# Why don't Bush/Cheney just give up?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

With all the bashing they take and the negative public opinion, I wonder why they don't just give up? What do other people think the reason is?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> With all the bashing they take and the negative public opinion, I wonder why they don't just give up? What do other people think the reason is?


I suspect the constant bashing and negative opinion tells us more about the public and their proxies than about the POTUS and VPOTUS. They have a job to do and, in my opinion, deep down inside know that they are right regardless of the headlines.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> They have a job to do and, in my opinion, deep down inside know that they are right regardless of the headlines.


This perhaps is precisely the problem!

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> With all the bashing they take and the negative public opinion, I wonder why they don't just give up? What do other people think the reason is?


Dubya might have grown to actually look forward to it. Cheney is just pure spite


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I honestly don't know which is more distressing; the remaining time in this administration or what will follow.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

I fear that the October surprise for 2008 will be the declaration of martial law, suspension of elections and Bush declaring himself commander-in-chief until the war on terror is completely over.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

How exactly would they give up? Just do whatever Pelosi and Reid ask?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> With all the bashing they take and the negative public opinion, I wonder why they don't just give up? What do other people think the reason is?


Your question attempts to make Bush and Cheney look like helpless victims of popular opinion. The simple fact is, they are victims of their own horrible judgment, lack of planning, outright lies and mismanagement, and outright disregard (if not contempt) for public opinion.

A majority of the American people, as well as Congress believe Bush is no longer competent to lead the occupation effort in Iraq. So it's no longer even possible for him to "give up", at least on this issue. That decision has already been made for him.
​


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

It's amazing to me how, in this supposedly enlightened day and age, people are still able to whip themselves into a hysterical frenzy.

I hate having to make this disclaimer but I sincerely loathe the Bush administration, albeit for reasons other than the official DNC dogma.

But let's look past the propaganda on only two of the main Left Wing talking points for a moment.

- Operation Iraqi Freedom, in terms of loss of American personnel, is one of the most successful in the history of warfare. You are more likely to be murdered in Washington, D.C. than KIA in Iraq.

- The response of the federal government (i.e., the third responder) to the flooding after Hurricane Katrina was the largest, fastest response in US natural disaster. I have seen this sort of thing up close. The delay following Hurricane Andrew was twice as long.

I once thought that the Internet was going to redeem American public life and elevate not only the quality of our discourse, but lift popular opinion out of the abyss of television "news" where it's been wallowing for 50 years.

I thought the power of text and print, combined with the torrent of popular opinion as the cost of media production fell to nearly zero, would put an end to the television media oligarchy, that people would wake up, and a new age of reason and rationality would begin.

Then I read this.

The ultimate in auto-erotic political fantasy.

I now see that a substantial portion of the country doesn't _want_ to live in a world of reason and rationality. They prefer the hysteria and the propaganda. They prefer the left-liberal fantasy world that television once provided, to the near-perfect exclusion of everything else. They liked it when we marched, inexorably, toward the Fabian promised land.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Operation Iraqi Freedom, in terms of loss of American personnel, is one of the most successful in the history of warfare. You are more likely to be murdered in Washington, D.C. than KIA in Iraq.


First of all, a proper moniker for this invasion would have been Operation Iraqi Liberation. At least the initials would have been appropriate to its true mission:

https://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html

As for your claim about murder rates, it's good to see Right Wing spin has degraded from ridiculous to desperate. It says far more about the state of class warfare in D.C. than about Bush's "success" in Iraq. If 3,200+ Americans killed, 60,000+ civilians killed, a half trillion dollars spent, a civil war, a near complete destruction of infrastructure and an occupation that has lasted longer than all of WWII qualifies as "successful", one can only wonder if anything could qualify as something other than successful inside your head.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> You are more likely to be murdered in Washington, D.C. than KIA in Iraq.


This statistic is pretty much meaningless.

-spence


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

rip said:


> I fear that the October surprise for 2008 will be the declaration of martial law, suspension of elections and Bush declaring himself commander-in-chief until the war on terror is completely over.


We need the "crazy" emoticon for this statement.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I can think of no better reason not to "give up" than this:

For some reason, the lyrics to that Johnny Cash song pop into my head whenever I see this picture.

_I fell into a burning ring of fire
I went down, down, down
and the flames went higher.
And it burns, burns, burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I fear that the October surprise for 2008 will be the declaration of martial law, suspension of elections and Bush declaring himself commander-in-chief until the war on terror is completely over.


Would you be willing to fund an escrow account, 50/50, and you get to keep it all if you are correct, I get it all if you are incorrect?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> This statistic is pretty much meaningless.
> 
> -spence


95% of all statistics are.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rip,

You courageous man! Your sharp mind has foiled the Bush administration's plan to impose a dictatorship! I guess they will have to go back to the drawing board but alas, I doubt any plan they devise will get past the crafty old Rip.

