The topic got to terrorism in Europe, one way or another.

I wasn't being arrogant at all, I was just trying to acknowledge that I was picking on a point that was tangential to the discussion of "blaming the US" for terrorist attacks in Europe. So blow me.



but I have to say that you've bought into a sadly mistaken version of things in Spain.

I know it was a complex situation, but it is not sadly mistaken to suggest that the bombing further hardened public opinion against the Spanish participation in Iraq. Are you suggesting Spaniards became more enthusiastic about fighting Islamic extremism in Iraq & Afghanistan? No, to the contrary. They retreated to isolationism.

And BTW, the politics of what happened in a three-day window between the bombing and election is impossible to know. I just did some reading, there are theories both ways. But that controversy on which I am "sadly mistaken" is besides the big picture.

Yes, it's a complex situation and it's possible to read it both ways. The electoral turn against Aznar was almost certainly in part a rebuke of his party's dishonesty and in part a rejection of his Iraq policy (which, given the circumstances, is "caving"). But I'm sticking to my guns that to paint it as nothing other than shameless caving--which all commentaries in the US press did, and which your initial comment did--is sadly mistaken since it completely obscures the other side of the coin.

Oh, and one more thing: the vote for Zapatero isn't necessarily a vote for isolationism, since Zapatero has consistently declared his support for a strong front against terrorism, albeit through the U.N. If you want to dismiss that position as unrealistic in today's political climate (and therefore as de facto isolationism), you also have to admit that it's the Bushies who have made it unrealistic.

[Bretsky]

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and
> John Mc Cain were flying to a debate.
>
>
>
> Barack looked at Hillary, Chuckled and said, 'You know
> I could throw a $1,000 bill out of the window right now and
> make somebody very happy.'
>
> Hillary shrugged her shoulders and replied, 'I could
> throw ten $100 bills out of the window and make ten people
> very happy.'
>
> John added, 'That being the case, I could throw one
> hundred $10 bills out of the window and make a hundred
> people very happy.'
>
> Hearing their exchange, the pilot rolled his eyes and said
> to his copilot, 'Such big-shots back there. I could
> throw all three of them out of the window and make 156
> million people very happy.'

[Harlan Huckleby]

I could
> throw all three of them out of the window and make 156
> million people very happy.'

For you to even mention the subject of assasination during a presidential election season shows what a dispicable human being you truly are.

[Joemailman]

B must be a Bob Barr supporter if he wants all three of them dead.

[texaspackerbacker]

Again, you aren't seeing it right. Wether a corporation leverages a project to create a bigger gain or an individual leverages a stock buy, there is no difference, I simply used stock leverage because its easier to understand and explain. Corporations generally leverage a much higher percentage, but the point is the same.

What you are describing in gov't handouts is actually called the velocity of money, not the keynsian multiplier. And gov't spending is fine, but gov't handouts are no different than if the original owner of the money kept it. The big difference is when its taken from an individual who might invest/build with it cuz now you have stopped a real asset from being created (and maybe jobs too) which has repurcussions for years to come. A handout simply has a velocity factor which is minimal in a net gain sense, and negative in a long term real asset factor. Leaving it in the hands of the original owner would be a better net gain.....unless we are printing or borrowing said money in which case I stand by either debasing the dollar or removing money from the normal credit markets, either way, a net negative effect.

My point is the gov't doesn't create jobs, they don't create wealth (other than infrastructure), and they take money from the people who do with nearly every tax dollar (not to say no taxes are good, a state run police and military and judicial for instance must be funded to properly run a capitalistic society)

The terminology generally is "margin" when it is purchasing stock and "leverage" when it is a corporation borrowing money for various types of investments. You are correct, though. It is the same thing--debt--just like when the government borrows. The only difference is that government never has a problem paying its debt because it prints the money. And no, that ISN'T inflationary as long as growth outstrips debt increase.

