- Two big deaths in the last 24 hours: Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH), as Specter noted here 
, and the great tenor Luciano Pavarotti 
, of pancreatic cancer.
- Manuel Noriega's extradition to France has been stayed 
. Talk about a bonkers world: Noriega's lawyers argued that France can't be trusted to abide by Geneva Conventions in treating him as a prisoner, so he should remain in the United States!
- Some washed-up actor 
finally announced his candidacy for president. Republicans, take heart: you have an excellent track record with washed-up actors!
- One step closer to human-animal hybrids! 
I for one welcome our mutant overlords. (nifty link 
, on that)
*UPDATE*: hat tip to Freedom Democrats for an article about a new book, "Everything I Want to Do is Illegal", on the plight of local farmers entangled in a web of stifling regulations. See link.
Happy Thursday!
Comments :
I watched the Republican debate
for a while last night... Not too bad. I did enjoy the Ron Paul parts. Not that I agree with his foreign policy ideas. I am not in favor of a purely defensive stance. But still it was entertaining.
Here is the entire exchange starting with Paul's answer about the Iraq policy.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I, too enjoyed watching the video and listening to Ron Paul.
I, too enjoyed watching the video and listening to Ron Paul speak on our foreign policy. He's spot on, except for one thing: I disagree with his take on the Second Amendment. Having passengers and attendents and airplanes who're armed with guns might well have increased the chance of something as bad as 9/11 or worse happening.
How I wish the Democrats would grow a strong backbone and speak out as forcefully as Ron Paul did on our foreign policy.
You misunderstand Paul's position
Ron Paul's position is simple:
It's a property rights issue. The airlines (private property) should be responsible (liability!!) for their own security measures to make sure their passengers are safe and their investment protected. The government's rules hamper their ability to do this...it also makes them dependent on govt. for security measures when it should be their undertaking.
He points out that money transport companies handle their own security with armored cars and armed drivers.
When it's your butt, you take the right precautions.
It's a solid position, it's the best policy and was the most telling and sound answer of the night.
With all the subsidies
the airlines get, I'd say 'private property' may sound a bit dubious, but I understand his overall point.
I'm just not a fan of the wild west.
Just let it in....
The principle and logic are sound. It's so obviously the correct position.
You can't obscure what is real by dwelling on artificial problems created government....like the dubious gray area created by subsidies.
At the core, airlines are private businesses. It's simply nonsensical to think that they wouldn't handle their own security measures to satisfy customers and make them feel safe....all within the bounds of constitutionality. And telling airlines that cannot take sensible measures to protect their customers because...just because govt. says so....is a recipe for disaster.
It's not "wild west", it's basic constitutional common sense. Private Property entails benefits and responsibilities. They go together.
It's boggles the mind how people refuse to process this basic mechanism of sound commerce by dwelling peripheral matters like subsidies and how they muck up these ideas....as if they should take precedence over the basic laws privacy and property when looking for solutions.
Overly simplistic vision.
If this were true, there would never be a case of criminal wrongdoing against a corporation, right? Let's look at Vioxx, for example. According to this report in The New York Times
:
Companies balance risk-rewards all the time, especially when they know that taking the correct action that would be in the best interests of its customers could seriously harm revenue and profits.
So your suggestion here, while interesting the abstract, requires a "perfect world" to be viable. You make far too broad a statement because it doesn't take much to cite numerous exceptions to the very "rule" you state in your premise.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sorry, CLC but this is a very long and elaborate non-answer
with lots of detail and loosely unrelated material...but a non-answer nonetheless. Actually, a needed backdrop for the Vioxx matter should include that fact that FDA had to give its approval. WITHOUT this veneer of fake safety and shifted liability and greater responsibility for its property (Vioxx), Merck would behave differently. But this all besides the point that this matter is different from the airline issue. The airline issue is precisely about CONSTRAINTS put on the airlines. Please don't make this more complex than it needs to be.
Not to sound glib, but I'm discussing this in the context of airline security and in the framework of they can and canNOT do. Within that framework, Paul's sound argument is that government rules prevent actions that would lead to better results while encouraging action (or non action) that leads to worse results.
Also, to say that this would result in never having cases of criminal wrong-doing is totally the OPPOSITE of the obvious conclusion to be drawn. Privacy and property entail benefits and responsibility. Read again. It's there in the other post. By making airline security measures less constrained, we allow (force them to assume) airlines to take better measures suited to their individual needs and put greater responsibility on them to meet those needs.