Seriously though, Rip, although the level of utter nonsense on the Interchange is very high indeed, everytime you post on politics or religion you manage to set a new standard in self indulgent BS. One has to admire your continued disregard for self-humiliation when you deign to share your "interesting" (to be as charitable as is humanly possible) insights.

Karl


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Rip,
> 
> You courageous man! Your sharp mind has foiled the Bush administration's plan to impose a dictatorship! I guess they will have to go back to the drawing board but alas, I doubt any plan they devise will get past the crafty old Rip.
> 
> ...


As expected, we hear now from the super-far-right, which absent any argument, descends into ad hominums.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

OP has yet to answer the relevant question put to him by AM Vanquish. Namely, what does he mean by "give up"? Resignation? Doing nothing? Changing policy? Some clarification is required to even begin to intelligently discuss OP's proposition.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> As expected, we hear now from the super-far-right!


What a lame attempt at marginalization. I thought you were against marginalizing people...or is that only for your chosen ones?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rip,

You consider ME the super far right? Well not only are you delusional but you also have an extremely limited understanding of modern political vocabulary. One could make an attempt to educate you but I suspect that your a dog that one can't teach any new tricks.

Btw the Bush-Cheney cabal now has your IP address. Perhaps its advisable that you spend October 2008 in self-imposed exile. 

Karl

P.S. I will gladly contribute Wayfarer's escrow account. Come on Rip, make some money to enjoy in exile when the Bush dictatorship begins.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Phinn said:


> You are more likely to be murdered in Washington, D.C. than KIA in Iraq.


We have met the enemy, and he is us ... :icon_pale:


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> 95% of all statistics are.


True, but most at least have the dignity to hide their manipulative qualities 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> How exactly would they give up? Just do whatever Pelosi and Reid ask?


Not really that, but I mean why do they keep trying to argue and trying win the debate(s). I keep seeing/hearing W & Cheney going out and arguing the same case for GWOT/Iraq/Iran/NK over and over and it's clearly not convincing anyone. No one is open-minded at this point.

Then there's Rove, Gonzo, Libby, Meirs, et al. Heck, just fire those people and hire some more. It will take at least a year for the majority of people to become aware of the replacement's names and at least they'd get some peace and quiet for a while.

I just don't understand what W & Cheney are trying to do or why they persist so doggedly.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Your question attempts to make Bush and Cheney look like helpless victims of popular opinion.


Is there a buzzer on this thing? My question attempts? LMAO!

Frank, my question ignores the why or how. I simply confront the current reality and ask why anyone would continue to take the hits. If they are 100% victims or 100% villians it makes no difference.

Any justification is all in your mind. Sorry, Charley.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> A majority of the American people, as well as Congress believe Bush is no longer competent to lead the occupation effort in Iraq. So it's no longer even possible for him to "give up", at least on this issue. That decision has already been made for him.
> ​


But, as you noticed he still hasn't gotten the memo. He's still going to veto the latest "will of the people" and remain Commander-in-Chief. Why not just sign the bill and try to survive his term in office? Apparently, it does require him to "give up".


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I just don't understand what W & Cheney are trying to do or why they persist so doggedly.


ksinc,

Your answer provides the basis for real discussion. As I understand your point, you seem to be suggesting that Bush admin policy be brought more in line with public opinion, at least as we know it through polls. Fair enough.

So, why doesn't Bush just do this? During his whole administration, Bush has been heavily motivated to do what he believes is right. His beliefs on this seem to be rather constant and unshakeable. Whether he *is* right or not is another matter. He finds himself confronted with Burke's dilemma. Should he act as his conscience directs, or as his constituents would have him act. He has, apparently, chosen the former, as did Burke.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> ksinc,
> 
> Your answer provides the basis for real discussion. As I understand your point, you seem to be suggesting that Bush admin policy be brought more in line with public opinion, at least as we know it through polls. Fair enough.
> 
> So, why doesn't Bush just do this? During his whole administration, Bush has been heavily motivated to do what he believes is right. His beliefs on this seem to be rather constant and unshakeable. Whether he *is* right or not is another matter. He finds himself confronted with Burke's dilemma. Should he act as his conscience directs, or as his constituents would have him act. He has, apparently, chosen the former, as did Burke.


No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Nor am I making a point. I'm asking a question. That was already provided "What do you all think the reason is why Cheney and W don't give up?" I'm sorry you don't find that an interesting enough question without some dubious agenda, point, attempt, or suggestion. I see him just beating his head against a wall.

Certainly, W shouldn't do anything he doesn't belive in, but if he isn't going to be followed he should give up on trying to lead in a direction no one will follow. Perhaps even resign.

Isn't there a saying about "insanity being defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results?" This is my question with W and Cheney. I just wonder what he's thinking. Perhaps, I am the only one that is curious.

On a side note: I wonder how some of you function sometimes. I "asked a question". Yet, some have to look for an "attempt" or "suggestion" in every question. I can't imagine that attitude works out very well in a job or general environment. Perhaps if you work for the FBI  I really don't get it. It's just overly combative. Are you all just frustrated Hannity & Colmes wannabes? LOL Seriously, what's the deal?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Certainly, W shouldn't do anything he doesn't belive in, but if he isn't going to be followed he should give up on trying to lead in a direction no one will follow. Perhaps even resign.
> 
> Isn't there a saying about "insanity being defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results?" This is my question with W and Cheney. I just wonder what he's thinking. Perhaps, I am the only one that is curious.


If Bush and Cheney were insane the situation would be much easier to deal with. But as it is, the root problem here is the exact same combination of arrogance and stubbornness that led to over 100,000 of kids being sent to their deaths for no discernable reason whatsoever in Vietnam and Korea, and is what continues to explain the cavernous disparity between power and influence the U.S. is suffering in global politics/diplomacy.

Bush and Cheney need to stop killing people and start talking to them. This isn't brain surgery.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If Bush and Cheney were insane the situation would be much easier to deal with. But as it is, the root problem here is the exact same combination of arrogance and stubbornness that led to over 100,000 of kids being sent to their deaths for no discernable reason whatsoever in Vietnam and Korea, and is what continues to explain the cavernous disparity between power and influence the U.S. is suffering in global politics/diplomacy.
> 
> Bush and Cheney need to stop killing people and start talking to them. This isn't brain surgery.


So, your answer is 'arrogance and stubborness'? I don't think it is that simple, but maybe you are right. I think that is betrayed by the 'arrogance and stubborness' of their public detractors / opposition (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al). There are other arrogant and stubborn political leaders that both agree and disagree with Cheney & W. So, I fail to see that as a distinguishing trait. Wasn't it the Democrats that started both Korea (Truman) and Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson)?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, your answer is 'arrogance and stubborness'? I don't think it is that simple, but maybe you are right. I think that is betrayed by the 'arrogance and stubborness' of their public detractors / opposition (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al). There are other arrogant and stubborn political leaders that both agree and disagree with Cheney & W. So, I fail to see that as a distinguishing trait. Wasn't it the Democrats that started both Korea (Truman) and Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson)?


I'd be the last person to claim this syndrome is limited to either of the major political parties. To get to the real source of the problem we have to look to our permanent shadow government (i.e. Pentagon), whose main purpose since the end of WWII has been not to defend the country but simply to keep their obscene budgets in place and growing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

"The current (2005) U.S. military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority), and spend 57 times more than the six front-defying nations combined (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money that is not used for pre-existing obligations. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956 billion."

The machine that Eisenhower warned us about in 1961 has been and still is all dressed up with nowhere to go. When one fabricated boogeyman is no longer credible the machine needs to create a new one, and that's exactly what has happened since 1945:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Ah, yes. I did forget that was your underlying view of the "villian". I should have remembered. Perhaps your view grows more mainstream now?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Are you all just frustrated Hannity & Colmes wannabes? LOL Seriously, what's the deal?


He's got it! By George, he's got it!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Rip,
> 
> You consider ME the super far right? Well not only are you delusional but you also have an extremely limited understanding of modern political vocabulary. One could make an attempt to educate you but I suspect that your a dog that one can't teach any new tricks.
> 
> ...


Is this actually the very best your wit can contrive? I'm truly disappointed; I expected more... Not much more, but more.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The machine that Eisenhower warned us about in 1961 has been and still is all dressed up with nowhere to go. When one fabricated boogeyman is no longer credible the machine needs to create a new one, and that's exactly what has happened since 1945:


That _Machine_ is the reason you're able to sit at the comfort of your desk and comment as you please at the displeasure with your government and its leaders. Its the reason you're able to call the president a villain, idiot, dunce or whatever other invective you choose.

Try publicly speaking out against Castro, Saddam or Kim Jong-Il. You are really left wing. To the point where its hard to take you seriously unless of course you are serious and then I have to wonder what it is that keeps you here. I honestly would like to know if you find anything redeeming about this country and I would further like to know if you find anything truly a threat.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip:

What about my proposition? You have yet to indicate if you are up for it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> That _Machine_ is the reason you're able to sit at the comfort of your desk and comment as you please at the displeasure with your government and its leaders. Its the reason you're able to call the president a villain, idiot, dunce or whatever other invective you choose.
> 
> Try publicly speaking out against Castro, Saddam or Kim Jong-Il. You are really left wing. To the point where its hard to take you seriously unless of course you are serious and then I have to wonder what it is that keeps you here. I honestly would like to know if you find anything redeeming about this country and I would further like to know if you find anything truly a threat.


