Originally posted by SleepyguyHis choice of Palin is inspired, and I very rarely bandy this word about, but it was truly a stroke of genius. While The One and Joe Biden are trying to change the country back to 1938 by raising your taxes, expanding welfare, empowering labor unions, making the country isolationist and protectionist, McCain/Palin are going to change this country for the better by reforming it. Everyone I know is very excited about Palin. They think she has handed McCain the election.
Yeah, at first I was convinced her nomination was a stupid mistake by McCain, but I was totally wrong. She brought the base home to McCain in a way that he could never have done for himself, and all this talk by the Dems about her lack of experience just boomerangs right back to a discussion of Obama's true neophyte status. It was a stroke of genius.
Originally posted by bbarrAw, another disgruntled Democrat. Well, come November 4, the joke's going to be on you!
She does not negotiate policy concerning the rights or entitlements of other governments. That job belongs solely to the Federal Government. Whaling is regulated by the Federal Government (an MMPA permit is required). Drilling for oil is regulated by the Federal Government. River and Timber rights of Canada do not extend into the borders of the U.S ...[text shortened]... matters are formally represented by its elected Federal representatives, not by Governor Palin.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI agree she's given him better odds, but let's not count the chickens. She has plenty of time to fall on her face, which may just happen once she gets off script. I want to hear her without the speech writer thinking up all the one liners in advance.
His choice of Palin is inspired, and I very rarely bandy this word about, but it was truly a stroke of genius. While The One and Joe Biden are trying to change the country back to 1938 by raising your taxes, expanding welfare, empowering labor unions, making the country isolationist and protectionist, McCain/Palin are going to change this country ...[text shortened]... it. Everyone I know is very excited about Palin. They think she has handed McCain the election.
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe surge is not the central factor in the improvement. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has lost respect with Iraqi civilians due to their gratuitous use of violence, so now they're mostly moving on to Afghanistan. The "liberal" media keeps saying it's the surge, but it isn't.
The surge was a success because before it we were losing and Iraq was on a downward spiral toward civil war. Now, because of the change in strategy called "the surge", violence has plummeted, and we have been able to withdraw US troops from 13 of the 18 Iraqi provinces, even including AQ's former stronghold of Anbar.
We have not left because there is s ...[text shortened]... are you just bummed that the only Democrat who can claim any credit for it is Joe Lieberman?
Originally posted by karnachzThe Sunni awakening would have succeeded without US troops? I think not. Y'all are just bending over backwards to make sure Bush (or McCain) gets no credit for anything.
The surge is not the central factor in the improvement. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has lost respect with Iraqi civilians due to their gratuitous use of violence, so now they're mostly moving on to Afghanistan. The "liberal" media keeps saying it's the surge, but it isn't.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe only thing to laugh about here is your wholesale ignorance regarding the most basic facts about the structure of Federal and State governments. Let me know next time the governor of Alaska starts a bilaterial treaty negotiation with Russia! Priceless!
Aw, another disgruntled Democrat. Well, come November 4, the joke's going to be on you!
Originally posted by SleepyguySorry for the delay; RoboMod found the proper term for one of the two main branches of Islam to be "offensive" and it took me two Feedbacks to figure out the (non-fixable) problem. Here's my post ridiculously edited:
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]First off, I don't remember the Bush administration or you right wingers saying at the time "we" were losing. Perhaps you have some citations to back that up.
If you mean standing up in the senate and giving the enemy comfort by declaring the war lost, no. But perhaps you remember Bush's address to the na ...[text shortened]... honestly don't give a rat's a$$ what you think about that.[/b]
Oh, this speech:
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
Not a single one of those goals have been met; no elections have been held in Iraq for over 3 years. The reason is pretty simple: the forces supporting continued US occupation would lose big. Iraq is an occupied country who's leaders' freedom of action is severely limited by the demands of the US government and military. The idea that Bush is interested in a "free" Iraq is a complete joke; he wants a puppet state willing to allow permanent US bases to control Middle East oil and threaten states that we don't like. That was the "victory" he was looking for and it's virtually certain "we" won't get it no matter how many more Iraqis we kill. To continue to pursue this goal is both immoral and foolhardy. The American people recognize this even if right wingers like McCain, Palin and yourself don't.
The phony stats used by the Defense Department don't interest me; I'm more concerned with how many people the US military's continued occupation of Iraq is causing to be killed. Here's the figures: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GWYE&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=icasualties&spell=1
As can be seen I was a few months off; violence peaked in September, dropped to about half of that level for the next four month, rose again in February and March 2007 and then dropped sharply IMMEDIATELY (before any "surge" troops arrived). The facts are rather inconvenient to the right wing claim that the "surge" CAUSED a drop in violence. We know that other factors, which would have existed without any increase in US troops (and may have been helped by less US troops) were in play i.e. the willingness of various Iraqi leaders to mediate the differences between the Shiite and Sunni factions. Naturally, the Iraqis cannot be given any credit for this by right wingers.
AQ never existed in Iraq before the US troops arrived; it's bizarre to argue that MORE US troops were the way to defeat them. The amount of members of AQ in Iraq has been shamelessly exaggerated by the Bush administration; the idea that AQ is a threat to seize the government of Iraq, even if not a single US soldier was there, is nonsense. The vast bulk of insurgents in Iraq have always been patriotic Iraqis doing what patriots do; resisting foreign domination. At this point, most of these Iraqis seem to be willing to see if the US can be forced out reasonably quickly by negotiations with the Iraqi "government" (which bowing to Iraqi political reality now wants them out in about the same schedule as Obama). But if those negotiations fail, you can bet the violence will ratchet up again. And then their will be calls from the right wing for another "surge". Ad infinitum.
In any event, people are still dying every day because the US administration refuses to do what both the American and Iraqi people want them to do i.e. start significant withdrawals. A McCain-Palin administration is committed to the same foolish policy as the Bush administration. For Democrats or anybody else not to criticize this bloody madness would be the height of treason and folly. And I honestly don't care what people like you, McCain and Palin, who supported this fiasco from the start, think should be done NOW, as their judgment as been shown to be faulty to almost the point of criminality.
Originally posted by bbarrWell the joke might be on you, bbarr. Ignorance: it’s the pseudo-con (secret) mantra. Eff all that stuff about political philosophy, legislative and judicial history, the Constitution, the philosophy of the founding fathers, who really negotiates treaties, the basic facts about state and federal governments, etc. Nobody even really learns that stuff anymore (which is why No.1 weeps).
The only thing to laugh about here is your wholesale ignorance regarding the most basic facts about the structure of Federal and State governments. Let me know next time the governor of Alaska starts a bilaterial treaty negotiation with Russia! Priceless!
This election, as DSR pointed out elsewhere, is about warfare with demon entities. I’m sure there must be something in the US Constitution about that, but I am a poor historian so I’m not sure where it is. Probably in the same clause that establishes this as a Christian nation...