OT - So Michael...

"dwight" > wrote in message
...
> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>>
>
> Cynical and unforgiving.
>
> Christian?
>
> dwight
>
>

I guess you have no reply? I'll take that to indicate you really do realize
what a colossal inefficient waste of scarce resources a government run
Socialized Healthcare system would actually be. Dwight, there really are
some very sound reasons why no socialist or communist governments have ever
worked in the history of man.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:xWupj.1147$FW3.1027@trndny03...
>
> "dwight" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>> news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>>>
>>
>> Cynical and unforgiving.
>>
>> Christian?
>>
>> dwight
>
> I guess you have no reply? I'll take that to indicate you really do
> realize what a colossal inefficient waste of scarce resources a government
> run Socialized Healthcare system would actually be. Dwight, there really
> are some very sound reasons why no socialist or communist governments have
> ever worked in the history of man.

Sorry. Have to confess that I didn't really read your post. It came across
as overly negative and angry.

I have no use for that.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>>>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid
>>>> of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>>> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were there,
>>> it was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket.
>>> Revisionist history.
>> I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then immediately
>> leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to disband the Iraqi
>> military and let them meld back into society with no chance of gainful
>> employment. The second was to not wait until we could come in from the
>> north through Turkey and therefore seal off the escape routes out of
>> Baghdad. There are several vying for third.
>>
>>> Establishing a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion and
>>> came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in there.
>>> About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.
>> If establishing a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then what was
>> the original plan?
>
> Isn't that the very question we are ALL asking? WHAT was the plan, if any,
> and how were we supposed to go about it? After the part where we were
> "greeted as liberators", I don't think there was anything written in after
> the words "Fill in the blank______________." As soon as Bush called Mission
> Accomplished, the question "What do we do now?" was finally asked. But don't
> try to tell me that the democratization of the Middle East was anywhere on
> the table before then.

I think leaving Iraq with a democracy was always the intent. We didn't
plan to leave cold turkey. The thing that wasn't planned was how to go
about creating a democracy. The plain fact is we don't understand that
part of the world and how it works. Also, there was nothing to build
from once Saddam was gone. The Bath Party was the only game in town and
it couldn't be used as a legitimate vehicle to facilitate change. We
also had to find leaders that could represent their respective people.

We could have done a much better job than we did after the invasion. We
didn't but that doesn't mean we can't make the proper corrections and
move Iraq into a better condition. Hopefully we are seeing the
beginnings of stability in the country. Time will tell. I have faith
that the Iraqi people want to live in peace.

My nephew came back from a tour in Iraq last September. He had quite a
few positive things to say about the conditions there. He is a Marine
and was stationed in the Sunni Triangle near the Syrian border. For the
seven months his group was there the area they patrolled saw a drop in
violence of 60% and an increase in commerce of 700%. When he saw the
news coverage last fall he was disgusted with the media's coverage of
Iraq and the diatribe from the anti-war Democrats.

>>> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative
>>> thing. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as
>>> the party becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things about
>>> the conservatives that I just don't understand.
>> I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to the left
>> on many social issues. I am also for a strong national defense and a
>> proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing our borders. I don't
>> care for the Republican party trying to enforce morals on the the masses.
>> Much of the social issues need to be left up to the States to address or
>> on the local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage and abortion
>> needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the left needs to
>> quit targeting religion to exclude it from the public arena.
>
> Okay, we're 90% in agreement. I'm a strong believer in the separation of
> religion from government. It might have something to do with the fact that I
> am not a Christian. Now, I don't mind the display of the 10 commandments at
> our local courthouse, and I certainly don't mind government offices shutting
> down for the CHRISTMAS holidays, so I'm not a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
> separationist. But I would argue that, if Christians are allowed to be part
> of government programs, all religions must be afforded equal time. Or, at
> least, a percentage of equal time based upon their percentage of the
> population.
>
> Yeah. That would be fun.

The fact is this country is overwhelmingly Christian and always has
been. I think we do quite well regarding religious tolerance
considering this fact. The USA is one of the few countries in the world
that has this level of integration of so many religions and personal
beliefs. It will never be perfect and no one is going to get 100% of
what they want. I'm not a card carrying Christian and can see that most
religious expressions here will be Christian. No ones religious rights
are being trampled in this country. Muslims and atheists just can't
expect equal space on the court house lawn. They can expect to practice
their beliefs in peace though.