WWII was the last credible threat to our country and way of life. Which was, not coincidentally, the last time Congress passed a declaration of war. Almost everything since has been military adventurism and Executive Branch genital waving.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

There was no reason for us to be involved in the Korean War? Are you f****ing serious? I guess a UN mandate and unprovoked DPRK aggression don't impress you.Take a look at North Korea and South Korea today - if you still can't find a reason then you have achieved Rip like levels of ignorance and delusion, no small feat in and of itself.

Rip, 

Please, stop posting about politics and religion. Stick to clothing and posts about your Porsche. And if you aredisappointed then I am thrilled bc something tells me the world is a bit worse off when Rip is happy.

Your greatest fear is of a Bush-Cheney dictatorship. My greatest fear is that you will post something on politics or religion again. Whose fears do you think will be realized?

Now go, rest in peace Rip. Surely you need a nap before you deign to offer us more brilliant insight.

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> WWII was the last credible threat to our country and way of life. Which was, not coincidentally, the last time Congress passed a declaration of war. Almost everything since has been military adventurism and Executive Branch genital waving.


I disagree. I think Communism was a credible threat to our country, and certainly to our way of life. WWII was the last war in which a threat was painfully obvious. Korea and other wars were not as black and white as WWII, but the threat existed. I do not call it adventurism, I call it acting in the country's best interest.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Karl,

That's a little harsh on rip. What I want to know is just who leaked our secret plan to him? Heads are going to roll!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

AQG,

Perhaps we should suffer fools gladly. Rip is bound to make us very glad indeed.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> There was no reason for us to be involved in the Korean War? Are you f****ing serious? I guess a UN mandate and unprovoked DPRK aggression don't impress you.Take a look at North Korea and South Korea today - if you still can't find a reason then you have achieved Rip like levels of ignorance and delusion, no small feat in and of itself.


What "Korean War" are you referring to? Our own "police action", or the _actual_ civil war which has been and still is taking place within Korea for the last half century? We flushed the lives of 54,000+ of our kids straight down the toilet and it didn't make a shred of difference to their underlying civil war.

If this scenario sounds familiar, it should, as that's exactly what's happening now in Iraq.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Are you all just frustrated Hannity & Colmes wannabes? LOL Seriously, what's the deal?


A sartorial inclusion here! Not many here are Hannity wannabes, sartorially at least!

Has anyone else noticed how often (almost always), that Sean Hannity wears Blue Jeans with an odd coat or suit jacket!

Even Alan Colmes is better dressed! With the kind of success that Hannity enjoys, he could/should really do better sartorially.

As to the OP, I believe that GWB is stupid and delusional enough to deny reality. Lord knows, he surrounds himself with yes-men inhabiting a parallel universe!

As to Cheney, he is too smart to not know the truth, but he is arrogant, and cynical enough not to care about reality and the truth.

Kudos to GWB/Cheney! They both dress much better than their ass-kisser Hannity!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

This could be the post that gets me banned. You are an idiot. Not even a useful idiot. You are a useless idiot.

South Korea would not exist today if it were not for the US led and UN mandated Allied force defending it from Soviet and Chinese sponsored North Korean aggression during the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a liberal democracy and has been since 1987. It is also one of the richest and most technologically advanced nations in the world.

North Korea on the other hand is the most oppressive regime in the world that starves its people (over a million dead in the last ten years), sponsors terrorism and lives off the proceeds of counterfeiting US Dollars and the narcotics trade so that Kim and and the North Korean nomeklatura can dine on cavair and drink cases of Louis XIII.

You obviously are incapable of understanding the difference and once again side with tyranny. Stick to clothing and discussing Porsches with Rip.

Karl


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> WWII was the last credible threat to our country and way of life. Which was, not coincidentally, the last time Congress passed a declaration of war. Almost everything since has been military adventurism and Executive Branch genital waving.


Why was WWII so justified? Shouldn't we have just *talked* to the axis powers instead of going to war? I mean, don't you think we provoked Japan by threatening their energy supply? *What in your opinion was so special about WWII? * I would really like to know.

Didn't some 250,000 of our men die in that war? That's more than the 100,000 between Viet Nam and Korea (since you're so fond of alluding to body counts).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> I disagree. I think Communism was a credible threat to our country, and certainly to our way of life. WWII was the last war in which a threat was painfully obvious. Korea and other wars were not as black and white as WWII, but the threat existed. I do not call it adventurism, I call it acting in the country's best interest.


Communism is the best friend the Pentagon ever had. It kept our government (and people) focused on an external enemy, and provided the Pentagon with virtually unlimited excuses for their obscene budgets.