It doesn't require a perfect world. Indeed, because it's not a perfect, laws about property, privacy and respoonsibility with liability need to be fully enforced to provide clarity for all players.
It's not about perfect worlds and perfect results, it's about better alternatives for better results in an imperfect world.
So you're saying there should be no FDA.
Got it.
And you're suggesting that in the case of faulty Firestone tires that helped cause SUV rollovers, the fault was... um, let me guess, the National Transportation Highway Administration? Right? They caused Firestone to make defective tires at its Decatur, Illinois plant.
There are thousands of examples where "private companies" have not acted in the best interests of their customers, and where, in fact, some of their customers have died as a result.
You seem to discount the influence of short-term greed over long term benefit. And given the pressure on company executives to deliver results quarterly to shareholders (and with much of current exec compensation tied to delivering profit), it is easy to see how management in some cases may be inclined to cut corners, government regulation or no government regulation.
As Brendan points out below,airlines are still liable, regardless of government intervention, and are being sued over 9-11.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No.
I'm saying what I wrote. If you can't answer that points directly, maybe you just shouldn't answer.
You gave another long distracting non-answer that rebuts points I'm not making and answers questions that weren't asked.
You need to do a little better than that to say my argument doesn't hold water.
No, John, it's the absolutism of your argument
... that I am disputing. If you are applying this argument only to airlines, then, yes, airlines are limited in what they can and can't do in terms of security.
But as for the Vioxx example, I think your absolutist theory that implies that Vioxx would not have been marketed if not for FDA approval is complete nonsense. The very reason the FDA regulates drugs today is that unscrupulous companies and individuals sold poison as medicine. These criminals had greed as their primary motive, not some long-term, free-market dream. The FDA saved lives and still saves lives today.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
But you still missed the point.
again. My little sidebar note on FDA (and yes that's all it was) was to say how "FDA approval" and presence can affect a company's decisions in unsafe ways. This is a not a call for the abolition of the FDA. It's just to make so ever-so-vague comparison to the real matter at hand:
Yes I am and yes they are and that brings us back to Paul's point.
Okay.
Still, my point on the FDA stands. You state:
And how do you prove such an assertion?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
FDA
from the FDA Site itself
:
Here's another article
Do read them. I'm not damning the FDA or saying anthing other than what I'm asserting. And that is that companies will feel more encouraged to release some drugs with questionable data because the FDA said it's OK. IOW, Well, the FDA said it's OK, so.....
Mind you, I'm not so sure I would change the system. I'm just making an observation.
Now. if you changed the word "will" to "may"
... in this sentence:
... you may be right. But you still haven't presented any evidence to back up your claim that FDA approval makes companies do things they wouldn't do without that seal of approval.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I said "can" the first time
sorry...I didn't realize we were going to split hairs on modal choices.
I didn't present any evidence. I think the incentive mechanism is pretty easy to see in this process. I doesn't take any imagination...just a willing eye.
I'm kind of a stickler for evidence.
Especially when what one is asserting serves as a bedrock principle for a philosophy one is espousing.
After all, libertarianism isn't religion where truths are taken as a matter of faith, are they?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Well, if that's your real agenda
then I'm not going to make much headway.
It's simple to understand the human nature factor at play in the examples I gave. If you can't appreciate the dynamic of increased boldness and promiscuity when an authority says something is tentatively OK even you know it might not be because your really arguing steadfastly against an entire philosophy, then we won't get any further.
The irony is that you probably use this dynamic at various times to back up your own views when its convenient. Whether or not the dynamic is warranted depends on the details. Here, I assert that it is.
Airlines are liable
if they were negligent. Those victims' families who opted not to accept the (highly unusual) 9/11 government payouts are suing, and the airlines are concerned enough to sue the FBI and CIA
for information that could clear them.
Airlines don't necessarily balance security costs against risks in a way that maximizes passenger safety, with the exception of El Al. For example
:
I take his general point but it appears to be a bit more complicated than some version of "the feds should get out."
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
we must keep in mind, Brendan, that
federal interference, IOW: Feds telling airlines that they cannot otherwise constitutional and legal measures because they feel it might pose a safety risk (note the irony here!), causes behavior in airlines that leaves them and passengers less secure.
