Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Palomar · 2005-05-06 20:21:39

*Just some comments in general, not directed at anyone.

I feel (yeah, I know...that should be THINK but my mind's a bit numb on this topic currently) in a state of "limbo" about the Iraq situation. Car bombs, suicide bombers nearly every day now. Insurgents still a major problem. And how could they not be? I couldn't distinguish an Iraqi from a Syrian from an Iranian from a Saudi by simply looking at that person.

Now we've got the issue of North Korea appearing (via U.S. spy satellite) to be making preparations to denote a nuclear warhead. The point again: bin Laden's looking for a seller, NK could certainly turn out to be just that.

Basically it seems like looking at a macabre procession ("parade" isn't a good word choice) as it's going by, trying to judge how it'll turn out by what's passing in front of one at this very moment. We still haven't seen the end of the procession.

Everything seems so premature or uncertain or unknown. It's like a twilight zone we're caught in...and when will it be over?

Again, it seems like there are two Americas since 9/11: The sentimental one -- home -- which I love; and this other which is still strange to me and which I don't identify with. And that last not necessarily intimately tied with the Iraq war; just "overall." :-\

Frankly, I'm still somewhat puzzled at how persons of various persuasions can seem so confident and sure (on both the Right and the Left) of their viewpoints. I admit I'm UNsure. Doubt will set you free...?

Well, I guess that's enough "heart on my sleeve" for one night.

--Cindy

GraemeSkinner · 2005-05-06 22:08:28

My natural inclinations wouldn't be to vote for the British Labour Party anyhow.

I must say it was one of the worst elections for ages, none of the parties fought any real issues that the public could get heated up about. Instead it was a round of "your a liar"... "no I'm not"... "yes you are"...
There was a turn out of only 61% which is poor to say the least - next the people who did not vote will be complaining about the government again.

Graeme

Palomar · 2005-05-07 12:54:18

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reid_bush]So sick of this crap

*Someone makes a comment, then they "apologize" for it. Double the media attention, right?

Either say it and don't apologize for it, or be careful and avoid retractions. Unless, of course, the double dose of attention is what is desired.

Either way, it's childish.

I must say it was one of the worst elections for ages, none of the parties fought any real issues that the public could get heated up about. Instead it was a round of "your a liar"... "no I'm not"... "yes you are"...

Sounds familiar. No wonder democracies only last 200 years on average...

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-07 21:27:05

On an upbeat note, Al-Qa'ida's third-in-command has recently been arrested in Pakistan, I believe, and has 'spilled the beans' about much of Bin Laden's network. There's even been some optimistic talk about soon capturing Bin Laden himself. We can only hope.

Hmmm. . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … ,00.html]A second opinion, perhaps?

clark · 2005-05-07 21:42:49

Stop being a traitor Bill.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-08 00:29:18

Ah, I hadn't seen this more recent news. Very disappointing.
Never mind, Bill; keep your chin up! There's always tomorrow.

BWhite · 2005-05-08 08:20:30

Ah, I hadn't seen this more recent news. Very disappointing.
Never mind, Bill; keep your chin up! There's always tomorrow.

Defeating nut-job Islam will be the work of at least one generation, maybe two or three. Its a marathon that will be won in the schools of the Islamic world and therefore our military cannot assure victory. We cannot set screws using hammers.

As a college lad in Chicago, I recall 100% Irish classmates drinking beer and getting all misty-eyed about Irish martyrs killed 400 years ago by British swine.

If we think nabbing a few al Qaeda leaders will solve anything we are sorely mistaken.

= = =

That said, loud chest thumping about nabbing a few al Qaeda leaders is good for the image and poll rating of our President.

??? :;):

Palomar · 2005-05-08 16:52:17

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … cs]Another good reason to keep and maintain separation of church from state!

*One sheeple is publically defending the petty tyrant. I'm glad the "ousted" folks got a lawyer. :laugh: I have no idea where THAT could go, but ... wish I could have seen the reaction.

--Cindy

Martian Republic · 2005-05-08 18:07:59

Stop being a traitor Bill.

All Bill doing is reporting the news. Which is something that you don't get off the TV Nightly news any more.

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-05-08 18:51:16

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up." Senator Hagel, a Republican Senator. . . :;):

This "nuke the filibuster" is simply a naked power grab.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-09 05:07:23

This "nuke the filibuster" is simply a naked power grab.

There's the rub, all politics is a power grab. We condemn it when it's our adversaries but become strangely unaware or forgiving when our "team" is making the move.

Just the facts.

The Republicans are trying to minimize opposition to their appointees in order to stack the judiciary in favor of conservatives.

The Democrats have come to rely on the courts to further their agenda on issues which don't have widespread popular support and can't be passed as legislation.

Conservatives are trying to cut off the liberals prime outlet and the Dems can't allow that to happen. To believe that one side is merely trying to be good and civil and the other is a raging monster is. . . well, How's your Kool-Aid?

True bipartisanship is a fantasy, the very existence of more than one party attests to this.

BWhite · 2005-05-09 07:12:44

This "nuke the filibuster" is simply a naked power grab.
There's the rub, all politics is a power grab. We condemn it when it's our adversaries but become strangely unaware or forgiving when our "team" is making the move.
Just the facts.
The Republicans are trying to minimize opposition to their appointees in order to stack the judiciary in favor of conservatives.
The Democrats have come to rely on the courts to further their agenda on issues which don't have widespread popular support and can't be passed as legislation.
Conservatives are trying to cut off the liberals prime outlet and the Dems can't allow that to happen. To believe that one side is merely trying to be good and civil and the other is a raging monster is. . . well, How's your Kool-Aid?
True bipartisanship is a fantasy, the very existence of more than one party attests to this.

Cobra, as you once said (brilliantly, btw) - - Americans can't work if they even lose their air condiitoning.

To engage in a particularly hot political civil war while fighting radical Islam and while facing growing global economic threats seems to be an effectrive way to burst the bubble of American global supremacy especially quickly.

Just seems like bad timing to be undoing the New Deal in the midst of a global war on terror. Multi-front wars are usually a bad idea. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-09 07:46:42

To engage in a particularly hot political civil war while fighting radical Islam and while facing growing global economic threats seems to be an effectrive way to burst the bubble of American global supremacy especially quickly.

A political civil war of sorts is almost a given, a natural part of the American political landscape. Sure, we like to think it used to be civil and rational but an examination of such things going back almost to the founding doesn't support that idea. At any rate, what we have are opposing factions with underlying principles in which they passionately believe, to think that one or both will set aside their principles in the name of civil discourse and unity in the face of a few brown guys with exploding cars is at best woefully unrealistic.

Economics is another question, Americans tend to respond well, if slowly to such challenges. If present trends continue we're screwed, but they never do. Twenty-five years from now the Unions will be busted, the Chinese will be struggling with inflating wages and social spending obligations, and we'll look back on all the "doom and gloom" prophesizing of today as an amusing footnote in countless books. All revisionist and all with agendas.

And just maybe we'll get a few of our Social Security dollars back. :;):

Palomar · 2005-05-10 12:20:43

*Iran is going to continue its nuclear program.

What if they succeed? There's a history of war with Iraq. I'm not sure of continued antagonisms/hostilities (pre-invasion and especially now) and there are aspects/facts about the Iran-Iraq war which I've forgotten.

What if they try to conquer Iraq with nukes? Or they arm surrounding theocratically controlled nations and hold Iraq "hostage"?

All our efforts in Iraq could be completely in vain. What a tragedy that'd be, especially after all the soldiers and civilians who have died these past 2 years. :-\

What can the Admin do to STOP Iran?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-10 13:44:53

Heh!

I bet the GOP wishes they still had Tom Daschle to kick around. Talk about losing for winning. Harry Reid just issued this statement, or so I read:

Two weeks ago, Bill Frist and I exchanged proposals in an attempt to avert a vote on the nuclear option.
One proposal allowed for up or down votes on all but four judges - which many of us on both sides of the aisle considered to be the goal of this hyped battle over judicial nominations.
It also took the "nuclear option" off the table, which even Ken Starr said yesterday was damaging to the Senate as an institution and "amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." This compromise would break the gridlock over these seven judges, and allow us to get back to doing the people's business.
Senator Frist's proposal does nothing to end the judicial impasse, as it would wipe away the very checks and balances that have prevented an abuse of power for more than 200 years.
That result is unacceptable.
I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees.
This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works.
I believe there are two options for avoiding the nuclear showdown, which so many of us believe is bad for the Senate, and bad for America.
But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.
If it does come to a vote, I asked Senator Frist to allow his Republican colleagues to follow their consciences. Senator Specter recently said that Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude. But right wing activists are threatening primary challenges against Republicans who vote against the nuclear option. Senators should not face this or any other form of retribution based on their support for the Constitution. In return, I pledge that I will place no such pressure on Democratic Senators and I urge Senator Frist to refrain from placing such pressure on Republican Senators.
I also suggest two reasonable ways to avert this constitutional crisis.
First, allow up or down votes on additional nominees, as I addressed in my proposal to Frist two weeks ago. If this is about getting judges on the courts, let's get them on the courts.
Second, allow the Senate to consider changing the rules without breaking the rules. Every one of us knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way. Senator Dodd will go to the floor this afternoon to expand on the way the Senate changes its rules.
I suggest that Senator Frist introduce his proposal as a resolution. If he does, we commit to moving it through the Rules Committee expeditiously and allow for a vote on the floor. It takes 67 votes to change the rules. If Senator Frist can't achieve 67 votes, then clearly the nuclear option is not in the best interest of the Senate or the nation.
Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let's vote.