Also, the stream of fake "wars" on ourselves we've seen since the 1980s (the war on drugs, war on crime, war on terror etc) is not coincidental to the demise of the USSR. We've run out of external enemies so have begun to create internal ones.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Frank,

What we are trying to say is that the Korean War actually did make a difference, not only for South Korea but for Japan too.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Why was WWII so justified? Shouldn't we have just *talked* to the axis powers instead of going to war? I mean, don't you think we provoked Japan by threatening their energy supply? *What in your opinion was so special about WWII? *I would really like to know.


A better question is, why did Congress authorize a declaration of war in WWII, but not in Afghanistan or Iraq? And the reason is, the Axis Powers represented a credible threat to our country, while somehow, amazingly, two dozen morons with box cutters did not. Incredible, no?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Also, the stream of fake "wars" on ourselves we've seen since the 1980s (the war on drugs, war on crime, war on terror etc) is not coincidental to the demise of the USSR. We've run out of* external enemies so have begun to create internal ones.*


Just like to point out the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs" is not about internal enemies. Most of the efforts for both occur outside the US borders.

Carry on.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Communism is the best friend the Pentagon ever had. It kept our government (and people) focused on an external enemy, and provided the Pentagon with virtually unlimited excuses for their obscene budgets.
> 
> Also, the stream of fake "wars" on ourselves we've seen since the 1980s (the war on drugs, war on crime, war on terror etc) is not coincidental to the demise of the USSR. We've run out of external enemies so have begun to create internal ones.


The war on poverty occurred during the cold war, as did the war on drugs and crime. I think your intransigent moralism and love of conspiracy theories doesn't seem to allow for a point of view other than the rhetoric you subscribe to. Sorry if this is a run-on sentence.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Just like to point out the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs" is not about internal enemies. Most of the efforts for both occur outside the US borders.
> 
> Carry on.


Is that why almost 339,000 Americans are rotting in federal prisons for low-level, non-violent drug offenses?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> A better question is, why did Congress authorize a declaration of war in WWII, but not in Afghanistan or Iraq? And the reason is, the Axis Powers represented a credible threat to our country, while somehow, amazingly, two dozen morons with box cutters did not. Incredible, no?


Morons like that blew up the World Trade Center.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> The war on poverty occurred during the cold war, as did the war on drugs and crime. I think your intransigent moralism and love of conspiracy theories doesn't seem to allow for a point of view other than the rhetoric you subscribe to. Sorry if this is a run-on sentence.


That's simply not true. The "war on drugs" was kickstarted during Reagan's two terms, and laws which trample on our Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" dictates (e.g. mandatory minimum prison sentences, "three strikes" laws etc) began in that same timeframe.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Is that why almost 339,000 Americans are rotting in federal prisons for low-level, non-violent drug offenses?


I cannot answer to the veracity of your number and will assume the question is rhetorical, but it does nothing in regards to answering my point.

Carry on.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> Morons like that blew up the World Trade Center.


This might be a wakeup call which rivals that of the 911 attacks, but BOO FREAKING HOO. Ban box cutters on commercial airline flights, arrest and bring to justice those who were responsible, and GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE. Mr. Cheney and Bush, don't make a political career out of fear and terror, and play perfectly into the hands of these morons.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That's simply not true. The "war on drugs" was kickstarted during Reagan's two terms, and laws which trample on our Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" dictates (e.g. mandatory minimum prison sentences, "three strikes" laws etc) began in that same timeframe.


The cold war was still going on to a degree during the Reagan years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think this thread is bringing up an important sartorial issue: 

Tin foil hats....MTM, bespoke or OTR?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> The cold war was still going on to a degree during the Reagan years.


If we judge it as the fall of the Berlin Wall, it took up his entire first term, no?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC.

Its a bit hard for the nearly three thousand souls who perished on 9-11 to get on with their lives.

So lets see, in this thread you have:

1) Tacitly endorsed North Korea
2) Dismissed the Cold War as a Pentagon fantasy (note to Havel, Walesa, Sharansky and company, the Soviets were just kidding!)
3) Tacitly endorsed the Taliban's soverignty in Afghanistan
4) Told everyone to just get over 9-11. It was no big deal, right?

My final question Francis - did your mother have any children that lived?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> My final question Francis - did your mother have any children that lived?


Karl:

Do not be so mean.....to his mother.

Maybe she'll contribute to an escrow account for the bet, seeing as rip is ignoring it?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think this thread is bringing up an important sartorial issue:
> 
> Tin foil hats....MTM, bespoke or OTR?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> This might be a wakeup call which rivals that of the 911 attacks, but BOO FREAKING HOO. Ban box cutters on commercial airline flights, arrest and bring to justice those who were responsible, and GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE. Mr. Cheney and Bush, don't make a political career out of fear and terror, and play perfectly into the hands of these morons.


Too bad I have to ride the NYC subway wondering about the next moron who will want to sacrifice my life for his cause.

I guess you didn't have too many former co-workers who died on 9-11.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Too bad I have to ride the NYC subway wondering about the next moron who will want to sacrifice my life for his cause.
> 
> I guess you didn't have too many former co-workers who died on 9-11.


One would of course have to be gainfully employed to have co-workers.....

Sorry to hear of your loss though Ken.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> Too bad I have to ride the NYC subway wondering about the next moron who will want to sacrifice my life for his cause.
> 
> I guess you didn't have too many former co-workers who died on 9-11.


And I bet you actually believe the families of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians slaughtered in Bush's invasion just assume it was a necessary evil. Not to mention the families of American soldiers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And I bet you actually believe the families of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians slaughtered in Bush's invasion just assume it was a necessary evil. Not to mention the families of American soldiers.


Francis, can you explain what one has to do with the other please?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Francis,

Its not American solidiers who have slaughtered ten of thousands of Iraqi civilians and you know it. But one wonders where your concern for Iraqi civilians during Saddam's reign was. But keep up the good work as you are making Rip look pretty good right now.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> But keep up the good work as you are making Rip look pretty good right now.
> 
> Karl


I must insist you cease your exagerations.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC.
> 
> Its a bit hard for the nearly three thousand souls who perished on 9-11 to get on with their lives.
> 
> ...


You're really diving off the deep end there, Karl. Had 25 million Americans been slaughtered in WWII, we would have created a buffer zone after the war exactly as the Soviets did. History has proven the "domino theory" existed in reality only between your two ears.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You're really diving off the deep end there, Karl. Had 25 million Americans been slaughtered in WWII, we would have created a buffer zone after the war exactly as the Soviets did. History has proven the "domino theory" existed in reality only between your two ears.


So you are justifying the creation of the Soviet Bloc? Wow.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I was a consultant at Cantor Fitzgerald up until a little more than a year before 9-11. My office was on the 101st floor of Tower 1. I consider myself a lucky person.

We did not slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Other moslems looking to de-stabilize the country can claim that prize. We would gladly leave if the warring factions would put down their arms.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Say what you want about Frank, at least he had answer to the question. I tend to worry less about those with minority opinions than those with none at all.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Oops, I think Karl, Wayfarer, Frank and I have this thread all to ourselves. We must have scared the rest away. Three cheers for the Interchange!

Hey, ksinc's back!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> I was a consultant at Cantor Fitzgerald up until a little more than a year before 9-11. My office was on the 101st floor of Tower 1. I consider myself a lucky person.
> 
> We did not slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Other moslems looking to de-stabilize the country can claim that prize. We would gladly leave if the warring factions would put down their arms.


Well I'll be. We're finally getting somewhere.

Hypothetical: During our own Civil War, a country half a world away marches 200,000 of their troops into our country. Explain your theory on what effect these troops would have on our war, and what our response would be.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's simply not true. The "war on drugs" was kickstarted during Reagan's two terms, and laws which trample on our Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" dictates (e.g. mandatory minimum prison sentences, "three strikes" laws etc) began in that same timeframe.


Mandatory minimum sentences and the "three strikes" law as cruel and unusual punishment? You can't really be serious about this can you? If someone cannot get their act together after being arrested _and _sentenced twice...well, then too damn bad.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

rnoldh said:


> A sartorial inclusion here! Not many here are Hannity wannabes, sartorially at least!
> 
> Has anyone else noticed how often (almost always), that Sean Hannity wears Blue Jeans with an odd coat or suit jacket!
> 
> ...


Here's your sartorial connection, above.



Wayfarer said:


> I think this thread is bringing up an important sartorial issue:
> 
> Tin foil hats....MTM, bespoke or OTR?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Hypothetical: During our own Civil War, a country half a world away marches 200,000 of their troops into our country. * Explain your theory on what effect these troops would have on our war, and what our response would be.*


Before we answer, we need more information about the scenario:
Is this during the current age with polls, TV pundits, and liberal talking heads or back in the day with only newspapers?
Is the President a liberal or a conservative?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Now you endorse Soviet repression! Will it never end.

Now bc you are ignorant of history:

The Soviets were the SECOND aggressors in World War Two (I am speaking of the European theatre), having invaded Eastern Poland about two weeks after the Germans started hostilities. Much of Eastern Poland was annexed into the USSR. The Soviets followed this with an invasion of Finland in late 1939 and topped it all off with a forced annexation of the Baltic Republics in 1940. While the Luftwaffe was dropping bombs on London the USSR was supplying Germany with raw materials.

And while you attack every misstep the US makes in Iraq you excuse 40 years of repression in Eastern Europe as a mere "buffer zone." Though even if we buy this absurd theory, the Soviet invasion of Czechslovakia in 1968 dispells any notion of a benign "buffer zone."