You seem to be making the same flawed assumption that many tax and spend Dem/libs make when you are thinking about government spending--be it for "handouts" or anything else. You would be correct if it was merely tax dollars out/money from the government in. However, that is NOT the way it is, and it is the major JUSTIFICATION for deficits. You CUT taxes, or at very least, leave them level with additional spending, and the Multiplier Effect--which indeed IS what I described--will cause greatly enhance income, demand, production to meet the demand, jobs, more income, more demand, more production, more jobs and income, and so on. That is far more than just the Velocity of Money concept, which is basically just a wash and a transfer of wealth.

Nobody is suggesting government "creates" jobs or wealth. Government merely stimulates the consumers and producers in the free enterprise capitalist system to create jobs and wealth--as described above.

When compassion coincides with self-interest, there is no logical reason not to be compassionate. NOT to be compassionate in that circumstance in vindictiveness, and serves to encourage the wrongheaded liberal class warfare advocates.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

The IRaq War was a bad misstep in the fight against terrorism. But it certainly became a centrally front even if it was of our own creation.

It's important to keep in mind that terrorists are not active in Europe because of United States policy. I know you didn't state that, but some may take that implication.

There's nothing we can do about Europe. If they don't want to send troops to Afghanistan, its probably because they figured out that they can get away with it. But I think the European governments are far more vulnerable to terrorism than we are, and our expending greater efforts than us to combat it domestically.

Hell yeah, the attacks on Spain and Britain were motivated by their following of America's lead in the coalition. And what did the God damned WIMP Spanish do? They POSITIVELY REINFORCED the damned terrorists by electing an Obama-esque government that cut and ran from the enemy. The Brits at least showed some backbone.

The terrorists are more active in Europe for two reasons: One is that Europe is less tough and harsh than we are--unless there is some Euro-Gitmo that I haven't heard about. The other is merely geography. The damn Muslims are closer and have easier access to Europe, as well as a bigger existing population in the European countries going back to colonial times.

Harlan, in the words of Ronaldo Maximus, "There you go again" with the "Iraq was a bad misstep in the fight against terrorism" crap. How can you make such a LUDICROUS statement in light of the virtually 100% success we have had in preventing acts of terror since 9/11? This is NOT a rhetorical question. An answer would be appreciated!

[Harlan Huckleby]

But I'm sticking to my guns that to paint it as nothing other than shameless caving--which all commentaries in the US press did, and which your initial comment did--is sadly mistaken since it completely obscures the other side of the coin.

There is no other side of the coin. The Spanish responded to a terrorist attack by retreating from the burden of fighting terrorism at its source. There is no excuse for them not helping to stave off the Islamists in Afghanistan.


Zapatero has consistently declared his support for a strong front against terrorism, albeit through the U.N.

Well sure, they are working fervently against terrorism as it applies to their immediate threats.

Screw the U.N. They are clearly not up to the job of combatting terrorism. "Strong front" and "U.N." in the same sentence is claptrap.

I understand Bush is a terribly ineffective international leader. That in no way excuses Spain's selfishness and cowardice. They are not children acting-out because of a bad parent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, in the words of Ronaldo Maximus, "There you go again" with the "Iraq was a bad misstep in the fight against terrorism" crap. How can you make such a LUDICROUS statement in light of the virtually 100% success we have had in preventing acts of terror since 9/11? This is NOT a rhetorical question. An answer would be appreciated!

I don't see how you can make any connection whatsoever between our successes in preventing terrorist acts and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been a training ground for Al Qaida.

I agree that the War in Iraq is important in the long term course of events, we do not dare leave behind a country that is hospitable to terrorism. It's important psychologically that we appear to be gaining the upper hand there. We would be better off today if we had either not invaded Iraq, or had mustered the necesary resources before invading.

[texaspackerbacker]

Just when you seem to be making some headway toward good sense, Harlan, your irrational Bush-hate again rears its ugly head.

[Kiwon]

...a strong front against terrorism, albeit through the U.N.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just when you seem to be making some headway toward good sense, Harlan, your irrational Bush-hate again rears its ugly head.

:lol: I truly am not a Bush hater. I have defended him as much as crticicized him. The IRaq saga seen in its entirety shows a poor job by his administration, and the buck stops at the top.

