Posted on 05/13/2007 5:06:47 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Do you really think there is any candidate pure enough for these self proclaimed Reagan Conservatives??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Cheny goes over and says, don't take the summer off to the Iraqi Parliament, while the Congress will recess for August and take off most of July
I think that every Congressman should have to go to Iraq for July and August, right AFTER independence day.
Do them all a world of good, doing joint tasking with the Iraqi parliament.
They would come back with a great deal of bi-partisan motivation.
Great suggestion, Candor 7.
I most especially think that your suggestion pertain to the multiple Senate POTUS candidates...as THEY seem to be able to get up in front of crowds numbering in the thousands, and proclaiming THEY are the most knowledgable about not only what needs to happen over there, but what IS going on over there!! LOL
He is done as a Presidential candidate. He not only seemed every year a 72 year old man, his unconvincing responses to Timmy’s hostile questions shows that his base - the MSM - has finally deserted him.
Of course, the Repubs are the stupid party, so they just *might* nominate a 72 year old supporter of illegal immigration, who’s flip-flopped more than John Kerry, and is an absolute joke on Iraq and foreign policy. I kept waiting for him to say there is “light at the end of the tunnel” or to start talking about “Iraqization”.
McCrazy should have a new campaign slogan, “We invade the world and let the world invade us”.
MNJ,
I have a different take on Scheuer from an article in American Thinker a few months ago...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Valerie Plame, Scheuer is an unabashed Leftist, as he showed in his first CIA-approved book. He openly admires Al Qaida -— remember, this is the guy who was in charge of protecting us before 9/11 (!!!) And he sides with the justice of their cause.
.....
Scheuer’s bottom line: We deserved 9/11.
Oddly enough, the CIA’s top Bin Laden’s specialist has an utterly immoral view of war, contrary to the entire Western “Just War” tradition, which ranges from Cicero to Aquinas and well into the 20th century. In a Just War context, the Geneva Conventions mean something; targeting innocents means something; wearing uniforms that visibly identify soldiers and protect civilians means something. None of those major, life-saving civilizational constraints mean anything to Scheuer.
He approvingly quotes KSM:
“Knowing history better than his interlocutors, KSM told the tribunal: ‘But you are military men. I did it [the list of attacks] but this is the language of any war ... Military [men] throughout history know very well. They know war will never stop. War start from Adam when Cain he killed Abel until now. It’s never gonna stop killing people. This [killing and victims] is the way of the language [of war] ... You know never stopping war. This is life.’”
But that is the barbarians’ view of warfare. And if you hold that view, there is no difference between the fire and the fire brigade. The fire consumes innocent lives, while the fire brigade risks life and limb to save them. But the Scheuers of this world are so morally lost and confused that they cannot tell the difference.
Scheuer certainly doesn’t seem like a very bright or well-informed guy, but much worse, it is his moral worldview that is corrupted: That is the real problem. If our CIA promoted him up the ranks in utter disregard of his nihilistic view of the American cause, there must be something profoundly wrong at Langley.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I get a really bad feeling everytime I think of Scheuer being in charge of the Bin Laden unit and appearing in LSM venues telling us how to procede from here.
awright!
Excellent post!
For a long time I was one of those that cheered the idea of divided government where nothing got done on the theory that the less Washington did the better off we were.
That’s still true in many areas, but in a time of war it’s a totally insane and ultimately destructive situation.
I’m currently favoring Fred, but even he has demonstrated an inability to handle the Dhimmicrat’s all out “warfare as politics” way of doing things. The China hearings where John Glenn sold out the nation to protect Clinton in exchange for a ride on the Shuttle was a debacle. Let’s hope he’s learned something.
Who else is there? Newt? Not only too compromised he’s way to accommodating these days. Who is there to turn to that actually has a chance of affecting the dialogue.
100% correct.
All media companies supported by advertising are NOT in the business of making good programs and selling them. They are in the business of attracting viewers. We are the product they sell, not the programs. The programs are the bait to lure us, our eyes, so that they can sell our attention to the advertisers.
Rodguy911 is therefore correct in his assessment. Without us they have no product to sell to the advertisers. Therein lies our power over them.
Wasn’t that part of the Clinton Administration cutting our military in 1/2, even with the constant threats of terrorism they were trying hard to ignore? Get rid of active duty and go to a NG-based military to save $?
My own position is that I vehemently oppose abortion as birth control (for convenience) but can understand it for valid medical reasons, such as a fatal defect that will only leave an infant a few hours or days of very painful life. In effect a form of euthanasia, which I also oppose but can understand. I can also understand abortion as a choice when you’re looking at the alternatives between the life of the mother and the life of the baby.
That last hypothetical, however, points out my biggest problem with this question. In that case I would strongly lean to the life of the baby, but can understand, even if I disagree with, those who would choose otherwise.
I just don't feel wise enough to make that choice.
Life is about making choices, some extremely painful. Having driven an ambulance for a living I have been confronted with some impossible choices where there was the issue of life and death on the line. I can tell you it's not easy, but not recognizing that type of situation exists guarantees that bad things will happen through inaction, even if you don't mean it to, so sometimes you have to take on the questions you never want to. The thing is you have to live with those choices afterwards. I think the most compelling argument against Roe v Wade is the testimony of Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" of that Supreme Court decision, proclaiming how wrong the decision was and how much she regrets the results of that decision.
But I believe that abortion as birth control should be made a crime.
Now, a viable (if not yet possible) alternative is the removal of the baby from the mother’s womb, but then bringing it to term in an artificial womb. How long will it be before we can do that? Five years? Certainly no more than ten. Now, what are the moral and societal issues raised by that prospect? Many women will argue that it’s “their fetus” therefore they get to deny that option. I would “cry havoc” over that argument, but you know it will be raised.
Then you have the question of who will pay for this child, who will raise it, etc. There are several million abortions around the world each year, around a million in this country. An overwhelming percentage of those abortions are of non-white babies. What does that sort of statistic do to the demographics of this country? Of the world?
There is a truism that I have come to believe in utterly: “you can never do just one thing.”
I have lots of problems with Rudy on lots of issues, abortion and gun control being the biggest. If he had the brains to frame the question in this fashion I believe that he could completely overcome abortion as a liability and win a huge number of votes on both sides of the question. That still wouldn't make him my choice in this next election, but it would go a long way towards convincing me that he can handle complex problems in a constructive fashion. The biggest strike against him, bigger than his stands on these issues, is his inability to handle these questions honestly and in a fashion that will avoid offending the majority of Americans. He failed that test, at least on FNS today.
I agree with all you said except the number of military. When I came in in 1976 we were at 3 million active and when I left in 1998 we were at 1.4 million. Where did you come up with the 12 million?
Yes, ma’am...I do believe you are correct.
So if those people who are here illegally are given green cards or workers passes, wouldn't they too have to pay taxes? Wouldn't that actually help? I would also have them pay a 10% hospital and school tax to support the refunding of something they've been getting for nothing these past several years.
I agree with you about sgt. york’s post #325.
Can you imagine a Hillary POTUS?? She could make that joker head of the Homeland Security or CIA!!!
Thank you for the correction. That will learn me to use a half remembered hearsay number from 20 years ago. 12 Million is obviously too high where 3 million sounds about right. Seems about right from what I can find on Google. That will learn me not to research my facts before posting! I usually know better then that!
I tell you what, this isn’t my web site, and I only start the thread, but to some very small part I hope I have a say in some things. I’d like to think we can always agree about the big stuff, and argue well and fairly about the small stuff.
If it ever gets to be a personality contest in judging these awards I’d ask y’all to stop them. So far, that has been far from what has happened. I appreciate someone who can judge something the best even if they don’t agree but rather because the thinking and expressing is clear, concise and supported. Kabar does that for sure.
But we don’t need the bickering nor the personalities and especially no cliques of friends and dittos this or that and whatnot. Too much of that went on on those horrible Guilliani threads. I think Free Republic is worse off for that. Here we’ve kept above that.
Thank you everyone!
Please don't react like that, at least not on this thread. We're not into that here. It only rebounds against you and detracts from this thing we have built together.
The comment by MNJ was accurate. To dis Rudy then uncritically praise McCain here is proof that you haven't been paying attention for very long . Regardless of the relative merits of either candidate your post was covering ground already covered ad nauseum and, boy howdy, have you missed the mark on the consensus here. The community that has grown up around this thread believe that you are entitled to support who you will, however much any of us may disagree, but you have to know the baggage that each carries before you venture forth in the way you did.
I too am a Fred Fan and have gotten flamed a great deal the last 24 hours for daring to say that I will vote for Rudy if, by some incredible stretch of the imagination he is the Republican nominee, over any Dhimmicrat. None of the flames I have gotten were on this thread or from any of the participants here. You have not been flamed over your post. MNJ was just giving you a heads up, IMO (that means "in my opinion" by the way (NB that's a joke)) about the nature of your post.
MNJ and I have gotten into it any number of times from opposite points of view on this thread. Some of those exchanges have been heated, at times. I have always learned from and come away better for those exchanges... even if he was always wrong <g>.
Bottom line, please don't take offense and please stick around for awhile. I think you'll find a different atmosphere here on this thread than a lot of other places, not only on FR but certainly than on the vast majority of the web.
We are the "Jedi Council" when dealing with these Sunday shows and we try to act that way, as silly as that may sound at first blush. We have fun here (as much as possible) but we also take this seriously. More importantly we really don't want to see this thread become a shouting match over any issue. I am as guilty as anyone (more than most) of taking arguments further than they should go, but I often get caught up in the old "dorm room BS session" of any argument, assuming that everyone here will understand that I mean no offense and am perfectly willing to end up being proved wrong (see my tag line). More than anyplace else on the web I have found an amazing tolerance for my obnoxious and overbearing style of post here on this thread. I value it and these people more than you can imagine. I hope you will come to feel that way too... whether we agree with you on a particular point or not.
Welcome to the thread. If you stick around you have no idea what kind of trouble you are letting yourself in for <g>
Your #338...(applause)...very good. I can see you stroking your long, white beard as you say this. ;)
Ha Ha!!! Last year in Boston, some sales weenie said Phsstpok looked like Santa Claus!!!!!
And now you with that long white beard image!
J. I’m sorry, but my mind was drawn to that...
BTW, less than three weeks to go. Freepmail me about meeting and all~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.