US election debate

Originally posted by wib
But you're missing a golden opportunity Ritter - Hillary and the dems would be back in control if she wins the presidency. That means you right wingers would get to do the only thing you do well - attack the Clintons!

The republicans have proven they can't govern, they can't win the war, they can't cut spending, they can't clean up after a hurricane, and t else run the place and then you can find fault all day long. And much to your enjoyment.

You should consider a career as a comedy writer because it ought to be obvious to anyone that the Dems are the ones bereft of ideas and leaders. Consider what's at the top: Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbary Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid. They make the Flash villains and the Spider-Man rogues gallery look like pikers. They don't want to lead and since they won control of Congress, all they've done is go on fishing expeditions and Easter egg hunts or attempt to establish a parallel Democratic foreign policy in the Middle East or buy votes for their kookie, anti-American legislation. I guess we can all be thankful that they are so incompetent, larcenous and lacking in moral character that the public will vote them out the next election or better yet, they will be consumed by their masters at moveon.org.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to struggle every day. If that's what you wanted to say, you should have omitted the reference to Bill Clinton.

EDIT: The Dems didn't lose in 2000 as you well know.

Thank goodness Al Gore didn't steal the election.

Originally posted by kmax87
Considering that the preoccupation of the life imitation industry has been in recent times to place Jimmy Smits and Geena Davis into the White House have we indeed seen a seeding of the plough in the run up to 2008. Hawkeye didnt make it he just seemed too old.

Is life being prepared to follow art?

That's the libs intention: have a show on TV with a liberal female president to get everyone used to the idea. What they still don't realize is what a polarizing figure Hillary is. If nominated, she will unite every Republican to vote against her -- their motto in that election might be: Anyone but Hillary. Just to show you how despised she is, I'd vote for Obama, Edwards or Gore before I'd ever vote for her.

Originally posted by Merk
You can replace Republican with Democrat and your statement still holds true.

That sho iz sum gubmint we gots.

There is a proverb that might be applicable here: People get what they deserve. For the last month, the TV news has been filled with every bit of minutiae and detritus that could be found on Anna Nicole Smith, Sanjaya and Don Imus. I gave up TV last October because I couldn't take anymore stories about who J-Lo, Jennifer Garner, Brad Pitt or Ben Affleck were schtupping. In the meantime, the Dems are about to hamstring the war effort, pass the largest tax increase in U.S. history and wreck our private health care system, yet no one is talking about it. We're more interested in what Rosie says on The View.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Thank goodness Al Gore didn't steal the election.

Yeah, actually counting everybody's vote would have made the whole thing a farce.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
There is a proverb that might be applicable here: People get what they deserve. For the last month, the TV news has been filled with every bit of minutiae and detritus that could be found on Anna Nicole Smith, Sanjaya and Don Imus. I gave up TV last October because I couldn't take anymore stories about who J-Lo, Jennifer Garner, Brad Pitt or Ben ...[text shortened]... system, yet no one is talking about it. We're more interested in what Rosie says on The View.

A pretty good rant, and not much to argue about.

The thing is that it doesn't matter in the long run. We human beings always go in cycles. Long cycles and short cycles and personal cycles and public cycles.

Keep an eye to the long cycles though. In the short run, we thought it would be good to let Pol Pot reek havoc on Viet Nam for us. That wasn't such a good thing. But then neither was giving Viet Nam to the commies and surrendering s.e. asia to them. Poor buggers are still killing themselves in rafts trying to escape utopian Viet Nam for example.


In the short run... I and many others thought it would be good to get rid of Sadaam Hussein. And in the short run it was good. In the medium run... say the next ten years, it now appears to be a bad thing because in our coming defeat, we are handing it over to civil war and the Islamic revolution. In the long run? Who can tell?

So it now seems that I was wrong about this particular war. So what? It doesn't really matter in the long run. At least I'm smart enough to know that I was wrong and that the bad guys are going to win this round. It's not the end of the world by any means. Being wrong is stupid only if you fail to realize it.

Now comes the question of "Why" I was wrong. It has nothing to do with my desire to see dictators and creeps out of power. I just failed to recognize that there are a lot of powerful people invested in political defeat of their enemies, and their enemies are inside our borders, not in the middle east.

So in the short term, those people -- who defeated the Bush doctrine-- will come to power in the US, just as those who defeated the Johnson/Nixon doctrine came to power post Viet Nam. No big deal. We will have a couple of D presidents then they will corrupt themselves again, just as the R's have bankrupted themselves and the D's before that... clear back to the beginning.

So take heart. It matters not in the least who has control. If... and I will stipulate "IF" there are terrorists in the world, and "IF" they have declared war, then the loss in Iraq will strengthen them and they will increase terror because it is "working". That's the way the world works.

If the D's are right, and there are only a few crazy "law breakers" and not a billion religious nuts, then the problem is as the D's say. We will just have a little "law enforcement" problem. No big deal, and the crazy R's will not be killing off our children.

But... If the R's are right?

Then in time, we will defeat "the terrorists" or they will defeat us. Or more likely, we will both get tired of fighting and declare victory and both/all sides will get on with life. Then in a hundred years, some other religious or utopian or facist or separatist bunch of nuts will start the next round of wars. But for the next 80 years, let's just endulge ourselves in the wars that present themselves.

This is a "long" cycle, and it has happened already with "Colonial" revolutionists in the 19th and "Utopian" revolutionaries in the 20th and now, it would seem... "Religious" revolutionists in the 21st. Back before that, there was the "Protestant" revolution and before that the .... well, you get the idea.

Hang on. It's going to be a fun century. I am to the point where I want the D's in control. At least it will speed up and stengthen the "religious nuts", thus helping "clarify" the world situation. Remember... It was Clinton and the D's who sent cruise missles into Bagdad and proclaimed the doctrine of "Regime Change". And that fact will never change. They killed 3 and injured 4 night workers if I remember correctly. That seems to me an act of war. But what do I know?

This link is to a strike against southern Iraq defences if I remember correctly...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

And this is early on -- 1993 -- as Clinton initiated Regime Change policy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm