New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

"John P. Mullen" wrote:

:This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
:in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth

That's a specious argument. Since we don't have a draft, there are no
"bright, energetic people" being sucked out of the economy to send to
Iraq. Those folks are volunteers and would probably be in the
military regardless.

You can try to make this argument with regard to National Guard types,
but then it quickly becomes an argument for having a larger standing
military and a smaller National Guard.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Bob Matthews wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
that say about you?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
says...
Bob Matthews wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

I suppose its also possible that a majority of the voters voted for
democratic senators in the last elections---but I haven't tallied up
the votes for the big states with democratic senators and compared it
to the totals for the smaller states with republican senators.

For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection by
2.5 million votes over her republican adversary. Feinstein did
about the same. That margin of victory is about 5 times the
total population of Wyoming, which elected two republican senators
(where the winner might have gotten 25,000 more votes than the
loser).

In any case there's a strong argument that the republicans hold power
due to the oddities of the American electoral system---not because
they had the support of the majority of the voters.

Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
that say about you?

A comprehensible sentence would have strengthened your argument! ;-)

Mark Borgerson

On 8/16/06 9:54 AM, in article
, "Mark Borgerson"
mborgerson.at.comcast.net wrote:

In article ,
says...
Bob Matthews wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's absolutely, irremediably,
unarguably wrong. Actually, Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004 and
was the first president since George H.W. Bush to receive a majority of the
popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2004

I could say something about credibility here if I weren't such a nice guy.


Grey Satterfield

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Bob Matthews wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

That's "your lot," genius.

Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot.

Maybe you mean "not vote for your lot"?

Lemme guess: you're another neocon with parchment on the wall? Or just
another loser who types with one hand while whacking off with the other?

Am I close?

Cheers

==bob



What does
that say about you?

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Grey Satterfield wrote:

:On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
: tomcervo wrote:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
: Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
: Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
: They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
: diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
: debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
: the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
: administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
: to the US to decide that.
:
: It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
: the top.
:
: No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
: responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
:
: We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
: want to spend and spend.
:
:John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
:hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
:George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
:spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
:think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
:numbers are so low.

Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.



The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.

Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
and disarmament program.

--

FF

Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/15/06 8:45 PM, in article ,
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
This is the real failure, to my mind. There was no good reason to
veto that bill. ...

Having this recorded as his first veto in two terms as President is
simply shameful. Having it upheld by Congress is even more shameful.
Yeah, I disapproved of Bush's failure to exercise leadership to control
spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

--

FF

On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
,
" wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party. The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.

Grey Satterfield

Mark Borgerson mborgerson.at.comcast.net wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bob Matthews wrote:
:
: :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
: :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
:
: So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
: stupid?
:
:That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
:less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

Wrong. Bush received 51% of the votes in the last election.

:I suppose its also possible that a majority of the voters voted for
:democratic senators in the last elections---but I haven't tallied up
:the votes for the big states with democratic senators and compared it
:to the totals for the smaller states with republican senators.

It's irrelevant. In addition, the Democrats *LOST* four seats in
2004.

:For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection by
:2.5 million votes over her republican adversary. Feinstein did
:about the same. That margin of victory is about 5 times the
:total population of Wyoming, which elected two republican senators
where the winner might have gotten 25,000 more votes than the
:loser).

Wrong again. Wyoming didn't elect any Senators in 2004.

:In any case there's a strong argument that the republicans hold power
:due to the oddities of the American electoral system---not because
:they had the support of the majority of the voters.

No there isn't. There isn't even a weak argument for that. The
Republicans gained strength in the Senate. The Republicans gained
seats in the House. The Republicans got the majority of votes on the
national ticket.

So far all you've demonstrated is that your lot must be too stupid to
understand the basics of how American government works, if your
argument is that you only keep getting beaten because "the voters are
stupid" and "the oddities of the American electoral system" get in
your way.

: Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
: that say about you?
:
:A comprehensible sentence would have strengthened your argument! ;-)

Gee, a typing flame. I'm IMPRESSED.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
,
" wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.

It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.

The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.


Doh!

--

FF