Okay, it surprises me no one has started this thread yet, but what did you guys think of the State of the Union Address last night?

I don't know if it's cause he's been subdued by Democrats, but I thought it was Dubya's best State of the Union speech yet. For one, he kept God and prayer out of his speech for a change and kept me from wanting to turn the television off due to his religious pandering. Two, he actually addressed some issues that I would like to see our president concerned about: budget balancing (of course, he set the goal for balancing the budget 5 years from now...probably when a Democrat is in the White House), cutting oil consumption, and immigration reform. Granted, he's always been more talk than action when it comes to the above issues, but at least he's talking about them.

Furthermore, I'm almost convinced that we should actually stay in Iraq. Not that he said anything new about the situation, but I'm almost in agreement with him that abandoning Iraq would have more dire results than staying there.

There were a couple of things that were bad however. He wants to renew the No Child Left Behind Act, he wants to make health insurance benefits taxable income, and he supports the Democratic ideal of having the government provide benefits to the poor, the elderly, and the children in this country. Also, he set some humanitarian goal of helping fight malaria, which frankly, has nothing to do with the U.S. and is probably more political rhetoric than anything.

What else....well, that's all I have off the top of my head.

didn't watch it.

I didn't watch either... I was too pissed that they had to do it on Thursday so I couldn't watch my new episodes of Law & Order: SVU and CI. :rant:

I think his speech was an acceptance of the reality that there will be a Democratic Congress for the rest of his time in office. He touched on issues that he previously wouldn't have, and seemed to set an agenda that has a actual chance of getting somewhere with the current Congress. Perhaps over the next two years we'll see Washington learning the art of compromise.

I think his speech was an acceptance of the reality that there will be a Democratic Congress for the rest of his time in office. He touched on issues that he previously wouldn't have, and seemed to set an agenda that has a actual chance of getting somewhere with the current Congress. Perhaps over the next two years we'll see Washington learning the art of compromise.

In Congress, possibly. But Bush will never compromise with anyone on anything. We've seen enough evidence of that to know that it is a fact.

Hell, he doesn't even stand by the laws he's signed into being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Controversy_over_George_W._Bush. 27s_use_of_signing_statements)!

he (Bush) actually addressed some issues that I would like to see our president concerned about: budget balancing (of course, he set the goal for balancing the budget 5 years from now...probably when a Democrat is in the White House)...

In other words, the only time it would ever have a chance of happening.

As Clinton demonstrated.

he wants to make health insurance benefits taxable income,...

One of the few things he's proposed that I feel is a good thing.

Why should self-employed people have to pay 12 or 15 thousand a year out of their own pockets for some sort of health coverage, while the people who work for big companies recieve 12 or 15 thousand (and in many instances much much more) in health insurance benefits, and not pay any tax on that benefit? In effect, the rest of the taxpayers have been subsidizing those who are being handed the benefit of all-encompassing healthcare packages as part of their wages. It needs to stop. Tax those people on these huge health care benefits, ad use the money to strenghten health care overall.

Fact of the matter is that Bush bowed to the democrat party and he didn't listen to the true base.

One: health care: this will not work because people who have over 15,000 in health care will be taxed on the extra. Good idea there, tax everyone because insurance is so expensive.

As for the overseas initiatives other than the war, let their people handle their problems. We don't need compromise we need to stand on principle.

It also didn't take long for the democrat criticizing to begin.

Did anyone also catch all the leading democrats run out of the house chamber as soon as the speech was over? Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Shumer, et al.

In other words, the only time it would ever have a chance of happening.

As Clinton demonstrated.



One of the few things he's proposed that I feel is a good thing.

Why should self-employed people have to pay 12 or 15 thousand a year out of their own pockets for some sort of health coverage, while the people who work for big companies recieve 12 or 15 thousand (and in many instances much much more) in health insurance benefits, and not pay any tax on that benefit? In effect, the rest of the taxpayers have been subsidizing those who are being handed the benefit of all-encompassing healthcare packages as part of their wages. It needs to stop. Tax those people on these huge health care benefits, ad use the money to strenghten health care overall.

A lot of government employees are there only because the benefits are good. If they're going to have to pay taxes out of their already meager income for the health benefits, you're going to see a lot of increases in the cost of having people work for the government....in the end the government is just going to send the money spinning in a new cycle, at the expense of the working middle class in the short term, because it's going to take time for salaries to catch up with the change in taxation. And let's face it, health insurance is only a substantial form of income for the middle class.

This is more of Bush's policy of pushing taxation to the middle class, which is already getting a huge squeeze in this country because the middle class is still taxed heavily without getting hardly any government benefits.

Fact of the matter is that Bush bowed to the democrat party and he didn't listen to the true base.

He is no longer running for office. He no longer needs your vote.

As for the overseas initiatives other than the war, let their people handle their problems. We don't need compromise we need to stand on principle.

Yes, thats just what Jesus would have said.

It also didn't take long for the democrat criticizing to begin.

What a surprise. Free speech is actually happening, and Democrats are representing their base.

Did anyone also catch all the leading democrats run out of the house chamber as soon as the speech was over? Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Shumer, et al.

All of those mentioned, as well as many of the leading Republicans did just that. The reason is simple. They had appointments to be interviewed on television on their reactions to the speech, and needed to be there. This is not a lack of respect, it is doing their job.

The only thing I got out of it ...

1) Plans are being made to let employers off the hook for providing health care and employees will have to fund their own and be taxed.
2) Increase the military by 90K +. Sounds like a draft to me.
3) Anyone that disagrees with Bush is a terrorist.
4) Stay the surge.

It sounded to me like Bush was trying to say "stay the course" without actually using those words. He seems to have blown off everything that has happened in the last few months. He doesn't seem to care whatsoever what the American people think or want. He seems to have ignored the Iraq Study Group completely.

He seems to be living in his own, little, personal universe.

Did anyone get a load of John McCain dozing off during Bush's speech?

It sounded to me like Bush was trying to say "stay the course" without actually using those words. He seems to have blown off everything that has happened in the last few months. He doesn't seem to care whatsoever what the American people think or want. He seems to have ignored the Iraq Study Group completely.

He seems to be living in his own, little, personal universe.
And I'm sure you listened to everything he said with an impartial and open mind, right?

http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/anti-Bush/funny_anti_bush_pictures/It_Takes_a_Village_Idiot_to_Raise_Our_Childrens_Ta xes_funny_Bush_picture.jpg

http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/anti-bush/funny_anti_bush_pictures/George_W_Bush_the_Fascist_Gun_in_the_West_anti-Bush_fastest_gun_in_west_definition_of_fascist_par ty_anti-bush_fascist_small.gif

http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/anti-Bush/funny_anti_bush_pictures/Have_You_Preyed_Today_Support_Religious_Violence_a nti-Bush_prayer_for_peace_not_piece_small.gif

http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/anti-Bush/funny_anti_bush_pictures/Bush_Won_WMD_Zero_I_Demand_a_Recount_more_like_Bus h_ZERO_Iraq_WMD_anti-Bush_WMD_Florida_recount_small.gif

Get bent, Polly Parrot.

Did anyone get a load of John McCain dozing off during Bush's speech?

I don't think he was dozing. At first glance, it looked like it, but you could see his eyelashes blinking. I think he was just bowing his head for some reason...thinking perhaps?

I don't think he was dozing. At first glance, it looked like it, but you could see his eyelashes blinking. I think he was just bowing his head for some reason...thinking perhaps?

I thought that was just REM.

Maybe he was doodling a note to ask if he can go to the bathroom. :)

One thought that keeps coming back over and over while watching Bush spinning his wheels is, "When you are already in a hole, stop digging."

Bush just won't stop digging in Iraq.

Your just not open minded enough to see the truth. If we let go in Iraq then what the people will go through there will seem like a field day now.

If we leave there will be such sectarian violence that has never been seen. Men will be beheaded, women will be raped in front of husbands, children beaten in front of parents.

Al-Quaeda will gain a stronghold in Iraq, they will use the oil revenues to attack americans, they will come here and Iran will gain a nuclear bomb and will probably sell it to bin laden.

We cannot afford to fail. Would you like to see the aftermath if we quit?

We cannot afford to fail.

Then they shouldn't have screwed the entire operation up from the beginning.

They should have listened to the Military.

They should have listened to the Democrats.

They should have listened to the Veterans.

They should have listened to anybody except the civilian, neocon idiots that they did listen to, who screwed up the entire operation right from the get go.

It is way too late for "victory" for the U.S. now. (as the Iraq study group pointed out)

oh quote the "Iraq Surrender Group", They want us to speak to our enemies.

You seem to think everyone is your enemy, especially your fellow Americans.

Your just not open minded enough to see the truth. If we let go in Iraq then what the people will go through there will seem like a field day now.

If we leave there will be such sectarian violence that has never been seen. Men will be beheaded, women will be raped in front of husbands, children beaten in front of parents.

Were you abused as a child?

Al-Quaeda will gain a stronghold in Iraq, they will use the oil revenues to attack americans, they will come here and Iran will gain a nuclear bomb and will probably sell it to bin laden.
And I bet you think Iraq was behind 9-11 too.

We cannot afford to fail. Would you like to see the aftermath if we quit?
Apparently I would, seeing as how I have been advocating that we withdraw.

oh quote the "Iraq Surrender Group", They want us to speak to our enemies.

We should have nuked Russia in the cold war, right?

Fact of the matter is that Bush bowed to the democrat party and he didn't listen to the true base.

Translation; B*sh finally begins to act as if he is sane, and is not as much swayed by the ChristoFascistWarmonger base.

One: health care: this will not work because people who have over 15,000 in health care will be taxed on the extra. Good idea there, tax everyone because insurance is so expensive.

Yes, it IS a good idea. Because those people are receiving a benefit that is worth 15,000 dollars.

I have to pay my own healthcare out of my pocket. I am tired of subsidizing other people's health care. The tax burden on the 15,000 in extra income they are benefitting from will not be a large amount, but fair is fair. Let people pay for the benefits they're receiving. If I go to a casino and win 15,000 dollars (IOW, the same amount we're talking about that these people are receiving in health benefits), I am forced to pay federal taxes on my monetary increase. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same rules?


It also didn't take long for the democrat criticizing to begin.

Au contraire.

It took six years too long for the lily-livered Democratic whipping boys to begin seriously criticizing this abject fucking failure of a pResident.

Your just not open minded enough to see the truth. If we let go in Iraq then what the people will go through there will seem like a field day now.

You're just too ignorant to perceive the reality.

If we had never gone into Iraq to wage war in the first place (which would NOT have taken place absent the unthinking acquescence of the huge faction of warmongering rightwing fucking dimwits of this country) we would not be faced with such a decision.

If we let go in Iraq then what the people will go through there will seem like a field day now.........Would you like to see the aftermath if we quit?

No.

What I would REALLY love to see is the *aftermath* of you and every other warmongering rightwing zombie who vocally supported and aided in fomenting this illegitimate, illegal and unnecessary war against Iraq --along with Bush and all his thuggish co-conspirators-- being tried in an international court of law for crimes against humanity.

Your just not open minded enough to see the truth. If we let go in Iraq then what the people will go through there will seem like a field day now.

If we leave there will be such sectarian violence that has never been seen. Men will be beheaded, women will be raped in front of husbands, children beaten in front of parents.

Al-Quaeda will gain a stronghold in Iraq, they will use the oil revenues to attack americans, they will come here and Iran will gain a nuclear bomb and will probably sell it to bin laden.

We cannot afford to fail. Would you like to see the aftermath if we quit?

Quick, tell me the powerball numbers for tomorrow.

I'm tending to side with ConservativeMan on this one. If we leave Iraq now, the results will more or less be catastrophic. Not just for the Iraqi people, but for the United States and its allies.

There may not have been any Al Quaeda links in Iraq before the invastion, but they're there now. Letting those links thrive cannot be good for the U.S.

There may not have been any Al Quaeda links in Iraq before the invastion, but they're there now.

Gee whillikers!!!.....I wonder why...?!?!?!?!?

Gee whillikers!!!.....I wonder why...?!?!?!?!?

I agree with you, but there's no point in crying over spilled milk. The question before us is "what do we do now?"

No.

What I would REALLY love to see is the *aftermath* of you and every other warmongering rightwing zombie who vocally supported and aided in fomenting this illegitimate, illegal and unnecessary war against Iraq --along with Bush and all his thuggish co-conspirators-- being tried in an international court of law for crimes against humanity.

You know what is an even greater atrocity? That since the 1973 decision on abortion there have been 1.6 million abortions on average per year that is 54.4 MILLION Children who have died needlessly. More than have died in the entire war so far. Why don't you get outraged about that FT? That is a TRUE crime against humanity.

Yes I belong to the right-wing ,but I am no warmonger.

You know what is an even greater atrocity? That since the 1973 decision on abortion there have been 1.6 million abortions on average per year that is 54.4 MILLION Children who have died needlessly. More than have died in the entire war so far. Why don't you get outraged about that FT? That is a TRUE crime against humanity.

Perhaps, but that's a topic for another thread.


Yes I belong to the right-wing ,but I am no warmonger.

I'm curious CM, what makes you think we can bring peace and democracy to Iraq?

I'm tending to side with ConservativeMan on this one. If we leave Iraq now, the results will more or less be catastrophic. Not just for the Iraqi people, but for the United States and its allies.

There may not have been any Al Quaeda links in Iraq before the invastion, but they're there now. Letting those links thrive cannot be good for the U.S.

There is no guarentee that we will avoid the catastrophic results by staying. We have thus far failed to stop the escalation of the civil war raging in Iraq, let alone the insurgency.

I do not see a measily 20k troops stopping what 140,000 troops could not.

This is just more of the same lack of a strategy we have had for the last 4 years.

This is just "stay the course" in different wording.

Yes I belong to the right-wing ,but I am no warmonger.

Your posts tell a different story.

You know what is an even greater atrocity? That since the 1973 decision on abortion there have been 1.6 million abortions on average per year ....

Good. Let's try to have even more in the future. With the proper educational programs, it's possible.

....that is 54.4 MILLION Children who have died needlessly. More than have died in the entire war so far. Why don't you get outraged about that FT?

Because they weren't 'children'.

They were fetuses. Clumps of tissue.

And I am not only not "outraged", I am very pleased to have a planet with (if we take your numbers as true) 54.4 million less humans occupying it thanks to abortion.

__________________________________________________ ________

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. In comparison, there are more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. Yet many millions of superstitionists throughout America insist that the collection of 150 cells possesses an immortal "soul". Hence they oppose stem cell research. What idiocy. No wonder this country is headed over the cliff........

You know what is an even greater atrocity? That since the 1973 decision on abortion there have been 1.6 million abortions on average per year that is 54.4 MILLION Children who have died needlessly.
They're not children. They're fetuses.

Edit: It seems FT beat me to saying that.

We can give the Iraqis a chance for peace and security by helping them. We cant do it all, but we can help by pacifying the enemies and also getting a grasp of services. They need to do the bulk of it and they are making good strides.

They were fetuses. Clumps of tissue.


Aren't they a blastocyst for the first couple months?

It has been a while since I had biology.

Nevermind, I am going to honor Vile's request and keep my thoughts for a different thread.

I am not and I have never been a warmonger. I support the president and the party.

I have not called you liberal democrat party members "traitors" have I?

We can give the Iraqis a chance for peace and security by helping them. We cant do it all, but we can help by pacifying the enemies and also getting a grasp of services. They need to do the bulk of it and they are making good strides.

Oh yes, that ethnic cleansing in Baghdad is going swimmingly, isn't it?

</sarcasm>

Check out this video of congresswoman Michelle "I am a fool for Christ" Bachman after the SOTU address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekUeIsUsxec

Check out this video of congresswoman Michelle "I am a fool for Christ" Bachman after the SOTU address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekUeIsUsxec

I thought Secret Service was going to jump in if she latched onto him any tighter. :)

I am not and I have never been a warmonger. I support the president and the party.

Ok.

Are you a supporter of the war?

I have not called you liberal democrat party members "traitors" have I?

No. But then, you'd have zero justification in doing so.

Which is closer to the truth......

Calling a person who staunchly supports the war a *warmonger*......??

...or calling a person who emphatically does NOT agree with or support the war a "traitor"........??

Take your time.

We can give the Iraqis a chance for peace and security by helping them. We cant do it all, but we can help by pacifying the enemies and also getting a grasp of services. They need to do the bulk of it and they are making good strides.

We've been in Iraq for nearly 4 years now. We haven't pacified anything. How will 20,000 troops and X amount of time going to change that?

We can give the Iraqis a chance for peace and security by helping them.

That sounds wonderful CM, but it doesn't really seem like we've helped them a great deal so far. Have we brought "peace" and "security" by toppling their government and disbanding the army and police? No. We've thrust the country to the brink of civil war, and I'm not certain how 22,000 extra troops on the ground will pull them back from the edge of the abyss.


We cant do it all, but we can help by pacifying the enemies and also getting a grasp of services. They need to do the bulk of it and they are making good strides.

I think you mean "killing" the enemies, but I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "getting a grasp of services". With the daily bombings and shootings I'm not sure what you refer to when you mentioned those "good strides".

I'm tending to side with ConservativeMan on this one. If we leave Iraq now, the results will more or less be catastrophic. Not just for the Iraqi people, but for the United States and its allies.

There may not have been any Al Quaeda links in Iraq before the invastion, but they're there now. Letting those links thrive cannot be good for the U.S.

How will it be bad for the United States? Are they going to come over here and get us? Heck, a 65-year-old nun can barely get through airport security without a full strip-search. Or are they gonna destroy us with that Nukular bomb and state-of-the-art delivery system they have? Maybe they're gonna anthrax us to death or overwhelm us with immigration ... no wait a minute ... that one is already taken.

Your answer please.

Ok.

Are you a supporter of the war

Yes I do support the war. I support the toppling of any tyrant who kills their own people and creates terror.



No. But then, you'd have zero justification in doing so.

Which is closer to the truth......

Calling a person who staunchly supports the war a *warmonger*......??

...or calling a person who emphatically does NOT agree with or support the war a "traitor"........??

Take your time.

Neither is the truth. Everyone has the right to their own opinion.