I am glad that the last year has worked out better than I could have imagined. It shows that the administration has learned from past mistakes.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, in the words of Ronaldo Maximus, "There you go again" with the "Iraq was a bad misstep in the fight against terrorism" crap. How can you make such a LUDICROUS statement in light of the virtually 100% success we have had in preventing acts of terror since 9/11? This is NOT a rhetorical question. An answer would be appreciated!

I don't see how you can make any connection whatsoever between our successes in preventing terrorist acts and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been a training ground for Al Qaida.

I agree that the War in Iraq is important in the long term course of events, we do not dare leave behind a country that is hospitable to terrorism. It's important psychologically that we appear to be gaining the upper hand there. We would be better off today if we had either not invaded Iraq, or had mustered the necesary resources before invading.

No further reason or justification should be needed beyond the indisputable FACT that terrorism in America has been prevented. If you walk through a minefield and don't get blown up, do you decide to walk back by a different route because you aren't convinced that the way you made it through was the best way to go?

If you insist on justification or reason, though, it's the same one I have cited probably a dozen times in this forum alone: AL QAEDA, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN WORDS, MADE IRAQ THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR. THEY HATED THE IDEA OF A FREE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY STANDING THERE AS AN INFECTIOUS EXAMPLE IN THE MUSLIM WORLD SO MUCH THAT THEY PRIORITIZED SCREWING UP IRAQ OVER THE EMINENTLY MORE DIFFICULT TASK OF HITTING AMERICA AT HOME.

How can you continue to dispute such an obvious link? This, again, is NOT a rhetorical question.

[bobblehead]

Actually, this is an irrelavent point but since we are belaboring it, the difference between margin and leverage is nil to a finance person, whether the margin is 10% or 90% we call it leverage, whereas the layman tends to think of 10% as a margin buy and 90% as a leveraged buy. Both buys are leveraged, but one much more so. Clearer, all margin buys are leveraged, but a buy that is significantly leveraged wouldn't be called margin. The calculations on return (or loss) are identical.

As for your tax in spend out analogy, the problem is you think it works the same both ways and I disagree and statistical evidence is on my side. When you raise taxes it has a deflationary effect on the economy, we agree there. Where we disagree is gov't spending and again, things like a bogus stimulas check don't stimulate the economy in the long term. For about a quarter it may bump the economy and stimulate revenues to the gov't and pay for itself, but only in the short term. The money still was "created" by the govn't if it wasn't taken out of the tax base and that doesn't create real long term assets....Oh, I guess you are agruing that once it is spent it ends up in the hands of creaters or doers and then stimulates, but again, you have either debased the dollar or reduced supply in the capital market thus negating any gain.

The only way deficit spending is justified is using it as a stabalizer for the economy, smoothing out peaks and valleys by spending, then paying off said deficit....so far the deficit has NEVER been reduced since we started running one, it was near zero at the end of the clinton years (thanx to gingrich) and the economy THRIVED. And I guess the actual HARM in a normal standing debt is minimal cuz the economy will outgrow it eventually, but we have debt in unfunded liabilities (and securities) that is growing yearly as measured against GDP. In english, we are going deeper in debt every year while our income is growing by less than that amount.

Now if you put in a social program like welfare with net spending of say....10 billion per year and it increased by EXACTLY the same as GDP every year that would be acceptable to me, but we don't put such safeguards in therefore your presumption that compassion coincides with self interest I reject. And even in said situation it would have to be cut every time govn't put in a NEW spending program to remain solvent (or taxes would have to be raised).

Anyway, I'm tired now, night.

[Harlan Huckleby]

AL QAEDA, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN WORDS, MADE IRAQ THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR. THEY HATED THE IDEA OF A FREE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY STANDING THERE AS AN INFECTIOUS EXAMPLE IN THE MUSLIM WORLD SO MUCH THAT THEY PRIORITIZED SCREWING UP IRAQ OVER THE EMINENTLY MORE DIFFICULT TASK OF HITTING AMERICA AT HOME.

So, your theory is that the bad guys have been drawn to Iraq to face a trap of sorts, a killing field where we've been able to mow them down.

I don't see us in a war of attrition against the terrorists. I see little tactical value to the hurt we've inflicted against the handful (perhaps a couple thousand) of foreign fighters in Iraq. They got plenty more where they came from.

It IS important from a propoganda standpoint to defeat them, that is part of the the longterm struggle.

We are not "tying them down in Iraq." The terrorists are not like Hitler's armies committing troops to the eastern front. They are a small, mobile force. They can and have redeployed to Pakistan as we've driven them out of Iraq.

Iraq has had zero, nothing, nada to do with the terrorist ability to strike at the U.S.

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, this is an irrelavent point but since we are belaboring it, the difference between margin and leverage is nil to a finance person, whether the margin is 10% or 90% we call it leverage, whereas the layman tends to think of 10% as a margin buy and 90% as a leveraged buy. Both buys are leveraged, but one much more so. Clearer, all margin buys are leveraged, but a buy that is significantly leveraged wouldn't be called margin. The calculations on return (or loss) are identical.

As for your tax in spend out analogy, the problem is you think it works the same both ways and I disagree and statistical evidence is on my side. When you raise taxes it has a deflationary effect on the economy, we agree there. Where we disagree is gov't spending and again, things like a bogus stimulas check don't stimulate the economy in the long term. For about a quarter it may bump the economy and stimulate revenues to the gov't and pay for itself, but only in the short term. The money still was "created" by the govn't if it wasn't taken out of the tax base and that doesn't create real long term assets....Oh, I guess you are agruing that once it is spent it ends up in the hands of creaters or doers and then stimulates, but again, you have either debased the dollar or reduced supply in the capital market thus negating any gain.

The only way deficit spending is justified is using it as a stabalizer for the economy, smoothing out peaks and valleys by spending, then paying off said deficit....so far the deficit has NEVER been reduced since we started running one, it was near zero at the end of the clinton years (thanx to gingrich) and the economy THRIVED. And I guess the actual HARM in a normal standing debt is minimal cuz the economy will outgrow it eventually, but we have debt in unfunded liabilities (and securities) that is growing yearly as measured against GDP. In english, we are going deeper in debt every year while our income is growing by less than that amount.

Now if you put in a social program like welfare with net spending of say....10 billion per year and it increased by EXACTLY the same as GDP every year that would be acceptable to me, but we don't put such safeguards in therefore your presumption that compassion coincides with self interest I reject. And even in said situation it would have to be cut every time govn't put in a NEW spending program to remain solvent (or taxes would have to be raised).

Anyway, I'm tired now, night.

Bobblehead, you are continuing to make a bunch of false assumptions and premises.

First of all to belabor that admittedly irrelevant point, MARGIN implies a blend of equity and debt working together for a stock purchase. It's a legal requirement. Leverage i.e. corporate debt--like when an individual goes to the bank and gets a personal loan, does NOT require equity. It is purely borrowing--either secured or unsecured--100% of the amount needed for whatever project or use the loan is for.

The fundamental disagreement we seem to have is that you think money spent must be "paid for" with tax increases. It does not.

You also stated that deficit spending is only justified for short term smoothing out or whatever, and you bemoaned the fact that debt in this country has never been substantially reduced. That, however, is NOT a bad thing. The great majority of corporations are the same way. Most individuals through the prime years of their lives have long term mortgages. There is simply NO NEED to even consider paying off government debt. In fact, it would be deleterious on a bunch of levels if it ever happened.

You also were factually wrong in stating that debt has increased faster than GDP. Not even close! If that ever happened, yes, then it would be inflationary. But it hasn't happened for more than short periods, and it won't happen unless taxes are stupidly raised. And there is a good and valid reason WHY you simply don't see debt rising faster than growth--it's that old standby, the Multiplier Effect. That is why in your $10 billion example, no safeguard is ever put in. It's virtually automatic--no safeguard needed.

And taxes NEVER have to be raised. I would like to see an economic model run assuming no taxation, no government revenue whatsoever--purely debt financing--extended and "paid off" by more debt. I bet it would work just fine.

