Cole: Be Warned, Republicans

[Janett_Reno]

You got to love this, Rep. Tom Cole, of the Republicans tells it like it is and after the fact, now Republicans see that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield and the neocon adm has destroyed the Republican party. McCain has an uphill battle. Ms winning some Democrat seats? Wow, i bet the Republicans are thinking of another job besides politicians. He is bascially telling them that the one liners are over. You know, the faith and values speaches. It took these neocon Republicans to get us in the mess we are in and it will take the Democrats to get us out of the mess and back on track. I am very curious who Obama will pick for his vice to help put us back on the right track and make America strong again. Oh, here is the article....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...epublicans.php

A fairly remarkable statement from the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Cole, about tonight's special election in Mississippi. He's warning his incumbents and challengers: change or die.

We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.
“Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.
“Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.
“I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election.”

[Janett_Reno]

Mississippi Win Gives House Dems Three Victories In A Row...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_101613.html

It's becoming a disturbing trend for Republicans: losing traditional GOP strongholds to Democrats in some hard-fought congressional races.

It happened again Tuesday, as Travis Childers beat Greg Davis in a special election to replace Republican Roger Wicker, who served in the House since 1994 and was appointed to the U.S. Senate to fill the seat vacated by Trent Lott.

Childers' win will give him the chance over the next several months left in the seat's two-year term to build a fundraising and publicity advantage as he heads into November's general election. He will again face Davis, as well as two other opponents.

Childers' win gave Democrats a 236-199 edge over Republicans in Congress.

Earlier this year, Democrats captured the Illinois district long represented by former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, who resigned from Congress. This month, Democrats claimed a seat in Louisiana that Republican Rep. Richard Baker vacated and that the GOP had held since 1974.

Childers is a socially conservative county official, while Davis is mayor of a fast-growing city across the state line from Memphis, Tenn.

Vice President Dick Cheney campaigned for Davis the day before the special election, and Davis ran ads trying to tie Childers to Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the national Democratic Party's policies.

Childers stressed his independence, emphasizing his support of gun rights and opposition to abortion. He said his values match those of most voters in the deeply conservative district.

Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the Mississippi race showed that "Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority."

Cole said voters are "pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general" and the GOP must offer "positive change."

Marty Wiseman, a political scientist at Mississippi State University, said if Democrats can carry districts that traditionally have been safe bets for the GOP, "Republican strategists have to be terrified."

"If you think about the House and the Senate ... and the number of Republican Senate seats that are exposed, this could turn into something bigger than the presidential race this fall," Wiseman said.

Elsewhere, in right-leaning Nebraska, Republican Mike Johanns, the former U.S. agriculture secretary and Nebraska governor, easily won the Republican primary Tuesday in a race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. On the Democrat side, Scott Kleeb beat three other Democrats.

And in West Virginia, a conflict-of-interest scandal derailed the state's top judge from serving another term. With 97 percent of precincts reporting, Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard, once considered a shoo-in for re-election, was third in a field of four candidates.

The two top vote-getters will face the lone Republican in the race for two high court spots in November.

Maynard lost his advantage when photos surfaced in January of him vacationing with the chief executive of a massive coal producer. He faced a former justice, a Huntington lawyer and a West Virginia University law professor.

Maynard raised the most money, and his allies included the state's chamber of commerce and medical association. But the photos taken during a 2006 Monaco vacation, when he met up with Massey Energy Co.'s chief executive, quickly became campaign fodder.

Maynard blamed the furor on political foes, but withdrew from several Massey-related cases. He had said he would do the same if re-elected.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who hasn't lost a statewide race since 1972, easily beat two challengers as he seeks a fifth six-year term. He'll face Republican Jay Wolfe in November's general election.

Gov. Joe Manchin easily fended off a primary challenge and will take on Republican Russ Weeks, a former state senator, in November.

[FishForLunch]

One thing Obama should do is avoid "Hillary as VP" like a plaque. The senator from Virgina will be good pick.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

One thing Obama should do is avoid "Hillary as VP" like a plaque. The senator from Virgina will be good pick.

Indeed. Pick one of Hillary's supporters - Ted Strickland, possibly, which would basically guarantee you Ohio. Jim Webb would also be a good choice, and would help reign in Virginia, a possible swing state. Sam Nunn, Wesley Clark, Kathleen Sebelius, and even Republican Chuck Hagel would be good choices, also.

[Evilmav2]

The Ghost of Ridiculous Obama Scandals of the Future Says: 'Republicans should indeed be wary, vigilant, and even fearful in this election year, but The Show Ain't Over 'til the Fat, Ethnic Machete Cleansing, KarlMarxStadt educated, Terror-sponsoring Luo Obama Cousin/Buddy Sings!!!!!'

[Janett_Reno]

It will be Republicans votting for Obama. The Republican party is in disarray.

It takes a Republican to get this country in a mess and a Democrat to get us back on the right path.

I am not sure who Obama picks for his vp. I feel Richardson is on the list.

[jefelump]

from Janett_Reno:
It takes a Republican to get this country in a mess and a Democrat to get us back on the right path.

Seems you have completely forgotten about Jimmy Carter, and the lines at the gas stations. Perhaps you're too young to remember gas rationing, and only being able to put gas in your car on certain days of the week? Who followed that complete and utter failure? Oh yes, Ronald Reagan.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It will be Republicans votting for Obama.

I haven't met any of these people. No republican I know would ever vote for the party that wants to take your civil liberties away from you, your ability to choose, and give it to a government full of democrats who firmly believe that people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

The Republican party is in disarray.

You mean the party that has a nominee for president, as opposed to the party that can't get it's S straight while fighting amongst itself?

(What is "votting"?)

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

No republican I know would ever vote for the party that wants to take your civil liberties away from you

Patriot Act?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Patriot Act?

Fair enough, chum.

But...I haven't noticed any changes in my life, have you?

They can video tape me taking my morning constitutional if it keeps my wife and future kids safe, I do not give a sh!t. I'm a team player.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Fair enough, chum.

But...I haven't noticed any changes in my life, have you?

They can video tape me taking my morning constitutional if it keeps my wife and future kids safe, I do not give a sh!t. I'm a team player.

Nope, no changes noticed here.

What did you have in mind when you mentioned giving up civil liberties?

[alby]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It takes a Republican to get this country in a mess and a Democrat to get us back on the right path.

laugh.. (rolls eyes)

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It takes a Republican & a Democrat to get this country in a mess and a box of farts to get us back on the right path.

I was never really all that good at ad-libs, but I think I fixed your sentence...

[jefelump]

I haven't noticed any loss of civil liberties either... and I'll note that since 9/11 we haven't been attacked on US soil, even though attempts have been made. You may not like the Patriot Act, wire taps, etc... but we are far safer than we were before. I have no worries about my children being blown up in a restaurant by a suicide bomber.

It has been almost 7 years since 9/11. I don't see any Democrats in elected office (Congress obviously) contributing to our safety and welfare. In fact, it was the Democrats who promised us lower gas prices in 2006. The price of gas has gone up considerably since the Dems took control of Congress. The mortgage crisis has happened after the Dems took control of Congress too. Can't blame everything on "this administration." The president doesn't make laws (excluding executive orders of course)... he signs them after Congress passes them. So on that note, Congress passed the Patriot Act. The President just signed it.

[mcsluggo]

I find this line of reasoning perplexing.... (yet it seems to be a real mainstay of thinking these days)

we had one big attack on american soil. A real whopper, yes. But still one successful attack on american soil.

... and people want to extrapolate all sorts of statistical significance from it? one data point?

leftists wanted to point out how it happened on W's watch, and how it proved that the CIA and FBI had become too politicized and that was why they failed to stop it (hence, they wanted to plot a line from zero stretching upword through the lone 911 data point, and into infinity)

now conservatives want to plot a line through it, starting from infinity and then DOWN through the one data-point to zero, pointing out how W has clearly saved the US from an imminent feiry death.

huh?

Our country is pretty damn safe. It used to be pretty damn safe. and now it still is pretty damn safe. Shit DOES happen occasionally... but it is of such low frequency that it will have to appear as a fairly random scatterplot.

Pearl Harbor? check.
911...? check.

but there is 60 YEARS between the two! Some other stuff (the 90's botched attempt to blow up the twin towers, etc...) but mostly calm. (don't get me wrong ... I GREATLY APPRECIATE the job our law enforcement and intelligence apparatice have done to keep us safe... my only point is that they have been doing it all along)


In my opinion, the ONLY way you can give credence to the "somehow W has managed to miraculously keep this emperilled country free from attack... " line of thought is if you believe that the US is somehow under much greater THREAT from attack than it had been in the past. but if you are trying to support the pres, be careful with this line of reasoning, because it is a double edged sword. If you go down THAT road, then you have to answer WHY you think the country is under so much greater threat from attack than it has been in the past... and at least SOME of that answer has to come from the administration and the role of its foreign policy in placing the US in its current standing in the global community. None of this happens in a vacuum, it is all interconnected.

[Underdog]

2,974 Americans were murdered by terrorists with airplanes on September 11, 2001...

29,573 Americans were murdered by other Americans with handguns in 2001 alone...



For some reason, the illegal wiretaps and suspension of Habeas Corpus don't make me feel any safer...

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Underdog

2,974 Americans were murdered by terrorists with airplanes on September 11, 2001...

29,573 Americans were murdered by other Americans with handguns in 2001 alone...



For some reason, the illegal wiretaps and suspension of Habeas Corpus don't make me feel any safer...

I still don't understand how "I don't notice anything, therefore I don't have to care about anyone else's rights" is a proper defense for the illegal activities of this administration.

I really, really, REALLY hate to play the Nazi card, but how many Germans knew about the horrors going on around them and thought, "Well, nothing's changed in my life, so it's fine with me!"

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I find this line of reasoning perplexing.... (yet it seems to be a real mainstay of thinking these days)

we had one big attack on american soil. A real whopper, yes. But still one successful attack on american soil.

... and people want to extrapolate all sorts of statistical significance from it? one data point?

leftists wanted to point out how it happened on W's watch, and how it proved that the CIA and FBI had become too politicized and that was why they failed to stop it (hence, they wanted to plot a line from zero stretching upword through the lone 911 data point, and into infinity)

now conservatives want to plot a line through it, starting from infinity and then DOWN through the one data-point to zero, pointing out how W has clearly saved the US from an imminent feiry death.

huh?

Our country is pretty damn safe. It used to be pretty damn safe. and now it still is pretty damn safe. Shit DOES happen occasionally... but it is of such low frequency that it will have to appear as a fairly random scatterplot.

Pearl Harbor? check.
911...? check.

but there is 60 YEARS between the two! Some other stuff (the 90's botched attempt to blow up the twin towers, etc...) but mostly calm. (don't get me wrong ... I GREATLY APPRECIATE the job our law enforcement and intelligence apparatice have done to keep us safe... my only point is that they have been doing it all along)


In my opinion, the ONLY way you can give credence to the "somehow W has managed to miraculously keep this emperilled country free from attack... " line of thought is if you believe that the US is somehow under much greater THREAT from attack than it had been in the past. but if you are trying to support the pres, be careful with this line of reasoning, because it is a double edged sword. If you go down THAT road, then you have to answer WHY you think the country is under so much greater threat from attack than it has been in the past... and at least SOME of that answer has to come from the administration and the role of its foreign policy in placing the US in its current standing in the global community. None of this happens in a vacuum, it is all interconnected.

Now, lets take an even bigger step backwards and examine the two points on your grid which are Pearl Harbor and 911.

Both are examples of how an iceberg's tip finally stuck an American in the butt. In both situations, things around the world were going badly and the bigger problems finally reached the well protected USA. When Pearl Harbor happened, eventual victory of the Allied Forces happened because the American War Machine went to work. Are you upset that people in Germany, Italy, and Japan really hated us because of our actions?
In the example of 911, the American War Machine fired up again. Are we really upset that some people in Afghanistan, border area of Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon really hate us? The result of Pearl Harbor was that in the end, we were in a Cold War with Russia which we won. The result of Iraq II is that we are in a Cold War with Russia again. Russia didn't like the aftermath of WWII and Russia doesn't like the aftermath of Iraq II. Do you buy into the garbage that proclaims that we have alienated Britain, France, and Germany? As a result of Iraq II, France and Germany have unelected the officials that hated us and have elected officials that appreciate us. Britain never wavered in its support of us although you can find individual Parliament members who hate us and speak loudly (as that is the British way in Parliament).

Our involvement around the world creates enemies. I won't argue with that. But, our activity around the world also protects us. History does not support isolationism and appeasement.

WW II created enemies who became allied with Russia. Iraq II creates enemies allied primarily with Shia Islam everywhere it exists. We had to maintain troops and military activity in Europe and Africa and the Pacific Ocean region (Phillipines, Pacific Islands) after WWII. We will have to maintain military activity around Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and probably Syria/Lebanon.

So, how would you have recommended that the USA should have acted in the example of WWII. What should America have done differently to prevent the Japanese from bombing Pearl Harbor?
You have all of history to look back. It is a done deal. So, Mr. Foreign Policy, tell me how you would have prevented Japan from hitting Pearl Harbor?

And, while you are at it, tell me what we should have done differently to prevent 911?

Heck, we helped the Afghannies defeat Russia in their long war. We supplied them with the rockets and other weapons they used to stop Russia. Heck, we fought in Kosovo TO PREVENT WHITE DUDES FROM KILLING ISLAMIC PEOPLE!!!!!

So, how could have our foreign policy been better pre-911 to make Osama Bin Laden love the good ole USA?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

2,974 Americans were murdered by terrorists with airplanes on September 11, 2001...

29,573 Americans were murdered by other Americans with handguns in 2001 alone...



For some reason, the illegal wiretaps and suspension of Habeas Corpus don't make me feel any safer...

If you want to talk about the wholesale abandonment of civil rights, then go join the thread regarding the CPS actions in Texas with the FLDS group. And, that has nothing to do with GW Bush or Homeland Security...

If you want to talk about civil rights, then you will find me there pointing out the civil rights violations that are occuring right there in your backyard (assuming you live in Texas).

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Now, lets take an even bigger step backwards and examine the two points on your grid which are Pearl Harbor and 911.

Both are examples of how an iceberg's tip finally stuck an American in the butt. In both situations, things around the world were going badly and the bigger problems finally reached the well protected USA. When Pearl Harbor happened, eventual victory of the Allied Forces happened because the American War Machine went to work. Are you upset that people in Germany, Italy, and Japan really hated us because of our actions?
In the example of 911, the American War Machine fired up again. Are we really upset that some people in Afghanistan, border area of Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon really hate us? The result of Pearl Harbor was that in the end, we were in a Cold War with Russia which we won. The result of Iraq II is that we are in a Cold War with Russia again. Russia didn't like the aftermath of WWII and Russia doesn't like the aftermath of Iraq II. Do you buy into the garbage that proclaims that we have alienated Britain, France, and Germany? As a result of Iraq II, France and Germany have unelected the officials that hated us and have elected officials that appreciate us. Britain never wavered in its support of us although you can find individual Parliament members who hate us and speak loudly (as that is the British way in Parliament).