Obviously, some extreme measures are unconstitutional and would be moot points here. But constitutionally acceptable measures, like allowing airlines to arm their planes as they see fit for maximum safety and freedom from internal threats, are currently forbidden. Paul's point is that if we respect the 2nd amendment and allow airlines to secure their planes to their liking with full respect for the law and privacy and safety of passengers, we'll get BETTER results and prevent problems of weakened security and convoluted liability.
Is that a GOP audience?
Sure looks like GOP voters want to leave Iraq too?
Washed up actor....
You forgot the geezer part. The pic's of Thompson lately haven't been good. Maybe they should just put a picture of his trophy wife up instead.
Who has seen Madelin Albright's Op-Ed
in today's WaPo?
It's a good read. Take a look.
I love it
Wait, there's more:
Seems quintessentially American somehow.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Re: I love it
I was having a pretty bad day that day because OSU games are on the Big Ten Network. I tend to think watching OSU on broadcast TV is a birthright, but alas, it wasn't to be.
When I heard the team up north lost, I couldn't have been any happier.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Let's make Noriega president of Iraq
Iraq needs a dictator to ride herd over the militias and bring law and order to the country.
Noreiga needs a job.
They're made for each other.
qui tacet consentire
Why don't we just let Putin take it? (n/t)
Washed up actors.
That's true!
It only took ONE washed up Republican actor to end the Cold War, something that your guys couldn't end after roughly 50 years of trying.
Yep, even our washed up actors outshine your finest "leaders".
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
huh?
Even if you want to give Ronald Reagan sole credit for ending the Cold War (a dubious claim).....
.... you are rewriting history when you call his predecessors "your guys"... considering that 16 of the 36 years of Cold War that preceeded Mr. Reagan's term were presided by a Republican.
Or do you disown Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford?
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Pfft.
I knew you guys would point that out but it doesn't matter. Whether you were in office or not you still had the time to figure out what you planned to do.
Our other guys kept getting messed up by the missteps of the intervening Democrats! :)
It took a washed up actor to one up the profession politicians.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ending the Cold War was a long term effort
that combined many variables.
the #1 factor was the USSR itself. Their system was doomed to fail and it did. No other factor was more crucial. They simply could not sustain the veneer of being on firm ground forever.
Other factors included a sustained and firm position by all presidents, the Pope and the diffusing of western culture and wealth.
A very good point
Containment worked pretty well on the USSR, keeping them from wreaking too much damage while their flawed system collapsed.
But you don't understand...
We must bomb Iran. Richard Perle, Fred Kagan, Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Dick Cheney (to name a few neocons) insist on it.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The stickler for the evidence
speaks, but somehow forgot the evidence he is a stickler for.
We all can be forgetfuul, even you young ones, so I won't hold it against you. But I am interested in the evidence.
Of course, it woun't be hearsay, some opinion columnist's ramblings, or the like. Nor will it be a conditional, such as, "we should bomb Iran if...." Obviously you have memos, writings, or maybe transcripts (even better, recordings) of phone calls where the people on your list say, perhaps, "I don't care what you say, we must bomb iran now, no matter what."
Since you are a stickler for the evidence, i know i can thank you in advance.
How many neocons will suffice?
Have you read much from the neocon/PNAC clan over the years? They have been arguing for the overthrow of regimes in Iraq, Iran and Syria since the early `90s.
But, okay, let's get started...
(For the uninformed, Norman Podhoretz is one of the founding fathers of the neocon movement.)
And from American Conservative magazine, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought:
It has been known that Cheney has wanted to bomb Iran for some time. Condoleeza Rice has held him at bay for several years on this. You can use Google to read more about it.
And what about our old pal, Richard Perle?
Ol' Dick Perle has been arguing for attacks on Iraq, Iran and Syria for years, as have his neocon brethren.
Yep, the same dumbass neocons who brought us the bottomless pit that is Iraq want to bomb Iran. They have made no secret of that "dream" for many years, and if you do a little reading about the neocons and their Project for a New American Century (PNAC), you'd know that.
Google is your friend. The stuff I posted here is just the tip of the iceberg on these clowns.
And, once again, your preemptive, condescending tone ensures that you come out looking like a jackass.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Back to the topic
Yeah, read 'em for years, ever since i was tpold that a letter on PNAC so scared Clinton that he signed a law against his will! But this was about present calls for bombing, not overthrowing Iran and Iraq.