Keep it up Francis I will extend an invitation to you.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Before we answer, we need more information about the scenario:
> Is this during the current age with polls, TV pundits, and liberal talking heads or back in the day with only newspapers?
> Is the President a liberal or a conservative?


Doesn't matter. Your choice.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think this thread is bringing up an important sartorial issue:
> 
> Tin foil hats....MTM, bespoke or OTR?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KenR said:


> Oops, I think Karl, Wayfarer, Frank and I have this thread all to ourselves. We must have scared the rest away. Three cheers for the Interchange!
> 
> Hey, ksinc's back!


Sorry, I was over in the Jay Kos vs. AAAC group-think thread.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Now you endorse Soviet repression! Will it never end.
> 
> ...


I never used the word excuse. I'm saying the U.S. would have done precisely the same thing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Doesn't matter. Your choice.


Of course, it matters. How else do you manipulate Presidential approval ratings and polls? If CNN was around in 1860, Atlanta would have never been torched.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Sorry, I was over in the Jay Kos vs. AAAC group-think thread.


You mean there are other threads going on?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Hypothetical: During our own Civil War, a country half a world away marches 200,000 of their troops into our country. Explain your theory on what effect these troops would have on our war, and what our response would be.


Okay, hypothetical: The Vikings never left their icy nests and Gaelic was now the most spoken language in the world. Explain the effects this would have on the Internet.

No wait...

Hypothetical: D-O-G really spelled cat....


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Francis,

Sadly you have the wrong patron saint. Your parents should have named you Jude.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay, hypothetical: The Vikings never left their icy nests and Gaelic was now the most spoken language in the world. Explain the effects this would have on the Internet.
> 
> No wait...
> 
> Hypothetical: D-O-G really spelled cat....


That's an answer? I figured as much.

I was hoping someone else in this thread has read Iraqi newspapers and watched their nightly news broadcasts. Iraqis who're killing our kids in Iraq are known as patriots, not "insurgents", and the only difference between the two terms is perspective. Americans would have had the exact same reaction to an invading force during our own Civil War.

85% of the Iraqi people see us as invaders and occupiers, not liberators, and want us to leave. I challenge any of you to explain how it's possible to "win" in this situation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's an answer? I figured as much.


Yes. It is an answer designed to show the absurdity of yours. Apparently I need to subtitle these things.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I think Frank is making some good points, most importantly that we naturally tend to view our actions from our own reference frame, and that we've tended to behave much like our enemies when it's been in our interest. 

During the Cold War how many thought the Soviets were out to nuke us until Sting released Dream of the Blue Turtles and changed the dymanic? 

What's perhaps most important is that now, today, in the information age, that how our actions are received is perhaps more important than what those actions directly do in the short term. It's not about political correctness, it just it what it is.

In the PR war on terror, Bin Laden is quietly kicking our ass...with 1/2 the damage coming from ourselves. Bush maintains even today that Iraq is a central front, yet we can't even win the hearts and minds of those by his own standard are so critical to our success.

Does anyone get it?

-spence


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Well I'll be. We're finally getting somewhere.
> 
> Hypothetical: During our own Civil War, a country half a world away marches 200,000 of their troops into our country. Explain your theory on what effect these troops would have on our war, and what our response would be.


Already covered in alternate history fiction.

Europe sends troops for war and/or naval forces to break the blockade of the Confederacy, CSA eventually takes Washington DC. Union capital is moved to Philadelphia or NY and DC becomes a diplomatic common ground. A cease fire and eventually a peace treaty emerges.

Slavery and the plantation economy remains present in the CSA for several decades more as industrialization is still slow to arrive. Shortly after, the socialist/progressive cause goes further in the USA then it did in real life and Marx looks right as there is a socialist revolution in the Union states before there is in Russia. Or, by the time of the Great Depression and Roosevelt, the nation is plunged into full fledged communism. Then Owl Gore invents the internet.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Already covered in alternate history fiction.
> 
> Europe sends troops for war and/or naval forces to break the blockade of the Confederacy, CSA eventually takes Washington DC. Union capital is moved to Philadelphia or NY and DC becomes a diplomatic common ground. A cease fire and eventually a peace treaty emerges.
> 
> Slavery and the plantation economy remains present in the CSA for several decades more as industrialization is still slow to arrive. Shortly after, the socialist/progressive cause goes further in the USA then it did in real life and Marx looks right as there is a socialist revolution in the Union states before there is in Russia. Or, by the time of the Great Depression and Roosevelt, the nation is plunged into full fledged communism. Then Owl Gore invents the internet.


So in your scenario, an invasion of European troops (inadvertently or not) turns a free republic into first a socialist and then a Communist state. I believe most Americans would call that a catastrophic result.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Already covered in alternate history fiction.
> 
> Then Owl Gore invents the internet.


Media reports surrounding this statement sometimes re-wrote it, stating that Gore claimed he "invented the internet".[10] However, Gore received support from members of the computer industry, notably Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn. Cerf and Kahn issued the following statement on 2000-09-28 in response to the controversy:
[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Influence_on_the_Internet


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I do believe the good man was joking Bertie. No need to ride to Al's rescue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think it's a safe quess this presidency will stumble through 2 more years much as it has the preceeding 6. I am more concerned with what follows. When we leave Iraq, and we will eventually, who will be in charge: 3 state confederacy, Iranian puppet government or a new Saddam? Will we redeploy sufficient numbers to annihilate a resurgent Taliban and finally bring a tall cripple back to Ground Zero for public execution? This is assuming Pakistan doesn't dump their dictator and makes it's long hostility to the US statre policy. Will we have the will to rebuild our military infrastructure, from Walter Reed to V ventral vehicles that can actually withstand an IED? Will we have leaders who carefully construct personal alliances like Reagan laying a controversial wreath at a german military cemetary or Bush Senior's many contacts( but who somehow failed to instill his skills in shrub) or will there be a new cadre of personality cult bobbleheads of the Obama genre, surfing in on the wave of Bush fatique, yet hapless as Carter? I may be a Liberal, but I'll know when politicians of all stripes are pissin' on my tinfoil hat and proclaiming an end to California's drought and all other ills.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> I think it's a safe quess this presidency will stumble through 2 more years much as it has the preceeding 6. I am more concerned with what follows. When we leave Iraq, and we will eventually, who will be in charge: 3 state confederacy, Iranian puppet government or a new Saddam? Will we redeploy sufficient numbers to annihilate a resurgent Taliban and finally bring a tall cripple back to Ground Zero for public execution? This is assuming Pakistan doesn't dump their dictator and makes it's long hostility to the US statre policy. Will we have the will to rebuild our military infrastructure, from Walter Reed to V ventral vehicles that can actually withstand an IED? Will we have leaders who carefully construct personal alliances like Reagan laying a controversial wreath at a german military cemetary or Bush Senior's many contacts( but who somehow failed to instill his skills in shrub) or will there be a new cadre of personality cult bobbleheads of the Obama genre, surfing in on the wave of Bush fatique, yet hapless as Carter? I may be a Liberal, but I'll know when politicians of all stripes are pissin' on my tinfoil hat and proclaiming an end to California's drought and all other ills.


I think this it your best post that I have read. This next election seems to have no direction. I don't see anybody to vote for in either party. Nobody seems to have any direction worth talking about. Bush turned out to be a 98% boob. And nobody running seems to better, just make boobery seem more fun as we go down hill. One thing about Reagan he knew what he wanted and he included everybody to have those same wants, without stealing one from another.

If most people haven't figured it out by now- the Middle East is Hopeless. And, Israel should be taking more land, instead of giving it away. The more they give away the more unstable the Middle East becomes.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I do believe the good man was joking Bertie. No need to ride to Al's rescue.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET


I don't know whether or not he was joking, but most people do laugh Gore off. If they're doing it on account of the Internet remark, they'd do well to check the facts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I don't know whether or not he was joking, but most people do laugh Gore off. If they're doing it on account of the Internet remark, they'd do well to check the facts.


I agree, hence my link to show even the tenuous nature of the verified statement.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I agree, hence my link to show even the tenuous nature of the verified statement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire

We could be at this for days.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire
> 
> We could be at this for days.


Bertie, sometimes you are really interesting. You are obviously a smart, well informed, educated guy. I usually semi-respect you. However your knee jerk reactions against even the SLIGHTEST hint a liberal icon is in jeporady is boringly predictable.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Bertie, sometimes you are really interesting. You are obviously a smart, well informed, educated guy. I usually semi-respect you. However your knee jerk reactions against even the SLIGHTEST hint a liberal icon is in jeporady is boringly predictable.


Didn't you see the winky icon? Just a spot o' play at the end of the day.

I'm not even a big Gore fan, mind you, but I do think the guy gets his share of unjust mockery over this.

Gotta run, but cheers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Didn't you see the winky icon? Just a spot o' play at the end of the day.
> 
> I'm not even a big Gore fan, mind you, but I do think the guy gets his share of unjust mockery over this.
> 
> Gotta run, but cheers.


Bertie, sorry, no didn't see it! I recant!


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I suspect the constant bashing and negative opinion tells us more about the public and their proxies than about the POTUS and VPOTUS. They have a job to do and, in my opinion, deep down inside know that they are right regardless of the headlines.


I have no doubt they believe they are absolutely right in every decision they have made. Whether that is a good thing, I'll leave to others to decide.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Locks wayfarer's Pipes in the closet for 10 minutes as punishment. Uh-NO! grabs the chanter and Black Watch CD and locks them away too.


----------