>>> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
>>> government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it was
>>> about.
>> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
>> just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the year
>> and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal level.
>> I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments are far
>> worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad fact is we
>> just roll over year after year and let them get away with it. We are on a
>> slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't want this and if
>> it happens we will all suffer for it.
>
> And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit. There
> has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for themselves,
> without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason why anyone should
> sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation in the history of the
> planet. Just from a point of national pride, we should take care of the
> weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be living in
> the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively easy, my worries
> comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a few more dollars out of my
> paycheck and SWORE that it would be used to help the homeless, the indigent,
> the hungry, and the poor, I'd be all for it.
>
> Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and always
> will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need help from the
> rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.
>
> There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it means
> caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you abusing this
> governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of housing and three
> squares a day.)

The big misconception about homeless people is they don't want to be
homeless. Most of them chose to live this way. Some don't but most do.
The problem is how do you find the small fraction the don't? These
people have the right to be homeless, IMO. Forcing them to do something
we want is not what the Constitution and Bill of Rights condone. The
fact is we will ALWAYS have homeless people. Most will be homeless by
choice and some will be forced. The fact is the ones that are forced
have the option to work their way out of it. The mentally ill will
always be hard to identify and help. I wish this weren't the case but
it is and it will not change without trampling the freedom of others to
live a homeless lifestyle. If you want to see a real life example of
what I am talking about watch the movie "Into The Wild". It is a true
story about a college graduate that choses to live a homeless lifestyle.

>>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to
>>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>>> political beliefs?
>> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican. It
>> is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate because
>> they have a great platform to run from.
>
> I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street Journal:
> http://online.wsj.com/public/article...102645595.html
> on why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all we've
> been saying here.

The GOP has lost its conservative soul. It can get it back but I think
the party will have to hit rock bottom before it happens. It isn't
there yet.

>>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?
>>>
>>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican,
>>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
>> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations. This
>> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>>
>>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
>> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican party
>> has become.
>
> If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They weren't
> cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political control. They
> saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and today control my
> party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and effective. And may, even
> now, be backfiring.

The worst thing the Republicans did was take on the fight against
abortion as an affront to God. I am against abortion and it has nothing
to do with what God thinks on the matter. To me it is a human rights
issue. I see a fetus as a human and it therefore has the same rights of
every other human. Just because it is residing in a uterus doesn't give
the owner of that uterus the unilateral right to terminate that human
life. After all it wasn't spirited into her womb. It came about as a
result of the deliberate actions of two people. My feeling is that
abortion should not be used as retroactive birth control. If a woman's
life is in danger when giving birth or she is raped then I can see where
it is an option. The Republicans have fought this battle in the worst
way possible, IMO, and it has hurt them dearly.

> When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats, they
> conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the argument
> that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the Democrats as they
> are of the Republicans.
>
> Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to create
> two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans,
> leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out amongs themselves.
>
> I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also gather
> that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate Democrats, who
> still need to strike out on their own to gain their own voice.
>
> Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
>
> Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
>
> Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully watch all
> of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will listen.
>
> I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google that), and I
> even know who my congressman is, two years after we moved into our new
> locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the political views are of ANY of
> these three, but I do remember that I was disgusted with Rick Santorum and
> happy to vote him out of office. (Now, who was it that took his place?)
>
> When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state senator
> or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
>
> Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh... sorry.
>
> And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
>
> Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I see
> the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my choice. The
> rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain looking at it.
>
> And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
>
> Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it a
> point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what it's all
> about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I don't have any
> right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a little bit about the
> people who work in my government, but not nearly enough to make a truly
> informed decision.
>
> I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming ballot
> in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can know about the
> candidates for each office.
>
> Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the bottom up.
> The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building probably has more
> impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in the Oval Office.

Until the average voter gives more than a **** about politics and the
politicians they vote for nothing will change. The only time they will
give a **** is when the government makes a surprise run into their
wallets and leaves them with nothing. Unfortunately most Americans
won't take the effort to really educate themselves before entering the
voting booth.