[bobblehead]

I'm trying to politely let you out of this, trust me, I'm a financial professional, any margin buy is called a "leveraged" position be it 1% or 100%. Your simply not right on this.

What you say is true, but you are dismissing the other part which is also true, you are legally required to put up certain percentages (and required by said broker) on margin buys, but they are still leveraged. When a corporation puts money into a project they to can leverage any percentage of it they wish, we don't refer to it as "investing in the project on margin" but that is still what it is. Margin refers to the percentage that is borrowed, while leverage merely means SOME is borrowed. the only relevance is where the fulcram is (to make a true lever analogy)

As far as debt not outpacing GDP you aren't including unfunded liabilities, I am. 59 TRILLION at last count from the front page of USA today about a week or 2 ago.

edit: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm

Pension and health payments for gov't employees. The real amount that the SS trust fund should be going up by. The liability of people paying into medicare vs. the payments being made out. The numbers are staggering. According to the article we have a national shortage (read debt) of $500,000 per household in this country. No amount of tax cutting or spending cutting can catch us back up, only cutting the benefits they promised us, and no politician is gonna do that until the first check doesn't clear.

[bobblehead]

Ok, click on this bad boy and tell me how good you feel about our govn't spending lots of money and putting in compassionate social programs.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html

my favorite line:

This means that in order to ensure the government will keep its promises, we need to have $50 trillion on hand right now, invested at a rate of return of about 6 percent. Since we don't, the overall obligation will grow through time.

or this link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/littlefield

my favorite line from it:

The implications are profound: by 2050 the very nature of the federal government may be radically different. At the extremes the country has two basic options. One is to retain Social Security and Medicare as broad middle-class entitlements, maintain Medicaid, hold defense spending near present levels (about 3.5 percent of GDP), and keep the rest of the government at its current size. In this scenario federal spending would grow from 19.5 percent of GDP today to 39.7 percent in 2075, resulting in a government proportionally larger than Germany's or France's. To fully cover a U.S. government of this size, lawmakers would need some way to permanently increase tax revenue by 70 percent a year—beginning today.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm trying to politely let you out of this, trust me, I'm a financial professional, any margin buy is called a "leveraged" position be it 1% or 100%. Your simply not right on this.

This is the best thing i've read in a while.

A conservative who actually understands econ trying to educate a conservative who only thinks he does...and the finance guy is being rebuked.

I woulda thought you might have learned when he refused to acknowledge the correct meaning of the "money multiplier."

Bobble, you will quickly find that you know very little compared to Tex. His years spent in the army and selling real estate far outweigh your education and experience.

Good luck!

[Freak Out]

Thank you Mr. Gates. I don't agree with all the things he has done but he knows when some incompetent need to go.

June 6, 2008

2 Leaders Ousted From Air Force in Atomic Errors
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s senior civilian official and its highest-ranking general were ousted by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Thursday after an inquiry into the mishandling of nuclear weapons and components found systemic problems in the Air Force.

The Air Force secretary, Michael W. Wynne, and the service’s chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, were forced to resign after the inquiry found that the latest in a series of incidents reflected “a pattern of poor performance” in securing sensitive military components, Mr. Gates said at a Pentagon briefing.

So deep and serious are the problems, Mr. Gates said, that he has asked a former secretary of defense and of energy, James R. Schlesinger, to head “a senior-level task force” to recommend improvements in the safekeeping of nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and other sensitive items.

In office 18 months, Mr. Gates has made accountability a central theme, firing senior Army officials after disclosures of shoddy conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and pushing into retirement other generals closely associated with a faltering strategy in Iraq.

But never before has a defense secretary simultaneously ousted a service secretary and a service chief. Mr. Gates said he had taken the action because the investigation identified “a lack of effective Air Force leadership oversight” and found that “the Air Force has not been sufficiently critical of its past performance.”

“Mistakes are not acceptable when shipping and controlling sensitive, classified parts” of the United States’ nuclear arsenal, Mr. Gates said. “Our policy is clear. We will ensure the complete physical control of nuclear weapons, and we will properly handle the associated components at all times. It is a tremendous responsibility, and one we must not, and will never, take lightly.”

Mr. Wynne’s only comment was a statement issued Thursday, in which he said, “Recent events convince me that it is now time for a new leader to take the stick and for me to move on.”

The inquiry involving the Air Force was an effort to determine how four high-tech electrical nose cone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan in place of helicopter batteries. The mistake was discovered in March — a year and a half after the mistaken shipment.

Mr. Gates made clear that most troubling was that the inquiry showed how little the Air Force had done to improve the security of the nuclear weapons infrastructure even after it was disclosed last year that a B-52 bomber had flown across the United States without anyone’s realizing that it was carrying six armed nuclear cruise missiles.

Mr. Gates, whose military service includes a year as an intelligence officer within the Air Force’s nuclear program, emphasized that neither incident posed a danger of a nuclear mishap.

Nevertheless, he said, the inquiry made it clear that the Air Force had suffered for years from a loss of expertise in handling nuclear materials. He acknowledged that the Air Force had taken steps to improve the situation, but he said that more must be done to fix “structural, procedural and cultural problems.”

Mr. Gates, 64, served as deputy national security adviser and director of central intelligence under the first President George Bush. He has repeatedly said that he plans to retire from government service at the end of the Bush administration, but there has been speculation that he may be asked to stay on by either a President McCain or a President Obama after January, to help guide the Pentagon while the country is at war.

Pentagon officials said General Moseley, in his role as a member of the Joint Chiefs, met Thursday with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman, who supported the decisions for both officials to retire.

The errors in handling nuclear weapons components constituted more than just an indication that the cold-war-era focus on these powerful weapons had become fuzzy. They have also put the Bush administration in a difficult position, as the United States is struggling to prevent nuclear technology from spreading to nations that do not have it and has criticized North Korea and Iran for their nuclear ambitions. American officials have even spoken strongly to Russia for not sufficiently safeguarding its stockpile.

After the incident with the nose cone fuses was discovered, Mr. Gates told the Air Force and Navy secretaries to conduct a comprehensive review and a physical site inventory of all nuclear and nuclear-associated material equipment across their respective programs. Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of Navy Nuclear Propulsion, led the investigation, and gave his report to Mr. Gates last week.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, applauded Mr. Gates’s move.

“Secretary Gates’s focus on accountability is essential and had been absent from the office of the secretary of defense for too long,” Mr. Levin said in a statement. “The safety and security of America’s nuclear weapons must receive the highest priority, just as it must in other countries.”

Mr. Gates said his actions Thursday had been wholly driven by Admiral Donald’s inquiry, and were not related to other embarrassments that have plagued the Air Force over recent months.

Among the troubles has been an inquiry into contracts for the Air Force’s flying stunt team, the Thunderbirds, which found that a $50 million contract to promote the Thunderbirds had been tainted by improper influence and preferential treatment. No criminal conduct was found, but three officials were subjected to administrative penalties.

Mr. Gates has also expressed frustration about some Air Force actions on weapons procurement, budgets and execution of the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, his aides said.

The Air Force has more than doubled the number of armed Predator and Reaper hunter-killer aircraft over Iraq and Afghanistan since early last year, but aides to Mr. Gates say he is still not satisfied with the number of surveillance aircraft in the war zone.

The ouster of the top Air Force officials is similar to Mr. Gates’s moves in March 2007 after disclosures of shoddy conditions at Walter Reed, when he forced Francis J. Harvey to resign as Army secretary, a day after a decision that the two-star general in charge of Walter Reed would be relieved of command.

Mr. Gates also decided last year not to recommend either the reappointment of Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs or that of Gen. John P. Abizaid as commander of American forces in the Middle East. Both men were closely associated with early military policy for Iraq.

[Freak Out]

Nobody in Congress or the Executive branch is willing to make the tough decisions these days regarding energy policy. Every last one of them needs to go.

Partisanship prevails in Congress, while U.S. problems go unsolved

David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 13, 2008 04:38:04 PM

WASHINGTON — Congress is spending these opening weeks of the general-election campaign trying to score points with voters by forcing partisan opponents to cast embarrassing votes — and doing virtually nothing to ease the nation's economic, energy or foreign crises.

Political posturing is hardly unknown at the Capitol, but since lawmakers returned from their Memorial Day recess June 3, Republicans have halted Democrats' efforts to tackle the gasoline price crisis, Democrats have turned back a Republican bid to find common ground on help for the unemployed and the two sides are deadlocked on funding the Iraq war.

"Things are bad," said Steven Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. "Politics is the focus this year, not policy."

Partisan politics, it appears, will continue to be the focus in Congress this summer, particularly because two U.S. senators are expected to be their parties' presidential nominees. No sitting senator has been elected president since 1960.

Democrats like to highlight how presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has consistently supported President Bush's economic plans, including his tax cuts, which they say disproportionately benefit the wealthy and do little to help today's sluggish economy.

Republicans counter that Obama is too eager to raise taxes, which the GOP says would stifle job creation and economic growth. Obama calls for raising income taxes on the very wealthy, raising the income limit that's subject to the Social Security wage tax, repealing a number of Bush's tax reductions for business and raising the tax on capital gains.

Events this week illustrated how lawmakers are playing these games.

On Tuesday, Republican senators blocked a Democratic energy bill that included a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. The bill would have helped pay for new technologies and production. Neither Obama nor McCain voted.

Then CNBC asked Obama that day if one way the nation could become more energy-efficient was for gasoline prices to stay high.

"I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment," the candidate said. "The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing."

The vote and the comment gave Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky the opportunity to blast Obama and his party in one comprehensive sentence:

"The Democratic solution of raising taxes, which will of course raise the price at the pump yet again, coupled with the Democratic nominee for president's apparent admission today that the only problem he has with higher gas prices is that it happened too quickly, is not a solution to America's energy problem."

Next, on Wednesday and Thursday, the House of Representatives debated help for jobless workers, and the two parties weren't far apart on their legislative goals. House Democrats proposed 13 extra weeks of help to people in all 50 states, while Republicans wanted to offer the aid only in the 18 states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average.

However, the parties failed to find common ground, and the Democratic-led House debated and voted on the measure anyway — twice. The Democratic plan passed both times, but with President Bush threatening a veto, the bottom line is that no one will get extra help anytime soon.

The thorniest issue the two parties will tackle is still ahead: Iraq.

The Senate passed a $165 billion war-funding bill last month that included domestic spending, notably an expanded education-benefits plan for military veterans. McCain opposed the new GI bill, saying it was too costly and did little to encourage service personnel to remain in the military. Obama backed the measure, and sharply criticized his rival.

McCain fired back: "Perhaps if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue, he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully."

"But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions," McCain said. "If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election."

The war funding bill is now in the House, where members hope to find some resolution by early July, but both sides say that will be tough, with all the partisan bickering.

Members say they know that the public is souring on them, but they can't move away from their parties.

"Anyone in America who is filling their gas tank must think that Congress is fiddling while Rome burns," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman.

She said that Democrats just didn't understand how to fix the problem, citing the energy bill that her party blocked. "That an energy plan that has the following three points — sue OPEC, a windfall profits tax, form a commission to study price gouging — would have any impact on the price of gasoline at the pump is just nonsense," Hutchison said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also said she understood the public's frustration.

"You go to the pump, you don't care about 50 votes in the Senate, you don't care about process, you don't care about anything. You just want this to get done," she said.

Then she defined the problem in a very political way:

"We need a new president. We need a new direction. And it's just a matter of a short period of time and that will happen."

The two lawmakers inadvertently illustrated why nothing gets done, and there's little hope that it will, Schier said.

"Partisanship serves individual members well," he said. "Money flows in a partisan direction. Congressional leadership rewards partisanship."

With Democrats sensing that for the first time in 14 years they could control both the White House and Congress soon, "they are probably not going to want to take any risk," Schier predicted. "They know the environment looks good."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008