That sounds wonderful CM, but it doesn't really seem like we've helped them a great deal so far. Have we brought "peace" and "security" by toppling their government and disbanding the army and police? No. We've thrust the country to the brink of civil war, and I'm not certain how 22,000 extra troops on the ground will pull them back from the edge of the abyss.



I think you mean "killing" the enemies, but I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "getting a grasp of services". With the daily bombings and shootings I'm not sure what you refer to when you mentioned those "good strides".

You would say that now, but why not give the president what he is asking and give a few more months to succeed? We have brought it as well as we can to the people. But it will take time. Our own democracy was not formed in a day.

Killing and detaining the enemies for Iraqi justice. Getting a grasp of services is just what it sounds like. Getting water, electric, schools, major utilities all run by Iraqis.

The people were able to vote and were able to form a democratic government were they not? That is making an excellent stride.

How will it be bad for the United States? Are they going to come over here and get us? Heck, a 65-year-old nun can barely get through airport security without a full strip-search. Or are they gonna destroy us with that Nukular bomb and state-of-the-art delivery system they have? Maybe they're gonna anthrax us to death or overwhelm us with immigration ... no wait a minute ... that one is already taken.

Your answer please.

Have you completely forgotten 9/11? The people who orchestrated that attack are still present in the world and growing in strength. In particular, they love countries where there are weak governments (Osama was based in Afghanistan at the time of 9/11).

Moreover, you're sorely mistaken if you think our security is impenetrable. I think our own Department of Homeland Security would concede otherwise. There have been numerous tests of airport security (not that the next attack will even be via planes!) which the airport security has failed.

What are they gonna do? Knock down the WTC again?

FT, aren't you contradicting yourself? You say that you're tired of subsidizing other people, so you want someone else to do it? And if your happy that all these potential people are not on the earth, why arent you happy that people are getting killed in the war?

With those asked:

I believe that the real problem in Iraq is that the troops have no clearly defined objective. "Bring Democracy" is not something that the army does; it blows shit up. I believe that we went into Iraq in order to eliminate a hostile regime, and set it up as a friendly nation in the area. While that's not what Bush said, I still believe that's a pretty good reason to go in there.

It's sort of like dragging a little kid to go get his shots. The Iraqi people seem more inclined to slip into tribalism only to be conquered later; short term gain (revenge) at the cost of long term goals. We're trying to drag them into unity. I don't know if we can do it, but as long as there's hope, we should try.

It took Saddam Hussain and a Million of his soldiers to drag them into unity before. There is no hope that we can do it with a measily 150,000 troops no matter how long we stay.

If "Victory" in Iraq were really that important than they wouldn't be pussy-footing around it trying to do it on the cheap. They would be willing to dedictae all the resources necessary and would be willing to sacrifice and ask the American people to sacrifice in order to get the job done. They would be willing to do whatever it takes to get the troops they need, including a *gasp* draft.

If it isn't worth starting a draft to get the troops we need, then maybe it just isn't really worth doing.

What are they gonna do? Knock down the WTC again?

Use your imagination, cause that's what they're doing. A couple of things off the top of my head: Anthrax and Dirty Bombs. One they have and one they could conceivably acquire. There's plenty of damage you can do with both substances.

Use your imagination, cause that's what they're doing. A couple of things off the top of my head: Anthrax and Dirty Bombs. One they have and one they could conceivably acquire. There's plenty of damage you can do with both substances.

Sure, but that is the same thing as any American grown terrorist would do.
Like the guy who was caught, last month, in Tennesee, with ~30lbs of C-4 explosives and who admitted to the FBI he intended to go blow up Congress while it was in session. He was a white, Christian American militia-type who just hates the government.

We have a lot of things to fear but we should not panic and falsely conflate one threat to be greater then other very real threats right here in our backyard.

Sure, but that is the same thing as any American grown terrorist would do.
Like the guy who was caught, last month, in Tennesee, with ~30lbs of C-4 explosives and who admitted to the FBI he intended to go blow up Congress while it was in session. He was a white, Christian American militia-type who just hates the government.

We have a lot of things to fear but we should not panic and falsely conflate one threat to be greater then other very real threats right here in our backyard.

We're not talking about an isolated crazy person.

Actually, I stand corrected, it was in 2004. (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=906)

Neither am I. (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=549)

What are they gonna do? Knock down the WTC again?
Yeah, because that's all they can do, right? :rolleyes:

I believe that the real problem in Iraq is that the troops have no clearly defined objective. "Bring Democracy" is not something that the army does; it blows shit up. I believe that we went into Iraq in order to eliminate a hostile regime, and set it up as a friendly nation in the area. While that's not what Bush said, I still believe that's a pretty good reason to go in there.