George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works. Harry Reid

Protection of minority rights is the cornerstone of the US Constitution. Since the Anglo-world (US, UK, Canada and Australia) together have less than five percent of the total global population, preservation of minority rigths would seem to be a good thing.

Grypd · 2005-05-10 15:04:57

*Iran is going to continue its nuclear program.
What if they succeed? There's a history of war with Iraq. I'm not sure of continued antagonisms/hostilities (pre-invasion and especially now) and there are aspects/facts about the Iran-Iraq war which I've forgotten.
What if they try to conquer Iraq with nukes? Or they arm surrounding theocratically controlled nations and hold Iraq "hostage"?
All our efforts in Iraq could be completely in vain. What a tragedy that'd be, especially after all the soldiers and civilians who have died these past 2 years. :-\
What can the Admin do to STOP Iran?
--Cindy

Its called the pincer. If Iran uses Nuclear weapons apart from anything except self defence it will suffer from hammer blows from both the Russians and the USA. It would not survive the experience.

There is an almost unspoken agreement that no one uses Nuclear weapons except as a last resort. And for Iran nuclear weapons are a weapon of detterence. They want protection from the USA and Russia who would have no difficulty with the idea of regime change.

reddragon · 2005-05-10 15:59:02

Its called the pincer. If Iran uses Nuclear weapons apart from anything except self defence it will suffer from hammer blows from both the Russians and the USA. It would not survive the experience.

It's not exactly the best option. Although the US and other nuclear powers could survive a nuclear war that Iran couldn't, we could lose several major cities. Not exactly a victory. There's probably still a chance of a diplomatic solution before Iran builds nukes. (If bush doesn't squander it. :angry: ) If they do build nukes I guess we'll have to wait it out as we did with the Soviets and try to avoid a war at all costs. In nuclear war those who "win" may be worse off than the losers of a normal war.

Economics is another question, Americans tend to respond well, if slowly to such challenges. If present trends continue we're screwed, but they never do. Twenty-five years from now the Unions will be busted, the Chinese will be struggling with inflating wages and social spending obligations, and we'll look back on all the "doom and gloom" prophesizing of today as an amusing footnote in countless books. All revisionist and all with agendas.

What do you base these predictions on? It's possible, but so are a bzillion other future economies. Rising inflation could lead to the collapse of the dollar and the U.S. economy. Unions could gain new life as more workers become increasingly dissatisfied with current economic conditions. The stock market could collapse, leading to another great depression. Or stocks could rise again and solve the problem. China is an extremely uncertain variable, partly because of its political situation. I doubt the government can continue to justify itself to the people with communist idealism when capitalism is the reality. Europe is another variable. Will the Euro continue to rise? Will it fall below the dollar? I'm not saying all this will happen; I doubt much of it will. I'm just saying we really can't tell. I'm not a big fan of "doom and gloom" but such predictions are not without reason behind them. Nor are your predictions impossible. I do tend to agree that the present conditions won't continue for 25 years, but I can think of many different ways for things to go, some better some worse. Economics is seldom predicted accurately; I guess that's my main point.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-10 17:45:42

It's a tricky problem.
Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and it already has a very capable missile delivery system. One of its stated national objectives is the total destruction of Israel, which is a nuclear power itself. We can only hope that the religious nuts running Iran will understand the futility of an actual nuclear exchange and never attempt to use their arsenal.

Socially, it appears from media reports (can we believe them?) that most of the Iranian population wants a secular government, or at least a watered-down version of the present theocracratic arrangement. The maturation of a democratic government in neighbouring Iraq will probably do much to nudge Iran along that road, without any external interference.

The Syrian and Iranian regimes will go on covertly attacking the people and the infrastructure of Iraq because they know a successful democracy in that country will necessarily undermine their dictatorships.
For this reason, a steady death-toll of maybe 5000 Iraqis per annum, with bomb damage to buildings and roads, will go on indefinitely. This will continue regardless of the presence or otherwise of Coalition troops, since it is essential to the continued rule of the despots in Syria and Iran.

It's a grim account to keep but we have to compare the situation before and after the liberation of Iraq. Many more people were slaughtered on a regular basis by Saddam before the liberation than are dying now at the hands of Syrian/Iranian/Baathist murderers.
And today, the Iraqis have their own future in their own hands - a gift of inestimable value after all they've had to endure.

Every day, for the sake of the brave Iraqi people, and for the sake of the Coalition troops who've done such a great job, (as well as a hope that theocracies and totalitarian regimes will be weakened by it) I look for news of success in Iraq. Not easy to find, with world media so biased against America and her allies and doing whatever they can to present the worst side of the situation.

Never mind! Time will tell.

Palomar · 2005-05-11 05:36:44

*Thanks Grypd, Shaun.

History/political trivia question: How many (estimated) Ku Klux Klan members were there in America, in 1925?

I read the estimated number in a magazine last evening.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-11 06:10:48

History/political trivia question: How many (estimated) Ku Klux Klan members were there in America, in 1925?

If I recall correctly it was 2 million and some change, counting all the various Klans throughout the country whether or not they actively worked together.

Either way, that's alot of pointy hoods.

Palomar · 2005-05-11 06:18:36

History/political trivia question: How many (estimated) Ku Klux Klan members were there in America, in 1925?
If I recall correctly it was 2 million and some change, counting all the various Klans throughout the country whether or not they actively worked together.
Either way, that's alot of pointy hoods.

*The number is higher than 2 million.

-later-

Try 4 million.

Surprised me. So much for "the good old days."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-11 10:17:59

So, anyone care to wager a guess what's going in DC right now? Seems like a bit of a panic attack to me.

EDIT::

Yep, thought so.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1115829034

DanielCook · 2005-05-11 12:58:55

JC ...

Those guys in DC should really get a clue. A freakin' Cessna is not a 747 ... I mean really.

Two small planes recently crashed into buildings here in GA (accidentally) - and no-one (not even the pilots) got hurt.

Sheesh.

Palomar · 2005-05-11 13:14:39

JC ...
Those guys in DC should really get a clue. A freakin' Cessna is not a 747 ... I mean really.
Two small planes recently crashed into buildings here in GA (accidentally) - and no-one (not even the pilots) got hurt.
Sheesh.

*LOL! So true.

Joy, joy...another 3-1/2 years of these sorts of incidents at least. I also saw a headline (didn't manage to snag it; was super-busy) that a grenade was found near to where Pres. Bush had been sitting or standing?

I sure hope Jeb doesn't get elected if he runs for Office. Another 4 years of "family" past 2009 is an incomprehensible thought.

--Cindy

DanielCook · 2005-05-11 13:26:29

Yes ...

A Soviet-era, inactive, grenade was found ~100 feet from the stage (which was behind bullet-proof glass) It is not clear whether it was found or thrown. W was in no way in danger.

The big fuss is because the Georgian government only told the Secret Service of the incident about 2 hours after.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-05-06 20:21:39

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#177 2005-05-06 22:08:28

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#178 2005-05-07 12:54:18

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#179 2005-05-07 21:27:05

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#180 2005-05-07 21:42:49

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#181 2005-05-08 00:29:18

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#182 2005-05-08 08:20:30

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#183 2005-05-08 16:52:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#184 2005-05-08 18:07:59

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#185 2005-05-08 18:51:16

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#186 2005-05-09 05:07:23

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#187 2005-05-09 07:12:44

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#188 2005-05-09 07:46:42

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#189 2005-05-10 12:20:43

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#190 2005-05-10 13:44:53

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#191 2005-05-10 15:04:57

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#192 2005-05-10 15:59:02

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#193 2005-05-10 17:45:42

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#194 2005-05-11 05:36:44

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#195 2005-05-11 06:10:48

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#196 2005-05-11 06:18:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#197 2005-05-11 10:17:59

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#198 2005-05-11 12:58:55

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#199 2005-05-11 13:14:39

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#200 2005-05-11 13:26:29

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer