If yo9u don't like that one ...how about this one.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3706

It seems that the American strategy is to make the world afraid of us because we are irrational, erratic and unpredictable. I think our execution has been flawless, but even though we have the world's largest supply of nuclear weapons, it seems Al Qaeda and the rest of the world thinks that somehow reason and logic will ultimately prevail. Bush is determined to prove them wrong.

Beachman:

I didn't say the Democrats received NO money from Enron. I asked Ticasonar to back up his claim that Enron executives gave more money to Clinton than Bush, a claim I find very surprising knowing the close relationship between the Bush family and the Enron people.

On first reading I found nothing in your second link that backs up Ticasonar's claim; your first link was dead, i.e., it said the web page could not be found.

Included in the second link's story was the following:

"Mr. Lay was the top campaign contributor to Mr. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign."

If Clinton did receive more money than Bush from Enron, then so be it. But if Ticasonar's statement to this effect is is based on his imagination rather than reality he should be called on it. I honestly am waiting for him to provide support for his claims so we can evaluate whether they are facts or the result of an overactive imagination.

Bluestraveller:

Bin Laden, who gave up great wealth to live in a cave, would like nothing more than for us to use nuclear weapons, just as he was tickled pink by our going to war in Iraq. The use of nuclear weapons would turn the entire world against us in a way that cannot be imagined today. It would result in alot of martyrs, but there would be many survivors who would take their places.

LA Guy,

Not sure if any of us know what really makes OBL tick. We had a great opportunity when he offered a truce earlier this year. I would have at least asked "What do you mean by truce?" and "How can we trust you?". This is not a sign of weakness, this is a sign of intelligence.

Binary Bush would have us believe that there are only two scenarios. The terrorists win or we win, but I believe that there are a myriad of other alternatives that have been left unexplored due to the binary nature of his thought process.

Even if you believe Binary Bush's logic, Sun Tzu's The Art of War states that we should strive to understand our enemy better than our enemy understands us. From this angle, OBL has us beaten.

Which was the point of my posts that got Arellius' underwear in a knot. Makes sense if you look at it like a chess game, but a lot of guys think that OBL and his leadership crew are just dumb fucking dune coons with zero intelligence. About the same way they thought about General Giap and every other non-European enemy we've faced.

The Russians never got Bin Laden, so far we haven't either. His record in fighting superpowers is 2-0. I hope his career ends quickly with a record of 2-1 but I think he'll be around for quite some time.

Laguy-

Here is the first link.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/14/124745.shtml

They are all crooks....both Republicans and Democrats.....taking money from companies that are giving to both parties at the same time.


Maybe it is time to do what is happening in Thailand....have a military coup and get rid of the crooks from both parties and have fresh new elections with no donations over $100.

Binary Bush's simplistic way of looking at things is that we don't negotiate with terrorists. The GOP did a fantastic job painting Kerry as a flip flopper. Binary Bush is incapable of changing his mind or learning from a mistake. I just wish that he would flip flop once.

Catacony, the only reason I have ever been involved in this thread was to get you to explain how you believe "9/11 would not have happened had Al Gore been elected".

Since you seem to be an expert on everything, I was curious to hear how that would be the case.

LaGuy,
It appears you have me standing on the edge of a cliff. www.tray.com/fecinfo/ Herein lie the truth. I shall endeavor to prove or own up to wording my post incorrectly...I can't admit to being wrong

WMDs...you're gonna love the reference....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

NAMBLA & ACLU sittin in a tree google O'Reilly ,NAMBLA & ACLU. Plenty-o-links.

The $25k per suicide bomber has to do with destroying all Countries that support terrorism. I didn't say it was only for al-Quaeda....but, looking back, I can see where it appears I am linking the two. al-Zarqawi is the link that's good enough for me to blow Saddam into oblivion. The $25k was a quick comment to add.

Yellow-cake...point LaGuy...but I still say that is an issue nobody cares about and Ambassador Wilson has been proven to be a liar...omg...do I have to find a link for that too?

Born of ignorance...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam and al-Quaeda practiced that policy against the West. That is why Saddam gave refuge to al-Zarqawi.

Kudos on calling me out...it may take me a while to sift through tray.com.


Catacony,
Mr. post-a-link wants to know where's you're proof the Syrian location is a myth...j/k. I'm just bantering here as I can't resist political debate. I don't want to take this debate to document central...we can go to www.cato.org (libertarian, not right wing) or whatever left-wing site for that high-brow talk.

I'm for small govt(!) I don't like big brother whether it's (R) or (D) rule. Unlike lefties who only get upset when it's the 'religous right' ruling. Remember Bill & Hillary with those personal FBI files in The White House? Maybe you screamed loud and marched on DC back then. If so, kudos. I would be willing to bet a beer if we meet that I get more peeved with big brother than you do.

I wish he would flip-flop as well - flip off the morgue table and flop into a casket.

Tica-

Guess what? The Fox WMD story turned out to be wrong. Amazing, huh? Turns out the "WMDs" were old stock from prior to the 1st Gulf War that was no longer operational. I.E., they found old shit that couldn't harm a flea.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080007

CNN also reported on the matter, and the CIA chief weapons expert confirmed that all the so-called WMDs reported by Rick Santorum and friend were "all pre- Gulf War vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under Saddam Hussein," according to Wolf Blitzer.

Ticasonar:

Yes mustard gas and similar substances were found in Iraq. These substances were acquired by Iraq before the 1991 war and probably were degraded to the point of being useless or, at least, very ineffectual. What I would like to know is whether they were acquired by Iraq as weapons to be used against Iran at a time when the U.S. was Iraq's ally and supporting its military efforts. Irrespective, to conflate these "WMDs" with the mushroom cloud Connie Rice and Bush used to justify the Iraq war, is more than a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say? Put another way, you don't really mean to suggest we needed to spend 100's of billions of dollars, lose nearly 3,000 U.S. soldiers' lives, and create the mess we have in Iraq, just to neutralize some well-past expiration date mustard gas that was rotting away in some hole in Iraq, do you?

I did the search you recommended and saw the ACLU Massachusetts chapter did represent NAMBLA in one civil case concerning freedom of speech (typing in that hack's name O'Reilly in the google search was difficult though). I am not sufficiently informed about the details of that case to opine on whether the ACLU was off-base in taking it although it is important that the ACLU takes cases based on whether they focus on upholding basic constitutional principles and they do this without regard to whether they like the client or not, or whether they agree with the client. They also represented Nazis in freedom of speech cases although it would be an extreme stretch to say they did this because they agreed with the Nazis or supported their positions. I personally would prefer if they were a bit more selective in who they represented, but IMHO it is a cheap shot to try to make them seem like friends of NAMBLA based on their Mass. chapter's having represented NAMBLA in one case involving free speech. And in this regard, I don't really care whether I agree with the speech or not; what I care about is whether the case has the potential to establish precedents that would impede the exercise of free speech more generally.

It is important that although the activities of NAMBLA are very different from those discussed on this and related boards, the legal precedents that develop from one type of free speech case often are applicable to other free speech contexts. If in the future ClubHombre or some other similar site comes under legal attack for the free speech posted here (or there), the ACLU and the legal precedents it has helped establish will be a major asset even if some of those precedents may have been established in cases involving organzations I don't like nor condone.

Although I know al-Zarqawi was in Iraq at some point, I have heard conflicting things about the circumstances that surrounded his visit. According to the BBC: "US officials say that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5058262.stm

As you know, or should know, Saddam did not have control of the Kurdish north. Indeed, the Kurds and Saddam were bitter enemies, although Cheney seems to ignore this fact whenever he spouts off about al Qaeda having established bases in the Kurdish north. It is probably fair to say the Kurds and the U.S. were much closer than the Kurds and Saddam.

Lastly, I assume by your silence on the subject you have withdrawn the claim Clinton received more money from Enron and its execs than did Bush.

And now the terrorists are in Brasil

Gotta love those mullah mamas.

I don't have much time to tune into this site, and when I do I see this post is still gooooooiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggggggggggg............
this is really hysterical for me, so thanks.

SP

Yep, people here are real interested in what is up with the U.S. dollar. Something tells me a thread on what's up with the Thai baht or Brazilian Real wouldn't be as popular.

oh, has that what this has all been about?!

chukle chuckle

SP

LaGuy,
I had two sentences on Clinton/Gore receiving more $$$ than Bush. One admitting I would never admit I was wrong and one that said I would start searching through Tray.com and see what I can come up with. I thought I groveled enough. I don't know who all the players at Enron were and the names of their PACs so looking it up will be eventful. And given it was years ago since Enron was a current event, I got no clue exactly where I read or watched the report.

Nambla & ACLU...you've got to be a member...of the ACLU b4 u wig out. My comment was a jab. I believe .orgs should have to own up to crap they do. And yes, the ACLU helps out a center-right person/group once in a blue moon...like Rush Limbaugh...it was an amicus brief, they didn't give him free counseling. The point is they are a tax-free group and their percentages of helping center-right people pro-bono are few and far between. But your point is taken on the needs of the citizens to have .orgs that will fight the govt.

WMD
That's interesting on the WMDs. CNN who accepted Saddam's censorship and failed to tell their viewers 'proves' something that favors Iraq or is anti-Bush. They're old WMDs....They're still WMDs. We have gone to war for less. It's just one part of the 'case' that was 'required' by the UN and dare I say the left-wingers. After 9/11 I was for erasing that part of the world. Probably why I'm not Prez. Point is Saddam kicking out the inspectors would hav been enuf for me to storm Baghdad, despite what the UN supported. Of course, those cachsuxorz in NY were making money off Oil4Food.

We have lost 3,000 soldiers where we invaded two countries and faced one of the largest armies in the world. That's pretty darn amazing. The GIs keep re-enlisting and I live near quite a few military installations and the guys I've talked to that are re-enlisting believe we are doing the right thing. Although most want to be able to kick a bit more butt.

Gosh, I wish I could be more brief or let this thread drop...never thought I would have to enter a steps program for a thread on CH.

Not to belabor too many points, but I don't believe the ACLU is a tax-free group. At least donations to them are not tax deductible, damnit!

It seems kind of interesting to me that the left has been at the forefront of civil rights, free speech, separation of church and state, the right to worship any God or no God, gay rights, the peace movement, abortion rights, feminism, privacy rights, and not to mention having sex with whoever, whenever you want (in any position I might add), yet they are willing to give it up. Why? I would suggest the left is so thrilled it has an ally against Bush they will give it all up, while in the process, throw their own country under the bus. What do you think the end game is for the radical muslims? Convert or die. How much of the above are you going to be doing if that happens. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone just stopped fighting, but they wont and this is not going away. Even with Hillary in the white house. AZ

PS just look at the reactions from these crazy bastards over a few words from the pope or the cartoons a while back. Its all an excuse to do what they do. Either that or they are just really freakin sensitive folks.

PSS I wonder how JFK or the gipper would have handled all of this? I think JFK would have kicked ass, but wouldnt have done it so fucking clumsy like Bush. THOUGHTS??

Who knows what JFK would have done. No one could do anything other than offer sheer speculation on that. I just wish someone, like our current Prez, had decided to focus on the bad guy (OBL) and his friends (AQ and the Taliban) instead of chasing off after a more stationary target. Imagine if the US had in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor decided to attack China because it was easier to find and attack than Japan. That seems to be the logic, if any logic can now be found, for our focus on Iraq. The Bushites have done more flip-flops on the "real reason" for our going to war against a 3rd rate military power (still in disarray after the Gulf War) than I can count.

Tica-
How can a weapon that can't do any harm be a "weapon of mass destruction"? Your logic escapes me. And saying "we have gone to war for less" is hardly a strong endorsement. And probably false unless you count the scuffle in Grenada as a war.

Hey Branquinho-

Why did Roosevelt concentrate most of the US resources against Germany? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor....not Germany. And Germany was no immediate threat against us. In fact, most probaly don't know that Japan was working on it's own atomic bomb and was probaly closer to devolping it than Germany was with their program. The fact is that the European countries we saved that appeased Hitler at the time have thumbed their noses at us to prevent Sadam and Iraq to obtain the means with whatever WMD's he could get his hands on. Think of it....the President of IRAN keeps threaten and warning the World that they are going to blow Isreal of the face of the earth. With the size of Isreal that will only take a couple of crude nuclear bombs set of in Southern Lebanon and we all ready know that the fantic muslims have no regard for human life....Lebanon is a mostly Christan population and they could care less if Lebanon goes up in smoke with Isreal with part of Jordan.
You can not appease or negociate with these people and until the rest of the World wakes up I am afraid history will repeat it self and the countries of the World are in store for terrible destruction and loss of life.

And as long as our American political parties keep fighting this war against each other where their parties (Democrats and Republicans) are more important than what is right for our country. The US will be so crippled in any policy to lead the World to resolve this crisis that is about to explode. Our leaders from both parties are fucking self serving, arrogant cowards who have been enabled by an uneducated, selfish, bitching public who deserves what we get. We have let the media and Holloywood brainwash us to the point were nobody knows what reality or not reality. And the sad part is ...is that the judicial system has become part of this coruption in our society in that there is no consistent right or wrong anymore. Everything in our country now is subject to the interpretation of whatever political party the ruling authority......laws have really no meaning anymore from the local level here in the US all the way to the International level.

Beachman,

I think you've been smoking crack. Japan most certainly was not closer to developing a nuclear weapon than Germany. Germany had actually solved almost all the technical problems; Japan was trying to acquire the technology through Germany, but with no success. Do you just make these "facts" up? There are some excellent comprehensive histories of WWII available; you should try reading one.

And remember, there is NO EVIDENCE that Saddam was trying to acquire nukes or other WMDs. All the claims about acquiring nukes came from stories written by the NYT's Judith Miller. Turns out she was given fabricated information by Ahmad Chalabi, who was at the time the Bush Administration's favorite opposition leader in Iraq (remember him sitting behind Laura Bush during the State of the Union Address?) until it was proven conclusively that he'd made up all his WMD stories in order to ingratiate himself with Bush and Cheney and possibly set himself up as the leader of the "new Iraq."

If the US was serious about non-proliferation of WMDs, then we would have gone directly after N. Korea and Iran--in that order--five years ago, rather than Iraq. We KNEW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that both those countries had active nuke programs, but we went into Iraq. Why? Because it never was about WMDs.

I was with you on your criticism of our political leadership--neither party has grounds for moral or political leadership these days--but you lost me with your attack on the judiciary. There you start to sound like a garden-variety reactionary. Laws have no meaning here? I beg to differ with you. As fucked up as things are here, our judicial system functions reasonably well. Take, for example, the court's findings regarding military tribunals. The courts showed the balls to enforce our Constitution and face down an Administration hellbent on stripping us all of our rights. Add to the courts efforts those of military leaders past and present who have also fought the Bushites on this issue. They know that if we revoke the rights of enemy combatants, the same rights of our soldiers will be revoked by their captors and we will soon see our soldiers being tortured and detained in secret prisons, etc.

I think Beachman may have been referring to the book "Japan's Secret War" when talking about the nuclear threat posed by Japan. This book has been thoroughly discredited by both historians and military analysts, who note that while Japan did try to start a nuclear program, and tried to acquire enriched uranium from Germany, the program never really developed beyong initial stages, and never came close to the threat posed by Germany.

Most resources were concentrated on Germany because Germany represented a greater threat to the US and its allies than did Japan. While the "American First" Republicans tried to keep the US out of the war because Germany didn't seem likely to attack the US, the humanitarian crisis posed by the Holocaust demanded action. And if Great Britain had fallen to the Nazis, the sea lanes to Europe would have been closed to the US. No, the Germans might not have attacked the US, but they could have destroyed our economy without doing so.

Nevertheless, some of the first US actions in WWII involved attacks against Japanese forces (Battle of Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal). US troops first went after German forces in Tunisia in Nov. of 1942, after we had already fought in the Coral Sea and Midway.

http://www.rense.com/general67/japansatomicbomb.htm

http://www.zmag.org/japanwatch/9906-bomb.html


There are other sources .....buy the History Channel video and then see what you think. I must warn you....it is not a Michael Moore documentary....so you liberals may have a hard time understanding it!!!!!

I saw the History Channel story. It was based primarily on the book mentioned above. It neglected to report the findings released by the Pentagon and by the Japanese and Korean govts. pointing out the myriad factual errors in the book (and the History Channel's story). Why? Stories that run counter to the conventional wisdom bring in better ratings. The History Channel is loathed by serious historians precisely because they will devote programs to any historical claims that sound sexy, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Historians from all political persuasions hate the channel for the same reason: the emphasis of the stories is on entertainment value rather than historical accuracy.

Branquino-

You Must be smoking that crack you accuse me of smoking.

You say the "Judicary knows if we revoke the rights of enemy combatants, the same rights of our soldiders will be revoked by their captors and we will soon see our soldiers being torture, detained in secret prisions, etc."

What planet are you on....what about the beheadings, dragging our soldiers around the streets, etc. What about all the torture in mass killing going on almost everyday to civilans everyday.

Why if the Democrats and the Judicary care so much about "our rights" allow our county jails and state pens to deny so many rights in our prisons.

What about all the rapes and abuses that are going on in most of our jails right here in America.

What is the Judicary and the Democrats doing for the imates here that are subject at least and probaly more abuse than the scum terrorists! They are looking out more for the rights for Fucking terrorists whose sworn mission in life is to kill and destroy America and kill Americans than for their own citizens some who have committed minor crimes that are locked with rapists, killers. etc right here in almost every jail in America.

Bwana dik-

I said you liberals may have a hard time understanding it!

The Democrats give Michael Moore a place of honor at their Democratic Covention to sit with former President Jimmy Carter. Of course his documentary was so factual that I think it allowed the Democrats to win the election...oops sorry ....I got the facts wrong.. the Republicans won......just like they will keep control of both houses of Congress in November.

Because the majority of the public can aleast see that the Democrats have no plan to resolve anything....just to bitch and complain about everything.

Back to the Japanese Atomic program during World War 2. Read the articules and see what there was a cover up and that the Russians obtained alot of the program for the use occupying the facilities in Korea after the war and disassembling and imprisioning Japanese scientist to help theior program and look how soon the Russians developed the A bomb after we did.

Of course back then.... the Government didn't allow the press or media access to anything and if the press did uncover something the press was more concerned about National Security than Pulizer Prizes.

Beachman, amen regarding our politicians (on both sides). Its pretty fucking sad, but you are right, we got what was coming to us.

I dont claim to be an expert on this, but I always thought the Russians jumped ahead in their nuclear program from the information they coped from the Germans.

Damn, I thought I would have gotton at least a little bit of flame on my post above. I better step it up. Wait, maybe I have 100% agreement. Where the hell is SP when you need him. I think I saw he was in Panama. Sp, having too much fun to get on the board? Bastard. AZ

>>It seems kind of interesting to me that the left has been at the forefront of civil rights, free speech, separation of church and state, the right to worship any God or no God, gay rights, the peace movement, abortion rights, feminism, privacy rights, and not to mention having sex with whoever, whenever you want (in any position I might add), yet they are willing to give it up.<<

AZguy: You must be kidding.

Beachman,

You keep talking about Michael Moore as though someone else here is also talking about him. But no one is! Nonsequitar.

The Republicans hold the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch. With that kind of authority, they've solved all the country's problems.

War in Iraq? Mission Accomplished (not)! Every military leader past and present believes the Bush team has botched this royally by ignoring the advice of the professional military leadership.

Bin Laden? Oh, is he still around? Wasn't he the guy behind 9/11? It sure seems like Bush and his boys lost interest in al Qaeda and Osama. The failure to take this guy out is a monumental failure of focus.

Pork barrel spending? New record highs as the Republicans have fed at the public trough.

Ethical lapses cleaned up? Not! The list of those Republicans bitten by the Abramhoff scandal is long and growing. DeLAy is gone, as is Bob Ney. Ralph Reed's candidacy in GA was killed by the scandal, and Rick Santorum will likely lose his Senate seat in PA because of it. Instead of passing stricter ethical rules, the Republicans created more loopholes.

The federal debt? Oops! It's now larger than it's ever been and has grown tremendously under Republican leadership. Republicans have become the "don't tax but spend" party.

It would be convenient to blame this mess on the Democrats, but the Republicans are in charge. The Dems may be sitting around whining, but can you blame them? The Republicans were given their chance to govern, controlling both the legislative and executive branches, and screwed things up completely.

A pox on all their houses, but right now the Republicans are more culpable than the Dems.

Branquinho,
War in Iraq...(1)Saddam is in prison (I wish they had shot him in the head). (2)The people of Iraq are free. (3) Iraqis are able to vote for their govt. (4) oh yeah, IEDs almost every day. Would you rather they be on our streets? Not me. Every day terrorists die in Iraq. Suxorz for the Iraqis, but then, I don't think enough Iraqi civilians have died to add up to one of the pits of executed Iraqis that have been found. (5) These peeps have been fighting since creation. wtf, you expect them to be a perfect society as easily as our military rolled their army? (6) We have a centralized base of operations in the Middle East. That is huge. Absolutely huge. (-1) But I will give you that we should have enacted martial law or just carpet bombed the Sunnis. Then the Kurds could have the Central and Northern Iraq and after al-Sadr and his Shia went Iran crazy, we could just carpet bomb them out of existence. You libs would have loved that scenario I bet.

Bin Laden....Clinton wouldn't take him from Sudan (unnecessary jab, but can't help it)...he is in a cave somewhere. Wow, he's a big danger. He'll be dead soon enuf. Also, there is no real reason for our entire military to get hung up in Afghanistan. We have military and NATO forces there. Maybe the Vietman predicters can clap their hands and heap lavish praise on the Bush Admin for avoiding such a disaster. I ain't gonna hold my breath.

Pork Barrels .... amen brother...preach, preach...the only problem for taxpayers is the democrats say, "Republicans aren't spending enuf." At least the (R)s don't check kite like the (D)s did when they ran the show. (Check kiting is writing a personal check to the bank in the US Capitol for more than is in your account while never intending to pay it back.)

Ethical Lapses....ok, after the Newt took control over the House in 1994 due in part to the (D)s slaughter of ethics they instituted unheard of policies like if a 'leader' is indicted they must resign their post until vendicated (ie Tom DeLay). Abramof has nothing to do with the indictment from the lib DA. Abramof was not soley involved with (R)s, that is why the (D) leadership dropped talking about it. It's disgusting in general, but it's a personal thing, not party or ideology for that matter.

Federal Debt - did ya hear the reports this week that revenues are up and the debt is lowering? It will not hurt my feelings one bit for the (R)s to lose the House b/c of their unwillingness to reduce the size of the federal govt. Two years of Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Murtha and Newt Ginrich will be elected President in a landslide.

The (R)s were given a chance. They have not done everything they could and if they get put on the bench this election cycle, I will prolly cheer. However, they have not screwed it up royally. Clinton sent us into recession suing Microsoft. Then 9/11 happened. They have reduced taxes, which puts more money in people's pockets, which is outstanding. They have cut some govt programs, but I would like to see way more cut. They have run amuck with Pork Barrel spending...the only thing positive I can say about this is that they are giving pork to (D)s as well and at least this taxpayer money goes back to taxpayers as opposed to Welfare programs that encourages people to depend on the govt.

WMD that is too old to matter be a WMD? I hear what you're saying. My point is that it exists. Do you think that is the only thing they were storing there? Maybe, but I don't. Saddam was a bad dude and used WMDs on Iran (chuckle from me) and his own Countrymen (Kurds). The umpteen violations of GW I were enuf for me. Of course, I would have told the UN to F-off and walked over Baghdad in GW I. "Gone to war for less" comment...it wasn't intended to be ringing just saying was all

Examples of for less....Vietnam...Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin event. Haiti....aside from being dumbarses and close to DR,, why did Clinton invade? (answer...lots-o-dudes on (D) side apparently go down there hunting little Haiti boys.) I have to admit that my source for this info is a right-wing paratrooper who served in Haiti.

PS - Santorum won't lose b/c of Abramof either. If he loses it will be b/c a conservative (D) ran against him and enuf 'christian' voters on the right punish him for supporting Arlen Specter when he should have stayed out and let Toomey defeat him.