It's sort of like dragging a little kid to go get his shots. The Iraqi people seem more inclined to slip into tribalism only to be conquered later; short term gain (revenge) at the cost of long term goals. We're trying to drag them into unity. I don't know if we can do it, but as long as there's hope, we should try.
Excellent post, EH.

Neither am I. (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=549)

So are you seriously trying to argue that home-grown crazy guys with terroristic agendas are more dangerous than Al-Quaeda and its ilk? If so, good luck convincing the rest of the country.

In the meantime, abandoning Iraq and calling it a loss does not sound like an appealing option to me. THOUSANDS of lives hang in the balance there, more than all of your link's situations added together.

Let me be clear about something. I don't think that this war is a good idea. I never did. You can look at my post history prior to the beginning of the war and I was in the minority of people arguing against the war. However, now that we're there, I believe Iraq is our responsibility still.

So are you seriously trying to argue that home-grown crazy guys with terroristic agendas are more dangerous than Al-Quaeda and its ilk?

Yes.

They are actually here, right now. A clear and present danger.

Let me be clear about something. I don't think that this war is a good idea. I never did. You can look at my post history prior to the beginning of the war and I was in the minority of people arguing against the war. However, now that we're there, I believe Iraq is our responsibility still.

I agree. However, I refer back to my earlier statement about doing it right and not pussy-footing around trying to do it on the cheap.

If we are going to do it we should do it right or not at all.

Not that you'd ever endorse doing anything, but whatever, I see your point.

Not that you'd ever endorse doing anything, but whatever, I see your point.

Smear much?

You would say that now, but why not give the president what he is asking and give a few more months to succeed?

I tend to agree. If you check the "20,000 More To Iraq" thread, you'll see that I think we may as well send the troops. We have much more to gain than we have to lose at this point. Ultimately however, I'm not confident about the troops making a big difference.


We have brought it as well as we can to the people. But it will take time. Our own democracy was not formed in a day.

We weren't trying to form our government during the middle of a civil war either. That fact may make it impossible for a stable government to be formed until they iron out their differences.


Getting a grasp of services is just what it sounds like. Getting water, electric, schools, major utilities all run by Iraqis.

What a shame we had to destroy all that stuff first.


The people were able to vote and were able to form a democratic government were they not? That is making an excellent stride.

I would agree if they did it without our meddling, and also if the government were able to control the country. Since they didn't or can't do either, I'd say it's not much of a stride.

FT, aren't you contradicting yourself?

No.

You say that you're tired of subsidizing other people, so you want someone else to do it?

No. Only someone with an unrelentingly binary way of thinking would reach such a conclusion.

And if your happy that all these potential people are not on the earth, why arent you happy that people are getting killed in the war?

Interesting. This now causes me to wonder if there really are people too dense to perceive the vast difference between undifferentiated lumps of cells not being allowed to develop, and adult human beings getting killed in a war.

No. Only someone with an unrelentingly binary way of thinking would reach such a conclusion.



Interesting. This now causes me to wonder if there really are people too dense to perceive the vast difference between undifferentiated lumps of cells not being allowed to develop, and adult human beings getting killed in a war.

Actually, if you read Homer's posts you'll find him to be a highly intelligent young man and one of better members here. He may be a bit off track here, but he certainly isn't dense. As an aside, this now causes me to wonder why an adult with a superb command of the English language so often chooses to express himself so negatively. Try to lighten up a little FT, we all know you can't be this much of a grouch IRL.

As an aside, this now causes me to wonder why an adult with a superb command of the English language so often chooses to express himself so negatively...........Try to lighten up a little FT, we all know you can't be this much of a grouch IRL.

Ok.

It's just that I viewed his question as foolish, and I do not suffer fools gladly.

Also, didn't you get a bit of a sense that his question was purposely provocative...?

Oh well. Maybe he is not dense, but was being facetious.

I am a bit surprised --considering some of the other insults that are hurled around here on a regular basis-- that my proposing that his question was a demonstration of his being *dense* is met with such annoyance. I didn't think it was THAT harsh....... :D

It seems that those posters who are regularly rude and insulting are held to a much lower standard than everyone else.

Alright, I'll concede the abortion thing on the grounds of semantics. Just the statement, "I'm glad that there are 54.4 million fewer people..." or whatever, struck me as odd. In this you seem to assert that not only is it not wrong to have an abortion (personally, i'm still on the fence on this issue), but the mere fact that that these cells never matured into human beings is a good thing. I find it hard to believe that you actually think that, so let's chalk it up to inadequate word choice in the heat of the moment.


As to the other issue, I must ask you to clarify your statement about health insurance. I found it somewhat confusing, and I interpretated it to mean that you are tired of paying, and that it should be left to someone else.

I admit that the questions were provocative, but those are the type most likely to recieve answers. Sad but true. Besides, you seem to pretty much live in the realm of provocation. I'm not criticizing it, because it leads to interesting debates, but you shouldn't be offended when other people do it.

Now...wait, what were we all talking about again?

Another point about Bush's SotU that has me rolling my eyes is his claim that he is going to do all of the following without raising taxes.

- Add 90,000 more troops to the military
- Create a new volunteer civilian reserve force
- Continue the $150 Billion per year Occupation of Iraq
- Escalate the Occupation of Iraq
- balance the budget


All without raising taxes?

Unsuprisingly he gave exatly ZERO details as to how he thinks he can accomplish this.

Once again he is all claims and promises and zero substance.

Alright, I'll concede the abortion thing on the grounds of semantics. Just the statement, "I'm glad that there are 54.4 million fewer people..." or whatever, struck me as odd. In this you seem to assert that not only is it not wrong to have an abortion, but the mere fact that that these cells never matured into human beings is a good thing.

Yes. That is exactly what I was asserting.

I find it hard to believe that you actually think that, so let's chalk it up to inadequate word choice in the heat of the moment.

?!?!?!

No "inadequate word choice" on my part.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could not see the immense benefit --to the planet and its dwindling resources-- of NOT allowing those 54 million fetuses to develop.

As to the other issue, I must ask you to clarify your statement about health insurance. I found it somewhat confusing, and I interpretated it to mean that you are tired of paying, and that it should be left to someone else.

Ok.

Here's a clue.

If I were to observe a man beating his wife in public, and was prompted to opine, "I think that man should stop beating his wife", it should not --repeat not-- be construed as indicating a belief on my part that it should be left to someone else to take over the task of beating the man's wife.

I admit that the questions were provocative, but those are the type most likely to recieve answers. Sad but true. Besides, you seem to pretty much live in the realm of provocation.

?!?

You just admitted that you instigated the provacation.

I'm not criticizing it, because it leads to interesting debates, but you shouldn't be offended when other people do it.

??

I was NOT "offended" in the slightest.

I have no idea why you would try to imply that I was offended.

Well, other than to perhaps salve your own tender feelings.

Our own democracy was not formed in a day.

The big difference between our democracy and Iraq's is the fact that we desired democracy; in Iraq we just crammed it down their throats.

......we desired democracy; in Iraq we just crammed it down their throats.

Well, the U.S. tried to.

It's a long way from being accomplished.

i have no arguments with going in and doing whatever it takes to get the job done.. but somehow i predict liberals would complain either way.

Yes. That is exactly what I was asserting.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could not see the immense benefit --to the planet and its dwindling resources-- of NOT allowing those 54 million fetuses to develop.

Ok? So if you see 54 million people absent as a good thing, why are you angry when people get killed in war. It's pretty much the same thing.

I have to pay my own healthcare out of my pocket. I am tired of subsidizing other people's health care. The tax burden on the 15,000 in extra income they are benefitting from will not be a large amount, but fair is fair. Let people pay for the benefits they're receiving. If I go to a casino and win 15,000 dollars (IOW, the same amount we're talking about that these people are receiving in health benefits), I am forced to pay federal taxes on my monetary increase. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same rules?

Could you please explain this? From where I stand, it seems that the government taxes people who have already paid their share.

Ok? So if you see 54 million people absent as a good thing, why are you angry when people get killed in war. It's pretty much the same thing.

For me, it is two very different things.

The 54 million were simply blastocysts that were not allowed to come to term. No killing of human beings involved.

The soldiers who get killed in wars are adult human biengs.....plus, the ones in Iraq are dying for no other reason than to further enrich wealthy oil interests.

I have to pay my own healthcare out of my pocket. I am tired of subsidizing other people's health care. The tax burden on the 15,000 in extra income they are benefitting from will not be a large amount, but fair is fair. Let people pay for the benefits they're receiving. If I go to a casino and win 15,000 dollars (IOW, the same amount we're talking about that these people are receiving in health benefits), I am forced to pay federal taxes on my monetary increase. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same rules?


Could you please explain this? From where I stand, it seems that the government taxes people who have already paid their share.

The comment itself should be self-explanatory. If you want to begin a thread about taxes i will gladly discuss it in detail.

i have no arguments with going in and doing whatever it takes to get the job done.. but somehow i predict liberals would complain either way.

Half of our troops (or more) that have boots on the ground are liberals. Are they complaining?

Half of our troops (or more) that have boots on the ground are liberals. Are they complaining?

Actually yes. Not officially of course because that would be a violation of orders.

But talk to a few of them in private.

Everyone I have talked to have more complaints than I do.

I don't blame em. Nobody likes getting shot at.

Half of our troops (or more) that have boots on the ground are liberals. Are they complaining?

um... where did you get that tidbit? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing that.

um... where did you get that tidbit? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing that.

Are you implying that liberals don't serve?

Are you implying that liberals don't serve?

No, I'm saying that conservatives are more prone to support the military and the actions that the military is involved in (Iraq for example), and therefore are more prone to serve than liberals are.

No, I'm saying that conservatives are more prone to support the military and the actions that the military is involved in (Iraq for example), and therefore are more prone to serve than liberals are.

I agree on that.

The more fully a youth is indoctrinated with the bullshit *My Country Right or Wrong* mindset, the more likely he will be willing to march off to defend the sainted Fatherland. GOTT MITT UNS!!!!

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Ashcroft_singing.jpg

Unthinking, conformist drones are far more likely to be fully indoctrinated with said mindset than intelligent, reflective people.

sigh... FT... not all conservatives are gun-toting religious fanatics, and not all liberals are intelligent, peaceful and reflective people. Just because you or others have labeled them as a liberal or conservative does not mean that they instantly fit a stereotype.

No, I'm saying that conservatives are more prone to support the military and the actions that the military is involved in (Iraq for example), and therefore are more prone to serve than liberals are.

Agree that conservative are more likely to back the military but they are less likely to sign up and do the actual fighting. Thus ... the official ChickenHawk list is all conservatives.

FWIW: Do you ever wonder why this administration did not release the official military stats (and never will) for the last 4 cycles?

Answer: They don't want the public to know the military voted democratic.

No, I'm saying that conservatives are more prone to support the military and the actions that the military is involved in (Iraq for example), and therefore are more prone to serve than liberals are.

That just doesn't measure out in practice. Some of the most vocal supporters of this "war" have precisely zero skin in the game. (the entire administration, for instance)

They blew up a school yesterday and killed 5 small children.

If the conservatives still want to take ownership of this mess after that incident ... fine with me.

Baby killers -- take them all to Den Hague.

The troops blew up a school yesterday and killed 5 small children.

If the conservatives still want to take ownership of this mess after that incident ... fine with me.

Baby killers -- take them all to Den Hague.

I have not seen that. Can you share a link to an article please?

I have not seen that. Can you share a link to an article please?


Of course you didn't see it ... because the liberal media didn't want you to see it.

It was deeply burried within the article about us killing 255 of the bad guys (ROTF), knowing most people don't read past the first paragraph or two ...

In Baghdad, 13 people were killed in bombings in mainly Shi'ite areas, police said. In a Sunni area, five girls were killed when a mortar struck their school yard.

taken from this article ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070128/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Of course you didn't see it ... because the liberal media didn't want you to see it.


That, or perhaps the American people are desensitized and disinterested in stories about tragedies in Iraq.

That, or perhaps the American people are desensitized and disinterested in stories about tragedies in Iraq.

True - but that doesn't remove responsibility for the killing.

Regardless of how it happened, our rocket, their rocket or accidental ... if we (the U.S.) were not in Iraq it wouldn't have happened. Therefore, we are directly responsible for the killing of the 5 children.

Are you implying that liberals don't serve?
Cut that out Dop. Show me proof that half the military is "liberal."
Agree that conservative are more likely to back the military but they are less likely to sign up and do the actual fighting. Thus ... the official ChickenHawk list is all conservatives.
Show us this "official ChickenHawk list"
FWIW: Do you ever wonder why this administration did not release the official military stats (and never will) for the last 4 cycles?

Answer: They don't want the public to know the military voted democratic.
Yes Dop, that is the only answer. You win.

Cut that out Dop. Show me proof that half the military is "liberal."

Show us this "official ChickenHawk list"

Yes Dop, that is the only answer. You win.

ChickenHawk list 101

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

ChickenHawk list 101

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
What makes this list "official"?

And where did you get the idea that half of the armed forces are liberal?

What makes this list "official"?
The fact that it was printed in the New Hampshire Gazette....duuuuh!

The fact that it was printed in the New Hampshire Gazette....duuuuh!

It's official by having de-facto status due to no one refuting it.

It's official by having de-facto status due to no one refuting it.
Great reasoning.

There must be a race of super-intelligent mole people in the deep crust of Mars. That is factual because no one can refute it.

It's official by having de-facto status due to no one refuting it.

I don't know about "official", but I certainly don't see anyone refuting the facts it presents.

Those people did support the war and did not serve. (i.e. chickenhawks)

People can dislike the term all they want but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.