Badmovies.org Forum

That probably explains a lot.  It shows how backward I am. Most people get more conservative as they age, I'm getting more liberal.  I consider myself a moderate.

http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/fox-news-has-oldest-cable-audience.html#more-6344

They also have the most uninformed audience.

Most people naturally gravitate toward new sources, articles, studies, data, that mirrors their inclinations, and tend to reject most other information. Sad, but true. I probably spend more time looking at information that does not support my views. It keeps me from burying my head in the sand. But I've got nothing against Fox News. It's a conservative option, just as CNN is a more liberal option. I would say I access CNN just a little more than Fox News, but I do look at both frequently.

Actually, several surveys have showed that folks who watch Fox News and listen to Talk Radio are more likely to have a college education and more likely to have full-time jobs than those who watch CNN or MSNBC.  Yes, FOX tilts conservative, but that being said, with few exceptions, they fact-check their stories pretty thoroughly and fess up when they are wrong about something.  Even Glen Beck, whom I REALLY don't like, challenges those who disagree on a regular basis to prove his facts wrong.

Dislike the slant?  cool.  But don't bash the audience with falsehoods.

FOX's problem is they don't have enough of the hip demographic advertisers want. ratings are only part of a tv programs picture. Walker Texas Ranger routinely had higher ratings than The X Files, but which one was trendier? 

Perhaps advertisers market research revealed that the average X-Files viewer had more disposable income than the average Walker: Texas Rager viewer had. I have no idea if that's true, but maybe.

Wait, we were talking about news, right?

No falsehoods at all.
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

They more than tilt right.. They are the mouth piece of the GOP. Fine, I dont care if they are or not but trying to pretend they arent is just wrong.  They lie and mislead all the time.  I never said their entire audience was uninformed.. A good chunk of them and that is a fact. Those who get all their information from the likes of Glen Beck and dont bother to research it on their own.
But what can you expect from a "news" organization that argued in court it has a right to lie to its viewers.

On a related note, I've always noticed something that has always disturbed me about the average every-day conservative Republican. I work with alot of them currently, but amongst my friends, it's a pretty even mix between conservative and liberal.

Anyway, I tend to lean to what some would say right, only because of my unabashed love of free-market capitalism, but I do p**s off alot of conservatives because I embrace more in the way of personal freedoms than most do. What is it about conservative Republicans and chain emails that are outright lies? I get emails sent to me from coworkers and friend and family that are very right-leaning, and they are either loaded with lies, or outright hoaxes, usually pointed at President Obama. I'm no Obama supporter. What I find sad about this is that these emails are believed as outright truth by the people I know that are on the right. Just a little research and these emails are easily debunked as untruthful or outright fabrications. Even when I point out the lie or the hoax they get very defensive and call me a liberal socialist, even though I'm not. Probably just a knee-jerk reaction to being caught buying into a hoax. The reason I find this so sad is because, even though I think the majority of people who call themselves conservative Republicans these days ARE misinformed and easily accept lies when they support their views with little to no attempt at verification, they are the only mainstream friend of capitalism we've got, and I would much rather they be seekers than suckers.

I'm not saying that liberals don't lie. Don't think I'm saying that for a second, but they do at least seem to lie on a more sophisticated level. I don't receive liberal-agendized chain emails like that. It just seems that in general liberals don't stoop to such low depths as to send out emails filled with transparent lies that five minutes of research online would debunk either mostly or entirely. Even on events that I do get a news article or an email from a liberal acquaintence about something left-leaning, it may have lies in it, but it does at least have mostly verifiable data in it, albeit sometimes used in a skewed fashion.

I would guess that the reason this is so epidemic is because the Republicans are very hurt by Obama being our president, and being in the minority, that they are throwing everything they can think of at the issue, even if they have to make things up, like these birthers who insist on the idea that Barack Obama is not a naturalized citizen. Attack the man all you want. There's plenty to attack without having to act like babies. The man is a natural born citizen. Get over it. You're embarassing yourself.

It's no wonder I'm a registerd libertarian. I see no reason to become a Republican or a Democrat any time soon.

I must confess I agree with you on that one.  I have a number of friends, mostly elderly, who are constantly forwarding discredited stuff to me.  I generally send back that this rumor has been debunked, please don't forward, etc.

On the birth certificate issue, I do think Obama has deliberately fueled the fire by never releasing his long form birth certificate, which would end the controversy.  It's actually a shrewd move - it dangles that tiny fig leaf of possibility out there, and the birthers fall all over themselves to "prove" it one way or the other - which enables the President to dismiss his critics as being all cranks and nutjobs like Orly Taitz or whatever her name is that started this whole mess.

Each party has its share of cranks, all right.  Now excuse me while I go read 3mnKids link so I can respond properly.

Actually that's not too uncommon among people who happen to have at least partally open minds.

A lot of young conservatives are that way due to their rearing, and they tend to have the typical "black and white my mind's made up don't try confusing me with facts" attitude that's the hallmark of conservative...views.


Now some people who have a genetic disposition towards open mindedness eventually begin to notice that the real world isn't always so black and white, and that a lot of conservative views are wrong if you consider some inconvenient truths and pesky facts that those with a genetic disposition to close mindedness can more easily ignore than the open minded.

So, if you find yourself becoming more tolerant and less conservative as time goes by, it just means you are disposed to open mindedness. Congratulations.

Saying fox tilts conservative is like saying hitler wasn't favorably inclined towards jewish people.

(BTW, after nearly 2 years of "OBAMA IS HITLER!!!" from the right it just felt good to toss a H bomb at the right, you know? ;) )

As to fox viewers and talk show radio listeners having college educations, most ameircan do nowadays. Most people at least bet a BS from a local college or online U now.

As to them having full time jobs, maybe that's a bias of some major employers who might tend to hire people who are anti-union, anti-workers rights, anti-government enforcement of workers rights, etc?

Here's the deal....if you don't like the political slant of a news channel, then change the damn channel.  Its as simple as that.  Liberals have CNN.  Conservatives have Fox.  Who cares?  News and views are subjective.  No one news channel is going to tell the news without some sort of bias.  It's impossible for us as humans to not let our own views and prejudices influence the things we say.

I watch CNN.  I watch Fox news as well on occasion.  Each one has their own benefit.  I stay away from Bill O'Reilly and such, but I'll watch both Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck...the latter if only for his energy and rants.

To only watch one news source, the one that tilts more towards your own personal views, is wrong.  Keeping an open mind is the way to go.  If you're not able to do that, then you are going to go through life listening to the thoughts of one party. 

So, again according to Judge Death, it is impossible to be both open-minded and conservative, apparently.  All conservatives must be nasty, bigoted, angry people.
That just seems a little . . . close-minded to me.


Now, 3mn, I did read over your very interesting link.  But what is this about FOX suing for the right to lie to their audience?  Not being sarcastic, but if you have proof I'd like to see it.

Now for you bleeding heart commi pinko libs out there  (see, JD, two can play at that game)  CNN's probably a bit too tilted to the right.  For something that will truly feed your prejudices, you should probably tune in MSNBC, the official mouthpiece of MoveOn.org!

Now, for a quote from another right wing radical:

"Any young man who is not a liberal has no heart.  Any old man who is not a conservative has no brain."   - Winston Churchill

Churchill, the man who sunk the british empire.  whose point are you trying to make!

at any rate, FOX is wildly liberal when it comes to foreign policy and believe in government planning, nation building and everything they rail against on domestic issues. Gold went from 300 dollars an ounce to 1000 under Bush, an alleged conservative. Forget war, Remember the medicare act? all the alleged conservatism goes out the window when these guys get elected.  it's just rhetoric.  all politicians want power.


"don't vote, it only encourages them" - I can't rememeber who said it

As someone who considers themselves neither conservative nor liberal, I have to point out the obvious: open-minded people sometimes realize A LOT OF CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE RIGHT, as well!

I didnt say they sued. I said they argued.   :smile: The case of Jane Akre who says she was fired for refusing to report lies. She sued and won but lost on appeal. Fox argued it has a 1st amendment right to lie... its not breaking any laws... True, I guess. You can google Akre+Fox to find other links.. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/30/201231/262  

Stossel and Freedom Watch are really good.

 

The clouds of vitriolic poison the far right has been spewing for the last couple of years (OBAMA IS HITLER! SPAY AND NEUTER LIBERALS! etc) is basically coming back at them in the form of hostility from people who are getting tired of the far right's abuse and hostility towards anyone who's not to the right of atilla the hun.

I have a theory about the far right conservative Republicans. Not more moderate types like me who support free-market capitalism but also support personal freedoms. No, I'm talking more about the real hate-filled ones that think McCarthyism was a good thing. I work with a few of them and I honestly think that, while they talk about the Islamization of America and support the wars in the middle-east unconditionally and think that all muslims have declared jihad on the American way of life and yadda yadda yadda, my theory is that in secret they actually envy and admire that extreme muslim caricature, the way the women are practically in bondage, the way the people are kept in order through fear of religious law, how they fight not for freedom but for God. Deep down I think they envy that and secretly wish the U.S. fought wars in the name of God proudly. I also think that the really far right ones also have big problems with the establishment clause of the 1st amendment and would prefer it weren't there, whether they want to admit it or not.

Oh, and yes, I do believe Obama is an advocate of socialism. That's one thing I agree with them on. I just think they need to stop whining about it and maybe start educating people about what socialism is. Just saying "Obama is a socialist" isn't going to cut it. They're operating under an assumption that most Americans accept that socialism is not right for America. that's not true. Many don't. So saying "Obama is a socialist" isn't going to cut much mustard, guys. People also need to be educated as to WHY America is not ready for socialism and may even be a very bad idea. It works for some smaller countries, but not for us. That's my opinion, anyway.
 

Ho hum it's always the same.  the "right" attacks the "left," the "left" attacks the "right," and as long as they are occupied with all of that meaningless rhetoric, the people on both "sides" will never think outside of the box.  That's how the status quo keeps everything the way they want it to be no matter which "side" gets chosen.

Believing in the virtues of conservatives over liberals or vice versa is kind of like the adult version of believing in Santa Claus.

I guess, Judge, the thing that ticks me off about statements like the "vitriolic hatred" comment you made above is this -

where was all your righteous indignation for the previous 8 years, when George W. Bush was daily subjected to some of the most vicious, mean-spirited, and frequently outrageously false character assassinations in all of modern American political history?

Yes, there are some stupid, exaggerated, and nasty things being forwarded around about Obama by folks who come from my political side of the aisle.  And much of it may well be untrue and unfair.  All I can say is, we learned the methods by watching you guys for the previous 8 years, as you did all in your power to destroy a decent man doing the best he could at the world's most difficult job.

Now - 3mn - I did read your link.  It is thought-provoking and disturbing.  However, I will say that the Daily Kos is not known for being the most "fair and balanced" of sites.  That being said, all networks have bad days.  At least Fox's apparently phony, or at least exaggerated, story wasn't a direct attempt to influence the outcome of a Presidential election, like Dan Rather's using forged documents to  "prove" GWB went AWOL from his National Guard posting.

Now, ghoul, if you read over my various posts on political topics on this forum, you will find that I have repeatedly said that neither party is right all the time.  I generally try to give credit where credit is due, when someone on either side does something good.  But I think that conservatism and liberalism are both valid and distinct philosophies, each with some good points and some bad.  But, overall, I find the conservative traditions superior.

And Flick, I know a lot of people much further right than me, and I just don't share your opinion  of their motivations.  Fundamentalist Islam is an incredibly  stifling, mind-numbing philosophy that strangles all manner of independent thought.  I can't imagine many people accustomed to the freedom we have in America wanting to adopt its views.

That I'll give ya.    :teddyr:   

Yes that's what you are SUPPOSED to think, but in the big picture, the movers and shakers on both sides are going to represent the interests of corporations and lobbyists, promote job loss and economic ruin in our country while promoting slave labor in other countries all in the name of free trade and globalism.  The issues that seem like a really big deal to people right now do not amount to a hill of beans compared to what lies ahead thanks to our liberal and conservative saviors.  They are two sides of the same coin.

You can argue about things like free health care vs. paid health insurance all day long, but it isn't going to matter when we can't afford the cost of either one.

I just don't buy into that sort of conspiratorial world view.  After all, how can corporations be that evil when their chief motivation is profit?  If there are no customers left to buy their stuff, their profits disappear.  That is why, for all its flaws (and it has many), capitalism, left to itself, is ultimately self-correcting.  Many of the ills in today's world markest are due to the fact that we have adopted the "too big to fail" philosophy, which does not allow necessary corrections to take place.

Well, if Obama is a "socialist" by some people's definition then I say good because america needs a little socialism. Ever since ronny raygun smiled and blithered his way into office we've had deregulation after deregulation at the hands of the republicans, dismantling the safety mechanisms that FDR, a man reagan and most republicans aren't fit to say the name of, put in place to protect american society and working people from corporate greed, and those regulations and limitations worked pretty goof thruout the 40's the 50's, the 60's and the 70's. Sure we had bad times and downturns, but we didn;'t have full scale meltdowns and economic crises on a regular basis, and the middle class's wealth and prosperity gradually increased along with the country.

Then along came reagan (SPIT!) with his "Uh, gubmint isn't the solution, gubmint, uh, is the problem." What he elft out was "for big businesses that want to get richer than they already are and don't care what happens to the middle class in the process."

So that rotten SOB started on this big deregulation move, cutting away the safeties and limits that had been put in place during and after the great depression, and we pretty much went straight into the first deregulation crisis: The S&L bbailout. Remember that one?

We had another major crisis in the 90's due to deregulation, now, of coutrse, we're in the worse shape since the great depression thanks to bush continuing to deregulate, appointing people running the businesses government agencies were to regulate to run the agencies regulating them and so on.

 Now, trying to regulate those business and tax their profits, in addition to closing their offshore tax shelters in the caymen islands, is called "socialism".

Well, I say bring on the socialism. Regulate businesses and the financial market like they were B.R. (Before reagan). If a business is "too big to fail" then it's too big to exist. No private corporation should be allowed to be so big to can control or devastate the economy. Cut them up and shrink 'em down!

All that would be called socialism by the right, and rather than argue with them or get into an endless debate, i say "Fine, call it socialism if you want, it's what america needs, it's what people voted for in 2008 and if you don't like it, tough."

Capitalism, socialism, it doesn't matter what it ends up being called.  They will put whatever spin they want on it.  As long as the people pulling the strings have all the wealth and power there is to have, the decrease in profits isn't going to matter to them.  If there is only so much wealth to go around, they will make sure it doesn't come out of their pockets.  The filthy masses will suffer that hardship.

I don't think I would call it conspiratorial.  If it were a true conspiracy, it wouldn't be happening so rampantly right in front of our eyes for all to see.  They don't need to make it a conspiracy because they've got us right where they want us.  

I don't even know where to begin.  Ronald Reagan was the greatest leader of my lifetime and I am proud to have served our country when he was commander in chief.  As for "the worst economy since the depression" - that would be one Jimmy Carter. Democrat.

This stupid Democratic Congress is addicted to one thing - spending.  They can't get enought and they can't stop,  I'll take the private sector anyday.

Judge, you are beyond liberal.

Fair enough. I was talking more about a very small minority of people I have met who have said some things that really make me think that there is a deep down little flame that actually envy's that fundamentalist mentality. It was an observation on my part based on my experience and not meant to be either authoritative or applicable to conservatives in general. I'm a college counselor and I work in a small team of mainly prior military servicemembers who work with military affiliated students, and the majority of them are very patriotic, at least in the cookie-cutter sense of "right" patriotism, and some of them say some things that really bother me. Now if I worked with a group of predominantly liberal coworkers, you'd be hearing me complain about them instead, believe me. In any case, I have one coworker in particular that I am convinced, if he had his way, would have travelled back in time and prevented the establishment clause of the 1st amendment from being written. I've also heard him make comments that suggest he wishes some of the attitudes of the fundamentalist muslims were embraced by fundamentalist Christians here, he just hasn't come out with it in those words. That's my interpretation, and it could be two years of hearing political rhetoric on nearly a daily basis talking, in fact, I'm sure that's a factor. But, just in case I wasn't clear enough in my previous post, I was talking about a very small minority of the right.

you kind of do though indiana in regards to muslims desire to enforce sharia on the world. and not surprisingly it feeds into your willingness to allow the state lots of power in regards to foreign policy.

similarly with judge death and his call for more socialism for me both these things are counterproductive to my really only concern which is economic competition with China. fighting wars inthe middle east and taxing corporations who will them move elsewhere is not the way to achieve that.

I'm a bottom line sort of guy and beyond all this theatraticaly we have serious competition for resources and market share with the Chinese giant.

I'm not endorsing anyone's part in the major part of this discussion. However, I will isolate and agree with one thing lester is saying wholeheartedly. Competing and beating China is a far greater priority for America right now.

Personally I think we need to beat them with capitalism. Real capitalism, not this mixed economy bulls**t we've been practising for decades, but real, creative, innovative, laissez-faire capitalism, the kind we haven't been close to in a very long time. It always annoys me when knee-jerk socialist advocates point the finger at capitalism as having caused so many problems, yet fail to realize that we don't practice laissez-faire capitalism, and never have. We've gotten somewhat close, but that was long before any of us were born. Government regulation, government subsidies, corporate lobbying and influence over government, these are things that are not part of real capitalism, and those are the things that are usually at the root of an economic crisis or a monopoly. Socialism advocates sometimes dredge up history to prove how bad capitalism is by pointing out the railroad industry in the 1800's as a prime example of how captalism causes coercive monopolies. In reality, it wasn't free-enterprise that caused that, it was government influence, because the government was giving huge subsidies to the railroad companies because the government was trying to spur westward expansion. What you ended up with was railroad companies with enormously coercive monopolies, and who had no incentive to produce quality, and in many cases you had stretches of railroad that were quickly thrown together and a menace to public safety. What got blamed? Evil capitalism. A convenient way to address the cause and justify even more government control to fix the problem the government made in the first place. That period marked the beginning of this country's move toward increasing governmental influence over business.

Wow, I got off on a tangent there. Lately the Off Topic board has gotten very heated. I don't think this is a bad thing, but perhaps we should be trying to strike a better balance with the fun, lighthearted stuff. :cheers:

you don't see china going in for all this theatre. they don't do wars, they just do growth. at the same time, we have an advantage in that they will never have the types of freedoms we have here. We should emphasize that.

I'm in total agreement about the stuff with the railroads. if you want to see a really "bad movie" about these issues check out my seven part ugly robot voiced cartoon play based on Albert Jay Nocks "our enemy the state" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGkZxgzxTlk

I agree, and the question I would ask these conservatives and liberals who are supposedly so different from eachother regarding the direction they want to go in is why do both sides support policies that are going to make us lose big time when it comes to that economic competition with China?

The simple answer is, they're not so different. They both want to control, control, control. The current two-party system is just two sides of the same damn coin. They are far more interested in expanding their political power base and opposing each other as a means to do that than they are with actually serving their constituents. Take the immigration issue, for example. I've brought this up in a discussion before, but I'll be bold enough to say it bears repeating. The Democrats keep saying that we need immigration reform and tend to refuse to acknowledge or do anything about the borders. The Republicans say "No immigration reform until the borders are secure," a convenient way to oppose the Democrats while pretending to give a s**t about the actual American people, and also pretty smart politically because they can just continue to say the borders are not secure enough and thus forever be able to oppose the Democrats. Then there's the reality: THEY BOTH NEED TO HAPPEN AND THEY BOTH NEED TO HAPPEN NOW!" What kind of imbecile would object to something that they acknowledge needs to happen? Because they are more concerned with political posturing than they are with fixing problems. So are they two parties going to get together and actually secure the border AND enact badly needed immigration reform? f**k no.

Right on.  Karma to you for keeping your eyes open and seeing things for what they really are. :thumbup:

   I think our entire Congress needs a good thorough house cleaning.  While I agree with most of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party, too many Republicans are too caught up with being part of the establishment and have lost the conservative principles that helped them get elected in the first place.  To be blunt, the GOP - and America in my opinion - desperately needs a man like Ronald Reagan.

    I was born in December 1963.  I always loved history, and Jimmy Carter was elected when I was 12.  He was the first President that I really paid attention to.  I remember Nixon resigning, and Ford getting shot at twice, but Carter was the first President that I really watched to see what he would do.  It was not a pretty sight.  In four years, I saw America become more and more powerless, confounded, and confused.  It seemed to be a given that our country was entering a long, slow decline that would take us to the ash heap of history.  And what was worst, many people seemed very happy with that - or at least, content to let it happen. They seemed to feel we deserved it.   Inflation hit 14%, unemployment around 12%, and consumer confidence foundered.  Iran seized our people and held them hostage, and our military response collapsed in shameful disaster, and the President seemed like a struggling fly caught in a web of failure he could not break.  The Soviets were more aggressive than at any point since World War II, invading Afghanistan and sponsoring Communist revolutions around the world.  The Cold War seemed lost, and the tide of freedom was receding around the world.
  Then came a simple, plain spoken man from California who simply had the courage to BELIEVE in America.  He believed that there really was good and evil in the world, and that America was on the side of the angels.  He believed in the power of democracy and capitalism to defeat the evils of socialism and dictatorship.  He used the power of his voice to inspire the American people to remember the greatness that led them to victory in World War II.
   I saw this country completely turn around in 8 years.  I listened to the left howl in dismay as America woke up and remembered its strength.  Reagan's words restored our courage, his bold stance against the Soviets restored our moral leadership of the free world, and his economic actions shook some - not all - of the shackles off of our economy and led to an unprecedented period of economic growth.
   When he took office, Soviet-style communism was on the march, and all of Eastern Europe was enslaved.  When he left, the Soviets were trembling on the brink of extinction, and the Berlin Wall was shuddering in anticipation of the blows that would shatter it - blows that Mr Reagan himself boldly called for.

   We need a man like him again.  We need some one who believes in liberty, who believes in democracy, and who believes in the power of capitalism.  We need someone who acknowledges that, whatever its faults, it is not the excesses of capitalism that have caused most of the world's misery.  It is the excesses of GOVERNMENTS.  Governments builts Auschwitz and Dachau, governments built the Soviet gulags, governments muzzle the masses and deny them the freedom that is their God-given birthright.  Governments carry out pogroms and ethnic cleansings.
  The solution to the excesses of government is NOT more government!  Any approach to solving our nation's problems that involves giving more money, more power, and more authority to the government is flawed, because once government takes your money, you never get back as much as was taken.  Once government takes your liberty, you have to fight to retrieve it.  In the end, virtually every liberal solution to every problem ultimately involves giving more money and power to government.  How much is too much?  How long will we let it continue?  When will someone find the guts to say "No More"?

   Yes, I supported our military operations in the Middle East, and still do.  Lester - I don't "buy into" concocted theories about the jihadists, I simply read what they themselves write, to the goals that they clearly articulate.  I fully recognize that they are a minority of the world's Muslim community, but there are still enough of them to pose a potent danger to the future of democracy.  Watch what is happening in much of Europe is Muslim immigrants gain political power.  Much of the West will be Islamicized in the next 50 years by simple demographics.  How long do you think the freedoms we have been raised to cherish will last when a majority of the population comes from a background that not only doesn't cherish liberty, but regards it as something unclean? Soviet-style communism is dead, as is the Nazi philosophy of Hitler.  The jihadists are the Nazis of the 21st century, an evil that cannot be appeased and must be opposed.   But one importnat way to do that is to encourage the growth of moderate Islamic states, like the one we are helping to build in Iraq.

I also agree that we must beat the Chinese economically.  But we won't do it through regulating and  taxing our businesses into oblivion, and we sure won't do it by continuing to spend money on huge social programs that we cannot afford and do not really need.

We need to find leaders who can grasp these truths and clearly explain them to the people, and unite our nation in the process.  We need another Great Communicator.

Ronnie?    You out there, big guy?

I wouldn't count the Chinese out of war just yet. 

They have serious military numbers, and decent hardware.  They are still a major supporter of N. Korea (as they were in the first Korean war) and what role they would play in future N. Korean aggressions is very uncertain.  If they were to stage a joint assault on the DMZ, we would be unable to repel it w\o some serious losses (if we
could at all.)


Adding to China's questionable role are regular annual joint military exercises with the Russians (resumed about 5 years ago) with airborne landing and invasion as their top practice.

Lastly, their economic growth would also mostl likely see additional increases in their military. And this is no longer the old China with half-assed Russian weapons. Unlike the Cold War era Russians, who only had quantity over quality, the Chinese have both in their corner.  Don't count em' out just yet...

my point was you believing this allows the government to get you to willingly part with your money in satiating this fear (which is actually impossible, there are biillions of muslims all over the world and our enemies are non state actors) . If you didn't believe that than you wouldn't.


and yet...


so you are against big government except when it's the biggest big government, the one that actually kills human beings and drains blood and treasure on a scale that would make stalin envious.


like nation building in the arab world. where they fire at us as we attempt to give them the money our citizens earn at their jobs and which is then taken from them and they have no choice in this.



“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan



really, is declaring the iranians the new hitler courageous?

"If they aren't mad, are you really being bad?" - Nelson "the simpsons"

What is the option?  Do nothing, stay home, mind our own business, and watch the fires of liberty go out all over the world?  Sometimes evil reaches such a scale that it must be opposed.  The state of Iran is run by some very, very spooky characters.  Their president wants to launch a war of extermination against Israel, and will soon have the means to do so.  Would you have us do nothing as the staunchest ally we have had since World War II is buried under a tide of blood and nuclear terror?  Will that make the world safer or better?

I don't LIKE war, but I like seeing evil victorious even less.  There ARE things worth fighting for.  Trying to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism and promote the growth of democracy in a very critical region of the world is one of those things.

"The only thing worse than winning a war is losing one."

While we're at it, let's help them develop and give them arms to fight those jihadists so they can turn on us later. Wait, we've already done that before

No, can't agree with you on that one, although I do agree with most of the rest of your post. We've become far to interventionist and now we're getting into bigger and bigger trouble because of it. I recently discovered American Empire: Before the Fall by former Reagan associate deputy attorney Bruce Fein. I haven't read it yet, but the following quote from the back cover has prompted me to pick it up:

“The United States was born as a Republic. The individual was the center of society and rule of law was King. Neutrality and non-entanglements were the North Stars of foreign policy. Preemptive wars were feared as precursors to executive tyranny. The Republic would not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Transparency was the rule and secrecy the rare exception. And the thrill of self-government was the utmost good. Since the emergence of Manifest Destiny and the Mexican-American War, the United States has progressively degenerated into an arrogant, swaggering Empire featuring hundreds of military bases abroad with defense commitments to foreigners. The degeneration was accelerated by the disintegration of the Soviet Union and 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and Obama are a philosophical triumvirate in national security matters. The Empire is earmarked by perpetual and global warfare unilaterally initiated by the President for the sake of domination; unchecked executive power; the crucifixion of the rule of law on a national security cross; the diminishment of Congress to a constitutional ink blot; secret government; unsustainable trillion dollar budget deficits; and, a craving by the public for risk-free lives more than freedom itself. The Republic can be regained if a President emerges who renounces executive usurpations and secrecy, terminates all U.S. military bases abroad and revokes all defense treaties or executive agreements, immediately ends the Afghan, Iraq, international terrorism wars, and makes the rule of law the nation’s civic religion.”

?? look at the transformations post communism in India, China, Brazil. Africa is starting to come along.  With India and China alone you are talking billions and billion of people whose lives are vastly better than they were a few years ago. I have a friend who was just in shen zen near hong kong. It was like grass huts 30 years ago, now it's a metropolis. It's crazy.  

We didn't invade China and teach them capitalism. They learned it, in no small part by us opening trade with them. We lost the vietnam war, but now vietnam is trading with us too.  so we won, in a sense. ou beliefs won. we couldn' figure out how to defeat guys who were willing to live in tunnels for ten years at a time just to come out and snipe us, but they knew saving up for 5 years for a crappy schwin bike was no way to get ahead.

so the fires of liberty are burning. or at least the fires of commerce and high standards of living

  
  so we can not like them.

  
??  first of all, you don't need a  nuclear weapon to have a war. israel is tiny. You could do a ton of damage with regular bombs but why would they do that?  Iran has a lame economy and barely an air force.  They don't want war with the united states, which is what they would get if they attacked Israel.

more to the point: the president of EVERY COUNTRY in the middle east and some countries NOT in the middle east want to exterminate israel! it was set up by westerners in the middle of the middle east. the people who lived there were kicked out.  maybe you have a different narrative for their story but in the middle east that is how it's viewed.




We aren't God. If the situation really were as dire as you are making it, the israelis should leave like Helen Thomas said and go back to europe or america.

If not they should stay and deal with it.  .  

the middle east has been going to hell in a handbasket and it's going to continue going that way wether we are there to take bullets as it goes or not.

We can't take money out of americans hands to try and remake the middle east in our image. it's not right

 


In my humble (but usually correct) opinion, this guy needs to be on some kind of medication.  We were isolationist in the Federalist era because we were too weak to be anything else.  And what happened?  War kept finding us anyway.  We can't return to the 18th century, and I'm not so sure it's a good idea to do so.


LESTER - Israel is the historic home of Judaism.  Jerusalem was a Jewish city for nearly 2000 years before Muhammad was born.  You and Helen Thomas would seemingly have the Jews return to Auschwitz?  That is BULL.  Israel is their religious, historic, and cultural homeland, and they have a right to live there.

I simply don't understand your willingness to see them exterminated.

yeah that's exactly what I was saying.  :lookingup:




no one has a right to live anywhere.  we didn't just go to the Indians "Hey, come on it's our manifest desinty" and expect them to roll over. the israelis have to fight for their land and they are facing a billion "indians" who would rather they didn't.

  also there are millions of israelis, russian, ethiopians who have no genetic conection to the land at all.  If you converted to judaism in the 19th century Israel cannot fairly be said to be your "historic homeland" can it.

so Yes, I am fine with letting the chips fall as they may in this troubled region of the world. I think it's backwards and uninteresting and don't know why anyone, jewish muslim or christian would want to live there.  if people want to build houses in the middle of the forest they can, just don't expect me to rescue you when a forest fire comes.

Theres being an idealist and there is just being stupid.  I am baffled that any jewish person wants to live in the middle east when they could live in America or Europe but if they want to do something so strange they can feel free.

It's funny how we never stop and think... Why?

The problem is quite simple... Not everybody in the middle east wants to kill a jew. So why is that be a problem?

It's not a problem at all. It just that we in America has a mindset that every mulism wants to kill a jew because the terrorists claim they are supporting the mulism cause. When in fact they dont, otherwise the mulism population (which outnumber the jews) would had overthrown the jewish population years ago.

 :smile:

Don't think I don't respect your experience and expertise, indiana. However, if war is going to find us anyway, what's the point in seeking it? As the industrial military complex grows, something Eisenhower warned us against before leaving office, we grow closer and closer to a fascist posture. Joseph Grcic identified one of the key aspects of fascist systems as the will and ability to commit violence and wage war to keep the nation strong. Fascist systems also tend to be corporatist, and given how much influence corporations have over policy, I have to lend creedance sometimes to the notion that we ARE becoming fascistic. The Halliburton Corporation alone bears out both of those premises: corporatist government waging war abroad to keep the nation strong.

Am I a historian? No, but that doesn't mean I can't do a bit of research and observation and hold a position. In my humble opinion, U.S. inteventionist policies are not in keeping with the spirit of the Republic we were founded on. Do times change? Oh, you betcha. But I for one would welcome a return to that philosophy. The notion that war is going to come to us anyway is not justification. It's expensive, and it creates more enemies than allies. We've painted ourselves into this corner of being the policeman of the world. I've heard the justification that going to war overseas is better than waiting for war to come to us because we don't want war to come to American soil. I understand that, I woudn't want that either, but maybe the American people would band together for a change to defend freedom rather than accept convenience.

I'm not against building relationships with other nations, but I would much rather build healthy relationships that are based on trade, not intervention and war. I'm being hypothetical here, but just imagine if, in the middle east over the past several decades, we had built trade relationships rather than play one against the other as we did through the cold war and after. I don't think it's entirely naive to think the world would be a better place. Perhaps the Arab world would be more industrious and less warmongering. I don't think that is too farfetched a notion. Fundamentalist Islam is partly our fault. We have helped cultivate it through decades of dangerous policies. It's time our government take responsibility for that.

Then again, maybe I need to be on medication.  :bouncegiggle:

we were isolationist in the 80's and 90's!  think of all the wars we could have had with russia, iraq, libya whoever, that we didn't.  and those were  great years. Meanwhile, Iraq pretty much killed the last deacde.

So, you're proud that reagan (SPIT!) sent the marines into beitut with orders to not load their weapons, making them dead meat when a suicide bomber drove a truck bomb into their barracks and the guards couldn't stop them with their empty rifles?

Or how about how reagan (SPI!) deregulated the S&Ls, causing the first big gubmint bailout of an industry we're still paying off?

Or how reagan ran up the debt and deficit?

BTW, thanks for calling me beyond liberal.

As to a democrat congress being addicted to spending, gow many billions, or trillions, have republicans urinated away in iraq, a country that had no al qeda, no WMD and no connections to 911?  Oh, but that money went to defense contractors, like haliburton who did not provide meals it was paid to and wired up showers so badly they've electrocuted at least 20 soldiers, so snce the money was going to big biz that was OK.

Democrats were not tryting to claim bush was't a lefit president due to birth, they did say his getting the florida electoral votes was fishy given his brother was gov. of glorida. 

They did not fillibuster every bill he brought up or vote automatically against everything he did, like the rpeublicans just did to kill a bill to extend health benefits to 911 workers suffering terrible health problems because bush ordered the EPA and OSHA to lie about the air safety at ground zero while people were cleaning it up.

They did not make allusions to armed revolt and /or suceeding from the union like the republicans are now.

So don't hand me that BS about how terrible democrats were to bush and how it was like what's being done to obama now, given I don't get my world views from fox I'm too well informed to buy it.

Reagan showed courage when he said hey middle east politics make no sense and pulled out of beirut.  and what happend: the same thing that would have happened except none of our guys were there to take bullets.

Ok so why the Democrats dont want to boast about the New Healthcare Law?

Gee... the damn bill was so important they were voting on it on Christmas Eve... so important that they didnt HAVE TIME TO READ THE DAMN THING. So important that it needs to be passed now. So important that they dont want to talk about it.

Gee...

It only tells me that the Democrats are hoping that people will forget THE MOST IMPORTANT BILL EVER.


It's sad that there is only a few news sources willing to report this... really sad because some people (should I name names) want us to forget... THE HEALTHCARE LAW.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is the item you're referring to. This was a badly conceived act, because what it did was remove a number of real estate tax shelters. Investors ran for federal charters, which were insured with public dollars. This was where the bad idea was. The investors, because they knew their investments were insured by public funds, took risky investment moves knowing that the public money would bail them out, which it did, and, as you said, we're still paying for it. This was a surprisingly socialist move on the part of the Reagan administration in my mind, because insuring private investments with public money certainly isn't capitalism. This is why it kills me when Republicans point the finger at Democrats for being socialist, when Republican adminstrations have plagued the free market economy with plenty of their own government influence.

Back to my "two side of the same coin" analogy. Both parties artificially control the market. At least the Democrats are somewhat honest about being socialists. However, judge death, I am also pointing out that government intervention is nearly always to blame for economic crises, not capitalism.

Wow... this thread has exploded like a fragmentation grenade. 

Maybe all the politics can go in this one thread, that will make it easier to avoid for the people who can't stand this stuff...

Not a bad idea. It's been getting thick lately. I've been providing plenty of fuel myself. Perhaps just a new thread that is aptly titled IF YOU DON'T LIKE POLITICS, DON'T LIKE TO DEBATE, GET YOUR FEELINGS EASILY HURT, OR JUST PLAIN WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT BAD MOVIES, DON'T OPEN.

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Judge - your post was filled with even more typos than usual.  Are you sober?

Yes, Reagan sent the Marines into Beirut in an attempt to stop the slaughter there.  The suicide bomber caught us off guard, and it was a horrible, horrible day.  I still think the intent was noble, and I still think we should have bombed the crap out of Iran who was responsible for both that and the Khobar Towers bombing.

Reagan ran up the deficit in order to build up our military and drive the Soviets into bankruptcy.  He succeeded.  It was well done.

By the way, did it ever occur to you that it is CONGRESS that writes the Federal Budget, CONGRESS that spends the money, and CONGRESS that borrows the money.  It seems to me like one party controlled Congress for most of the Reagan years.


Now, one more time - Saddam Hussein did have WMD's at one point.  We know this because he killed 20,000 Kurds with them.  You can not kill 20,000 Kurds by farting on them, so he MUST have had poisonous gas.

Bill Clinton bombed Saddam to damage his WMD capacity.  Every major Democrat in the Senate spoke out against Saddam's use of and stockpiling of WMD's.  Hilary, Kerry, Kennedy, all of them.

Bush had the cojones to do something about it and guess what?  They weren't there.  Not in great numbers anyway.  I think most of them had been destroyed, and the rest snuck across the border into Syria.  The point is, every major intelligence agency in the world said he had these things.  So the President acted on the best intelligence he had.

More later.  Gotta go cook supper.

really? I don't remeber BUsh out there fighting and tracking down insurgents.  5,000 americans who could still be alive and with their families are dead.  to disarm a guy who didn't have arms who wasn't a threat with us and didn't want war with us.

cojones would have been telling the neocons to go to hell and saying this isn't worth one american life like his father did.

spending other peoples money and playing with other peoples lives isn't brave when there was no threat. when they had to TRY and create the illusion of a threat and even that didn't work



NO
they weren't.  and  mohammad atta didn't meet with iraqi intelligence and  saddam didn't have unmanned anthrax uavs  all this stuff has been disproven.  

Wouuld you like to buy my chevy metro? It's complete piece of garbage but seeing as how you enjoy defending lemons...
 

TO CONTINUE . . .

As far as Iraq goes, people forget the real history all too quickly.  Saddam was a bad actor who had twice invaded his neighbors.  When he got spanked for it the second time, he signed an armistice agreeing to behave himself.  Violation of any one of the 14 stipulations in the armistice would be cause for America and its allies to renew the war.  Over the next 10 years, he violated all of them.  He refused to document destruction of his weapons caches.  He refused to cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors and ultimately booted them from the  country.  He rebuilt his military capacity.  He repeatedly fired on NATO aircraft in the "no fly" zone where he had agreed to let them operate.  He continued his genocide against the Kurds.  He contracted assassins to kill the former U.S. President who had humbled him.   And what did Bill "the dress stainer" Clinton do about it?  He lobbed a few missiles every now and then, and looked for another intern to diddle.  And while he was debating with special prosecutors about what the meaning of the word "is" is, the 9/11 hijackers slipped into our country and began training.
   Along comes Bush 43.  Six months into his Presidency, he faces the greatest crisis since Pearl Harbor.  His first action was to find those responsible and move against them in a real, meaningful way, refusing to take the easy path of "firing a $10 million dollar missile at a ten dollar tent and hitting a camel in the a$$," as he colorfully put it.  He destroyed the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and ran the Taliban out of the country.  Yes, they regrouped and counterattacked, but it wasn't a bad first move.  

The question was, what next?  True, Saddam was not behind 9/11.  Bush never claimed he was.  However, who was the consistently WORST actor in that part of the world?  Who had manufactured and used WMD in the past?  Who had the capacity and the personnel to do so again?  And who would take greater glee in putting a stick in the eye of the Great Satan?   Saddam was given numerous warnings. He was given the chance to flee into exile.  He was given the opportunity to come clean.  He refused them all.  On the eve of the U.S. invasion in '03, he was offering to provide Sarin gas shells to Hamas so they could start a jihad against Israel, in an effort to distract out attention.

  We had just endured the greatest terror attack in American history.  But a single 5 gallon bucket of Anthrax, dumped in the New York subway lines, could have killed 100,000 Americans in a week or less.  And there is ample evidence Saddam manufactured and toyed with Anthrax in the late 80's.  Going after Saddam, at that time, made sense.  And he was toppled in a week, and captured within nine months - on my birthday, Dec. 13, 2003.  Had it just been a matter of mopping up the Iraqi military and installing a more cooperative government, we might have been out of Iraq in 2005.   But Iran and Al Qaeda, normally mortal enemies coming from two different sects of Islam, united in an effort to defeat us, aided and abetted by liberal Democrats in the American Congress and media who were all too willing to see America lose another war, as long as they could blame a Republican for it.  So we faced a well-armed and fanatically determined insurgency abroad, and near crippling treasonous activity at home - much of it from PEOPLE WHO HAD VOTED FOR THE WAR, but lacked the guts to win it.

   50 years from now, when the partisan hatred has faded and the fog of war receded, I think Bush will receive due credit as a tough, determined, and courageous leader who stuck to his guns in order to win a war before passing the mantle of leadership to a party that was actively lobbying for America's disgraceful defeat and withdrawal.

Now back to Mr. Reagan, "Judge" - I never said he was perfect.  He was simply the best in my lifetime, a judgment that history is coming more and more to confirm.  The last poll of American historians put him 8th on the list, out of 44.  He made mistakes and had his flaws, but the fact is that millions of Europeans who lived under one of the most repressive and evil regimes in history now live in liberty thanks to his unflagging determination.  And a coutnry that was languishing in defeatism and despair was inspired to believe in itself again, and take its place of leadership in the world once more.   In the end, we are remembered for our finest moments, not our worst.  We are remembered for the better angels of our nature, not our private demons.  That is why Ronald Reagan is and will be remembered as a great man.

  FDR was a compulsive liar, an adulterer, a Machiavellian manipulator, and a cynical scoundrel at times.  He deliberately sacrificed the crew of the USS Panay in an attempt to bring the nation to war with Japan two years before Pearl Harbor.  But does anyone remember him for those things?  Of course not.  He is remembered as the inspiring leader whose soaring rhetoric led the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, the untiring experimenter whose New Deal gave the people hope, whether or not it did a thing to end the Depression, and as the unflagging war leader who would settle for nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the tyrants who started World War II.  AND RIGHTLY SO.  History is beginning to pass its judgement on Reagan already, "Judge", and despite the discretion your username implies, History has found you to be wrong.

Now, last of all, about the attacks on Bush - no, the Democrats didn't claim he wasn't legit because of his birth, although I'm sure they would have if he had been born under the same circumstances as our current President.    They did claim that he stole the election - which numerous recounts by many different news organizations have now found to be a false claim.  My source for that claim, by the way, is the Washington Post, not FOX News!

  The questions about Obama's birth center around the fact that his father was a foreign national and his mother an underage American girl, and the fact that he has never produced the "long form" birth certificate he should have received if he was born in Hawaii as he claims.  There is not a shred or scintilla of evidence that he was born in Africa, and all the circumstantial evidence points to his birth in Hawaii, just as he claims.  I think his refusal to provide the long form is a clever political ploy - as long as it is not available, then the "birther" movement will never quite die, and he will be able to paint all of his critics as fringe-dwelling nutjobs.  But there is a foreign-ness about Obama that a lot of Americans feel uncomfortable with - the many sealed records from his younger days, the overseas trips as a young man, his lifetime of associations with some very radical and unsavory characters.  This man is much further left than his soothing centrist rhetoric would lead you to believe.  And frankly, the more extreme criticisms you bring up - armed revolt, secession, et cetera . . . are hardly the opinon of most mainstream Americans.  They are either the products of the wing nuts that both parties do possess, or comments taken out of context by politicians who should have watched their mouths a bit better (such as our own Governor Perry, here in TX).

Your bashing of Haliburton is further example of your extremist views.  Capitalism does produce its occasional bad actors, but most of the criticisms of Haliburton you cite come from far left wing sources and are either exaggerated, fabricated, or at best, very selective in their information.  Haliburton hires thousands upon thousands of American workers, providing good pay and benefits, putting groceries on the table for many American families, and producing goods and services that people want and need.  How about you, Judge?  Do you produce anything that other people buy or use?  Do you put food on the table for thousands of families across the world every day?

  I love how you lefties will pile on every error, mistake, or misdeed that any private corporation commits, without ever proposing what you will replace American capitalism with once you are done destroying it.  Your rhetoric pretty much brands you as a socialist, if not a flat out Communist.  How well has that philosophy worked out for you?  How many people has Communism set free in the last century?  How many Communist governments respect human rights and dignity?  What was the final death toll for Communism in the last hundred years?  How many people did Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara murder?  Something along the line of 300 million, wasn't it?  More than have perished in all the religious wars in human history.  Go Communism!

Oh, I see Lester has posted!
As far as Bush's physical courage goes - No, U.S. Presidents don't lead troops in combat.  Not since 1864, anyway.  That's just the way our system works.  Yes, we lost 5,00 lives in Iraq.  But if Saddam had handed over some of his scraps of remainind WMD to Hizbollah or Al Qaeda, or any other group determined to strike us, how many innocent American civilians might have died?  The military personnel who were doing the dying supported their commander in chief - by 75% or so in the 2004 election, and they still voted Republican in 2008.  But it was Bush who insisted on returning to Washington on 9/11, against the advice of the CIA.  It was Bush who threw out the first pitch at the 2001 World Series in New York City, despite threats on his life, and hurled a perfect strike while wearing full Kevlar!  And it was Bush who flew into Iraq on Thanksgiving Day to be with the troops, landing at an airfield where U.S. planes had been shot down just days before.
He showed as much physical courage as any President in the last century.

INDY!  You're an apologist!!   :bluesad:

Yes, I have a neck problem that pinches nerves at times, especially when I'm sitting over a keyborad for a while. It causes my fingers to get stiff, numb and tingly. This makes it hard to type perfectly.

They're not bragging because they didn't have thr guts to tell the republicans "You lost the last election, not sit down, shut up and stop trying to keep us from passing the healthcare law before we have to physically kick you a--s-s to do it!"

The democrats tried playing by the rules with the republicans and had every bill they raised filibustered, every motion they made filibustered, etc. The republicans managed to gut the healthcare bill gutted on behalf of the helathare industry at the expense of the
public.

They should have used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster, but they didn't. In a reverse I'm sure the damn republicans would have done it without a second thought, like they do everything else.

You have my sympathies, and I retract the aforementioned comment.

However, you are still wrong.

Indiana,

judge death didn't bring up Halliburton, I did, and I'm not an extremist. I'm just a guy who served six years defending our country. Further, I am not a disgrace to my country nor my uniform for having my own mind. I believe that this and the last adminstration should be ashamed of its foriegn policy.

Yes, but this administration can still redeem itself.

The bush regime is condemned to be the worst period in american history unless, god forbid, the public is mindless enough to elect something like palin or gignrich.

I like it!!!

Yay, Flick for passing 1000!!!

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing that we had 8 worst years under Bush... Becuase it was the only thing that the free press kept saying day after day and soon people start believing into this brainwashing/propaganda...

Oh... the Bush lied and WMD issue was not even half the story, gee it wasnt even correct! Hello!!!! Saddam had the Burden of proof not Bush or the CIA. Does any actually read the UN sanctions? Does anybody remember the UN inspectors? Many of us dont because these facts dont get reported.

Although you are right the general public was so mindless and voted for Obama! Actually it was the free press that pushed Obama. Maybe the free press should start saying that Jumping off the Bridge is the good idea too.

Hezbollah  is part of the elected governmen of lebanon.  YOu want to go to war with lebanon? They attacked us in Beirut to drive us out of beirut.  Unlke al queda they are not trying to draw us into the middle east. I don't think anyone is worried about an attack from hezbollah in the US

AS far as what saddam might have given al queda??  saddam did no want war with the united states. Giving "wmd" to al queda would not have benefited his self preservation at all.

more to the point, terrorists don't need wmd. we saw that on 9/11.  and if they do want they would be much much more liekly to get it from pakistan who have nuclear warheads and are allied with the Taliban who are of course allied with Al queda.






Our enemy is terrorism done by stateless entities like al queda.  not arab nationalist dictator weirdos.

Besides one of the times we backed him! that's a pretty hypocritical.



He ultimately did cooperate, Bush turned him down and invaded anyway.


totally unproven.



Sure clinton was a too PC about going after terrorist but 9/11 happened under BUsh.  and as we all know he ignored repeated warnings because he just wasn't interested in the subject, like most subjects.


after ignoring daily briefings for 6 months yes...


getting bin laden .  making sure our ports and borders were safe. rounding up non secure nuclear material in eastern europe. extracting ourselves from the middle east so that we wouldn't have more blowback attacks on our civilians. 


He would have no way of getting it here. WE don't even have the technolgy to do what the neo cons claimed he could.

and saddam didn't attack us on 9/11. so anything he "may have" done is besides the point and pure paranoia.


he had no WMD and no connections to Al queda. It made no sense.






yeah the liberal democrats were out there with them in the streets.  :lookingup:  the PEOPLE, an entity you never seem to bring up the ones who pay for and fight the wars, were increasly dispproving about the war which they had been told would be a cakewalk and was the hunmane thing to do becoming  massively expensive and inhumane (abu graib, rising us and iraqi casualties).

"liberal democrats" didn't need to tell them anything.


anyway, as for al queda and iran: This is really the best argument against this war in this thread. You don't know what's going to happen so unless you have to do it to defend yourself you don't go.  Many prominent middle east experts lobbied against the war for the very reasons that it went so horribly.  ANyone who reads The Atlantic for example remembers "Blind into Baghdad" by james fallows, which basically predicted the insurgency and occupation. This was in late 2002. Pat Buchanan did too in The American Conservative and on MSNBC.


all the money we spent on the war is gone now.  It could have been used to pay down our debt.  to get us out of a recession.  We owe China as much as we've spent in Iraq.  and the interest on the debt grows and the debt grows


We are in a huge huge hole now.  All so we could got to war with a country that didn't want war with us.   


and of course, lets not forget the many families that have been destroyed (remember when republicans were pro family?)  by the long deployments, rampant alcoholism and ptsd related drug problems among veterans, horrible injuries and of course casualties.

Actually, the Kuwaitis caught, tried, and executed the assassins hired to kill Bush 41. They testified in court that Saddam paid them.

Saddam did offer to let the inspectors back in at the last possible moment, but then tried to attach conditions to their presence.

As far as Bush ignoring the warnings - that's been gone over again and again.  A president receives dozens of warnings of potential threats ever single day.  He has to decide what to pay attention to, and what to ignore.  It is true that a couple of FBI agents got it right and reported it to the higher ups.  But the reports got lost in the shuffle.  Stuff like that happens.  NONE OF US get to see what the President sees on a daily basis.  The administration blew the call, all right - but considering what a mishmash our Middle Eastern intelligence reporting was in, it's hardly surprising.  Unfortunate, but hardly surprising.

Hizbollah is the most well-organized and deadly terrorist organizations on earth. They won elections in Lebanon through violence, threats, and intimidation, after they had killed or run into exile about half the population of the country.  They killed our Marines in Beirut, who were there solely to protect the lives and safety of Lebanese civilians.  They bombed Khobar towers - where our soldiers were staying AT THE INVITATION of the Saudi government - in direct collusion with Iranian intelligence, according to former FBI Director Louis Freeh.  You want to know what I think?  We should have bombed Iran years ago.  They are the world's number one sponsor of terrorist attacks and one of the most evil regimes on earth.  If Tehran were a radioactive parking lot, I have a feeling some of those folks over there might be a little more hesitant about following the call to jihad!

Saddam did not want open war with the U.S., but he sure enough wanted us hurt and humbled, especially after the son of his old nemesis took office.  He was very convinced of his own cleverness and I'm sure would have been glad to give some third party the means to do us devastating harm.

As far as the money goes, Congress would find something else to spend it on.  They never give it back to the people, period.  I would rather see our tax money spent vanquishing real evil in the world than creating another entitlement program that will ultimately bankrupt the country and make the American people even more fat, lazy, apathetic, and dependent on that great government tit than they are already.

To sum it up, the war in Iraq was justifiable, right, and winnable.  The left may not have gone and joined the enemy, but they sure as heck helped him out in the propaganda war, doing all they could to embarass, discredit, and humiliate our commander in chief during the middle of a war. 

Had any American pulled that crap in World War II, the people would have stoned him in the streets if the President didn't place him in protective custody first!

Kinda like the right is doing now against Obama. The same ones calling everyone Un-American who had the audacity to question or criticize Bush are now among the loudest in doing the same exact thing to Obama.

So what if Saddam tried to have the elected bush killed? So what?

America tried many times to assassinate fidel castro because the government didn't like him.

God knows how many foreign leaders, especially in south  and central america, have been assassinated by CIA ops or CIA supported hitmen.

So what if saddam tried to off the elected bush? As many foreign leaders as america's killed or tried to have killed it would have just been a quantum of karma.

Doesn't that bible conservatives like to wave around so much have some things to say about reaping what you sew?

You really hate this country, don't you, Judge?
You probably think the world would be better off without America.

3mn - I only oppose Obama's war policies when I see him trying to wimp out.

Is it wrong to "embarass, discredit, and humiliate our commander in chief during the middle of a war"? If Bush, yes. If Obama, apparently, no. Those that criticized and complained about Bush also didn't like his war policies. You cant have it both ways. Either its wrong to criticize the commander and chief during war or its not.   

The only time it is ever wrong to question the commander-in-chief is when serving in a capacity where he is in your chain of command, having taken on oath. When I served, it was toward the end of Clinton's term and during the first four years of Bush's. I didn't care for either of them, but I kept my mouth shut because I was serving in the military and took that committment very seriously, as both were at the top of my chain of command. Personally I was a little offended when Bush went on board the USS Enterprise, dressed in a Navy flight suit, trying to rally the troops. Just because you served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam doesn't make you fit to wear that uniform, buddy. I found it personally a bit insulting. However, I kept my mouth shut, and in fact encouraged anyone I heard say anything negatively about it (and there were) to remember their service.

Now that I am out of the military and a full-blown civilian, I reserve my God-given constitutional right to question the commander-in-chief anytime I feel like it, and about any subject I feel like. Not being able to question our elected officials is something for systems of communism and fascism and socialism, not ours. Our elected officials are our servants. Hell, I served, and when I did I had the honor to treat any U.S. citizen who was anti-military or who protested the military or U.S. miltary action with the same respect as those who didn't.

This is not an agreement in any way, shape, or form with 3nmkid's or judge death's views about socialism, indiana, just this horrid notion that it's not okay to question to criticize the president about his foriegn policy. He serves us, not the other way around. 

the saudi government isn't elected.  They are a tyrannical dictatorship. The whole reason we are there protecting them is that there own people hate them so much they can't have a real army.  The PEOPLE of saudi arabia didn't want us there and we knew it.  



lol Hezbollah is very popular in lebanon and throughout the shia cresecent. There are christians in hezbollah too

(http://www.tlaxcala.es/images/gal_444.jpg)





yep



indeed.



lol.  so a country that has some semblence of democracy with elections , normal,except for mandatory head scarf, cities, and 20,000 jews!  should be bombed but countries like egypt and saudi arabia that are unabashed tryannies where women have no rights and all manners of anti semeitsm and anti western dogma are repeated in the schools and terrifying mosques as pure fact are okay.  got it.



I don't see what this has to do with me or any americans. a dumb rivalry between two annoying politicians??  My tax dolalrs shuld go to furthering this boring intrique?  they can both get bent, I have s**t to do.



They couldn't have just gone as far into debt as we are now.  the reason we are in debt is because the war costs escalate and you can't cut a war.  In general you are right though.



I'd rather see americans fat than dead or brain damaged or on drugs from ptsd. wouldn't you?

more obviously: two wrongs don't make a right.  the entitlement programs are wrong and the wars are wrong.  




lol.  yeah and I could beat up anyone with what I learned in my karate class I took when I was a kid if they just stood still!

at any rate you are dodging culpablity for the disaster left and right and lashing out at people who were right and defending people who were wrong.  This isn't the american way and it's why no one pays people who think like this much credence in 2010.




that's silly.  There were tons of protests during gulf war 1 and we still won that.  There were loud criticisms of Clinton during Bosnia, mainly from the right and we didn't lose one soldier there.  Iraq was disaster because it was a horrible idea which was them horrible mismanaged.





because people believed in ww2.  whose point are you trying to make here?

You dont have any idea what my view on socialism is. None.

You sure seem awfully fond if Iran, Lester.  The country has been ruled by religious mullas with an iron fist for over 25 years.  Many of the people are sick of it and would run them out of the country if they could.  But we saw what a wonderful, democratic government Iran has last year when Ahmedinijad's goons basically negated the result of an election and gunned people down in the streets for voting against them.  That's real democratic, there, Les!

Hizbollah is a murderous terrorist organization.  I don't care who their membership is; they are all about slaughtering anyone who stands in the way of global jihad.  I refuse to believe that any true Christian would ever join such a group.

As for the Saudis - technically, they are a monarchy rather than a dictatorship, but you are right that they are unelected.  The general population of Saudi Arabia is one of the most radicalized in the Middle East, due to the death grip the Wahabis have had on their education system for the last 200 years.  If they elected a government, bin Laden or one of  his ilk would probably be their first choice.  Have you ever read the CRAP they put in their history books?

As far as my comments about the criticisms of Bush - when political leaders in our country make stupid and false comments about the war and the enemy uses them in his propaganda that same day, you are crossing the line from legitimate dissent into verbally "aiding and comforting" the enemy.  They certainly got a lot of propaganda milage out of the Democrats.  Criticizing the commander in chief in such a way that it weakens our country and strengthens our enemies is wrong, no matter who is in office.

Flick, I may not agree with you, but I respect YOUR criticisms more than anyone else's in this thread.  You've been there, worn the uniform, and served with pride, as I did years and years ago.  I thank and honor you for your service to this country.'

gotta go for the moment.  This is a stimulating discussion.

I am fond of Iran. it's a beautiful country.   


do those girls look like jihadists to you?


so you are happy with them being ruled by tyrants they hate and don't WANT them to have democracy. and you wonder why people hate us!

We do this in Egypt too and what a shock this is where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. None of them came from iran or iraq.


who defines what "in such a way" means??  do we monitor the internet?  Do we arrest people on badmovies.org threads in 2004 who say "man, it seems like this war wasn't as simple as they told us it was gonna be?"

How about this: don't start elective wars and you won't have to worry about being undermined by your opponents or the dreaded public.

look Iraq was a fiasco. You can whine and complain and blame everyone else but it failed and because of the misguided bravado of folks like yourself and George Bush we are in a deep deep hole.  bringing these tedious arguments up again is really adding insult to injury. 

IT HASN'T FAILED!
The war in Iraq was a success, we've just become so indifferent as a people we no longer recognize a victory when we win one.  That's what drives me nuts!  We got rid of one of the most brutal dictators in modern history, fought off a largely foreign-backed insurgency and inflicted crippling casualties on its leadership.  We completely destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq.  And, despite all the whining and naysaying, we have a democratically elected government in place there that is (for the MIddle East, at least) reasonably moderate and friendly to our ineterests.  It ain't a perfect win, but it's a win.  Will there always be some violence in Iraq?  Of course.  It's a Muslim, Arabic country, and that is a hot-blooded and volatile combination, wherever you put them.  But the government is working out its kinks, and the future of Iraq is brighter now than it has been since World War II.  That is a significant victory.

As far as the Saudis go - the royal family is corrupt and autocratic, but they are more Westernized and reasonable than the population at large.  They did recognize, in the wake of 9/11, that they had made a deal with the devil by entrusting the nation's education to Wahabi clerics and are trying to gradually de-radicalize their population by deporting or jailing the worst promoters of jihad and replacing them with more moderate leaders.  It will be several generations, however, until the Saudi people can be deprogrammed from the hate that is currently fed to them with their mother's milk.  In the meantime, for all their flaws, the royal family are the best bet we've got.  I'd love to ignore them altogether, but the fact is they have a huge percentage of the world's oil, and until we get hydrogen powered vehicles online and affordable, we need them.

Now, as for your Hizbollah poster children - they look like propaganda models.  No more and no less.

Lester, I actually like you.  I understand the pacifism that drives you and I've learned enough about you to know some of why you feel the way you do.  But pacifism, ultimately, means letting the bad guys win because you don't find much of anything worth fighting for.  It's a philosophy I just can't buy into.  What I respect about you is the tone of your debate.  You and I can chase this dog around the tree into the next decade and never agree, but we're generally going to respect each other and get along otherwise.  I wish some people could learn to disagree without being unpleasant about it.

we completely created al queda in iraq!



 by YOU in this thread



lol. (http://www.japanfocus.org/data/-export-home-yaleglobal-repository--1158681630058_iraq-iran1.jpg)




if you have to tell poeple it's a victory, it ain't a victory. this thing was supposed to be over in a month and the iraqi oil was going to pay for it. That we are leaving slightly less humiliated than we could have doesn't mean it wasn't a level 10 fiasco.



yes, again you are stating your opposition to democracy and support for dictatorship in saudi arabia. duly noted. freedom for me but not for thee 



so no democracy for you saudi arabia!

meanwhile, oil is fungible. we only get like 22% of our oil from the middle east anyway.  whoever the saudis elected would have to sell it to us the same way the saudi royals do. they can't eat it and the people need the revenue to live. same as iran.



??? propaganda models???  those are people at a hezbollah rally circa 06. propaganda models.  okay prove to me they are not what they appear to be and the guy who wrote the article is lying and everything I know about lebanon is wrong. sheesh

yeah we are going to pay you some money to stand near these random people. wear these shirts. 

Hezbollah is hugely popular in southern lebanon. they win elections and they don't suicide bomb people outside polling places who don't vote for them. Hamas didn't twist anyones arm to vote them in in palestine either.



I'm not a pacifist. I believe in civil disobediance and certainly would have supported the revolutionary war. If the patriot act starts clamping down on freedom of speech you will see how pacifistic I am.

going to war for no good reason is cowardly not brave. If would have much been harder for Bush to say no to war in iraq than it was to go along with it.  It required no fortitude on his part to allow the military industrial complex to have it's way. the republicans who opposed clintons invasions in somalia and bosnia weren't doves.


so try and paint war opponents as wimpy or cynical is silly, particularly if the one who is making the charge could apparently not be bothered to suit up and fight in the discussed war that is of apparently such great importance to humanity. 


 

Actually, I did try to join the Army Reserves when we went into Iraq.  I was told I was too old and too fat.

Hurt my feelings.

This is very true.

Saddam hussein was a b-st-rd. but he was a secular b-st-rd that looked upon radical islam as a threat to his secular power. Sure, he player good muslim, put on his sheet, bowed to mecca when the cameras were rolling but basically he was a secularist only concerned with secular power. He'd have had al-queda members killed on sight in iraq along with anyone suspected of being a radical muslim.

I'm sure hussein cheered on 911, given the way america attacked him for attempting to take over the family owned oil corporation known as kuwait. but that was likely the extent of his involvement.

Duhbya attacked irag to turn it into a corporate paradise thru  the shock doctrine ( http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book ) and I'm glad that the attempt to turn iraq into a corporate state failed.

For those who like to toss nazi comparisions around, the bush regime used hermann goering's tactics to get america into war: 

"Göring spoke about war and extreme nationalism to Captain Gilbert, as recorded in Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary:

    Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Now that we've destroyed hussein's regime, we've opened the door to radical islam in iraq, and guess what country is right across the persian gulf from iraq? Iran! The heart of radical islam.
 
Way to go, DUHbya.

BTW, the money we've given to big biz under the cover of the invasion, conquest, occupation and attempted corporatization of iraq could have funded healthcare for every american several times over.

I will agree with you on one point - Saddam was a secularist.  However, he was more than willing to use jihadists when it suited his purpose.

What the 9/11 Commission determined was that there were no COLLABORATIVE ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  The full report did document ongoing, if tenuous, communications between them.  Zarqawi fled to Iraq for treatment after being wounded in Afghanistan and stayed there, apparently with the knowledge and permission of Saddam's government.

Bush's strategy was, in a way, much more subtle than many give him credit for.  By taking down Saddam and turning Iraq into a major theater in the war on terror, which it would have become eventually in any case, he duped Al Qaeda into spending vast resources there - bringing in thousands of men and spending millions of dollars in a place where we could effectively bring force to bear and grind them to hamburger.  And all that money and effort they spent in their failed jihad in Iraq was money and effort that did NOT go into another, devastating terror attack on American soil. 

I don't need to read some leftist screed against capitalism to get the gist of your statement - you hoped your country would lose a war.  That is one of the most despicable things I believe I have ever read.  CORPORATE STATE?  What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Just more Marxist rhetoric.

As for "opening the door to radical Islam," it was already there.  Every country in the Middle East has to face this choice at some point.  The very most that could be said for Saddam was that he was delaying the choice Iraq must now make.  But the radicals, funded by the Iranians, overplayed their hand.  They butchered so many Iraqi civilians that most Iraqis want nothing to do with them.  Yes, the Iraqi government has diplomatic relations with Iran, as Lester's photo proves.  You do kind of have to talk with your neighbors occasionally.  But if you think the Iraqis have any love for the country that spent millions, if not billions, of dollars fomenting civil war and jihad to the tune of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, I think you are firmly mistaken.

And, of course, here goes the Bush/Hitler comparison.  You libs just can't resist it, can you?  And you DARE gripe about Republicans being hatemongers!

OK, we have flogged this dead horse into oblivion now.  Shall we continue, or shall we move this over to the newly established political debate thread . . . especially since we stopped talking about FOX News about three pages ago?

Yes, I hope the bush plan to convert iraq into a new haven for corporations fails. I hope america actually does lose the war in iraq because the war was wrong and america should lose to teach the people a lesson about letting bad leaders drag us into unjust wars.

I do not practice the motto of "My country right or wrong" and when it does wrong I hope it suffers some consequence that makes the public realize it was wrong and educates them to not elect or follow leaders that make those kind of decisions.

America has suffered badly due to the bush regime, as is just because it was stupid enough to elect him in 2004.  The sad thing is the people of iraq didn't elect bush and have suffered terribly during their "liberation" and the people in america who voted against bush also suffered when they didn't deserve to.

A corporate state is when representative democracy is subverted so that it is no longer the will of the people directing policy, but the interests of corporations through lobbying which is exactly what is happening in America, Canada, basically everywhere. Corporate lobbyists are the ones pulling the strings behind almost every state apparatus in the world, working to create business friendly governments. Indy you say people suckle of the teat of big government but really it is business that suckles the most from that teat, looking to get tax breaks so they don't have to pay for their fair share in the maintenance of society, like fixing all the environmental, social and economic problems that these corporations cause. They don't want to pay for schools as then people would start to think critically about the terrible system that capitalism is.

What the heck is wrong with you? You actually hope that we lose this war, you hope that the lives lost were all for nothing? You should be supporting this war because we are in it and its best that we win it. You act like Rush Limbaugh saying how much he wants Obama to fail. I don't want Obama to fail I want him to do good and keep this country going, because if Obama sucks it with his policies then we all are going to be hurting.

Wars never go as planned and we have showed remarkable restraint in Iraq and Afganistan. Its not like the days of WW2 when we would just carpet bomb a whole city, or napalm whole forests like in vietnam. The amount of death in this war (while tragic) is a drop in the bucket compared to past wars. Heck, I think if we did just go back to old war tactics this could have been done in a year, we instead used newer tactics based on using intelligence and smart bombs to cut down on collateral damage.

Stop being a loud mouth leftist and use some rational. I don't care if your politics are different than mine, but you need to grow up and stop with the "Bush Regime" and anti American sentiment that has infected the democratic party.

I don't want america to win this war. I want America to suffer defeat and to learn from the lesson so we don't engage in another unjust war we have no right to wage.

The war in afghanistan was justified as the attacks on 911 originated there. The invasion and occupation of iraq was not justified and america should lose to punish it for  waging an unjust war.

The war in Iraq is over for us.  None of my fellow Marines are going to Iraq.  We are all going to Afghanistan.  The people being killed by IED attacks are Iraqi security forces and civilians, not Americans.  If anybody loses the Iraq war at this point, it is the Iraq citizenry.  I hope that the violence in Iraq fades away and its citizens can live in peace.

that's your response??  What about my  other points?  sorry, you attempting to join the reserves  has very little to do with this dialogue.  I'm not gonna waste my time haveing a one sided debate.  




if there had been no war there would have been no deaths.  tell the families of those who died it's a drop in the bucket.  man, talk about lack of perspective.

and speaking of perspective, I am loathe to bring up our local fighting hero but had Andrew been killed or badly hurt we would not be having this discussion because this forum likely wouldn't be here. and we would be losing a great friend

I think I understand a bit about why things are getting so heated around here lately. The following points are not intended to be taken as left or right, conservative or liberal, but I won't be a bit surprised if somebody finds a way to apply a slant to it:

1. The general political climate (that's a given).

2. It's election time.

3. Badmovies.org is a surprisingly diverse melting pot. I expected that, but not to the extent that I've witnessed over the past couple of weeks. I'm sorry for the cheesy analogy, but you can always tell how diverse a melting pot is when you bring it to a boil and you get this much foam. I think that may be one of the biggest factors as to why people just can't stop posting. They can go to any number of forums intended for political debate and they are, almost without exception, going to lean to the left or the right already, whereas here one can express oneself, or pontificate, and get a wider array of responses, and, I believe, be able to reach people because there is a shared common interest.

All the threads are bleeding into each other, but I like the post by somebody in one of them that noted the same thing about the diversity present. No matter how much we may like to see things as black and white, left and right, conservative and liberal, the world ain't that way. If it were then why does the Democratic and Republican parties throw so much mud at each other in an effort to get the vote of that "undecided" portion of the population. More to the point, why is there even more mud slinging within the parties themselves when deciding who to nominate for a presidential candidate? It ain't a black and white world, we just try to make it that way. It's not even a gray world. It's full of color.

As far as politics go, if you're looking at the political spectrum as a horizontal line that goes to the left and to the right, you are horribly limited in your outlook. It's actually more like a tree, albeit with a left and right side. If you look at the socialism branch, you will see different versions, including, but not limited to, planned economy, state-directed economy, and market socialism, the latter being more and more common, especially in Europe. If you at the capitalism branch, you will see anarcho-capitalism (something I've been accused of but which is not true), laissez-faire, and corporatist capitalism.

Okay, so now on to personal beliefs that you can all bash me on at will.

The U.S. has existed throught much of its history as a mixed economy that favors capitalism. Some government control that does not reflect true laissez-faire capitalism has always existed. Over the decades, small amounts of socialist elements have found their way into the paradigm. Some things have been fully accepted into the American landscape, even by many who oppose socialism. Social Security is a good example of a socialist program that not too many people are ready to get rid of, but there are some. Another that many people don't think about are fire and emergency services, something that is certainly not essential to the constitution. As we move along, more socialism is being introduced. Some people think that's a good thing, and tend to point out the failures of capitalism as their justification. Some are very resistant, pointing out the good things that capitalism has accomplished and brought to the world. Both are true to some extent. I believe, after careful consideration and lots of study, that capitalism is the best economic system for humanity, despite some inherent flaws. I believe socialism has some value, and I believe that it can work and has worked, but tends to work best in smaller, more homongeneous countries, and where it works, it works well, but the culture and the conditions have to be right for it. So, while I don't think socialism is right for America, I don't think it is evil or immoral, and in fact I think it has nothing but the best in mind for society, but because it relies so much on government control of resources, very subject to corruption.

So, me, I'm a believer in laissez-faire capitalism. It is the basis of what our early economic system was built on, and, despite having made some mistakes along the way, has also been responsible for raising the standard of living to what it is today. In fact, many of the bad movies we love today would never have been possible in a more restrictive economy. I love it mainly because I believe it is what's best for a society of such diversity, where there is not enough cultural unity to allow socialism to work. Capitalism, despite the mistakes it is bound to make, is more mutable, more fluid, to changing conditions, social make-up, and markets, which is exactly why I think it is best for America. Unfortunately, what we have developed into in the U.S. is entering into corporatsm, something that I actually do find insidious and will spell our downfall, because corporatism does not act in the interest of the people, and, as we can see, has far too intimate a relationship with the government. This is not capitalism, although it often gets labeled as such. It is where we are, and any time you see an advocate of socialism in the U.S., you will undoubtedly see corporatist America as an example of how capitalism doesn't work. This is understandable, because we, as a nation, despite being a very mixed economy, have traditionally identified as capitalist. Government control of the economy is not a part of capitalism, and so the current landscape of things like interest rates controlled the federal reserve, corporatist lobbies having heavy influence over policy, these are the results of a mixed economy, not laissez-faire capitalism, which is why it is very easy to fall into the trap of pointing the finger at socialism, pointing the finger at capitalism, when it has been the combination of the two that has led to what we have now.

 

Originally I tried to keep my political views to myself, but when the news keep pushing Bush Lied BS and saying "This is a recession for nearly 6 or maybe Bush's whole term" and my friends were believing that crap I needed to start talking about it.

The fact is...

1, Saddam Hussein has the burden of proof and the UN voted for the Iraq invasion.

2, The economy didn't get bad until the democrats controlled the house... 2007/2008.

3, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the housing crash... yet nobody is going to jail.


Hey, I want to make sure people dont forget the great work that the democrates did... the importance of pushing the Healthcare bill without spending time READING IT or GIVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TIME TO READ IT. This is HISTORIC, so I want to make sure those GREAT DEMOCRATES get what's comming to them.


Agree... :)

no they didn't. the security council voted to force saddam to comply and he did, thats when hanz blix and those guys went in. the war, as liberals often told us, was actually illegal under the UN charter.

more to the point, who cares what the UN says? 

we don't invade countries because we have made the case to someone that we can. We do it because we have to.  and we didn't with iraq.

If we had gotten the UN to go along with it that wouldn't have made it just or less pointless.


the economy went south because of the housing crash.  this had nothing to do with the incoming democrats in 2006.  the economy was "good" because it was in a ridiculous bubble that soon came crashing down.


they were part of the reason.  the underlying reason was the push for home ownership from both parties, I remember distinctly Cheney and Bush at the GOP convention in 04 talking about how black home ownership was at an all time high. More specifically was alan greenspan, who served under several adminstrations D and R,  left the interest rates too low for too long after the internet bubble.

the money he injected into the economy led to the malinvestment in housing. thats what happens when too much money floods the system.

so the housing crisis was caused by the combined forces of both parties in washington intervening in the housing market for decades and most overtly by Greenspan and his easy money policy.

This all just sounds like political defeatism to me.  I can't succeed because of those evil people behind the shadows of government!  We're all doomed!  Nothing matters because everything is out to get me!  We're all screwed no matter what!  And so on.  

That's an excellent point, and far too overlooked IMO. This is the danger of the Fed controlling the interest rates. In a laissez-faire system, the interest rate is controlled organically by the market itself, no government intervention at all. It's not a perfect system, but it does tend to self-regulate. The Fed tends to set interest rates in the exact opposite of what it should. They'll set interest rates low to encourage investment, like they're doing now to encourage a housing rebound. Instead, more of the same bad investing and people trying to buy houses that shouldn't is still being encouraged. In an organic market-controlled system, the interest rates tend to self-regulate, which means they will be high during economic downturns, and low during booms. Doing the opposite of this does just as you have pointed out, creates too much easy money and bad investments in things that will eventually destroy our economy. You're seeing this in action now. The purpose of higher interest rates during economic downturns is that banks are less apt to lend money, which is natural, and which also encourages more viable, less risky investments, which naturally causes a healthier economy. Lower interest rates during an economic boom is a natural response from banks, being more liberal with their lending and investments, which they can afford to do, and take more risks. The result of this is that, if the risks pay off, the boom continue, and if they don't, the economy may start taking a downturn again. However, the fluctuations will be less catastrophic than they are under the current way of doing things, and markets have much more equilibrium.

The current economic woes are not the failure of capitalism, but of administrations, whether Democrat or Republican, trying to artificially create economic booms to further the notion that they know how to fix the economy. Sadly, people of partisan inclinations buy into the hype, thinking that their party can fix the economy. No they can't, because capitalism doesn't need to be fixed, by Dems or Reps. It needs to be left alone to correct itself, and the longer we keep f**king with it, the longer it will take for that to happen.

The point is… the act of was agreed upon by other countries… Not just the United States.



Therefore the democrats controlled the economy since 2006… Not republicans or Bush.


As I told Flick… Good intentions never, never outweighs evil.

Meaning: you could have 1,000 people with good intentions and all you need is 1 person to figure how to make it work for their own selfish reasons…

no the other countries did not go along with the iraq war.  it was in fact, an illegal war. not that anyone gives much credence to what the UN calls illegal.  Saddam certainly didn't. The israelis have had dozens of resolutions against them and no one expects them to give a crap. 

colin powell flopped at the UN and they never even had the vote because if they did they would have lost. 



no. thats not how the economy works. the housing bubble , which was inevitably going to burst formed sometime after 9/11. 

the CURRENT malaise is indeed the fault of obama and the dem congress. They have had ample time to reverse the policies of bailouts and soforth and have not.

It is not at all accurate to say that they caused the housing crisis because the bubble burst after they were sworn in.


the "good intentions" were our attempt to liberate iraq. the read to hell is paved with good intentions.  we had good intentions and we led into hell. the insurgency was hell for most of the last decade.

Oh, I hope that too. The iraqi citizens have suffered enough, first from saddam hussein's regime, then the effects of america's attack on iraq, then from hussein's regime AND the effects of an embargo that did nothing to hussein but made the people suffer and made hussein's rule more despotic as he had to crush dissent caused by the suffering od the embargo, then by the bush regime's invasion, conquest and occupation of iraq and the disaster it brought.

The sad thing is that as far as we can tell today, civilization on earth as we know it BEGAN in the iraq area, in mesopotamia, babylon, etc. Now they linger in a netherworld of ancient religious doctrine and modern technological culutre, having the worst of each world and the best of neither.

The iraq people deserve a break, I just don't see how they can get one with islamofascists jonesing to swoop into the vacuum bush created and corporations seeking to turn iraq into a corporate slave state.

And you can not even stop using the political language long enough to pause for a prayer that they live in peace.  You haven't walked their ground and you haven't seen what they have seen.  You don't feel for them; they are merely an avenue that you use to justify your agenda.

I wish the people of Iraq peace.

HUGE virtual karma to Andrew!!  Well said, sir!

"Corporate slave state?"   Judge, are you a Marxist?

Baloney.

I wish the people of iraq good breaks, they deserve them. I don't just make a blanket wish for peace for them as peace can be under a dictatorship, I wish them better times than they've had since hussein brought so much trouble on them with the invasion of kuwait. The fact is  they've been the victim of international power plays ever since.

BTW, I criticize president clinton for not lifting the embargo bush the elected put in place that only hurt the people.

I just don't see how things can get better for them given the realities of the situation.

its not left wing to criticize corporations.  many of them are joined at the hip with the state. Halliburtons profits come from taxpayer dollars. capitalism and corporatism are not the same thing.  this is also why it's unfair when leftists call wars "capitalist"

Finally, someone who recognizes the difference between capitalism and corporatism. You just made my day. Karma.

Corporatism is what's happening in the US and everywhere else thanks to the fundamentalist free- market ideology Neo-Liberalism, which is really just class war under another name. Privatizing everything takes money from the lower classes, not from the top .1% mind you, concentrating it in the private hands of these few global elites, leaving an easily exploitable under class. But that's just my opinion  :twirl: though there is plenty of evidence. This is just one good scholarly paper about what they term winner-take-all politics.

http://pas.sagepub.com/content/38/2/152.full.pdf

I disagree. corporatism isn't fundamentalist free markets, it's markets dominated by those with state access who can lobby for laws favoring them over their competition.  the last thing coporations want is competition, they are actually  like marxists in this respect

So maybe Taco Bell could win the fastfood wars by forcing McDonalds and Burger King to overcharge their prices based upon what seems healthy eating... It seems we are moving more towards Demolition Man (1993) every day... now if I could figure how to use the 3 sea shells...

That is what I don't understand  about Neo-Liberalism which is fundamentalist free-marketism, but yet they are using the state apparatus to impose an ideology that creates such gross inequalities? They don't actually want a free market system in my opinion, it is class war

well again, if they want state intervention it cannot fairly be called fundamentalist free market