Our involvement around the world creates enemies. I won't argue with that. But, our activity around the world also protects us. History does not support isolationism and appeasement.

WW II created enemies who became allied with Russia. Iraq II creates enemies allied primarily with Shia Islam everywhere it exists. We had to maintain troops and military activity in Europe and Africa and the Pacific Ocean region (Phillipines, Pacific Islands) after WWII. We will have to maintain military activity around Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and probably Syria/Lebanon.

So, how would you have recommended that the USA should have acted in the example of WWII. What should America have done differently to prevent the Japanese from bombing Pearl Harbor?
You have all of history to look back. It is a done deal. So, Mr. Foreign Policy, tell me how you would have prevented Japan from hitting Pearl Harbor?

And, while you are at it, tell me what we should have done differently to prevent 911?

Heck, we helped the Afghannies defeat Russia in their long war. We supplied them with the rockets and other weapons they used to stop Russia. Heck, we fought in Kosovo TO PREVENT WHITE DUDES FROM KILLING ISLAMIC PEOPLE!!!!!

So, how could have our foreign policy been better pre-911 to make Osama Bin Laden love the good ole USA?

Terrorism = Tactic
Germany back in the days = a fascist country which was occupying other countries.

You can't fight a war against a tactic. You can fight a war against a country.

Plus, the war back then was very wel justified. It's called the just war theory of christianity.

A war against Iraq cannot be justified like that.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

Terrorism = Tactic
Germany back in the days = a fascist country which was occupying other countries.

You can't fight a war against a tactic. You can fight a war against a country.

Plus, the war back then was very wel justified. It's called the just war theory of christianity.

A war against Iraq cannot be justified like that.

You did not answer any of the questions of the previous conversation dealing with McSluggo's garbage.

Instead, you have introduced another pile of crap. Terrorism dropped the twin towers and a COUNTRY (Afghanistan) supported it, hid it, and protected it.

We dealt with a COUNTRY (Iraq) which attacked Kuwait in Iraq I. Iraq II is just a continuation of Iraq I. Iraq I was justified. Iraq continued its aggression against American interests in the middle east leading to Iraq II.

I'm not going to debate the entry of the US into Iraq II. It is well known that our intelligence community either failed or was manipulated.

But, lets ignore that as it is really not the contention at hand. Your issue is that we should not fight terrorism because terrorism does not constitute a cause for war under the "just war theory of christianity."

So, under your doctrine, we should do nothing to deal with Terrorism and its State Sponsors?

"Lucy, you got some splaining to do"

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You did not answer any of the questions of the previous conversation dealing with McSluggo's garbage.

Instead, you have introduced another pile of crap. Terrorism dropped the twin towers and a COUNTRY (Afghanistan) supported it, hid it, and protected it.

We dealt with a COUNTRY (Iraq) which attacked Kuwait in Iraq I. Iraq II is just a continuation of Iraq I. Iraq I was justified. Iraq continued its aggression against American interests in the middle east leading to Iraq II.

I'm not going to debate the entry of the US into Iraq II. It is well known that our intelligence community either failed or was manipulated.

But, lets ignore that as it is really not the contention at hand. Your issue is that we should not fight terrorism because terrorism does not constitute a cause for war under the "just war theory of christianity."

So, under your doctrine, we should do nothing to deal with Terrorism and its State Sponsors?

"Lucy, you got some splaining to do"

US and other nations embargos on Iraq led to the death of hundreds of thousand Iraqi children prior to Iraq war two. The US didn't go into Iraq in order to defend itself or another country.

Stupid historical interventions abroad have led to a lot of unintended consequences that have created this type of terrorism. Giving Bin Laden these huge summs of money to go after the soviets, etc. There was no Al Qaida in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now there are way too many to ever stop them by using armed forces.

When the US and the French troops left Lebanon, suicide terrorism eventually stopped. That's what we should do with Iraq. Give the people the incentive to take care of their own country first.

And one other thing, a country that has it's leaders so obviously lying to them should always on principle deny them any right to invade another country or to lead any type of war. Bush has talked about bombing Iraq if it had weapons of mass destruction prior to 9/11. Cheney knew about every little conflict that would arise if you invaded Iraq and stated them in order to defend the policy of not going into Iraq adter Iraq war one.

Besides, this country is actually going broke. You guys can't afford these wars anymore.

All these hundreds of billions spend on this war and US military leaders are saying that the military is in worse shape then prior to 9/11... The current policy is just flat our wrong in any way. - Morally, financially, regarding the security of the American nation and regarding the well-being of habeus corpus.

Almost a million Iraqis died because of this war. Thousands of Americans died because of it and all these hundred thousand soldiers who come home with mental issues or physical injuries. I just think it is common sense to believe that this stuff can'Tt go on like this.

[wmbwinn]

"But, lets ignore that as it is really not the contention at hand. Your issue is that we should not fight terrorism because terrorism does not constitute a cause for war under the "just war theory of christianity." "

above lifted from my earlier post which was reactive to your first post. You didn't answer this question but quickly moved on to another completely different topic again...

[wmbwinn]

"US and other nations embargos on Iraq led to the death of hundreds of thousand Iraqi children prior to Iraq war two. The US didn't go into Iraq in order to defend itself or another country. "

the above this time is your quote.

The embargos in place were put in place as a consequence of Iraq I. We decided to not move for an occupation of Iraq after Iraq I. We did not push for regime change at that time. Instead we (with the full support of the UN and with the other UN nations joining us) placed embargos and "no fly" rules and other interventions.

The US went in due to many reasons. They were spelled out in front of the UN. Many of those causes were found to be untrue. You and I will not figure out if we were lied to or if the intelligence system simply was in error. But, among the reasons to support the second invasion was that Iraq was shooting at our planes and positions in Kuwait and still threatening the Kurds. There were about a dozen violations of the UN agreement that set up the embargos and "no fly" rules and the other 'end of war' rules. It is too simple to say we went into Iraq because Bush/Cheney/Others lied about weapons of mass destruction.

And, yes, the whole thing started because we were defending Kuwait. And, yes, Kuwait was still in jeopardy.

Now, in your post, you said "you guys can't afford this war." So, now, I ask you: Who are you and where are you from??

[wmbwinn]

"When the US and the French troops left Lebanon, suicide terrorism eventually stopped. That's what we should do with Iraq. Give the people the incentive to take care of their own country first."

your quote again.

Do you not read the news and watch TV???

Lebanon is not a nice place to be. Terrorism is alive and well there. It did not end. If you want nations to pull out of the area and leave the people alone, then tell Syria and Iran to get out of Lebanon.

[wmbwinn]

"All these hundreds of billions spend on this war and US military leaders are saying that the military is in worse shape then prior to 9/11... The current policy is just flat our wrong in any way. - Morally, financially, regarding the security of the American nation and regarding the well-being of habeus corpus.

Almost a million Iraqis died because of this war. Thousands of Americans died because of it and all these hundred thousand soldiers who come home with mental issues or physical injuries. I just think it is common sense to believe that this stuff can'Tt go on like this."

your quote again.

It is always painful to fight wars. But, it is more painful to not fight wars and let folks like Sadam butcher Kuwait and the Kurds and the Shia while they make plans to destroy Israel (remember the nuclear facility that Israel took out with an airstrike?) and hurt American targets and allies to their fullest capability.
It will be VERY painful if we have to fight in N. Korea again. I lost my grandfather there. But, it is more painful to appease N. Korea as it butchers its own people and constantly prepares to invade S. Korea and constantly works on building a functional Nuke.
It is painful to fight in Kosovo. But, it is more painful to see Russian supported Europeans butcher Islamic people.
It is painful to fight. But, it is more painful to not fight.

Where would this world be if "thousands" of Americans didn't die in the last 100 years???

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Where would this world be if "thousands" of Americans didn't die in the last 100 years???

With the exception of World War II this world would be a much better place. Maybe even the Israelis could've worked out there problems with the arabic world, since the "moderate" arab nations would've needed Israel to get Saddam out of Kuwait.

Iran would still have an elected president and wouldn't have had to endure decades of the hated Shah.

All those embargos and wars have unintended consequences.

And as to your point about me not saying how I would fight terrorism. I would've gone after Bin Laden, killed him and gone home. Other than that I would protect my borders and completely abolish every incentive for terrorists by pulling these troops out of these countries. A strong military that does not intervene is in most cases the best solution.

A quick quote from Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win - The Logic of Suicide Terrorism", who has examined every suicide attack between 1980 and 2004:

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

During the time he examined the leading group in suicide attacks were also an atheist group called the Tamil Tigers in Sry Lanka. So much to "radical islam"...

And a quick note about the Iraqis attacking American jets. The US did enter territory that they were not allowed to enter numerous times. But even the other attacks only showed that Iraq was a country that couldn't even hit a jet in 12 attempts. It just shows how little of a thread they were.

The foreign policy I and the real conservatives like Robert Taft would support also would've allowed for America to stay the leader of the free world. No costly Vietnam war no "bread and butter", no leaving the gold standart, because government can't pay back their war debt. America would've been the greatest nation on earth, making sure that lots of other nations would try to immitate them. Today, however, America has the worst reputation ever around the world and the finacial status is horrible.

I go along with what Ron Paul says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67ZFpuZwl4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3iKkt9WS5s

[wmbwinn]

I see you are a crazy Ron Paul follower...

"With the exception of World War II this world would be a much better place"

Your quote above.

You should be more careful and more specific. You give me too many easy targets. By your (and the strange Ron Paul's) perspective, we should have allowed Russia to expand as much as it wanted to in the post WWII era. We should have appeased Russia by saying, "Oh, sure, take all of Asia and Eastern Europe as much as you like". You would have preferred we just let Russia have Viet Nam and Korea. So, where would you have drawn the line? Where would you have fought Russia expansion? Appeasing Hitler did not cause him to happily take his new lands and stop. No, Hitler kept taking more. The Russians were not going to be content with taking the edges of Asia (Viet Nam and Korea). But, the Russians could see that the USA was not going to allow Russian to just take all of the world that it wanted under its doctrine of having a buffer zone of land all around Mother Russia to provide protection.

By your statement, we should have not fought in Panama. We should not fight the drug cartels of Central and South America. We should have welcomed Nukes to Cuba and should have sung hymns with Fidel Castro. We should have stayed out of Kosovo. You would probably want us to march with the UN and give up our autonomy and independence to the World Order. You would probably not have approved of the Marshall Plan (all that foreign intervention). You probably would want all our foreign based military bases to be abandoned (despite the fact that the people and governments in those locations don't want us to leave; Japan wants us to punish our boys who rape their girls, but that is a minor exception to the bigger picture). We probably shouldn't have military bases in the Philipines. Why in the heck did we reach out to the conquered Japan and make them our friend? We should have just left them alone and marched in circles around Ford and Chevy plants wearing Union uniforms in strict isolationist and protectionist mode. By your statement, as long as no one launches a military attack against US territory, we should be completely uninvolved with the rest of the world.

There are good reasons why most Americans view Ron Paul as an idiot.

[wmbwinn]

"And as to your point about me not saying how I would fight terrorism. I would've gone after Bin Laden, killed him and gone home. Other than that I would protect my borders and completely abolish every incentive for terrorists by pulling these troops out of these countries. A strong military that does not intervene is in most cases the best solution. "

Another bizarre quote from Arne is listed above.

So...

Isn't the pursuit of Bin Laden why we went to Afghanistan??? Isn't it generally thought that he narrowly escaped into Pakistan??? Isn't our block to entering Pakistan the reason we can't go get him???

And, pulling all our troops out of the all the world back to the 50 states and territories would embolden the terrorists who would march around as victors...

If you look up the word appeasement in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Arne holding a Ron Paul campaign sign...

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I see you are a crazy Ron Paul follower...

"With the exception of World War II this world would be a much better place"

Your quote above.

You should be more careful and more specific. You give me too many easy targets. By your (and the strange Ron Paul's) perspective, we should have allowed Russia to expand as much as it wanted to in the post WWII era. We should have appeased Russia by saying, "Oh, sure, take all of Asia and Eastern Europe as much as you like". You would have preferred we just let Russia have Viet Nam and Korea. So, where would you have drawn the line? Where would you have fought Russia expansion? Appeasing Hitler did not cause him to happily take his new lands and stop. No, Hitler kept taking more. The Russians were not going to be content with taking the edges of Asia (Viet Nam and Korea). But, the Russians could see that the USA was not going to allow Russian to just take all of the world that it wanted under its doctrine of having a buffer zone of land all around Mother Russia to provide protection.

By your statement, we should have not fought in Panama. We should not fight the drug cartels of Central and South America. We should have welcomed Nukes to Cuba and should have sung hymns with Fidel Castro. We should have stayed out of Kosovo. You would probably want us to march with the UN and give up our autonomy and independence to the World Order. You would probably not have approved of the Marshall Plan (all that foreign intervention). You probably would want all our foreign based military bases to be abandoned (despite the fact that the people and governments in those locations don't want us to leave; Japan wants us to punish our boys who rape their girls, but that is a minor exception to the bigger picture). We probably shouldn't have military bases in the Philipines. Why in the heck did we reach out to the conquered Japan and make them our friend? We should have just left them alone and marched in circles around Ford and Chevy plants wearing Union uniforms in strict isolationist and protectionist mode. By your statement, as long as no one launches a military attack against US territory, we should be completely uninvolved with the rest of the world.

There are good reasons why most Americans view Ron Paul as an idiot.

Oh my god, now you come up with the war on drugs, it's hilarious how you buy into every war government invents in order to take on a bigger and bigger role...

Well and not sending TWO nukes in Japans direction could've made a difference, as well... It would've made the cold war easier to sit out, as well...

How the fuck do you come up with Unions now, by the way?

As to Vietnam: Yeah, the domino effect that never happened... It's the same thing the American leaders who have been wrong for the last couple of years are trying to say about Iraq now... It's hilarious that America will still listen to them...

In the end you completely convinced me that my position is the right one, since you could only come up with more interventions that I reject...

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I see you are a crazy Ron Paul follower...

There are good reasons why most Americans view Ron Paul as an idiot.

The fact that the mayority of New Hampshire anti-war Republicans voted in favor of John McCain tells me all I need to know about either the voting system, the media's job of informing the voters or the educational system that lets things like that happen...

One million votes despite of a media blackout is amazing if you ask me... In January or even further back there was a study that showed that during the last couple of months McCain's name (who wasn't even the favorite back then) was given on TV something like one hundred times more than Ron Paul's...

Well, you should read his book on foreign policy... But obviously you won't...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

The fact that the mayority of New Hampshire anti-war Republicans voted in favor of John McCain tells me all I need to know about either the voting system, the media's job of informing the voters or the educational system that lets things like that happen...

One million votes despite of a media blackout is amazing if you ask me... In January or even further back there was a study that showed that during the last couple of months McCain's name (who wasn't even the favorite back then) was given on TV something like one hundred times more than Ron Paul's...

Well, you should read his book on foreign policy... But obviously you won't...

The people of New Hampshire are not stupid. They didn't vote for Ron Paul. Now, if you think that the voting system or the media is to blame for Ron Paul's failure to be regarded as a serious candidate, then I cannot help you. The word "stupid" keeps popping into my head for some reason.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

Oh my god, now you come up with the war on drugs, it's hilarious how you buy into every war government invents in order to take on a bigger and bigger role...

Well and not sending TWO nukes in Japans direction could've made a difference, as well... It would've made the cold war easier to sit out, as well...

How the fuck do you come up with Unions now, by the way?

As to Vietnam: Yeah, the domino effect that never happened... It's the same thing the American leaders who have been wrong for the last couple of years are trying to say about Iraq now... It's hilarious that America will still listen to them...

In the end you completely convinced me that my position is the right one, since you could only come up with more interventions that I reject...

You are in favor of our involvement in World War II. But, you are not in favor of our stance in the Cold War. The two go together. Your position is like saying, "I am in favor of my marriage but I cannot be expected to take care of my children."

I jumped to Unions because Ron Paul is such an isolationist and protectionist. The whole position that we do nothing in the world outside of our states and territories is hilarious.

[wmbwinn]

"Well and not sending TWO nukes in Japans direction could've made a difference, as well... It would've made the cold war easier to sit out, as well... "

Arne above.

_________________________

1)No one knew what nuclear fall out was before those bombs were dropped. The only thing we knew was that the blast would be tremendous and terribly effective over a large range. Most people still pointing fingers at us over the two nukes don't understand that.
2)The two nukes ended the resistance of Japan and finally ended the war in the Pacific
3)The two nukes added to our resistance in SouthEast Asia and elsewhere to Russian expansion taken together with the Cuba crisis (and many, many more events) all equal the Cold War whose two main antagonists were the USA and USSR. Russia wanted to expand. The USA said no. The USA won. This was effective foreign policy.
4)move to Canada like the rest of the "conscientious objectors". You'll fit in there. Did you know that the Canadian Navy consists of two boats? People like the Canadians can only exist because people like the Americans protect them. So, keep on wailing and wringing your hands, you poor pathetic conscientious objector. Your big brother will protect your butt.

[jefelump]

from Arne:
The fact that the mayority of New Hampshire anti-war Republicans voted in favor of John McCain tells me all I need to know about either the voting system, the media's job of informing the voters or the educational system that lets things like that happen...

What exactly does this tell you about the "voting system"? The voting system is simply a mechanism to allow the electorate to cast their ballot.

It is not the media's job to support candidates. The mainstream media's job is to report the news, which is a job they suck at. Most media outlets support the Democrat agenda, while trying to come across as unbiased. Candidates don't win or lose because of the media. Sure, having media support helps, but in the end it's each candidate's race to lose. Ron Paul has had ample opportunity to convince the public and the media that he's the best candidate, but he failed because of his policies. The blame rests on Ron Paul alone. You can't blame everyone else for your candidate's demise. I supported Mitt Romney. I contend that part of his demise was Huckabee's constant attacks on Romney's religion. However, I don't blame Huckabee alone. In the end, Romney failed to convince the voters he was the best candidate.

And what do you mean when you say "the educational system that let things happen that way"? Are you now blaming public education and universities? The vast majority of professors are Democrat, so they would not have supported Ron Paul anyways. And the educational system doesn't "let things happen that way". The job of the educational system is to teach the curriculum of the course, not promote political candidates. Again, you can't blame others for your candidates failure.

from Arne:
One million votes despite of a media blackout is amazing if you ask me... In January or even further back there was a study that showed that during the last couple of months McCain's name (who wasn't even the favorite back then) was given on TV something like one hundred times more than Ron Paul's...

That just tells me that back in January the media knew Ron Paul wasn't a viable candidate, so they didn't waste their time covering him. Is that the media's fault? No. It's Ron Paul's fault for failing to convince the people his policies were the best for this country. Ron Paul's polling numbers were (and still are) horrible. Look at the Democrat side... There are several contenders on the Left who were ignored by the media too. There is no vast right wing or left wing conspiracy against Ron Paul.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The people of New Hampshire are not stupid. They didn't vote for Ron Paul. Now, if you think that the voting system or the media is to blame for Ron Paul's failure to be regarded as a serious candidate, then I cannot help you. The word "stupid" keeps popping into my head for some reason.

If anti-war Republican voters vote for Mr. "we will stay in Iraq for a 100 years if neccesary", then something went terribly wrong.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You are in favor of our involvement in World War II. But, you are not in favor of our stance in the Cold War. The two go together. Your position is like saying, "I am in favor of my marriage but I cannot be expected to take care of my children."

I jumped to Unions because Ron Paul is such an isolationist and protectionist. The whole position that we do nothing in the world outside of our states and territories is hilarious.

Ron Paul is the most free trade candidate in this whole election, in fact the only one ever to talk about market-determined money... His policies are not isolationist, they're non-interventionist, if you don't understand the difference, then I won't bother waisting my time on you... Just one thing: Never has America been as isolated around the world than today. Ron Paul would not put any embargo on any nation he would trade with all of them...

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." This quotation can be found on the wikipedia article about Internationalism, a political philosophy that is hardly isolationist.

But from your quotes above I can simply tell that you know nothing about what Ron Paul stands for.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jefelump

What exactly does this tell you about the "voting system"? The voting system is simply a mechanism to allow the electorate to cast their ballot.

It is not the media's job to support candidates. The mainstream media's job is to report the news, which is a job they suck at. Most media outlets support the Democrat agenda, while trying to come across as unbiased. Candidates don't win or lose because of the media. Sure, having media support helps, but in the end it's each candidate's race to lose. Ron Paul has had ample opportunity to convince the public and the media that he's the best candidate, but he failed because of his policies. The blame rests on Ron Paul alone. You can't blame everyone else for your candidate's demise. I supported Mitt Romney. I contend that part of his demise was Huckabee's constant attacks on Romney's religion. However, I don't blame Huckabee alone. In the end, Romney failed to convince the voters he was the best candidate.

And what do you mean when you say "the educational system that let things happen that way"? Are you now blaming public education and universities? The vast majority of professors are Democrat, so they would not have supported Ron Paul anyways. And the educational system doesn't "let things happen that way". The job of the educational system is to teach the curriculum of the course, not promote political candidates. Again, you can't blame others for your candidates failure.



That just tells me that back in January the media knew Ron Paul wasn't a viable candidate, so they didn't waste their time covering him. Is that the media's fault? No. It's Ron Paul's fault for failing to convince the people his policies were the best for this country. Ron Paul's polling numbers were (and still are) horrible. Look at the Democrat side... There are several contenders on the Left who were ignored by the media too. There is no vast right wing or left wing conspiracy against Ron Paul.

The media does not talk about policies, they are way too busy reporting about Obamas new jeans and so on. Other then that, you think it is the candidates task to convince the media that they're a viable candidate? If you really think like that how do you handle bias like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI



And then your quote about Professors that are Democrats and therefore would support him anyways, that's just hilarious... Because of the one war issue they would all support him? He's pro-life, he's voted against any tax-hikes, he's voted against any expansion of the welfare-state, he's gonna secure the borders and birthright-citizenship for illegal immigrants... I could name hundreds of issues Democrats would hate him for.

I'm sorry, but your post just like wmb...'s post only show how uninformed you guys are about what Ron Paul stands for.

[jefelump]

from Arne:
The media does not talk about policies, they are way too busy reporting about Obamas new jeans and so on. Other then that, you think it is the candidates task to convince the media that they're a viable candidate? If you really think like that how do you handle bias like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI

I didn't say "convince the media." I said "convince the public and the media." I really don't care what the media thinks about a candidate. It's up to each voter to do his own homework. I said it helps to have support in the media, because obviously they talk about the candidates they like and support more than others. You will never find an unbiased media. So again, if Ron Paul wants us to think he's viable, he has to convince us, the public.

And in a presidential debate, you're going to find all kinds of bias. That's the nature of the beast. I think Ron Paul handled the question very well.

from Arne:
And then your quote about Professors that are Democrats and therefore would support him anyways, that's just hilarious... Because of the one war issue they would all support him? He's pro-life, he's voted against any tax-hikes, he's voted against any expansion of the welfare-state, he's gonna secure the borders and birthright-citizenship for illegal immigrants... I could name hundreds of issues Democrats would hate him for.

I'm sorry, but your post just like wmb...'s post only show how uninformed you guys are about what Ron Paul stands for.

Read my post again. I said those Democrat professors would NOT support him.

Don't get me wrong. There are many things in Ron Paul's platform that I support. The things you quoted, like "He's pro-life, he's voted against any tax-hikes, he's voted against any expansion of the welfare-state, he's gonna secure the borders and birthright-citizenship for illegal immigrants" are all things I support. However, I also support the war. I don't want to see another Mogadishu-type scenario where the US pulls out prematurely and emboldens the enemy. Bill Clinton pulled out, and so the enemy attacked us here. I would rather fight the enemy elsewhere and keep ourselves safe at home.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

Ron Paul is the most free trade candidate in this whole election, in fact the only one ever to talk about market-determined money... His policies are not isolationist, they're non-interventionist, if you don't understand the difference, then I won't bother waisting my time on you... Just one thing: Never has America been as isolated around the world than today. Ron Paul would not put any embargo on any nation he would trade with all of them...

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." This quotation can be found on the wikipedia article about Internationalism, a political philosophy that is hardly isolationist.

But from your quotes above I can simply tell that you know nothing about what Ron Paul stands for.

pardon me for mixing up his free economic stance with his isolationist foreign policy stance.