Foul-mouthed Auntie Occident is just foul-mouthed Dave, I think. I agree with him on some of the issues, but his tone is repugnant.
Why so angry, Dave?Comment Posted By Bobby Treat On 30.09.2006 @ 21:54
Amen to Auntie Occident (109).
We got through the Civil War (970000 dead) and WW2 (62 million worldwide) without making torture legal, without suspending habeas corpus, and without the kind of free-floating panic that now seems to possess conservatives.
Correcting for population size then and now, the Civil War dead is equivalent to NINE MILLION today, or three thousand 911s! Yet we came out of that war with a new respect for human dignity (albeit imperfect).
Are we coming out of this GWOT better than we went in? Or are we descending into paranoia, division, and lawlessness? That's the choice we have to make. Is a little safety REALLY worth losing our sense of morality?
If you think it is, I call that cowardice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_WarComment Posted By Bobby Treat On 30.09.2006 @ 21:38
"Attempting to entice underage minors to perform sexual acts over the Internet is a felony, according to the law the Republicans recently passed on the subject. For purposes of that law, 18 is the age of consent."
I'm not trying to defend Foley, but... did the e-mails really add up to that? I don't know; maybe they did.
Dave also said:
"Eat it, mo..f...ers."
Lots of class there, Dave!!Comment Posted By Bobby Treat On 30.09.2006 @ 19:44
B. Poster (71):
Jail? I haven't heard any charges against Foley that could possibly lead to jail time. Have you?Comment Posted By Bobby Treat On 30.09.2006 @ 19:33
All Republicans can't be blamed for the pedophilia of ONE Republican. By the same token, all Democrats can't be blamed for each inflammatory headline.
Patrick #36 quoted the following headline:
â€œMurtha calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqâ€ â€“ SF Chronicle, November 17, 2005
But at the link, the Chronicle said:
"Murtha said troops should be withdrawn in stages, so their safety is not jeopardized. He suggested that all 148,000 could be withdrawn within six months, but that a "rapid deployment force should be kept somewhere else in the Middle East."
See the difference, anyone? Darn that liberal media!!
Rick said (#17):
"If there is victory to be had in Iraq â€“ and you might recall from that NIE that Dems are pissing all over themselves about saying that victory in Iraq will mean fewer terrorists (which I guess means weâ€™ll be safer since more terrorists like we have to day means weâ€™re not as safe)the Dems are not interested in seeking it."
The NIE doesn't say victory will mean fewer terrorists; it says defeat could mean MORE terrorists (not exactly the same thing). And the NIE doesn't say winning in Iraq means fewer terrorists than four years ago. (Wrong. Herre's a direct quote from the NIE: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Sounds like success in Iraq equals fewer terrorists to me.)
Anyway, I'm not interested in anything that goes after "If there is victory to be had in Iraq..." because there simply isn't. It's wishful thinking that our military is (or can be) large enough, tough enough, and well-armed enough to bend a billion Muslims (or 26 million Iraqis) to our will. Sure, we could annihilate every living thing in Iraq; that, we could certainly do. But wipe out everybody we don't like, or everybody that doesn't like us, without genocide? That, we CANNOT do.
As for all the Democratic = "cut-and-run" rhetoric... It was Ronald Reagan that pulled us out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing, and he didn't do anything about the Iran hostage crisis, except to pick up the hostages when Carter had already negotiated their release. The day after Black Hawk Down, Republican congressmen were demanding that we leave Somalia, and they seriously looked for ways to force Clinton to withdraw faster than he wanted to. (He didn't want to at all.)
I'm not saying Reagan or Republicans in general are "cut-and-runners"; I'm saying the issues are much more complicated than that. Reagan "won the cold war" (if you want to give him the credit) NOT by attacking other countries, but by steadily managing threats, police-style. He built a large military, but it was an investment in peace-keeping and deterrence, not a war machine on the march.
Attacking Iraq doesn't make Dubya smarter, tougher, or more successful than Ronald Reagan.Comment Posted By Bobby Treat On 30.09.2006 @ 17:56
Pages (1) :