| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman takes on the Bush administration's
war of attrition against all things verifiable: "[L]ast week the [Republican National] committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares. Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention - and crucial resources - from fighting terrorism to other projects. What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists? The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again - without saying anything falsifiable - that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror." |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ... In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman takes on the Bush administration's war of attrition against all things verifiable: THE NEW YORK TIMES! Who gives a **** what the offical parer of the Democrat party says. Their motto: We make it up. "[L]ast week the [Republican National] committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares. Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. All of the naive 9 have said pretty much that very thing. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention - and crucial resources - from fighting terrorism to other projects. See, right there a bald faced lie. What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Fine, except that the focus is still the same. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. Look for Osama to be dead or in custody before the election. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists? It would seem so to Al Qaeda and the Iraqi terrorists. They love to hear this kind of BS. The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again - without saying anything falsifiable - that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. And there may well be. There is definitely a link to Nin Laden and Sadaam. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, No, it's just different than originally anticipated. We're still kicking their asses and the terrorists are losing. BTW, you did read we captured the guy who planned one of the attacks, right? this claim is suddenly making the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror." The critics are mostly democrat politicians who voted for Bush to go ahead and fight the war in the first place. They are ****ed because he gets political capital from doing it, plus they can't get any traction in their campaigns. Hell, Kwerry has to wait for Dean to give an opinion so he makes sure he agrees with it. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ... In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman........ ....... yada, yada, yada.......But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror."....... .......almost all of them are. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ...
In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman takes on the Bush administration's war of attrition against all things verifiable: You mean Paul Krugman the virulent anti-semite? You mean the Paul Krugman who pocketed $50,000 as a consultant to Enron yet admitted he "did nothing" to earn it? You mean the Paul Krugman whose UK edition of his book The Great Unraveling features a picture of VP Cheney with a Hitlerian oil mustache? You mean the Paul Krugman who writes for the NEW YORK "all the news that's fit to make up" TIMES? THAT Paul Krugman? Wow, he's sure credible... Why don't you just quota Al Jezeera? "[L]ast week the [Republican National] committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares. Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention - and crucial resources - from fighting terrorism to other projects. What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists? The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again - without saying anything falsifiable - that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror." |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ... In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman takes on the Bush administration's war of attrition against all things verifiable: "[L]ast week the [Republican National] committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares. Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention - and crucial resources - from fighting terrorism to other projects. What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists? The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again - without saying anything falsifiable - that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror." Krugman is often given a serious "Fisking", what follows is from Powerline: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005213.php The column by Paul Krugman is titled "The Uncivil War." In it, he indicts Republicans for being "uncivil." Exhibit A is the current Republican television ad, which supports President Bush against his critics in the mildest possible terms. The ad's offending language--"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists"--is denounced by Krugman as "as hateful as they come." Well, not really. Apparently Krugman has forgotten his last 300 columns. Those columns, consisting of little other than vituperation directed against the Bush administration, actually are "as hateful as they come." Not to mention Krugman's latest book, with its U.K. cover depicting Bush as Frankenstein's monster and Vice-President Cheney as Hitler. That is, in fact, "as hateful as they come." Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. As usual, there is little of substance in Krugman's diatribe, but he does make a pass at formulating an argument: "What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting." As always with Krugman, bare assertion replaces evidence. Let's parse his claims briefly. He alleges that Special Forces, drone aircraft and translators were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When, exactly? Kabul was liberated in November 2001, and the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, nearly a year and a half later. Does Krugman really mean to suggest that it would have been necessary or appropriate to keep all of the troops involved in the Afghan war there for an additional year and a half? To what end? But what follows is worse. Krugman asserts--as always, with no factual support whatever--that the purported shifting of resources to Iraq "probably allowed al Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden to get away..." This is patently ridiculous. If bin Laden actually escaped, which is still in doubt, it was in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Tora Bora, which took place in early December 2001. At that time, whatever troops (and Predator drones and translators) had ever been committed to Afghanistan were still there. The suggestion that bin Laden escaped because they had been moved to Iraq is ludicrous. The Iraq invasion was still fifteen months away. Krugman has become a punching bag; he entered Chomskyville long ago. The only thing that distinguishes him from Chomsky and other lefty loonies is that Krugman has a twice-weekly column in the New York Times. Why? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:
Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
SockY said: Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. Chuck Heston was a very bad actor. His politics are skunk spray. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
Mr. Middius said:
SockY said: Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. Chuck Heston was a very bad actor. His politics are skunk spray. I sat down and watched "Ben-Hur" a few weeks ago, the first time in a very long time. I was amazed at how bad it was. Every set looked like it had been painted ten minutes before the cameras started rolling. And Heston, who won his Oscar for this, was stiff and corny through the whole thing. This turkey won more Oscars than any other film until Titanic tied it almost forty years later. And "Some Like It Hot," which came out the same year, wasn't even nominated for Best Picture. Boon |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
George M. Middius wrote in message . ..
SockY said: Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. Chuck Heston was a very bad actor. His politics are skunk spray. Don't like the second amendment, eh Georgetta? What the hell, it's only the US Constituiton. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:39:55 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. I agree when it comes to O'Rourke. Doesn't keep him from being hilarious. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
dave weil said to Snarling Sockpuppet: What the hell, it's only the US Constituiton. Yes, that's true. Coincidentally, John "Holier than Thou" Ashcroft will be remembered for his various assaults on the First Amendment, more than any AG since Mitchell. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... dave weil said to Snarling Sockpuppet: What the hell, it's only the US Constituiton. Yes, that's true. Coincidentally, John "Holier than Thou" Ashcroft will be remembered for his various assaults on the First Amendment, more than any AG since Mitchell. It depends upon which First Amendment right you are talking about. I assume you are talking about free speech, and I agree with you on that one. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
SockY said: Coincidentally, John "Holier than Thou" Ashcroft will be remembered for his various assaults on the First Amendment, more than any AG since Mitchell. It depends upon which First Amendment right you are talking about. I assume you are talking about free speech, and I agree with you on that one. Also assembly and religion. But he does love guns. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... SockY said: Coincidentally, John "Holier than Thou" Ashcroft will be remembered for his various assaults on the First Amendment, more than any AG since Mitchell. It depends upon which First Amendment right you are talking about. I assume you are talking about free speech, and I agree with you on that one. Also assembly and religion. He hasn't assaulted assembly 'yet', that I know of, but I wouldn't put it past him. He hasn't assaulted freedon of religioin, but certainly he has assaulted the establishment clause. Guns are the second amendment, and he is protecting that one. He also has interests in protecting part of the 5th Amendment regarding just compensation But he does love guns. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
Sandman wrote:
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. I approve that ! |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. And you are also known to everyone as a consistent liar. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. Pretend? I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat. Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either party. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. Pretend? I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat. Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either party. IMO, one of the sad things about the current Democrat party is that they claim to be pro-choice but let someone who happens to be pro life want some time to speak at their convention and you will not see them. As to fiscal policy, they have no desire to do what works for the country, only what works at getting votes, namely more handouts of other people's money. I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. When he gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues to grow government the way he has been, or if he will become more conservative. If he gets a veto proof Senate as I think he's likely to, it might be either very good or very scary. Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade, although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from power in the future. For fiscal policy, I take a real conservative approach over a liberal one every time. I can rememember when they were talking about getting rid of the DOE, The Education Department, and the EPA. As far as I'm concerned they could go and the country wouldn't suffer a bit. Nothing they do that can't be handled by the states. I will now be getting ready for the torrent of flames and ad hominem attacks soon to follow. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. Pretend? I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat. Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either party. IMO, one of the sad things about the current Democrat party is that they claim to be pro-choice but let someone who happens to be pro life want some time to speak at their convention and you will not see them. Yeah, but it cuts the opposite way for the Reps. Just a week or two ago, there was a big venting against Specter for being pro life. They siad he shouldn't be running the Judiciary commitee because of that. As to fiscal policy, they have no desire to do what works for the country, only what works at getting votes, namely more handouts of other people's money. Mostly, yes, but from time to time, the rep's do that with subsidies and tax breaks for corps or industries. I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. He is more in tune with the cons, look at pro life, tax cutting as examples. When he gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues to grow government the way he has been, or if he will become more conservative. If he gets a veto proof Senate as I think he's likely to, it might be either very good or very scary. A veto proof Senate is a dream, anyway, "at least"' for now. only 1/3 are up for election. Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade, although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from power in the future. For fiscal policy, I take a real conservative approach over a liberal one every time. an antiabortion ruling would be scary. Its too late to try and put that genie back in the bottle. I can rememember when they were talking about getting rid of the DOE, The Education Department, and the EPA. As far as I'm concerned they could go and the country wouldn't suffer a bit. Nothing they do that can't be handled by the states. There needs to be a national concensus and policy on those issues. I have no problem with there being an EPA. Its the rules that are the problem. I will now be getting ready for the torrent of flames and ad hominem attacks soon to follow. Nah, you put up a more and reasoned and intelligent post, than usual. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist "at least" one dig!) ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. Pretend? I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat. Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either party. IMO, one of the sad things about the current Democrat party is that they claim to be pro-choice but let someone who happens to be pro life want some time to speak at their convention and you will not see them. Yeah, but it cuts the opposite way for the Reps. Just a week or two ago, there was a big venting against Specter for being pro life. They siad he shouldn't be running the Judiciary commitee because of that. I missed that, who was venting? As to fiscal policy, they have no desire to do what works for the country, only what works at getting votes, namely more handouts of other people's money. Mostly, yes, but from time to time, the rep's do that with subsidies and tax breaks for corps or industries. I don't think companies should be paying any taxes, since they just mean higher prices. I've never thought subsidies are good idea. I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. He is more in tune with the cons, look at pro life, tax cutting as examples. The vast majority of the GOP believe in tax cutting. Most are pro-life AFAIK. When he gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues to grow government the way he has been, or if he will become more conservative. If he gets a veto proof Senate as I think he's likely to, it might be either very good or very scary. A veto proof Senate is a dream, anyway, "at least"' for now. only 1/3 are up for election. Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade, although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from power in the future. For fiscal policy, I take a real conservative approach over a liberal one every time. an antiabortion ruling would be scary. Its too late to try and put that genie back in the bottle. It would just throw it back to the states but the Dems would jump on it with both feet and the GOP would likely suffer massively. I can rememember when they were talking about getting rid of the DOE, The Education Department, and the EPA. As far as I'm concerned they could go and the country wouldn't suffer a bit. Nothing they do that can't be handled by the states. There needs to be a national concensus and policy on those issues. Why? The energy sopurces we have are in abundant supply. There are people workiong on alternatioves but there really is no need for a replacement. The future will be fusion engines, but not for a long time. I have no problem with there being an EPA. Its the rules that are the problem. My problem is that the regulation is capricious and uneven. People in their own states are the best at finding who's polluting what and where. I will now be getting ready for the torrent of flames and ad hominem attacks soon to follow. Nah, you put up a more and reasoned and intelligent post, than usual. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist "at least" one dig!) Of course you could, you chose not to. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ...
I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing president in over 100 years. Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade, although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from power in the future. There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing president in over 100 years. You are saying he is more conservtive than Reagan?? ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Scott Gardner" wrote in message ... On 28 Nov 2003 23:16:03 -0800, (Jacob Kramer) wrote: "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing president in over 100 years. Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade, although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from power in the future. There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here. Sure, they're anti-choice, and if the GOP could snap their fingers and magically do away with abortion, they probably would. But actually going through the process of getting Roe v Wade overturned is a bigger commitment than I think they're willing to make. The GOP would forever be known as the people that got rid of the right to choose, and that would risk alienating the large number of people that vote Republican, but are pro-choice. I don't think they're willing to take that chance. Anti-abortin laws, and their enforcement, would make prohition look like a cakewalk through an ice cream factory. It would be ugly and devisive. We can't be throwing women and doctors into jail over this. We have better things to do with law enforcement resources. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing president in over 100 years. You are saying he is more conservtive than Reagan?? Yes. Domestically, Bush proposed privatization of Social Security, the largest federal program, while Reagan increased Social Security taxes in what was the largest tax increase in American history until that time. Bush also has partially privatized Medicare. There was nothing comparable to the 1100 page Patiot Act under Reagan. Reagan also appointed Anthony Kennedy, who wrote one of the most important decisions for gay rights, Romer v. Evans, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who has consistently supported Roe v. Wade. Reagan did favor prayer in schools, but Bush has proposed diverting public school money to parochial schools, and public support of other religious institutions through the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Their tax cuts have been similar, although Bush's are larger. The unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for sheer scale, is without parallel in American history since James Polk invaded Mexico. Reagan did mount a lot of covert operations, but the ideological embrace of American global superiority based on military power, as embodied in the 2002 National Security Strategy, has no precedent at any time in U.S. history. Reagan also negotiated a number of international arms control agreements and generally stressed negotiation, while Bush has unilaterally withdrawn from many treaties--the ABM treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC--and been contemptuous of diplomacy, the UN, and other countries. Reagan was very conservative, but Bush is even more conservative, although he portrays himself as a moderate, while Reagan didn't. To find someone comparable to Bush, I think you really have to go back to William McKinley. Even Harding and Coolidge were isolationists. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
Anti-abortin laws, and their enforcement, would make prohition look like a cakewalk through an ice cream factory. It would be ugly and devisive. We can't be throwing women and doctors into jail over this. We have better things to do with law enforcement resources. What is your basis for thinking this? Before Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion laws at the state level were in fact legal, and would be again if the 5-4 balance of the Supreme Court were changed by the addition of a single pro-life Supreme Court justice. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. Pretend? I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat. If you were true to the principles you espouse on RAO you would have registered as a Republican. As a "registered Democrat" you voted for George Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush vehemently opposes all the liberal social issues you have claimed to support. And every political post you put up on RAO is straight out of the PNAC neo-con textbook of BS phraseology. And you will undoubtedly vote for Bush again in 2004. Can we spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's Democratic party. As in Adlai Stevenson and JFK? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You call people like me (and Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, just to name a few) who ARE true to the "traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's and early 60's Democratic party" *radical libs*. ROTFLMAO! Hypocrisy gone wild! And you wonder why you've lost all credibility? The fact is: your political posts are indisinguishable from Duh-Mikey's, a confessed extremist right-winger. Even that moron holds the moral ground over you, however: he makes no pretense to be anything other than the idiot behind the idiocy he espouses. And I haven't bought into Republican agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either party. Translation: "I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way... bah, bah, bah." Perhaps you should place a call to Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Ahnold Gropinator, or Jerry Falwell. I'm sure any of those dumbed-down confused crytpo-fascists would be more than happy to offer you a shoulder to cry on. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message m... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... Anti-abortin laws, and their enforcement, would make prohition look like a cakewalk through an ice cream factory. It would be ugly and devisive. We can't be throwing women and doctors into jail over this. We have better things to do with law enforcement resources. What is your basis for thinking this? Before Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion laws at the state level were in fact legal, and would be again if the 5-4 balance of the Supreme Court were changed by the addition of a single pro-life Supreme Court justice. Society has cahnged a lot in the last 40 years, and two generations ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor. I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken together they offer a good spectrum of political thought... Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his politics. As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot. Pretend? I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat. If you were true to the principles you espouse on RAO you would have registered as a Republican. As a "registered Democrat" you voted for George Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush vehemently opposes all the liberal social issues you have claimed to support. And every political post you put up on RAO is straight out of the PNAC neo-con textbook of BS phraseology. And you will undoubtedly vote for Bush again in 2004. Can we spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? Why don't you just throw out every Democrat who voted for Bush, while youare at it.Youshould also enfoce a liberal 'purity' test, and remove those who are not liberal enopugh for tastes. Gee, after yoiu get in power, why not enslave them all in a Gulag? Now everyone can see why I have problems with ultra lib type democrats. I grew up in the love generation all I see from you guys is mean spirited hatred. it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake. Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's Democratic party. As in Adlai Stevenson and JFK? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You call people like me (and Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, just to name a few) who ARE true to the "traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's and early 60's Democratic party" *radical libs*. ROTFLMAO! Hypocrisy gone wild! And you wonder why you've lost all credibility? The fact is: your political posts are indisinguishable from Duh-Mikey's, a confessed extremist right-winger. Even that moron holds the moral ground over you, however: he makes no pretense to be anything other than the idiot behind the idiocy he espouses. Youare not reading correctly, I disagree with him as much as you. And I haven't bought into Republican agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either party. Translation: "I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way... bah, bah, bah." Perhaps you should place a call to Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Ahnold Gropinator, or Jerry Falwell. I'm sure any of those dumbed-down confused crytpo-fascists would be more than happy to offer you a shoulder to cry on. And if they would, they offer me more kindness than you do. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
Sockpuppet Yustabe said: it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake. I hope you're talking about ordinary citizens and not about elected representatives and party hacks. No party in recent history has come close to today's republicans in terms of hatred, intolerance, and thought control. In fact, I'd go so far as to say today's GOP is worse than the Democrats of the Old South (the ones who aligned themselves behind slavery). Name an issue, and you'll find the republicans trying to oppress part of the populace, or trying to force their hidebound morality on everyone in contravention of the Constitution, or inciting their thug contingent to violence. So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the White Men's Christian Republic. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Sockpuppet Yustabe said: it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake. I hope you're talking about ordinary citizens and not about elected representatives and party hacks. No party in recent history has come close to today's republicans in terms of hatred, intolerance, and thought control. In fact, I'd go so far as to say today's GOP is worse than the Democrats of the Old South (the ones who aligned themselves behind slavery). Name an issue, and you'll find the republicans trying to oppress part of the populace, or trying to force their hidebound morality on everyone in contravention of the Constitution, or inciting their thug contingent to violence. So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the White Men's Christian Republic. I am talking more about popular commentators, like Krugman and Michael Moore, and of course, folks like Sanders, who was once a friend of mine. The pols are professionals for the most part, on both sides, and work with some degree of civilty with each oterh. I wouldn't lump Falwell, Robertson, Savage, and such with con pols like Hatch, Grassley and Fritch, either. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Sockpuppet Yustabe said: it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake. I hope you're talking about ordinary citizens and not about elected representatives and party hacks. No party in recent history has come close to today's republicans in terms of hatred, intolerance, and thought control. In fact, I'd go so far as to say today's GOP is worse than the Democrats of the Old South (the ones who aligned themselves behind slavery). Name an issue, and you'll find the republicans trying to oppress part of the populace, or trying to force their hidebound morality on everyone in contravention of the Constitution, or inciting their thug contingent to violence. So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the White Men's Christian Republic. For once I agree with the Middiot, except for the characterization that I'm one of the "people...who run thier mouths". That phrase would better describe the Middiot-Krooborg wars. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
Sandbrain is still smarting from that horrible betrayal by SockY. So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the White Men's Christian Republic. For once I agree with the Middiot, except for the characterization that I'm one of the "people...who run thier mouths". That phrase would better describe the Middiot-Krooborg wars. How's the trust fund, Mr. Armchair Liberal Lousy Lawyer? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Sandbrain is still smarting from that horrible betrayal by SockY. So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the White Men's Christian Republic. For once I agree with the Middiot, except for the characterization that I'm one of the "people...who run thier mouths". That phrase would better describe the Middiot-Krooborg wars. How's the trust fund, Mr. Armchair Liberal Lousy Lawyer? It never existed, you lying, worthless sack of ****. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
Sandbrain, do you miss your little pas-de-deux with Steindrone? How's the trust fund, Mr. Armchair Liberal Lousy Lawyer? It never existed, you lying, worthless sack of ****. Ouch! A little touchy about something that doesn't exist, aren't we? Isn't a "civil litigator" somewhat handicapped by not being able to understand a P&L statement or a stock certificate? Unless he doesn't need to actually practice law in order to pay the bills, I mean. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing president in over 100 years. Nonsense, Reagan was more to the right. Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade, although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from power in the future. There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here. No, I'm considering political reality. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chew on this, RAO Bugeaters
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing president in over 100 years. You are saying he is more conservtive than Reagan?? Yes. Domestically, Bush proposed privatization of Social Security, It needs to be done soon. the largest federal program, while Reagan increased Social Security taxes in what was the largest tax increase in American history until that time. Bush also has partially privatized Medicare. And stolen another issue from the Dems. You need to understand that if they don't get privatized they are going to bankrupt us. There was nothing comparable to the 1100 page Patiot Act under Reagan. It's all been done before under FDR. Reagan also appointed Anthony Kennedy, who wrote one of the most important decisions for gay rights, Romer v. Evans, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who has consistently supported Roe v. Wade. Nobody ever knows how a Supreme Court Justice will vote. Reagan did favor prayer in schools, but Bush has proposed diverting public school money to parochial schools, and public support of other religious institutions through the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Because he wants the money to go where it works best. The teachers unions don't want any change because they know they will suffer by comparison. Their tax cuts have been similar, although Bush's are larger. Only as a total number of dollars. As a % they are tiny. The unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for sheer scale, is without parallel in American history since James Polk invaded Mexico. It was not unprovked, or unilateral. Reagan did mount a lot of covert operations, but the ideological embrace of American global superiority based on military power, as embodied in the 2002 National Security Strategy, has no precedent at any time in U.S. history. Your forgetiing Clinton. Reagan also negotiated a number of international arms control agreements and generally stressed negotiation, while Bush has unilaterally withdrawn from many treaties--the ABM treaty, Because there was no more USSR with whom the treaty was made. The Kyoto accord has nothing to do with Bush, the Senate rejected it. the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC--and been contemptuous of diplomacy, the UN, and other countries. because the UN has become totally impotent. |
Linear Mode