"dwight" > wrote in message
. ..
> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:xWupj.1147$FW3.1027@trndny03...
>>
>> "dwight" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>>> news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cynical and unforgiving.
>>>
>>> Christian?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>
>> I guess you have no reply? I'll take that to indicate you really do
>> realize what a colossal inefficient waste of scarce resources a
>> government run Socialized Healthcare system would actually be. Dwight,
>> there really are some very sound reasons why no socialist or communist
>> governments have ever worked in the history of man.
>
> Sorry. Have to confess that I didn't really read your post. It came across
> as overly negative and angry.
>
> I have no use for that.
>
> dwight

For the record I am extremely optimistic, very much a realist, but
absolutely positive. I just don't waist my time deluding myself or trying
to talk others into buying onto my delusions.

I guess We will have to lump you in with all the other mindless masses, you
are for things that sound "nice", you don't actually care what the details
are, or how realistic they are or weather they could work or not, as long as
they make you "feel good". You Dwight are far worse than the average
mindless sheeple, because you go much farther than simply buying into and
believing stupid ****, you actively promote it, even though you are unable
to explain why. It is people like you with closed minds who seek the
"politically correct" feel good route that really scare the hell out of me.
Your willingness to jump into a conversation spouting off your unworkable
half-baked ideas and dismissing any opposing view without even reading it,
yet still tossing out your snotty elitist barbs is simply pathetic.

I guess my opinion of you was mistakenly much greater than it should have
been. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:esxpj.2299$eD3.1516@trndny05...
>
> "dwight" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>> news:xWupj.1147$FW3.1027@trndny03...
>>>
>>> "dwight" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>>>> news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cynical and unforgiving.
>>>>
>>>> Christian?
>>>>
>>>> dwight
>>>
>>> I guess you have no reply? I'll take that to indicate you really do
>>> realize what a colossal inefficient waste of scarce resources a
>>> government run Socialized Healthcare system would actually be. Dwight,
>>> there really are some very sound reasons why no socialist or communist
>>> governments have ever worked in the history of man.
>>
>> Sorry. Have to confess that I didn't really read your post. It came
>> across as overly negative and angry.
>>
>> I have no use for that.
>>
>> dwight
>
> For the record I am extremely optimistic, very much a realist, but
> absolutely positive. I just don't waist my time deluding myself or trying
> to talk others into buying onto my delusions.

Your post (now posts) was overly negative, cynical, you ignore reality and
see only the worst from people.

> I guess We will have to lump you in with all the other mindless masses,
> you are for things that sound "nice", you don't actually care what the
> details are, or how realistic they are or weather they could work or not,
> as long as they make you "feel good". You Dwight are far worse than the
> average mindless sheeple, because you go much farther than simply buying
> into and believing stupid ****, you actively promote it, even though you
> are unable to explain why. It is people like you with closed minds who
> seek the "politically correct" feel good route that really scare the hell
> out of me. Your willingness to jump into a conversation spouting off your
> unworkable half-baked ideas and dismissing any opposing view without even
> reading it, yet still tossing out your snotty elitist barbs is simply
> pathetic.
>
> I guess my opinion of you was mistakenly much greater than it should have
> been. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You see homeless and poor people and blame them for their condition. Why,
they must WANT to be homeless and poor - it's a lifestyle choice. Put a hand
out to help, and they'll all bite it.

In the olden days... I love that. In the olden days, family and friends used
to take care of these people.

In reality, though, we have untold thousands living on the streets.

Let's just ignore them and hope they go away. Or, better yet, let's lock up
those family and friends for failure to take care of them.

You do a lot of ****ing and moaning, but you offer even less of a solution.
Less, as in none.

And that's why I really don't have time for this crap.

dwight

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "dwight" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>> news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>> Cynical and unforgiving.
>>
>> Christian?
>>
>> dwight
>>
>>
>
> I guess you have no reply? I'll take that to indicate you really do realize
> what a colossal inefficient waste of scarce resources a government run
> Socialized Healthcare system would actually be. Dwight, there really are
> some very sound reasons why no socialist or communist governments have ever
> worked in the history of man.
>
>

<cough> China <cough>

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> I hit send before I finishing responding.
>
> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the
>>>>>>>>> proverbial
>>>> car
>>>>>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
>>>> 1980.
>>>>>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>>>>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like
>>>>>>> being
>>>> an
>>>>>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst
>>>>>>> Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he
>>>>>>> only had one
>>>> term.
>>>>>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this
>>>>>>> country could bare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>>>>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
>>>> enough
>>>>>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one
>>>>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by
>>>>>>> Clinton
>>>> in
>>>>>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as
>>>>>>> an embellishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
>>>> can't
>>>>>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office.
>>>>>>> I can name several disasters though.
>>>>>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>>>>> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist
>>>>> attack within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the
>>>>> credit for
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.
>>>>
>>>>> He did get some decent tax cuts through.
>>>> Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying
>>>> for them.
>>> The rub to this is that if we didn't get the tax cuts they would
>>> have spent even more. They don't keep that money to pay down the
>>> debt they just spend that much more. At least we got the money in
>>> OUR hands and not in theirs to spend on some worthless government
>>> program.
>>
>> IMO, the bottom line is that Bush's tax cuts didn't do squat for the
>> middle class, and they were fiscally irresponsible. YMMV.
>>
>>>>> We haven't had to hear about
>>>>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
>>>> (even
>>>>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past
>>>>> two years).
>>>> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters'
>>>> romps instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.
>>> George Bush's personal life while in office has been milk toast
>>> compared to Bill Clinton. Even his daughters didn't do any more
>>> than most teens in this country. I know I did a hell of a lot worse
>>> when I was their age. I just never had the press looking at me
>>> through a microscope when I did it.
>>
>> Everybody's got skeletons, and as long as it doesn't affect the
>> country (or me personally), I don't really care about politicians'
>> personal lives. This includes religion.
>>
>>>>> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
>>>>> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women
>>>>> in Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear
>>>>> for
>>>> their
>>>>> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.
>>>> Don't even start with foreign policy.
>>> I'm not say he has been the great statesman but he has had his
>>> successes.
>>
>> Bush has one of the most dismal records in history.
>>
>>>>> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad
>>>>> action. We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years.
>>>>> If it does turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more
>>>>> democratic then history will judge Bush much more kindly than some
>>>>> people are judging him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan
>>>>> called the Soviet
>>>> Union
>>>>> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and
>>>>> the protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized
>>>>> while
>>>> he
>>>>> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats
>>>>> don't criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to
>>>>> Bush.
>>>> And what color is the sky in your world?
>>> Some days it is blue and others it is gray but most days it is a
>>> combination of both.
>>
>> True. Just don't wear those rose-colored glasses too much...
>>
>>> Even Clinton had his successes and they should be acknowledged.
>>
>> Didn't he leave the country with a balanced budget and a surplus that
>> the next president totally squandered?
>
> He also left us vulnerable to what occurred on 9-11. Much of the
> balanced budget was forced on him by the Republicans in Congress. He
> went along because he wanted to get re-elected. Also, much of the
> economic success was initiated by the first Bush and was taking effect
> when he come into office. He basically road the wave that was
> generated by others.
>
>>> Historians have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight which we don't have at
>>> the moment. I used Reagan as an example because it is something
>>> that happened in our lifetime. I can see the beginnings of this
>>> very thing happening to Bush with just the limited success of the
>>> surge.
>>
>> Michael, take off those glasses!
>
> I'm free glasses. Can you say the surge has worked so far? what if
> it continues to work and Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy that
> spreads to other countries in the area? Will you change you opinion?
>
>>> If Iraq settles into being a truly democratic country over time
>>
>> It'll never happen in our lifetime IMO.
>
> Never say never.
>
>>> then
>>> Bush will be seen as a visionary (even more so if it spreads to
>>> other countries in the Middle East) just like Reagan is seen as one
>>> today for contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. We should
>>> all hope this is the case because it will mean good things for the
>>> USA and the world, in general. It will mean that the Middle East is
>>> joining the rest of the world by moving from the 15th to the 21st
>>> century, politically speaking.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly hoping for that as well, but I'm
>> also hoping to win the lottery this week. By and large, the Middle
>> East is simply not ready for USA-style democracy IMO.
>
> Maybe not USA style democracy but something better than they have
> today which is nothing. Those people need hope that their lives can
> be better tomorrow than they are today. If they get that hope then I
> think it spells the end of the extremist Islamic movement.

I guess we should just agree to disagree. It appears that we see things
differently when it comes to politics.

WindsorFox wrote:
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "dwight" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>>> news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>>> Cynical and unforgiving.
>>>
>>> Christian?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I guess you have no reply? I'll take that to indicate you really do
>> realize what a colossal inefficient waste of scarce resources a
>> government run Socialized Healthcare system would actually be.
>> Dwight, there really are some very sound reasons why no socialist or
>> communist governments have ever worked in the history of man.
>>
>
> <cough> China <cough>

China is far from communist or socialist economically speaking. They
are quickly becoming a capitalistic society with all its trimmings. I
am quite impressed with the manner they are making the transition. They
are doing it much better the Russia did it. It's a good thing too
because the consequences of doing it wrong with a population of 1.5
BILLION people is something I don't want to contemplate. It is good
they are laying the economic foundations first before attempting any
political transformations, IMO.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> I hit send before I finishing responding.
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the
>>>>>>>>>> proverbial
>>>>> car
>>>>>>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
>>>>> 1980.
>>>>>>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>>>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>>>>>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst
>>>>>>>> Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he
>>>>>>>> only had one
>>>>> term.
>>>>>>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this
>>>>>>>> country could bare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>>>>>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by
>>>>>>>> Clinton
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as
>>>>>>>> an embellishment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office.
>>>>>>>> I can name several disasters though.
>>>>>>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>>>>>> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist
>>>>>> attack within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the
>>>>>> credit for
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.
>>>>>
>>>>>> He did get some decent tax cuts through.
>>>>> Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying
>>>>> for them.
>>>> The rub to this is that if we didn't get the tax cuts they would
>>>> have spent even more. They don't keep that money to pay down the
>>>> debt they just spend that much more. At least we got the money in
>>>> OUR hands and not in theirs to spend on some worthless government
>>>> program.
>>> IMO, the bottom line is that Bush's tax cuts didn't do squat for the
>>> middle class, and they were fiscally irresponsible. YMMV.
>>>
>>>>>> We haven't had to hear about
>>>>>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
>>>>> (even
>>>>>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past
>>>>>> two years).
>>>>> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters'
>>>>> romps instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.
>>>> George Bush's personal life while in office has been milk toast
>>>> compared to Bill Clinton. Even his daughters didn't do any more
>>>> than most teens in this country. I know I did a hell of a lot worse
>>>> when I was their age. I just never had the press looking at me
>>>> through a microscope when I did it.
>>> Everybody's got skeletons, and as long as it doesn't affect the
>>> country (or me personally), I don't really care about politicians'
>>> personal lives. This includes religion.
>>>
>>>>>> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
>>>>>> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women
>>>>>> in Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear
>>>>>> for
>>>>> their
>>>>>> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.
>>>>> Don't even start with foreign policy.
>>>> I'm not say he has been the great statesman but he has had his
>>>> successes.
>>> Bush has one of the most dismal records in history.
>>>
>>>>>> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad
>>>>>> action. We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years.
>>>>>> If it does turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more
>>>>>> democratic then history will judge Bush much more kindly than some
>>>>>> people are judging him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan
>>>>>> called the Soviet
>>>>> Union
>>>>>> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and
>>>>>> the protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized
>>>>>> while
>>>>> he
>>>>>> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats
>>>>>> don't criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to
>>>>>> Bush.
>>>>> And what color is the sky in your world?
>>>> Some days it is blue and others it is gray but most days it is a
>>>> combination of both.
>>> True. Just don't wear those rose-colored glasses too much...
>>>
>>>> Even Clinton had his successes and they should be acknowledged.
>>> Didn't he leave the country with a balanced budget and a surplus that
>>> the next president totally squandered?
>> He also left us vulnerable to what occurred on 9-11. Much of the
>> balanced budget was forced on him by the Republicans in Congress. He
>> went along because he wanted to get re-elected. Also, much of the
>> economic success was initiated by the first Bush and was taking effect
>> when he come into office. He basically road the wave that was
>> generated by others.
>>
>>>> Historians have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight which we don't have at
>>>> the moment. I used Reagan as an example because it is something
>>>> that happened in our lifetime. I can see the beginnings of this
>>>> very thing happening to Bush with just the limited success of the
>>>> surge.
>>> Michael, take off those glasses!
>> I'm free glasses. Can you say the surge has worked so far? what if
>> it continues to work and Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy that
>> spreads to other countries in the area? Will you change you opinion?
>>
>>>> If Iraq settles into being a truly democratic country over time
>>> It'll never happen in our lifetime IMO.
>> Never say never.
>>
>>>> then
>>>> Bush will be seen as a visionary (even more so if it spreads to
>>>> other countries in the Middle East) just like Reagan is seen as one
>>>> today for contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. We should
>>>> all hope this is the case because it will mean good things for the
>>>> USA and the world, in general. It will mean that the Middle East is
>>>> joining the rest of the world by moving from the 15th to the 21st
>>>> century, politically speaking.
>>> Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly hoping for that as well, but I'm
>>> also hoping to win the lottery this week. By and large, the Middle
>>> East is simply not ready for USA-style democracy IMO.
>> Maybe not USA style democracy but something better than they have
>> today which is nothing. Those people need hope that their lives can
>> be better tomorrow than they are today. If they get that hope then I
>> think it spells the end of the extremist Islamic movement.
>
> I guess we should just agree to disagree. It appears that we see things
> differently when it comes to politics.

True but you're still a bud I would have a beer with in a second.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> dwight wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>>>>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get
>>>>> rid of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>>>> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were
>>>> there, it was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the
>>>> ticket. Revisionist history.
>>> I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then
>>> immediately leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to
>>> disband the Iraqi military and let them meld back into society with
>>> no chance of gainful employment. The second was to not wait until
>>> we could come in from the north through Turkey and therefore seal
>>> off the escape routes out of Baghdad. There are several vying for
>>> third.
>>>
>>>> Establishing a democracy had nothing to do with the original
>>>> invasion and came up as a reason for the invasion long after we
>>>> were already in there. About the time that the whole WMD thing was
>>>> proven wrong, as I recall.
>>> If establishing a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then
>>> what was the original plan?
>>
>> Isn't that the very question we are ALL asking? WHAT was the plan, if
>> any, and how were we supposed to go about it? After the part where we
>> were "greeted as liberators", I don't think there was anything
>> written in after the words "Fill in the blank______________." As soon
>> as Bush called Mission Accomplished, the question "What do we do
>> now?" was finally asked. But don't try to tell me that the
>> democratization of the Middle East was anywhere on the table before
>> then.

Bing-freakin-go. Nail hit on the head. Give the man a Cuban cigar.
OK, maybe a Montecristo instead.

> I think leaving Iraq with a democracy was always the intent.

If this is true, then Dubya is probably the biggest moron I've ever
seen, especially considering the next several sentences.

> We
> didn't plan to leave cold turkey. The thing that wasn't planned was
> how to go about creating a democracy. The plain fact is we don't
> understand that part of the world and how it works.

But Dubya just couldn't resist twirling his six-shooters and went
blazing in anyway.

> Also, there was
> nothing to build from once Saddam was gone. The Bath Party was the
> only game in town and it couldn't be used as a legitimate vehicle to
> facilitate change. We also had to find leaders that could represent
> their respective people.

More evidence that the Bush administration had absolutely no plan to
deal with the aftermath. They were completely and utterly pompous and
naive.

> We could have done a much better job than we did after the invasion.

Understatement of the century, with the possible exception of the
government's response to Katrina. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a
job" ranks right up there with "Mission Accomplished". This is stuff
from Saturday Night Live skits, not real life.

> We didn't but that doesn't mean we can't make the proper corrections
> and move Iraq into a better condition.

In order to save face, the only choice is to try and clean up the mess
we made. If, however, we can admit our mistake in going in, the other
choice is to simply leave it to the dogs and cut our losses.

> Hopefully we are seeing the
> beginnings of stability in the country. Time will tell. I have faith
> that the Iraqi people want to live in peace.

Most of the common people, sure. But the whole place is so politically
out of control that any real stability can't occur for years to come.
The point that Dubya still doesn't get is that a military solution will
simply not work. Stability has to come from within first.

> My nephew came back from a tour in Iraq last September. He had quite
> a few positive things to say about the conditions there. He is a
> Marine and was stationed in the Sunni Triangle near the Syrian border.
> For the seven months his group was there the area they patrolled saw
> a drop in violence of 60% and an increase in commerce of 700%. When
> he saw the news coverage last fall he was disgusted with the media's
> coverage of Iraq and the diatribe from the anti-war Democrats.

First, kudos to your nephew. But I wonder if the "surge" is nothing
more than Mom & Dad keeping the kids in line before they go to bed.
Trouble is, the kids will never go to bed, so Mom & Dad have to stay up
the whole night every night.

We've put ourselves in a no-win position by simply being there. Now
that we're there, we can't leave or the place will blow sky-high. You
know what though? Freakin' let it.

>>>> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative
>>>> thing. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal
>>>> as the party becomes more conservative. There are a couple of
>>>> things about the conservatives that I just don't understand.
>>> I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to
>>> the left on many social issues. I am also for a strong national
>>> defense and a proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing
>>> our borders. I don't care for the Republican party trying to
>>> enforce morals on the the masses. Much of the social issues need to
>>> be left up to the States to address or on the local level. Religion
>>> based issues like gay marriage and abortion needs to be left out of
>>> the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the left needs to quit targeting
>>> religion to exclude it from the public arena.
>>
>> Okay, we're 90% in agreement. I'm a strong believer in the separation
>> of religion from government. It might have something to do with the
>> fact that I am not a Christian. Now, I don't mind the display of the
>> 10 commandments at our local courthouse, and I certainly don't mind
>> government offices shutting down for the CHRISTMAS holidays, so I'm
>> not a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth separationist. But I would argue
>> that, if Christians are allowed to be part of government programs,
>> all religions must be afforded equal time. Or, at least, a percentage
>> of equal time based upon their percentage of the population.
>>
>> Yeah. That would be fun.
>
> The fact is this country is overwhelmingly Christian and always has
> been. I think we do quite well regarding religious tolerance
> considering this fact. The USA is one of the few countries in the
> world that has this level of integration of so many religions and
> personal beliefs. It will never be perfect and no one is going to get
> 100% of what they want. I'm not a card carrying Christian and can see
> that most religious expressions here will be Christian. No ones
> religious rights are being trampled in this country. Muslims and
> atheists just can't expect equal space on the court house lawn. They
> can expect to practice their beliefs in peace though.

God is ingrained in our government to the point where His name is on our
currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance. Of course those things came
later on, but they are there for a reason. Unfortunately, some people
take it way too far.

>>>> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility,
>>>> less government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's
>>>> what it was about.
>>> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend
>>> money just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger
>>> by the year and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just
>>> the Federal level. I see it here where I live all the time. IMO,
>>> local governments are far worse in this regard than State and local
>>> governments. The sad fact is we just roll over year after year and
>>> let them get away with it. We are on a slow march to a socialistic
>>> form of government. I don't want this and if it happens we will all
>>> suffer for it.

Bush is largely to blame for this trend. He has fractured the
Republicans beyond belief, and he is forcing Big Government and Big
Brother down our throats as much as he can. It's nothing short of
repulsive.

>> And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit.
>> There has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for
>> themselves, without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason
>> why anyone should sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation
>> in the history of the planet. Just from a point of national pride, we
>> should take care of the weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a
>> Biblical sense) to be living in the country and fairly well off. My
>> life is comparatively easy, my worries comparatively few. If the feds
>> wanted to take a few more dollars out of my paycheck and SWORE that
>> it would be used to help the homeless, the indigent, the hungry, and
>> the poor, I'd be all for it.

I'd never believe the feds - they're part of the problem.

>> Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and
>> always will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need
>> help from the rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it
>> means caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you
>> abusing this governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of
>> housing and three squares a day.)

Isn't this communism at its best?

> The big misconception about homeless people is they don't want to be
> homeless. Most of them chose to live this way. Some don't but most
> do.
> The problem is how do you find the small fraction the don't? These
> people have the right to be homeless, IMO. Forcing them to do
> something we want is not what the Constitution and Bill of Rights
> condone. The fact is we will ALWAYS have homeless people. Most will
> be homeless by choice and some will be forced. The fact is the ones
> that are forced have the option to work their way out of it. The
> mentally ill will always be hard to identify and help. I wish this
> weren't the case but it is and it will not change without trampling
> the freedom of others to live a homeless lifestyle. If you want to
> see a real life example of what I am talking about watch the movie
> "Into The Wild". It is a true story about a college graduate that
> choses to live a homeless lifestyle.

My brother and his wife made a documentary about homeless people that
basically agreed with this. They befriended a group of homeless people
that lived in the woods and they hung out with them for a couple years,
documenting their lives. Of course they didn't give up their home, they
just visited an awful lot and got to know them pretty well. By and
large, the homeless are no different from anyone else.

>>>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives
>>>> seem to BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with
>>>> conservative political beliefs?
>>> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than
>>> Republican. It is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent
>>> candidate because they have a great platform to run from.

Part of the problem here is that we have to freaking label everything.
Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, etc. IMO, parties have outlived
their usefulness and should be eradicated.

>> I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street
>> Journal:
>> http://online.wsj.com/public/article...102645595.html on why
>> the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all we've
>> been saying here.
>
> The GOP has lost its conservative soul. It can get it back but I
> think the party will have to hit rock bottom before it happens. It
> isn't there yet.

Now that is a scary thought.

>>>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom
>>>> and dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers
>>>> tell me?
>>>>
>>>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a
>>>> Republican, or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>>> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I
>>> just don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their
>>> congregations. This is why I think you and I are really Libertarians
>>> at heart.
>>>
>>>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>>> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
>>> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
>>> party has become.

Without a doubt. Just look at how many Republicans have bailed under
Bush.

>> If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They
>> weren't cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political
>> control. They saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and
>> today control my party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and
>> effective. And may, even now, be backfiring.
>
> The worst thing the Republicans did was take on the fight against
> abortion as an affront to God. I am against abortion and it has
> nothing to do with what God thinks on the matter. To me it is a human
> rights issue. I see a fetus as a human and it therefore has the same
> rights of every other human. Just because it is residing in a uterus
> doesn't give the owner of that uterus the unilateral right to
> terminate that human life. After all it wasn't spirited into her
> womb. It came about as a result of the deliberate actions of two
> people. My feeling is that abortion should not be used as retroactive
> birth control. If a woman's life is in danger when giving birth or
> she is raped then I can see where it is an option. The Republicans
> have fought this battle in the worst way possible, IMO, and it has
> hurt them dearly.
>
>> When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats,
>> they conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the
>> argument that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the
>> Democrats as they are of the Republicans.
>>
>> Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to
>> create two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate
>> Republicans, leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out
>> amongs themselves.

I can't tell you how sick and tired I am of the partisan bull**** that
this country wallows in every damn day. It's way past the point of
doing any good whatsoever. People are nothing more than lemmings that
"follow the party". It shapes their beliefs, and consequently their
lives. Nobody can think for themselves anymore because they have to
fall in line with some prescribed concept or they'll be ostracized for
being a troublemaker. It's all bull****.

>> I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also
>> gather that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate
>> Democrats, who still need to strike out on their own to gain their
>> own voice.
>>
>> Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
>>
>> Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
>>
>> Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully
>> watch all of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will
>> listen.
>>
>> I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google
>> that), and I even know who my congressman is, two years after we
>> moved into our new locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the
>> political views are of ANY of these three, but I do remember that I
>> was disgusted with Rick Santorum and happy to vote him out of office.
>> (Now, who was it that took his place?)
>>
>> When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state
>> senator or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
>>
>> Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh...
>> sorry.
>>
>> And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
>>
>> Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I
>> see the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my
>> choice. The rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain
>> looking at it.
>>
>> And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
>>
>> Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it
>> a point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what
>> it's all about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I
>> don't have any right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a
>> little bit about the people who work in my government, but not nearly
>> enough to make a truly informed decision.
>>
>> I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming
>> ballot in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can
>> know about the candidates for each office.
>>
>> Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the
>> bottom up. The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building
>> probably has more impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in
>> the Oval Office.

So true. It all starts with the assholes that are trying to ruin your
life at the local level. And almost every one of them has an agenda.

> Until the average voter gives more than a **** about politics and the
> politicians they vote for nothing will change.

Also true, but here's what's going on: So the average guy comes home
after busting his ass for his idiot boss who couldn't manage his way out
of a paper bag, then paying $50 in gas that'll last him 5 days for his
commute. He checks the diminishing balance of his checkbook, worrying
because his insurance premiums went up and his coverage went down, and
his wife was laid off because her company just outsourced her job, and
his kid needs $6000 worth of braces that he has no clue how he's going
to pay for. After thinking about that for a few minutes, he just
doesn't give a **** about trying to figure out which of the two guys
running for office is the lesser of two evils.

> The only time they
> will give a **** is when the government makes a surprise run into
> their wallets and leaves them with nothing.

Newsflash: It's happening right now. Bush's tax cuts didn't do **** for
the guy I talked about above.

> Unfortunately most
> Americans won't take the effort to really educate themselves before
> entering the voting booth.

Also unfortunately, most politicians will lie and cheat in order to get
elected. And once they're elected, they'll work only for themselves and
leave their constituency to rot in the gutter.