Re: OT: scuttled by the sceptics.

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

<SNIP>


From what TO what and WHY? How will we pay
for it? He is capitalizing on the boneheaded anti-war sentiment
currently in vogue and the fact that Hillary both did support
the war and won't completely back away from it.

"Boneheaded?" Thousands of dead American soldiers (and many more Iraqis),

Almost 10x that number of Americans die *annually* on our highways.
Why are you not similarly exorcised about this and demanding the dismantlement
of this very dangerous environment. It is terrible that people die in
war, combatants and civilians. But the Iraq war demonstrates again the
trend that each major war the US fights, the death toll goes down
(but the injury survival toll goes up). Moreover, every single
solider *volunteered* to serve. We no longer practice the slavery
of the draft.


hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, the contempt of most of

Nowhere near what we waste on anti-Constitutional entitlements to keep
loafers loafing.

the world including allies, an economy in the toilet, massive national debt
(much of it held by China), no WMDs found, the Army and the Marines

The debt is much more an artifact of the entitlement spend than it is
military spend, even with the increased cost of the Iraq war. Go look
at any recent budget. Figure out what was spent on military and what
was spent on entitlements. Then pro rate the interest paid on the
debt accordingly.

stretched to the breaking point--exactly what part of the invasion of Iraq
do you think shouldn't be inspiring anti-war sentiment? "Currently in

The part about thwarting threat in the region before it gets out of
control. I'm with you - we should not be *there* - we should have
rained pain on the Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian governments by wiping
out their military capacity, public works, and government facilities
by air. Cripple their economies, throw them into complete turmoil
so they have no energy for nukes, funding Hezbollah, attacking Israel,
etc. We don't need boots on the ground there, just cut them off at
their knees. Cheap, effective, and sustainable.

vogue," since when is an unjustified and incompetently executed war
something that shouldn't be unpopular? I come from a family with a long

The war was not incompetently executed. The peace was, thanks in part
to the drooling idiots in the State department that insisted we stay
and fix things. Bush is dead wrong on this too. If we were going in,
it should have been to "visit" and he should have stuck by "Mission
Accomplished."

history of military service, I recognize that some wars are necessary, the
invasion of Afghanistan for example was justified as an organization that
actually did attack America was based there. But the justification for
invading Iraq was all smoke and mirrors, the invasion has turned out to be
the worst foreign policy blunder in decades. Do you have kids? They'll be
paying for this until they're old and grey, how happy do you think they'll
be about that?

My kids are going to be paying far, far, far, far more for the foolish
and greedy demands of healthcare, drug benefits, Social Security,
and Medicare that are not funded at anywhere near the levels needed
to sustain my lazy, money grubbing, unethical generation that is
headed for retirement in a little while.


So I guess there is
one policy point he can exploit. But he is an empty vessel, with
nothing meaningful to say other than "change, change, change."

You and some friends are marching into a swamp infested with alligators and
poison snakes, the slimy water is up to your chin, your feet keep getting
stuck in the mud and it kind of looks like soon you won't be able to move at
all. Somebody suggests changing course and not marching straight into the
swamp any more. Is your response going to be that since they didn't specify
an exact direction you're not going to listen to them?

Of course I will .. but I want to know just WHAT I'm signing up for.


I don't know if Obama as President will be better, but it's unlikely he
could be any worse. I almost don't care at this point, the Bush admin has
been such a flaming shambles that I'm prepared to let almost anyone have a
crack at doing better, it's too bad Pat Paulsen isn't running.

He was entertaining. I'd personally like to see Kinky Friedman run.


What is comes down to is that *all* the candidates are lousy and
he is *perceived* as being better than the alternatives. I don't
share that view, but I understand that is *is* the dominant view.
In my opinion he is the most dangerous of the bunch because
he has no specific ideas but a strong affiliation to the general
ideation of the extreme Left.

The extreme left huh? Specifics? What is there in his legislative history
that leads you to believe he's really a lot more radical than most folks
think? His kid does go to school with the child of a guy who used to be in
the Weather Underground, and there's that photo of him not putting his hand
over his heart for the National Anthem, that's pretty damning stuff for
sure.

How about his attacks on big eeeeeevil corporations making "too much" money?

How about his acknowledgment that reducing taxes stimulates the economy,
but he wants tax rates raised anyway to be more "fair" (as he defines it)?

How about his support for *increasing* foreign aid to suit the UN?

He is far left issue after issue.


Don't just blame Bush for that. The rules by which W plays were
put in place LONG before he was even in politics. It was, you'll
recall, the activist political left, that decided the Constitution
was a "living" document to be interpreted as necessary to fit
current conditions. That's all Bush is doing ... he's just
not doing it the way the left elite snobs would like.

Ah, so your excuse is that because some other kids stole candy too you
shouldn't be blamed for doing it as well, lovely.

No. I think *some* of what W did was wrong and he got remediated
by SCOTUS. I think some of what he did was controversial, but
not obviously wrong. But it is hilarious to watch the lefties
pee themselves because Bush is doing *exactly* what they want to
do all the time: "interpreting" the Constitution for "our time".
I was merely commenting on this irony.


Warrantless wiretaps?

Permitted under FISA. But FISA could not work due to
the paperwork burden. Where were the Dems to help find
a workable alternative? Standing across the street
throwing rocks and complaining (as usual).

Secret trials?

There is a long and standing precedent for this during wartime.

Citizens declared to be enemy
combatants without due process?

Utterly wrong. He's a bozo on this one.

We're supposed to just let that stuff go
because of what some previous administrations did?

No, we're supposed to fight back on principle. Unfortunately,
neither the right nor the left have any principles any more,
so what do you expect?


Note that I said "appears". I've not had time to dig into his record
deeply yet. If it turns out that you're record is correct I will
never vote for him.

You won't have to dig far, his history is right there for anyone to find
with a quick web search.

I don't mind people changing their minds
on principle. I mind people using the force of government to
tell me what to do.

It is sometimes necessary for the common good, we need traffic laws because
without them the streets would be a madhouse. For that matter we need the
streets too, if they were built only in neighborhoods where the residents
could afford them half the country would still be in the 18th century. For
that matter some of it still is.


"Common Good" is the biggest code phrase for collectivism ever devised ...
well, that and "What About The Children?". Government force should be
limited to: Defending the nation, and interdicting when citizens heap force,
fraud, or threat upon each other.

P.S. "The streets" are one of the enumerated powers given the Federal
government in the Constitution because they are "post roads." No foul there.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT]Hanoi Jane rides again
    ... They still happen, but they don't make the front page anymore, since the media would rather focus on the deaths in Iraq. ... If a soldier gets hit by a car while crossing the street, that's considered a war casualty -- if we weren't at war, it would just be 'normal'. ... because I spend a good portion of my time with kids who have military service as their goal when they get out of school. ... We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the ...
    (rec.models.rockets)
  • Re: U.S. GOVERNMENT TARGETING OF AMERCIAN DISSIDENTS - Part I
    ... THE WAR ON YOU: ... U.S. GOVERNMENT TARGETING OF AMERCIAN DISSIDENTS - Part I ... wiretapping phone conversations of American citizens and last weeks ... (in spite of the earlier passage and renewal of the USA Patriot Act), ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: U.S. GOVERNMENT TARGETING OF AMERCIAN DISSIDENTS - Part I
    ... THE WAR ON YOU: ... U.S. GOVERNMENT TARGETING OF AMERCIAN DISSIDENTS - Part I ... wiretapping phone conversations of American citizens and last weeks ... (in spite of the earlier passage and renewal of the USA Patriot Act), ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Come September by Arundhati Roy
    ... Writers imagine that they cull stories from the world. ... 1998 and during the Kargil War against Pakistan in 1999. ... That blizzard of Made-in-China American flags. ... those who have criticised the actions of the U.S. Government ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Who is Hutton: Ireland, Pinochet, M15...*
    ... Iraq war lies. ... So who is Hutton, and what is in his background to come to these extraordinary ... government of Prime Minister Tony Blair. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)