I really wish I could stop torturing you guys...and SteveP...I hope you having a blast in Panama...and isn't somebody here who responded in Thailand?

War in Iraq...(1)Saddam is in prison..

Who cares? He's a penny ante tyrant. Bad guy for sure, but removing him was worth the lives of 3000 US kids?

(2)The people of Iraq are free.

Free to get blown up or executed daily; free to live in fear; free to live without any sense of security. Yes, they're so happy about it they're greeting our troops as heroes and liberators, just as Cheney predicted (not)

(3) Iraqis are able to vote for their govt.

They're able to vote, true, but then their elected officials get assasinated or make deals with the insurgents to stay alive. Some democracy we've installed, huh?

(4) oh yeah, IEDs almost every day. Would you rather they be on our streets?

That was never the option. Saddam and Iraq are not al Qaeda.

(5) These peeps have been fighting since creation.

So leave them to fight. Since when did small govt. Republicans decide we'd become the world's cops? And why Iraq and not the Sudan, etc?

(6) We have a centralized base of operations in the Middle East. But I will give you that we should have enacted martial law or just carpet bombed the Sunnis. Then the Kurds could have the Central and Northern Iraq and after al-Sadr and his Shia went Iran crazy, we could just carpet bomb them out of existence. You libs would have loved that scenario I bet.

Now your reactionary colors show through completely. The last solution of the clueless: Bomb 'em out of existence. That would surely have quieted the Islamic terrorists out there and made them less likely to target us here at home, yep.

Bin Laden.....he is in a cave somewhere. Wow, he's a big danger. He'll be dead soon enuf. Also, there is no real reason for our entire military to get hung up in Afghanistan. We have military and NATO forces there.

We have about 150K troops in Iraq and far far fewer in Afganistan, most chasing Taliban uprisings these days because we failed to complete the job the first time around.

Maybe the Vietman predicters can clap their hands and heap lavish praise on the Bush Admin for avoiding such a disaster. I ain't gonna hold my breath.

Gosh, I thought Iraq represented exactly that kind of disaster. It's very sad that Bush is now convening a panel to help design an exit strategy in Iraq, five years too late. His military advisers all pushed him to have one before going in, fearing another Vietnam fiasco. And now we're in one.

Pork Barrels .... amen brother...preach, preach...the only problem for taxpayers is the democrats say, "Republicans aren't spending enuf." At least the (R)s don't check kite like the (D)s did when they ran the show. (Check kiting is writing a personal check to the bank in the US Capitol for more than is in your account while never intending to pay it back.)

Ah, check kiting. Cost the US govt almost $1000. Pork barrel spending is over $27 billion (up from $6.6 billion when the Dems last controlled Congress).

Ethical Lapses....Abramof has nothing to do with the indictment from the lib DA. Abramof was not soley involved with (R)s, that is why the (D) leadership dropped talking about it. It's disgusting in general, but it's a personal thing, not party or ideology for that matter.

Look at the list of who's been convicted or indicted in the Abramhoff scandal. Not all Repubs, but mostly Repubs. DeLay is the biggest crook out there, despised by those in his own party. And does the name Duke Cunningham ring a bell?

Federal Debt - did ya hear the reports this week that revenues are up and the debt is lowering?

Sorry, you apparently don't know the difference between debt and deficits (probably why Republicans have fucked things up so badly). The debt climbs every day and has climbed at historically high rates during the Bush/Republican years. The deficit estimates are lower than they were a year ago, when they also hit a record 1-year high, but that only means the Republicans are spending $260 billion more than our revenues this year, instead of $400 billion. Let the good times roll!

Clinton sent us into recession suing Microsoft.

Interesting take on macro-economics. I've seen lots of things blamed on Clinton, but this is a new one. You poor Republicans will no doubt blame Clinton for everything that goes wrong in the US for the next decade. It's gotten to the point that it's actually quite funny.

As soon as a Republican gets to be condescending and playing the Clinton card 6 years after he left office, there is no hope on having a rational discussion. He is going to defend the Republican position point by point to the hairy end, regardless whether logic is involved.

The good news is that not all Republicans are arrogant and condescending. Nor do all Republicans believe that the Democratic party is the enemy.

Frankly, I have a distaste for both parties. Whenever I see George Bush on television, it makes me embarrassed that I am an American. That said, Bush could not have risen to the presidency without the incompetence of Al Gore and John Kerry and also the Democratic Party.

The Democrats have failed to do anything but get into a finger pointing exercise with the Republicans. We need solutions and alternatives, not petty high school games.

Here are some thoughts.

There are three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial). They were designed to be a check and balance. The problem is that checks and balances have been distorted. I was so pleased to see Lindsey Graham and John McCain (two of my favorite Republcans) doing something to restore some decision making power back to the legislative branch. It is just a start. Congress needs independent thinking in the worst way. I believe the American people sense this already.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am a Capitalist. We are already seeing weakness in the automobile and housing sectors which are the first sectors to be effected by rising interest rates. The interest rates are being driven by our monster deficit.

Throw out the moral stuff about Iraq. From a financial perspective, it has been a financial fiasco. No one can convince me that it has been worth more than $300B and growing. The primary reason we need to get out of Iraq is to stop the bleeding.

Two of my favorite presidents are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. They are very different but they had one thing in common. Small government, which drove huge economic gains, lower tax rates, lower interest rates, etc. We need to return to this philosophy ASAP.

These measures will not avoid a recession. I think the recession is inevitable. And since we no longer control our own currency, the impact could be ugly. But if we take some proactive measures, it will make the landing softer.

I would never of classified Regan as "small government". Regan build the war machine Carter tore down. Jimmy Carter was the king of small government, he dismantled everything.

I guess it is relative. Although Reagan built up the military, he still believed in the balance of power between the three branches was best served through a relatively small legislative branch. Reagan did it because he wanted to keep government spending low in order to keep taxes low. Clinton did it in order to keep the deficit under control. Their motivations were different, but their style was the same.

Branquinho,
You took my explanation(s) for the money spent and lives lost in Iraq and broke it down to Saddam is in jail. My point was there are 5 positive things and one negative thing IMHO. You obviously see no value in them. Fair enough. I'm thankful the majority of voters in America agreed with the President. (Excluding of course the three democrat-controlled-board of election counties in Florida.)

Bluestraveler,
I'm not condescending to attacking Clinton 6 years after the fact. There are certain things that have occurred that put our Countries financial situation where it is. Crashing the stock market and sending the economy is a pretty big deal. Combine that with a terrorist attack a year later and my point is that the GOP didn't do such a bad job. (Condescending would be Clinton didn't have the sense God gave a billy goat to realize that suing the largest computer maker in the Country or trying to Nationalize health care would ruin America...but I didn't want to go there.)

Clinton didn't keep the deficit(thanx to Branquinho for straightening me out on that.) or debt low. Newt Gingrich did. See above posts for 'factual' data on this supposed (R) myth.

Iraq's $300B....how about if someone told you that fighting the terrorists attack saved one American life? Worth it financially?

Iraq's $300B...how about if someone told you that the citizens of USA would have lost $301B in business b/c of a terrorist attack? Worth it financially?

I'm no Reagan fan, and have to agree with bluelight he was by no means small government. It was all about spending the Soviets into oblivian (at least in the best light of hindsight). However, that was back in the days when there was compromise, and both parties had to answer to the public as a whole. When Bush Jr. came to power, it's been all about supporting their 51% and screwing the other 49% no matter the cost. The worst systematic problem, in my opinion, is how they've filled appointment after appointment with incompetent but loyal yes men and removed the meritous, skilled officials if they weren't to their taste. This has caused all sorts of problems they now rightly have to accept the blame for: fucking up Iraq reconstruction, FEMA and Katrina, even down to things like 24 year old non-scientists working to silence NASA scientists from reporting their findings when they're not what the administation wants to hear. It's crazy the number of people who have been fired, resigned in protest, or been prevented from doing their jobs. Administration officials have been quoted as proudly saying "we're no longer part of the reality-based community" and believing, 1984 style, that their belief and perspective trumps reality.

"Iraq's $300B....how about if someone told you that fighting the terrorists attack saved one American life? Worth it financially?"

Stop drinking the kool-aid. Here in the reality-based community we recognize that Iraq was in no way responsible for the attacks on 9/11, or essentially any other terrorist attacks against America.

It's not at all clear that the war in Iraq has made me as an American any safer from terrorism. It is clear that it's gotten 3000 more Americans killed, however. The cost of this misguided response to losing 3000 Americans on 9/11 has been $300 billion and ANOTHER 3000 American lives, plus creating more animosity toward Americans that will likely lead to more terrorists taking the place of those we kill.

After 9/11 we had the sympathy and support of the world. We've squandered it and paid a huge price to do so.

The GOP has done a terrible job over the last 6 years. I don't care about the Democrats -- they're irrelevent to this discussion.

Ticasonar,

You are simply making no sense whatsoever right now. Not that most Republicans do these days, and I accept the fact that you've most likely never set foot in the Middle East before, but the stuff you use in support of your arguments has about as much weight as the stuff Stevepenman used to support his. Not sure what computer company you're talking about, are you talking about Microsoft? If so Microsoft makes software, not computers. As to that crashing the US economy, that's fucking stupid and you're a complete fucking idiot for even writing crap like that.

Newt Gingrich! What a fucking jackass, all he was was a bully who, now that he's on TV, has mellowed his style and is trying to come across as a pragmatic centrist. I guess he really is going to run for President in 2008. I guess you don't remember that after gaining the House in 1994 it was all downhill from there and he had to resign because of the pisspoor Republican showing in the 1998 elections, his clusterfuck with the government budget shutdown in 1995 and the ethics investigations. His own party tried to boot him as Speaker long before he actually resigned.

Catacony,

Just because Ticasonar is not making sense, does not mean that all Republicans don't make sense. Bush's approval rating is in the high 30's, so surely there are some Republicans that see what a mess he is making.

Ticasonar,

I did not mean to imply that your comments on Clinton made you arrogant and condescending. The entire undertone of your messages are arrogant and condescending. I have no absoulutely no aspiration of curing you of this problem, and surely it has had other consequences in your life other than my comments here.

No matter how provacative your responses, I refuse to return your condescending attitude with more of the same. Saving one life or one business does not justify the expenditure of $300B, but please give Bush a call and ask him to use that as a justification for the Iraqi war. That should get his approvals in the low 20's.

Broman,

I think that we are saying the same thing. Reagan was all about low taxes, therefore aside from the military buildup, he was pushing to keep the executive branch small. There are dual advantages. One there is less goverment outlay, and secondly the balance of power does not get out of wack between the three branches.

Look again....Bush's approval ratings are in the mid 40's and moving up!

Only on Fox News (Republican Pravda)

Ronald Reagan. Wasn't he the guy who gave alot of money to the Islamic militants in Afghanistan (including Bin Laden) to make them a significant power against the Soviet Union (and ultimately the world), ran up a huge budget deficit in his efforts to defeat the Soviet Union, and contributed substantially to a new world order where in place of an imploded Soviet Union we now have a prolifieration of jihadists, a reign of genocide in Eastern Europe (which admittedly finally was brought under some level of control), and only god knows who has possession of the Soviet nuclear arsenal? Or maybe I'm confused and the Democrats (led by Clinton) did all this.

Put another way, wasn't Ronald Reagan the father of black and whitism (we will overthrow the evil empire and not consider the collateral costs) which has been expanded upon by George W. (the world is a safer place without Saddam in power irrespective of whether in the process we have contributed to turning Iraq into the new terrorist training ground, and have also turned the entire world against us).

LA Guy,

Reagan no doubt did all of these questionable things. In addition, he is the father of the deficit. Whether we agree or not, he also was the father of attracting foreign investment in T-bills, which kept interest rates down. If he had not done without the other, we would never have seen the economic expansion under his watch.

Back then, the democrats were all about social programs and big government, and Reagan was about keeping the government small. Relatively speaking. That is relative to the democrats of that era, and certainly relative to the Bush of today.

I am certainly not saying that everything that Reagan did was good. Remember his silly idea which I believe was called space wars? We blew a lot of dough on that too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVbu1zBid-o&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts

Take a look at these videos....let the source come right from their mouths.

For all of you liberals who talk about flip flopping! Why can't you see that the fucking Democrats and some Republicans who are now and have been now playing Monday Quarterback where all of them were CERTAIN Sadam had or was aquiring and or developing WMD for years before Bush was President were also saying they knew he had actually already used them and that he was aquiring and devoloping a nuculear weapons program and... history already showed us that he had tried before when Isreal bombed his facility back in the 1980's.

They were all for going to IRAQ and getting rid of Sadam and I fucking guarantee after the intial ground war went so well and if the insurgency never happen to the extent it is today. Not finding WMD's would be much of an issue and no one would be claiming that BUSH lied about WMD's.

It is easy to take the high road knowing that more information is available now....but at the time and for years before BUSH became President.....YES years before Bush became President....The Democrats with their intelligence..... claim that not only was Sadam trying to aquire and develop WMD's....but that he actually had them already and had already used them.

Listen carefully to those videos where some of the Democrats also claim they knew AlQaida was being supported by Sadam.

Just what I thought.....you liberals are now speechless when you hear the words from the speeches of your fearless Democratic leaders come back to bite them in their asses. How do you spin this????

Cowards who talk big and are critical of Bush because he carried out what the Democratics where calling for when Clinton was President and what the UN was cowardly and sheepishly calling for with all the meaningless resolutions they passed with no intention of ever backing them up because of the Oil for Food program scandal.

Well, 9/11 changed everything and what would all of you cowards be saying now if Bush took no action against Sadam and chemical weapons from whatever source they came from were use in attack on the US. All you liberals would be claiming they came from Sadam and Bush failed to act when he should have.

Quit your fucking bitching and second guessing and saying the only solution is diplomacy. Clinton tried that with North Korea who promised not to develope Nukes with the aid Clinton gave North Korea and look what happened. Look at the history of the World in the last 100 years and look what has happened when the World appeases these fanatics. Those who don't have the stomach to make sacrifices now to contain these fanatics....will face massive losses in the near future!!!!!! History proves that!!!!!!!

Beachman, great post. You are right, seems kind of quiet around here. Fucking prostitutes, I mean politicians (I like prostitutes). Politicians dont represent anyone except themselves. Man, now that I just put those two words together, it is amazing the similarities. Only thing is when a pro fucks you its good and you know you just got fucked, plus you got something for your money. A politician is always fucking you, its always bad, and it doesn’t fell very good. AZ