How many?
Poheretz actually says, in the article stated:
On the first page of this four page article (even i could google it, and didn't need to put up a hearsay source), he sets the conditions for his argument. obviously, he thinks that iran's nuclear program must be stopped, and he argues at length that no other method will work. So his argument is not, "we should bomb Iran now no matter what," but, "IF we want to stop Iran's nuclear program, we have no choice but to do it with military force, which means bombing." For Podheretz, who actually believes (see article) that iran's nuclear program must be stopped, this amounts to saying, "we will have to bomb Iran sometime before their nuclear program comes on line." Why? Diplomacy and sanctions, nor any other method will not work. One might properly see this as analysis.
His analysis is pretty tight (he actually discusses alternate views. My counter would be that not only don't we have to stop their nuclear program, we should have offered to build it for them.
Overall, not something i am worried about. And Podheretz wasn't on your list.
So, the general principle is, I don't really much care what magazine writers say. Back when Clinton was in, I didn't cite democratically poriented magazines and then dance around crying, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, Democratic magazine writers are calling for this crazy idea, so it's gpoing to happen." Like I said, I'm kind of calm.
NBext: Kr5istol says there have to be results. heck, demanding results of the administration makes him sound like a Democrat! Is your point in bolding that that saying the adminitration should get results is somehow wrong?
And you provide the absolutely shocking, SHOCKING news that the NSC considers contingency plans. I'll bet they have a plan to invade Turkey as well. Nothing here. This does not amount to a recommendation that we bomb Iran now, no matter what. (This is the bar, because we all, even you, think that we should bomb Iran under some circumstances.)
And we even have to gue3ss at that, because the actual by now third hand quote is NOT from a member of the NSC, but a former member talking on her own. SHE outlined.......
American Conservative: every conservative I know personally opposed the war. But this article is two years old (not now) and reports that STRATCOM has been tasked with drawing up contingency plans for an attack on Iran in case of a 9/11 style atack. Nothing here.
Last is Richard Perle, who guesses at what Bush will do. I suppose we can take that as evidence that he wwould also suggest it. Is he suggesting that we bomb iran now?
See, CLC, as you rightly suggest, I can google and get these results myself. But these aren't evidence. "Jack told me that Jill said that Sam Smith might tell George Bush that he should bomb iran if Iran gets the bomb is not that George Bush is going to drop the bomb now, nor that anyone is suggesting to him that we should drop the bomb now.
Yeah, I know about the PNAC. Read there stuff almost in real time. Never thought that "Bill Kristol and a fax machine" was as important as the politics of fear people liked to make it. And having a good knowledge of what led up to the war, I can guarantee you that PNAC did not "bring you" the war.
btw, see, i try to be nice, not condescending, showing you my trust that you will provide the evidence, as you indicated in you "stickler for evidence" post, and you find a way to interpret even that as condescending. Look, CLC, just because you are always condescending, it doesn't mean that i am.
Now, please, can you actually find any evidence for the proposition, "Bush is being advised to bomb iran now." And yes, I do think it is important to also note those who are NOW advising him to bomb Iran if they get a nuclear weapon, or a nuclear capability. That is, actually say it that way, not suggest that we have a contingency plan ready so that is on the table.
Remember, evidence. Not some reporter's hearsay.
Remember when we discussed the PDB? We put up an actual copy and read it. That's what I'm looking for. I asked for your help because i haven't found such evidence, and i know I am not the best googler in the world.
Also consider that during the Cuban missle crisis, Kennedy received counsel to bomb Cuba. As you can see, we can naturally expect that the brainstorming of counsel will be wider than the paths that can actually be chosen, and that those which are seen as possible will be more numerous than those actually followed. In the end, Kennedy didn't bomb Cuba. but i suppose that if that counsel had leaked, there would have been some henny pennys, probably Republicans at the time, who would go around shouting that we were about to bomb Cuba.
One more thing: about titles to articles....if i wrote an article which was entitled, "the case for creatiung a market in Irish babies for consumption as a deolicacdy," would you necessarily take from that that I was counseling that we immediately start eating Irish babies?
So, once again, lookihng forward to your coming up with some actual evidence to back up the point. For an old isolationist like me, such a prospect is worrisome.
Hey, feller...
... (to use your Appalachian twang that you like to lapse into from time to time), note that in my original post I included the parenthetical "to name a few neocons."
Now you can claim that I "didn't include" old Normie on my list, but old Normie is the godfather of the neocon movement.
So mebbe yer ol' eyes jes ain't what they used ta be, pops.
See, you can play around with definitions of who is and isn't a neocon, and you can play around with the notion that some folks don't really want to bomb Iran, they're jes' sittin' there talkin' `bout it, but the fact is, my old friend, that the neocons have been drooling over the possibility of knocking out Iraq, Iran and Syria for years. And years. And years.
And, yes, Dick Cheney would love nothing more than to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. He has been in an epic power struggle with Condoleeza Rice on Iran (bombing versus diplomacy) for the last two years. And, yes, I have read articles about it, in magazines, newspapers and on the web.
Now, obviously, nothing I would present would be good enough for you because you'll nitpick around the edges as is your wont ("a reporter's hearsay" "I don't much care what magazine writers say"). Oh no. You want transcripts of Cheney's telephone conversations and only then will you be convinced.
Well, golly gee whiz, feller, that just ain't gunna' happen now, is it? (Especially not with one of the most secretive administrations in American history.)
No, what we get from you here on a regular basis is masturbatory hijinks.
"Them ain't facts!"
Got ya'. Well when the White House releases telephone and meeting transcripts, you'll have your proof. Or maybe when Iran gets bombed. But I doubt even that would be enough for you. You'd pull out yer tired ol' "Aw, shucks" routine and play the backcountry poor old man again.
No, you don't really want to have a rational discussion, and, frankly, that's just fine. Read up some more on the neocons. They've never made a secret of their yearnings. In fact, they've loudly advocated their positions for years. Only most of the foreign policy establishment -- from both parties -- viewed them as an extremist fringe movement. The neocons and their loony plans were laughed at. But they got their guy in the White House in the person of Dick Cheney. And he staffed up with neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley and Bolton.
So you can pretend that they really don't have any power, but, sh*t-howdy, feller, you'd jes be pretendin' agin'.
It's a silly game you play. Silly, shallow and pointless.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sorry, s...oops
It was you had laid yourself out as the sultan of evidence, not me.
I just said that i believe that Cheney thinks we will have to bomb Iran sooner or later over the nuclear stuff. Whjat am I denying in saying that?
And I have read a lot myself and I haven't seen any evidence that CVheney or any other neocon want so bomb Iran back to the stone age. Overthrow the government? On that i will agree. Do it by military force? Under certain conditions.
Power: I know this: even if George Bush had wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, with a deep desire akin to an addict's desire for his fix, he could not have done it, because, quite frankly, he did not have the power. And since he didn't have the power, no magazine writer anywhere has the power, even if Bush reads them.
I don't buy the partisan politics of fear on this. I don't think that Bill Kristol is dangerous. It's just yur sky that is dangerous.
I also don't care what Cheney "wants." Old Gen. LeMay wanted to use nuclear weapons, and advised presidents to do so. So what?
And like all the rest, it leaks from the top. In fact, one of the most telling arguments against 911 conspiracy theories is, "for that to be true, it would require the government to keep a secret."
So, when i asked for eveidence that there was advice to bomb Iran now, I really wasn't expecting the nuclear program linked stuff (unless someonme was saying, "now's the time" or the "neocons had saspoirations" crap. I was looking for an advisor NOW in the White house or Pentagon who is advising NOW that we should bomb iran NOW. If they had the power you suggest, then one can take it as gospel truth from what you say that they would have invaded iran ands Syria years ago. If that is what they wanted to do. And had the power.
Remember, some say that the plane with nukes was really headed to Iran...NOW.
But then, some people will believe anything if it fits their dogma. You obviously have one concerning the PNAC and its influence.
So, besides Cheney, which neocons now are close to power? We are talking about NOW.
And lastly, let's say, for the sake of argument, that in November, Abduladinijadadawhatever announces that he has a nuke, it is mounted on a missle, and that all the jews and Americans have 48 hours to get out of the middle east or he will aim it at Israel, and the second at US bases in Iraq.
And, seriously now, what did you make of his remark that there will be a power gap in Iraq and Iran will fill it? I couldn't believe that he would say something that stupid. What's he going to say next, that the holocaust didn't happen?
btw, here is what is wrong with your approach:
You see, seeing them as looney is the mistake. their plans are reasoned, that is, follow from the facts and their pre-conceptions. Seeing them as looney means that one will never be able to counteract them rationally. And that is done by looking at the facts and the preconception, as well as the logic. Dismissing others as looney is the way of faith, not the way of rationality.
Nope. They're loony.
That's how they long have been viewed by a broad consensus of foreign policy experts from every point on the political spectrum.
Loony.
Nuts.
Off their rockers.
No, they did not finally convince people they were right. They moved into the White House. They were invading Iraq long before 9-11. Paul O'Neill talks about it in his book. Richard Clarke talks about it in his book. ("But there are no phone records!") They were plotting an invasion of Iraq from before Bush even set foot in the White House.
Nope. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's the truth. All 9-11 gave them was the jumping off point for what they were planning on doing during Bush's tenure, anyway.
I understand your preoccupation with source documents. But there are also experts. I wonder how a guy like you can go to the doctor and accept any kind of diagnosis at all. After all, the doctor is not inside your body.
In your world, there must be no one who qualifies as an expert. People knowledgeable about Cheney's actions vis a vis Iran have consistently reported that he is pushing hard for a strike against Iran and only Rice's influence with Bush has held him back.
But, hell, those are just experts.
More power to you, friend. We shall see about Iran. Cheney is pushing and pushing.
Oh, if only we had his phone transcripts and secret meetings notes!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You once again
did not read what i wrote about Cheney, which is largely what you said.
As for O'Neill, I don't believe everything he wrote. In fact, I lack your faith, it is true.
Was Iraq on the menu with the neocons in the white house. of course. And it was the policy of the US to overthrow Saddam before they got there. But i could get you dozens of quotes from Clinton white house people and slip them into documents by neocons, and you would not notice the addition.
Anyway, keep the faith. Chanting certainly dispells free thought. And we all know that free thought may bring doubts. I know. I doubt everything, especially disgruntled former employees with an axe to grind. And you would too, depending on dogmatic considerations.
My antiwar hero here is Sen. Byrd, who told the Senate Democrats that the war asuthorization was unconstitutional, and that they could stop it. And he was right. I remember watching as he thrust his shaking hand into the air, and bellowed, "It's not right!" over and over.
Alas, the Senate Democrats refused to stop the war, and, likely as not, one of the refusers will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, just as in 2004.
btw, you didn't give me an answer on the scenario. Do you thnk that iraq then, despite everything that Clinton said about it, and iran now,if it gets a nuclear bomb, are of no concern to the world? Do you think that Sec. Rice's diplomacy has worked to stop Iran from getting a nuclear capability? And what did you think of Abdulanijennihhaddwhatever saying that iran would step into the power vacuum in Iraq?
It's one thing to be against Cheney and his policy, as i am, but what do you offer instead? Me, I would be happy with shutting down all the bases in the world, bring all the troops home, stopping all aid everywhere of any nature, and ignoring the rest of the world. You?
You throw out so many strawmen in every post...
... that responding to your incessant crap would be a full-time job.
Your make assumptions about what writers here intend, you twist and distort and you do it all in your bizarre, passive-aggressive manner where you get to play the victim... over and over.
It's sad and pathetic, frankly, and correcting your many errors is not worth the effort.
Your inanity knows no bounds. I will no longer respond to it. A complete and utter waste of time, primarily because you have no intention of having a serious or rational discussion. (I'm not sure if you even realize this, frankly.)
You remind me a bit of Anthony Perkins' character in "Psycho" where, at the end of the movie as he is sitting in the police station dressed in his mother's clothes, he spots a fly on his leg. His little internal monologue goes, "They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, 'Why, she wouldn't hurt a fly.'"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Keep the faith
reverend. And keep up the abuse. It seems your only defense.
I donh't know which is worse, your mindless chanting ofr doctrrine, or your continuaol resort to abuse instead of argument.
Please cease answering anything I write, and I will avoid interruptiong your self-love party.
Bye-bye.
Damn, Brendan, where is that plonk file button?
You know, you can just ignore him.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Mr. Pot, please stop calling Mr. Kettle black.
Your record on this dimension isn't exactly spotless from what I can see (over-all not just this thread).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Spoken by the King of the Goal Post Movers.
Thanks for inserting your two cents. Now do what you always do once you've lost an argument and change horses.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The Knights in Shining Armor
came to the rescue ...... only they killed the wrong windmill.
It is the economy, stupid.
You know, CLC, I'm actually concerned about you.
You just don't seem to be yourself. Ever since you came back to SC you seem to have this really huge chip on your shoulder, why is that? Didn't the kossacks show you enough love or something?
Speaking of changing horses, what does moving goal posts and changing horses have to do with "Your make assumptions about what writers here intend"?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you can't see where you do that very thing...
.... then you have a sharp stick in your eye.
What's wrong, GoRight? Does it bother you that I am posting my opinions here?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not at all. Post away.
If it bothered me I would have taken sides to gang up against you. Instead I am posting messages about not holding grudges so that we can keep all of the posters around which includes you.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your record is
hardly spotless either. So this comment is unnecessary and unproductive as is my response to your comment.
It is the economy, stupid.
As is my repsonse to your response which was a response
... to the comment that was initially responding to a comment of mine.
Note to Ender: Could you delete this string of comments?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Perhaps.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There lies the rub, Madscientist.
President G. W. Bush, who's clearly not very bright, has surrounded himself with people who are clearly brighter than he is....and extremely dangerous to boot.
More of the rub, I-Minded
Running down the various scores on tests, it is obvious that Bush was smarter than Kerry, although Gore was smarter than both of them. Note also that Woodward described Cheney's relationship to Bush as "obsequious." Although Rove has been said to be a "genius," I don't think so. Those who have had a look inside the White House say that Bush is clearly in charge.
In fact, the last thing we want as a president is a genius. And I'm not running.
Bush smarter than Kerry??!?
Um.....no, Madscientist, I don't think so. When I watched the Bush-Kerry debates back in 2004 prior to the election, Kerry managed to shoot everything Bush said full of holes. Bush could not and would not accept that, and acted like a spoiled brat who was unwilling to accept the fact that there are people smarter than him.
Kerry, unlike Bush, had military experience (he served in Viet Nam), and, unlike Bush, he knows how to read and write.
Keith Olbermann exposed the lies, deceit and dirt that're presently coming from the White House, and it's clear that Bush wants us to stay in Iraq.....indefinitely!! Disgusting.
Sorry,
when one considers the scores they got on standardized test, Bush scores higher. Kerry is in some ways more articulate, although he has his own problems communicating, tending to put people to sleep. While Bush can be said to be inarticulate, Kerry can be said to be dull.
It takes a little guess work because Kerry has refused to release his SATs, but other tests can be calibrated. Go here
for a famous discussion of their (and Gore's) scores and IQs from before the 2004 election. What you will find is that Bush and Kerry aren't that much different in native intelligence, but Bush probably has a slight upper hand. Gore is easily beyond both of them.
Note also that native intelligence is not the most important factor in picking a president.
This "Bush is dumb" bullcrap is simply stupid. Especially when the same people often treat him as some cunning evil genius who can concoct vast governmental conspiracies to nefarious purposes.
As for Olbermann, a very talented guy, and I used to watch his show regularly. But when it became little more than lies and nasty vitriol, it wasn't worth it anymore. I'm sure he gets off on having a national venue for venting his blind hatred, but to me it is neither informative nor entertaining. It's rather sad.
[Added in edit: I realize that this source can be misused, and it would be unfair to cite it with a headline like "Bush smarter than Kerry." It is what it is. But it is also intellectually dishonest simply to dismiss what it does say because one doesn't want to believe it for reasons of hatred.]
Bush is not dumb.
I've had this discussion with my friends.
I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing.
Personally, I find his folksy mannerisms to be part personality and part contrived and calculated based efforts to portray himself in a way that makes average people feel like he's one of them.
Bottom line line though is that one's raw intelligence cannot be measured by one's chosen or natural speech. Furthermore, one can be reasonably intelligent and still hold to flawed views. It happens all the time.
Bush is not dumb
I agree.
It is the economy, stupid.
Want more?
See, Google is a really powerful tool. And an even more powerful tool is reading. Since you love to give "reading lessons," your attempt at calling me out here provides you with a wonderful opportunity to educate yourself on the history of the neocon movement and their long-held obsession with overthrowing regimes in Iraq, Iran and Syria.
And, yes, they have been busy ramping up the rhetoric for an attack on Iran.
So here is a bit more reading since you seem to want to know more. (A good sign! You're inquisitive!)
U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran
Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan?
Project for a New American Century (PNAC) Google search
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
See above
but: WaPo article: