Hey Joey, baby? That guy gloating next to you is Bin Laden.
Imagine how Al Qaeda must love watching our bitter demise. They push one or two buttons and presto! the whole goddamn juggernaut starts to sink.
They are winning, people, and the likes of Liebermann, McCain, Boehner, and that Nelson jackass are letting it happen. You might even say they are abetting the terrorists.
Bipartisanship is homeland terrorism.
*it's have, shitbag.
* * *
89 comments:
"Illiterates, write for free help" (followed by an address)
don't blame joe for evan's decision. he, just like palin, thinks he can make more money as a private citizen. i'm sure, though, that the citizens of the hoosier state are going to axe him to reconsider.
Since I am an illiterate Hoosier, please explain how Bayh's retirement helps the Terrorists?
Are you saying if you are against the agenda put forth by Pelosi, Reid and Obama you are the same as an Islamic terrorist?
That is like saying a vote against carter encouraged the Iranians in 1980.
I seriously do not understand your argument.
I know nothing of Bayh's politics. It doesn't matter. Nelson gloating about his retirement is disgusting--a new low in bipartisanship.
STOP TALKING about for/against. We ALL need to get the fuck together and start figuring this shit out.
Believe me, the terrorists LOVE that this country is paralyzed. They love that bipartisanship has turned healthy ideological disagreement into COMPLETE FUCKING POLITICAL DYSFUNCTION.
erin obrien and rodney king in 2012! just kidding e.
Hoose, you need to think about this. The terrorist know that they cannot wage standard military action against us. They cannot send the infantry into the United States and invade in the textbook sense.
So they do high profile attacks and provoke us into massive military spending campaigns.
One asshole fails to blow up a plane on Christmas day and **POOF** Obama has to implement a massive (and expensive) new security system in order to "keep Americans safe" or he risks looking "weak." And who is waiting to accuse him of looking weak? American conservatives.
The politicians are no longer fighting over issues, they are just fighting each other at the country's expense.
So we keep spending $$ we don't have. We fight against each other here, weakening the country more and more and more, while we wage wars in the Middle East that we'll never win.
This Bayh guy throws in the towel and Wilson cheers.
Yep, the terrorists are kicking our ass.
terrorists are terrorists, not to make you uncomfortable, but to kill you. politics makes us uncomfortable. terrorists don't give a shit about that.
terrorist is our name for them. they are jihadists in their mind and world. it's different.
Bill, they just want us OUT of the Middle East, the killing is a byproduct of that goal. I'm too busy to explain the rest.
oh. guess it has nothing to do with islam.
Your wrong Bill everytime we turn our backs on our morals or laws, it is a win for the trrorists! Let's see The Obama adninistration, sends drones into Afghanistan, and daily is killing more taliban then the Bush Admin. We get good actionable intellegience from the "Underware" bomber, that has our allies looking for English speaking moslems across the world. I turn on the TV today and hear that the second in command of the Taliban has been captured. Yet, according to the Repubs, Obama and the democrats are making us less safe. Trying criminals and using our moral based legal system is embolding the terrorists, according to the right. (Where is your argument aginst the right Bill) Even though 90% of Bush's terrorist were tried and convicted in civilian criminal court. Two terrorist tried under Bush by military courts were released and went to help create Al-Qaeda in Yemen, where the "underware" bomber came from. Yet, the big "DICK" was on the Sunday news shows with the "less safe under Obama" mantra. Every time we turn away from our own morals and laws is another victory for the terrorists. But how do you concince people who don't want to see the facts or know the truth!
less safe or more safe is a political argument. my point is that radical islam is concerned with converting all humans to islam or killing them. our politicians should just recognize the enemy and do the best they can to protect us. most of the politicians are just out to get the best deal they can for themselves and guarantee a future income stream. we need some "mr smith goes to washington" types. sigh.
You are wrong! They want to kill us, yes. When they can't kill us, they want to destabalize our economic and social system. Why did Bush tell us to continue on with our lives like normal, if it means nothing to the jihadists then why say it!
We now have two expensive wars bleeding us dry literally and figuratively. We have conservatives wanting to do away with our laws and morals wanting us to become more like those who seek to kill us. If one of their goals is to convert us, sounds like they have already won that from some of conservatives!
Sorry, but Bill is right. If you really think the idea we cannot agree on health care reform mattres a whit to the Islamic Fundamentalists you are ignorant of 1200 years of history.
Funny, the mantra from the left ois why can't we all just compromise why can't we get along, until the yare in the minority. Perhaps if some of you would have support the WOT, we woul;d not be in this position.
It is all a matter of perspective.
Not being able to agree on HCR is evidence that our GOV is falling apart due in part to the cracks the WOT has put into our foundation.
One day we're about to pass a sweeping HCR bill, the next it's dead because one man is elected to the Senate. This is political instability, people. It is borne of fear and inability to unite.
If you can't see the connection, you're blind.
Who said anything about healthcare reform?
You need to re-read our comments. Like what I said before, Bill, hossierboy, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument!
Bill said they either want to kill us or convet us. By getting us to turn our backs on our laws and morals they are doing just that.
By the way, jihadist is a "holy warrior" in islam. Terrorists are what they are! By accepting they are "jihadists" or "enemy comabatants" elevates them to a level eqaul to our own soldiers. They are Terrorists and criminals!
sure they laugh at our stupid responses, like taking our shoes off, but our attitute really doesn't mean shit to them. they're more serious than we are. e: what you're saying is if we get out of their neighborhood, they won't kill us. sort of like the nortenos and surtenos or crips and bloods? don't come to our hood and we'll leave you alone. sorry but that's naive. i do agree with you that it would be very productive if we could put politics aside and come up with the best way to combat this but in this politcal environment that's just not going to happen unless we get hit again in a big way.
video dude: you need to watch an old charles bronson movie.
Bill I don't know how to tell you this except just straight: TV Series like "24" and movies are not reality. You need to watch something beside FOX news!
Also, there is no easter bunny and there is no Santa Claus!
By the way I love Charles Bronson in "Death Wish", but it was just a movie!
You all seem very informed, and I won't pretend to be as up-to-speed as everyone here or grammatically superior, but here is what I'm tired of - the endless finger-pointing and extremism of US politics. The two party system is failing us by being divisive and nothing substantive gets accomplished. Don't like what the other side is doing? Get a special prosecutor! Run swiftboat-style ads! Call them elitists! Say they're religious fanatics! It's all spin spin spin.
Obama needs to run his administration like a one-termer and not cave to those who say he's weak. He has 34 months left. So actually DO something and say some things that make people unhappy. You can't please all the people all the time. Does anyone give a shit what Dick Cheney thinks? If someone does, they won't be happy with anything this administration does anyway, so cut bait on those folks.
Both sides use the "you're appeasing the terrorists!" argument, and it sounds like a bunch of bunk anymore. Fuck the terrorists. The Dems are pissing away their opportunity to do something. Pick a plan and get behind it. We're going to play "Vote out the incumbent" until something changes, because everyone is unhappy with the status quo.
Sometimes you have to destroy a democracy to save it....snark.
Seriously, the terrorists (and I don't buy your implicit argument that they follow our domestic politics that closely) can't be happy with the additional troops in Afghanistan or increased drone strikes over Pakistan. Hell, right now there's a whole new offensive going on. That doesn't sound too paralyzed. In fact, military decisions can be made by the commander in chief without having to get Congress' imprimatur.
Bottom line, I think the argument to shut up and go along or the terrorists win is a loser for Democrats. If anything, we show that democracy has warts. It may not be the best presentation to the rest of the world, but it is the most truthful.
P.S. You should be much more worried about the recent Supreme Court decision allowing Exxon the same political voice as you.
jemison
Well said, Julie.
I'm plenty worried about the recent SCOTUS decision, jemison.
video dude: i don't watch 24, watch mostly msnbc (more entertaining), and don't believe in the easter bunny. the jury is still out on santa claus. fact remains, we need to be clear, as a nation, who our enemies are and agree on how to combat them.
jemison: more worried about the scotus decision (your interpretation) than being killed? have you ever met a real mean, evil, person? ever been mugged? ever had to fight for your life? i must admit that i don't understand that perspective.
Bill,
I just wanted to make sure, since you seemed to suggest that Charles Bronson's movies were an answer to your argument.
And now because of the SCOTUS decision, any corporation like Rupert Murdock's News Corp, can push their own candidate with more money, TV and radio time then any one individual. I don't understand why more people aren't bother by this!
Bill, you have a much higher chance of being in a motor vehicle accident today than being offed by terrorists. Calm down. My point is that the recent Supreme Court decision is a bigger threat to our democracy than Al Queada.
jemison
jemison: nothing wrong with you having an opinion but i'm not sure if you would have a lot of support if we were voting on it.
Okay Bill. You worry about radical Islamists and I'll worry about the car in the lane next to me and the erosion of access ordinary citizens have to their government officials. We'll see who lasts longer....j
i think i'm older than you so you'll probably last longer. that is unless you're planning a trip to kabul or something. since i don't lose much sleep about any of this, i hope my demise comes at night when i'm sound asleep!
You are a treasonous traitor, equating the patriotic dissent of a hero like Joe Wilson with terrorism.
I have my credit card out right now, and will happily buy you a one way ticket to Tehran. Then you can see how far your pot smoking, pro-homosexual Marxist ideology will go!
The good news is that right thinking hard traditionalists are going to pound your Marxist Fascist liberalism into the ground in November...
Which is why you should fear Barack Hussein Obama declaring martial law, but that's another story.
Lord,
You have no idea what you are saying. I guess if a so called public representative calls the president of the USA a liar, he is a hero? What happen to the Rights mantra of never attacking a sitting president during war time? I guess that just applies to Republican presidents!
I pray you are wrong in November. We already had conservative War mongers in power for eight years and that is why we are in this mess. In the immortal words of Joe Wilson, Mr. Basil, YOU LIE!!!!!
Wow. And I thought my political discussion in the public pools hot tub was wild...
Kabul in spring! Cancel my reservations to Paris, or Rome, or Madrid.
Yeah, Kabul was a big vacation spot before 9/11. Seriously Bill, if it weren't for us there, there'd be no there there!
Terrorists are the perfect government enemy. They're always there (spooky!) and we can never get rid of them. What better excuse to fund these stupid occupations and keep scared little people (read Bill) in line. Read 1984 (maybe again?) and realize that our governent has found the perfect foil for the military industrial complex. TERRRORISTS! Be afraid. Be very afraid! And don't worry about our military operations or expenditures!
I'm 45 and I'm more worried about somebody texting and driving in the lane next to me than I am about some crazed zealot seeking his 67 virgins. You should be too. j
Please treat one another with respect here. I detest the flamefests I see on other blogs and will not tolerate that here.
One of the ironies about the dysfunctional Teabaggers is that they whine about "Big Gov't" (the fact that they can't give you an example of how one of their stock paranoias is being implemented in reality notwithstanding), and are then happy to see the Republicans adopt a one-word, obstructionist vocabulary of "No!" and filibuster as a first resort, bringing any meaningful political operation in DC to a halt - so in effect the Teabaggers ARE the problem here.
And in bringing the national government to a halt, yes, they are helping the al-Q boys do a more than effective job without a shot being fired.
And the party gridlock isn't the only issue the Teabaggers are helping compound - there's the effect it has on other aspects of life in American - like the deficit, which they claim to care so much about, but by their actions the effects of which they're helping only to exacerbate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17gridlock.html?hp
For those of you insistent that there's a giant "Islamic threat" out there, a couple of questions....
1) How is it that "radical Islam" wants anything? Last time I checked, things and ideas don't want, people do. Prolly more important to figure out what people want first, before you assume you know what a oversimplified and little understood ideology "wants" (hint: land, power).
2) Do you even know what "radical Islam" is? It'd be useful to actually define terms rather than throwing them around for the sake of posturing. Otherwise, the "they're all out to kill us" sounds remarkably like something Joe McCarthy might have said.
3) If you really think the remarkably small minority of people who are willing to take up arms against "us" (who exactly that is remains to be seen) do so simply for religions reasons, you really don't have a decent enough grasp on global history, politics, or economics. Yes yes, by all means, quote the Qur'an. It says "go kill those who don't believe." Yup. So....how come there isn't massive violence spilling out of Dearborn, MI? Or Ceder Rapids, IA. Or Chicago, or LA? Lots of Muslims there too...reading the exact same Qur'an (EO, forgive the redundancy). Hmmm, must be something different about those places, as compared to say....Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, etc, etc, etc. Again: history, politics, economics....figure it out.
Any argument that starts with "Radical Islam is going to..." is flawed from those words on.
Here is a better rebuttal than I could write.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/24b8354b-dfbc-4e2d-a449-19f9e477c903
As I stated many comments ago, there is only concern over lack of bi-partisanship when your agenda cannot get passed (that goes for both sides of the aisle).
The fact remains that Republicans could not stop any Democrat legislation from passing until Massachusetts elected Scott Brown.
Interesting discussion. Sorry I'm late.
"Democracy passes into despotism."
Plato
These complaints are not new.
The "War on Terror" is cut from the same cloth as "The Cold War." Attempt to destabilize every banana republic that flirts with communism or challenges judeo christian theology and end up with a bunch of pissed off poor people that despise American Imperialism.
Until elected officials view public service as a civic duty to be prerformed with integrity I fear we are doomed to the status quo...
I SAY WE MAMBO!
RJ
Well said, Jonas: it's clear from some of the statements, both here and elsewhere, that any wider understanding of what Islam is all about in the US is poor at best - especially when viewed through the skewed prism of Fox News.
And Hoose, to correct and update your last line: the fact remains that, since Brown won in Mass, and the Dem's lost their once über-solid, "filibuster-proof" 'super majority', the Republicans have done their level best to flip-flop on everything from the stimulus package to healthcare reform, and are now in a holding pattern of just saying 'no' for the partisan sake of it - that is not politics, and neither does it serve the best interests of the US people; it's merely being cheaply obstructionist.
Oh, and Hoose, apropos Hugh Hewitt's missive which you quote, above: sorry, but I tend not to lend any credence to right-wing "socially conservative Christians" whose job it was to write for Richard Nixon.
I trust others can see the flaws and credibility gaps inherent in such a person...
Yes of course, we do not like the messenger so we will ignore all facts that are inconvenient.
That position is intellectually dishonest and paints you as the idealogue.
You might as well put your fingers in your ears and jump up and down shouting "lalalalala". It is about as effective a debate tactic as your previous argument.
I could try to explain that the current discourse has been an integral part of the Republic since it founding. The issue of a strong Federal Government vs. States Rights dates back to the very core arguments in creating the Constitution. As an example spend some time researching the issue of the creation of the Federal bank (Hamilton vs. Jefferson).
The idea that Congress cannot get along causes terrorism is laughable. Anyone who thinks the animosity levels and partisanship in the current debate is new to the US Government is ignorant of history. Look up Charles Summner/Preston Brooks.
Again, I find it amusing we only decry partisanship when we are unable to get our particular agenda passed.
The terrorists cannot attack us in the traditional sense, so they poke us in hopes of getting us to topple all on our own. Since we've become big and fat instead of big and strong, their efforts are succeeding to an extent.
Intentional or not, our political instability works to their advantage. Our deficit woes work to their advantage. Our health care woes work to their advantage. That we are becoming a weaker nation every day works to their advantage. That our politicians are paralyzed (righties=no; lefties=can't get their shit together) works to their advantage.
The terrorists have sent us on an impossible witch hunt courtesy of Bush and now Obama. Fear strips people of power. Add the fear to our overblown sense of entitlement and it's put us on a path straight to hell.
No Hoose, you're opting to play the victim card again: it's got nothing to do with "ignoring facts", and everything to do with using discretion and discernment - Hewitt only gives opinion, btw, as it's a blog, so let's not confuse his opinions and/or agenda with being 'facts'.
Outside of the Teabagging collective, Hewitt carries about as much credibility as Fox/Hannity/O'Reilly/Limabuagh & Beck, which is to say zero. Those who read his diatribes already know what they want to hear and feel comfortable when they hear others with the same views: they don't go to his blog or listen to his show for elucidation, enlightenment or education; they go there to have their prejudices massaged.
this is the first time i've been called a scared little person! i would just encourage a few of you to watch the picutures and videos of the towers burning and falling, the people jumping to their deaths rather than burn to death and, while you're at it, watch a couple of the beheadings. it's not just my personal safety i'm worried about. sometimes you really do have to defend yourself
Seems the convo has slowed a little, allow me a brief hijack...
Has any major U.S.political figure condemned the hit squad assasination of a Hamas figure in Dubai?
If not, why?
RJ
Alas, the conversation will always slow and get hijacked when people insist on living only on September 11th, 2001. It sometimes appears like it's the only thing directing their life.
Unless you choose to, and Lord knows Fox would dearly try and encourage you to do so, you can't remain in that moment, on constant loop. Life needs to move on. You cannot remain in fear all your life - if for no other reason than it makes for tedious conversation.
rj: which u.s. political figure do you think will or should condem that hit?
cosmic: life is full of those memorable little moments. 4th of July, Pearl Harbor, etc. Let's just move on. Also, i don't get your fixation on fox. you should stop watching. i find msnbc a lot funnier these days.
I do not have a good understanding of Israeli politics, but the footage of that hit was absolutely stunning.
I saw it on ABC World News last night if anyone wants to poke around for a link.
I don't know who will. Everyone should. Besides being cold blooded murder it seems to me it sets a dangerous precedent. If it is Mossad, as suspected, any hesitation to condemn it seems to me to give the radical islamists justification for their terrorist operations. While I'm no fan of
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I thought his response to Secretarry Clinton's calling Iran a military dictatorship not only accurate but funny.
RJ
Bill, yes, life is full of those moments - but others at least seem not to have a fixation with them; and are able to move on and stop regurgitating them endlessly, like 9/11 is some catch-all rationale to put their lives on hold and a justification to stymie all other conversation. For true illumination, you need to look away from the light.
As for Fox, it's hard to get away from its knee-jerk-fear-drenched rhetoric when folks like you and Hoose do nothing but post its paranoias here, almost verbatim.
RJ, the Dubai Hamas hit, and the US absence of any response to it (let alone an official or public one) was nowhere near setting a bad precedent: quite the opposite - it's the norm, from both the Mossad and the US.
circular conversations are boring. even if they're cosmic.
Then there's a very simple answer to that, Bill: don't start them, as you did when you asked everyone to remind themselves by watching videos of 9/11 and sundry beheadings.
I often find it helps to practice what you preach mate.
The GOP is no longer just the party of "NO". They are now the party of hypocrisy. The Repubs were overwhelmingly against the Stimulus, until it was time to get a hand on some of the money for their districts. You can't be against something publicly, then in private emails want some of it. Then go back to your district and have your picture taken presenting people with a Stimulus check! According to various GOP members: The Stimulus is Evil, it's Socialism...by the way...give me some of that Evil Socialism.
Hypocrites, Liars and Obstructionist, that's your Republican party today.
My last word on this Bill--terror is the goal of terrorists. I personally can't control whether someone wants to kill me because I am an American anymore than I could control someone who wants to kill me because I'm wearing a red tie. I choose not to worry about things I simply can't control.
Frankly, no amount of airport screening or troop movements are ever going to eliminate the possibility that someone who is willing to kill himself (or herself) will do so and try to take as many people out at the same time.
Vigilant--yes, scared--no.
Erin, your argument has changed but still doesn't make much sense. Our political differences haven't hurt one whit our response to terrorism. We spend more money now than ever and are killing/capturing people right and left. I don't see how our political instability (and I disagree with that charaterization) has benefited those who wish us harm. Now, our fiscal recklessness is unsustainable but that cannot be placed totally at the feet of the war on terror. Those timebombs started ticking with the boomers--who have been a demographic pig through the snake since their birth...
As for our country being on a path straight to hell--that aint the first time someone has opined that! Look at the hysteria over Jefferson's election.
You get the last word--answer how our "healthcare woes" are benefitting the terrorists please.j
cosmic: you're right. i think i'll look at some of those bataan death march pics and, while i'm at it, check out some auswitch photos, and then browse some killing fields information. of course i'll be watching out for that texting housewife when i drive to the store later.
Bill, I agree Israel getting a pass on terror is the norm in the U.S. but I don't see how it is useful.
While Americans sit around and invoke the images from 9/11 the Moslems can just as easily sit around and watch the Israeli excursion into Gaza.
Of course I will be condemed as an antisemite by some and Christians will claim there is a holy imperative to support Israel. I beg to differ.
RJ
Anonymous wrote: "I don't see how our political instability (and I disagree with that charaterization) has benefited those who wish us harm."
Simple: instead of being a nation united, and all facing in the same direction, you're instead needlessly disjointed and split along petty partisan lines - that in itself aids any enemies because it means you're distracted from any attempts at normalcy or political or social cohesion, and are, instead, wrapped in the paralysis of fear - in effect doing the terrorists' job for them.
That same paralysis just divides you as a nation further and merely compounds your already (thanks to Bush) stalled economy - and that combination will damage the US as sure as any munitions or suicide bomber aimed at it.
Bill wrote: "Cosmic: you're right. I think I'll look at some of those Bataan death march pic's and, while I'm at it, check out some Auschwitz photos, and then browse some 'Killing Fields' information. Of course, I'll be watching out for that texting-housewife when I drive to the store later."
Good luck with that...
Bill, you're at perfect liberty to get your need-an-enemy fear-fix wherever you can get it mate - but I can only suggest that you don't allow it to dominate every conversation you have with others; otherwise you become predictable.
Cosmic you hit the preverbial nail on the head.
The idea behind Terrorism is to invoke Terror. You notice we don't call it: "They are trying to kill us-ism!"
rj: i'm not sure about the holy imperative but there is an argument to be made for protecting israel for other reasons. it's tough though, if not impossible, to keep religion out of that one.
I've about had it with this thread, but here's your last word, jemison. Like you said, terrorists instill terror. You want to see a scared American? Go talk to someone who doesn't have health insurance.
no argument there e!
i know this tread is officially closed but i think this article adds a little something:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/terrorists-smile-as-theyre-jailed/story-e6frg6n6-1225830682530
Yes, you're right, Bill: and the little something it adds is a faith in the knowledge that suspected terrorists can be successfully prosecuted in civilian courts without any nonsense or concocted voodoo about a need to have them tried under the aegis of the military.
One Manhattan courthouse alone has over 200 successfully tried terror-related cases to date - and strangely enough, and contrary to the lies punted by Bush-Cheney-Rove, the world hasn't ended, the American way of life has not ceased, and world civilisation and democracy have not been overrun by Communists.
So these fuckers in the Australian court case can smile all they want - they're the ones doing a life stretch whilst the rest of us get on with our lives.
i totally get, and respect, your point of view but i would rather have them disappear right after being taken into custody. i don't like giving them a platform. just my preference.
Whilst that's very good of you, Bill, unfortunately, I can neither go along with nor respect yours, as it openly denies all due legal process to those suspected of any alleged crime - and whilst simply 'disappearing' them is an approach popular with followers of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, it's also one which is largely discredited as being despotic by the rest of the thinking world, who unsurprisingly prefer the securities and safeguards of The Rule of Law.
And it's worth remembering, too, contrary to all the Fox myths, that nowhere in either the Bill of Rights, or The US Constitution, does it say that due process & Miranda Rights are the sole preserve of the US citizen and should in turn be denied to non-US citizens.
So hopefully you'll perhaps see why I can't condone them being simply "disappeared immediately after being taken into custody" - as you don't resolve one offence with one of your own...
cos: i still don't get this fixation on fox. is that your "real enemy"? my god man. give it a rest. and what's with this "thinking world" shit? let's put it this way. if i were picking people for my team to fight a common enemy, you would not get picked. in other words, you wouldn't make a good fox hole buddy! know what I mean?
Bill, you plainly have the attention-span of a gnat, or you simply don't read what's being written here: so allow me to repeat that, where you are concerned, I make mention of Fox as you seem to be happy to regurgitate its knee-jerk platitudes and paranoias almost verbatim. I can't help it if you keep presenting me with such good comedic material.
Oh, and having been in harm's way myself, on more than one occasion, not being picked for 'your team' holds not the slightest upset or concern for me - in fact, it rather improves my odds of survival.
whilst i'd love to continue, alas, i must see if there's anything to watch on fox news. for all the comedic material i'm providing, you aren't very funny. unhappy, even.
Zzzzzzzzzz
"One day we're about to pass a sweeping HCR bill, the next it's dead because one man is elected to the Senate. This is political instability, people. It is borne of fear and inability to unite."
I'm wondering that if the tables were turned (Republicans in power instead of Democrats) and a Democrat was elected to replace a long-standing member of the senate who'd recently passed (ending a filibuster proof super majority), that Erin would use the same "political instability" argument. My guess is she (and most Democrats) would not, but I could be wrong.
Just sayin' ....
Al
TRAG
Glad you can find the time to make specious points and take cheap partisan shots Al - alas those denied any healthcare at all are forced to take a different view than you.
Enjoy your free Medicare in retirement, Al.
Actually Al, I stole the instability concept about Brown and HCR from uber-conservative and Gingrich lackey Tony Blankley. He starts talking about this at the 3:30 mark on this show:
Jan. 22 "Left, Right, and Center"
(Confidential to Mr. Jemison: I'm trusting you'll be a good boy and listen to Blankley's bit)
Again, folks, please keep it polite. No one here is like a "gnat."
Bill you are wasting your time trying to reason with the Navel Lint. he is an intelecctual lightweight, just as his name implies.
Let me save time and complete the thread:
Reasonable American: I guess you would have objected to the trials at Nurnburg in 1946 CNL, since they were military tribunals and the Nazis were not tried by civilian courts and afforded the Bill of Rights and protections of the US Constitution?
CNL: foxnews foxnews foxnews
RA: You do realise there is a aHealth Insurance issue and a health care cost issue in the US? While not perfect every citizen and non-citizen is guaranteed treatment at any public hospital? Are there cracks, of course but you find many of the same problems in Socialized medice. can it be improved? sure, but socializing the entire industry is not the answer. While you may not agree, most Americans DO.
CNL: foxnews foxnews
Thanks for making my point for me, Hoose.
I'd be satisfied if the Executive Branch of The Bush Administration were tried for war crimes in a military tribunal.
"I have never been able to look upon America as young and vital but rather as prematurely old, as a fruit which rotted before it had a chance to ripen."
Henry Miller
RJ
since th eObama Administration is continuing with the same Bush policies I assume you want The Obama tried as well, RJ?
perhaps we should also include the 99% of Congress who authorized going to war and who provided the funding?
maybe we should include Albright and Clinton since the yalso bombed Iraq and maintained Hussein was building WMDs?
Perhaps you are blinded by politiccs?
I am not sure if there is a medical cure for selective memory.
I'll gladly stipulate all those you named be tried H. I do wear glasses but I ain't blind.
RJ
You know what Erin? I'm your age, have a professional degree and a family. I'm not a fucking boy.
That said--volatility does not equal political instability. I've said this before and I'll say it again--I'm for health care reform. I think it's shameful that our country hasn't lived up to Obama's statement during the presidential debates that "healthcare is a right."
But to say politicians who oppose this administration's initiatives are "abetting the terrorists" is ludicrous. Why not expand that and say the people of Massachusettes are abetting the terrorists since they elected a senator who won't get on board the healthcare reform bill? It's tantamount to the Bush creed that voting against the administration's war policies was siding with the terrorists. It was as stupid an argument then as it is now.
Yemen is politically unstable. Somalia is politically unstable. Our country has a divided electorate. Period. And guess what? It's nothing new.
If you are going to defend your argument, do it with something other than platitudes. Of course people without healthcare are worried--that doesn't mean the terrorists did it.
In my opinion, the administration needs to tackle the deficit (lift the SS cap from $100K to $250K) and start over with some broad healthcare intiatives (e.g. no denial of coverage for pre-exisiting conditions) that everyone can agree on. Build on those baby steps and bring in those senators like Ben Nelson (D) and Olympia Snowe (R) who may be ready for some reform but not up to a dramatic restructuring in the middle of a recession. jemison
Jemison wrote: "Yemen is politically unstable. Somalia is politically unstable. Our country has a divided electorate. Period. And guess what? It's nothing new."
Err...no. That's more than just a tad wildly inaccurate.
The Yemen used to be two nations; at least one of which was a former Soviet 'client nation' satellite, and both being riven with regional conflict, before and after being cemented back together again - the "reunification" hasn't gone particularly well. It's a tribal thing.
And Somalia isn't just "politically unstable" - that's like accusing the Visigoths of being 'mildly undiplomatic' and having 'poor table manners': it's actually a fully-fledged, bona fide example of a failed state, with everything that description entails.
If what you offer above are your terms of reference, then it's easy to see how you get confused.
You know what jemison? I'm your age, have a professional degree and a family.
I am a girl.
The WOT really took off after 911, no one can deny that. In the past 9 years, this country has taken a precipitous drop on many fronts, no one can deny that. I believe those two things are closely intertwined. I also believe we need to figure this shit out or we're in for catastrophe, which is all the terrorists ever wanted--to see our power topple and our soldiers leave the Middle East.
I am not even going to start in on oil.
Did anyone notice that I called out both Dems and Repubs in my original post? This is EVERYONE'S problem. The worse our political division and paralysis becomes, the more points the terrorists score.
Since you don't like ME saying "political instability," go dig what Thomas Friedman has to say about it for the NYT:
As a political barometer, the Davos World Economic Forum usually offers up some revealing indicators of the global mood, and this year is no exception. I heard of a phrase being bandied about here by non-Americans — about the United States — that I can honestly say I’ve never heard before: “political instability.”
Just derail this political stuff slightly, I offer a quick read by Cass Sunstein. I'll be walking about 60 1st year engineering students through much of this argument today: we need to more fully consider the role of technology (read: the internet) in how reach our decisions/opinions, especially about political issues.
http://bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html
is there a good definition of political instability? might it be a good thing? a national common cause would be nice.
I have the good fortune to work with a physician born in India. He is quite knowledgeable about India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. When time allows we have wide ranging discussions about British rule (He speaks impecable English as well as Hindi and his native dialect English only motherfuckers) and colonial India as well as the historical struggles of the tribal peoples occupying that part of the world. The solutions to the geopolitical conflicts seem impossibly complex. I once remarked after one of these talks that we do a great job of describing the problem but a poor job of coming up with a solution. He responded "If you want to do something to help the situation, figure out why a loaf of bread costs 2 dollars."
RJ
OK, now we've established that the US is in partisan and political gridlock, and facing political instability if it can't do the right thing and get its domestic act together, it's worth remembering that when Bush needed Democrat support - they offered it: FLASHBACK: When Dems delivered bipartisan votes for Bush.
The above link illustrating the polar opposite of what the Republican right is offering, today, in terms of any bipartisan cooperation, or working "for America" and the sad sap tax-payers who pay their wages.
I never thought I'd live to see the day when a man with such a limited personal (let alone political) vocabulary as Bush jnr was bested in that condition by a shower of partisan Republican congressmen, who've now managed to hone their vocabulary down to just one word: "No!"
rj: these conservate rubes really have you baffled. i think your proplem might be traced back to one person: roger ailes. he's managed to brainwash half the country. save guantanamo bay.
Post a Comment