Comments Posted By mikeca
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 15 Comments
Communism failed because it did not work in practice. Communism failed to provide anything close to the life style in western democracies.
The thing conservatives need to recognize is that at this point "conservative principals" have also failed.
Lower taxes did not lead to a smaller government, even when conservatives controlled all branches of government.
Less regulation of financial markets has resulted in stagnant wages for the middle class and now a breathtaking financial collapse.
The national security leg of the conservative principals has also suffered greatly in public eye because of unnecessary foreign military adventures launched by a conservative administration using claimed threats that proved unfounded.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 29.04.2009 @ 15:19
I PREFER THE 'PROM DRESS' ANALOGY MYSELF
John McCain had a reputation as a man of honor. The Lipstick on a pig ad and the sex ed ad released by the McCain campaign show that McCain has lost its moral compass. All politician exaggerate their record and fudge the facts a little, but John McCain in these ads is doing far more than that. He is just lying, plain and simple. He has an army of surrogate talking heads that will go on TV and scream the lie as loud and often as they can, but it is still a lie. Another army of mindless bloggers will repeat the lie all over the web, but it does not matter how many times you repeat a lie, it is still a lie.
A man who is reduced to straight out lying to get elected clearly can not tell right from wrong. McCain use to be a man of honor, but he has lost his direction. McCain is morally unfit to be president of the United States.
Comment Posted By MikeCA On 11.09.2008 @ 02:17
OBAMA PLAYING HARDBALL - THE CHICAGO WAY
There is the question of McCain's relationship with the convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy has been a long time supporter of McCain. Liddy hosted a fund raiser for McCain. McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show and spoken highly of Liddy. In addition to be a convicted felon for the Watergate break in, Liddy plotted the murder of journalist. In the 1990's Liddy advised listeners on killing Federal law enforcement officers. Perhaps someone should ask McCain whether he supports murdering federal law enforcement officers like his good friend and supporter G. Gordon Liddy.
And if you really want to swift boat McCain, you could turn lose these nuts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
or even these nuts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvXEsW4Fgg&feature=relatedNow those would make some good swift boat style adds.
Comment Posted By MikeCA On 27.08.2008 @ 02:03
Congratulations Rick for having the courage to say what needs to be said.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 4.04.2008 @ 18:25
WHAT'S A LITTLE VOTER FRAUD AMONG FRIENDS?
The simplest way to commit voter fraud is with absentee ballots. Do any of these voter ID laws require that the people requesting absentee ballots present valid ID? Do these voter ID laws ensure that the people who filled out the absentee ballots are really the registered voter? Do any of these voter ID laws ensure that people voting by absentee ballot actually are real people?
Comment Posted By mikeca On 14.11.2007 @ 23:53
ARE CONSERVATIVES REALLY HOPING FOR ANOTHER 9/11?
Rick, I think you are missing the point. Most critics of the way the administration has pursued the War on Terror think the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but the invasion of Iraq was completely the wrong thing to do. Accept for a few bat shit crazy crackpots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Mylroie), no one believes that Iraq had any significant role in al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia are believed to be much more involved in terrorism. Note that it is not important whether Saddam had some secret connection to al Qaeda. If he did, he also did such a good job of hiding it that nobody knows about it even today. Therefore, no one believes that the Iraq invasion had anything to do with terrorism. That leads most people to look for some other motive, which is why the Iraq invasion, at least initially, was such a plus for al Qaeda.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 14.07.2007 @ 18:15
I hope your Democrat Presidential candidate stands behind this decision. I would love to watch the Republican candidate conclude that he/she would not have detained the 9/11 highjackers even if the FBI knew about the plot beforehand. You guys have had the luxury for 6 years to bash President Bush without having the responsibility to carry out policy. The public wants to know how they would prevent attacks, not simply how they would respond to one. Soft on terrorism will send real chills down voters backs.
Fritz, what on earth are you talking about?
There are laws on the books already against planning terror attacks. We have arrested a number of terrorists before they were able to carry out their attack. I can remember several such arrests in both the current Bush administration and the Clinton administration. This court ruling does not put any obstacles in the way of any administration arresting terrorists before they make an attack. All this ruling says is they cannot be detained forever without presenting some evidence, but they can certainly be arrested.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 13.06.2007 @ 22:55
To extend what I said above, what I think the court was saying here, was that under the constitution and laws past by Congress, the only choices at this point are to charge Ali al-Marri with a crime, start deportation procedures against him, or let him go.
If we need other options for cases like this, then Congress has to pass a law spelling out what those options are, and that law must pass constitutional muster. The administration has had lots of time to ask for new laws in this area, but they have not asked for anything that I know of. Maybe it is time they did.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 13.06.2007 @ 02:37
The president claims that he, and he alone, has the power to designate anyone, US citizen or not, anywhere in the world, including right here in the US, an enemy combatant and imprison that person indefinitely without review by anyone. The president claims he never has to show anyone any evidence to back up his claim that a person is an enemy combatant.
There is nothing to stop the president from naming anyone an enemy combatant. For example, he could name all the member of the opposition party as enemy combatants. Once named an enemy combatant, no one would have any right to question the ruling. If Congress tried to impeach him, he could simple name all member of Congress as enemy combatants. The president is claiming completely unchecked power.
This is not what our founding fathers fought a war against the English kings to create. This is not the American way.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 12.06.2007 @ 22:09
You really should read something about Republicans on immigration besides Kos or Think Progress. Every single pro enforcement member of Congress not to mention blogger has been SKEWERING the Chamber of Commerce, NAM, NFIB, and other business groups FOR YEARS! It is absolutely vital that along with closing down the borders we severely punish employers who hire illegals – EVEN IF THEY DO IT UNKNOWINGLY!
Your remark was pathetic and indicative that you have no clue of what you’re talking about.
Republicans may talk a good line about employer enforcement, but they don’t walk the talk. Here Kevin Drum quotes John O'Sullivan of the NY Post as saying that between 1995-7 between 10,000 and 18,000 illegals a year were arrested in work place sweeps and about 1000 employers per year were fined for employing illegals. In 2004 159 illegals were arrested and 3 employers were fined.
Now I’m not saying the 1995-7 enforcement was great or even close to good enough, but the 2004 results are essentially no enforcement at all. Actions speak louder than words.
Comment Posted By mikeca On 18.05.2007 @ 23:02
