Jay Bookman

By Mr Snarky

November 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Because bush says it is. Which is no real reason at all.

By getalife

November 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Hit the undo button on everything w did.

By Midori

November 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

did you know the moron is still trying to destroy us via new regulations before he gets out of Dodge?

trying to weaken rules that govern clean drinking water, etc.

I’ve never in my life seen a bigger loser than Bush.

By Jose

November 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

It is a much cheaper investment to have a deterent than to fight an agressor on someone else’s soil. We need to remember the lessons of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. History for some seems to have begun on January 20, 2001.

By Eric1

November 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Good question. Easy answer: it’s not.

By Mort Merkel

November 14, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Because the Europeans won’t pay the American military contractors those billions for this profit center they dreamed up.

The U.S. government is owned by the military/energy industrial complex and I pray that begins to change.

I also saw an economist on TV the other night who said that the current situation may scare individuals into the previously admired ways of living within our means and saving for the future. Holy cow, if that happens, might our economy be “right sized,” rather than proceeding with the terminal, headlong, Madison-Avenue-fueled-debt-train-over-the-cliff we’ve had for years now?

By bubbatech02

November 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

jay, if the answer were this simple, you could have a real job at a real paper. unfortunately, it is not. i also love it when you make blanket statements like many of the euro dont want protection. who are they? as reported by the washington post, most eastern european countries WANT the shield, knowing how crazy and unstable russia is right now.

get your facts straight, jay. oh wait, you work for this crap paper. you dont need facts as long as it is anti-bush. btw, thanks to Cynthia for her embarrasing interview the other day. she made all of us in the south look like idiots.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Because spending really big money on things that go BOOM is more satisfying to some sick b******* than feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, educating our children, providing health care to the sick, allowing our seniors to retire with dignity, having a safe food chain, keeping our air and water clean, maintaining our infrastructure, …….

But alot of that changes 1/20/09.

God’s been keeping her eye on us!

By AJC/DNC Management

November 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

This is how it works with Europe and we have examples of it all through history, my man-

The Euroweenies will flex their scrawny muscles at their neighbors and whine; this in turn causes the neighbors to invade them. The US is called on to rescue their as-ses, usually at a great cost of our brave soldiers because the armies of the Euroweenies by that time have thrown down their weapons and ran. Liberals like Tom Brokaw look fondly back upon times like these because we lost hundreds of thousands of troops instead of just 4500 like in Iraq, which Tom hates.

Not enough dead Americans, I guess.

I do not expect you to know things like this, kookman, because you are a pinko same as the Euroweenies are.

So go ahead on and bray at Iran with your scrawny muscles, we’ll rescue you.

By citizen

November 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

I heard the new economy will be called ‘The Great Repression”

By dem bones

November 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

it’s not, but somebody has to be proactive in this world.

because the lefty euorpeans won’t do it.

neither will the american lefties.

they will just complain about it while they sit on their rears and watch the world go by.

By artatlarge

November 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Well, WHY SHOULD it be our job, and our expense to protect Europe from Iranian missiles? Europe will be capable of doing this for themselves, if they want to. If not, that’s their decision. The whole idea seemed to be geared toward the Russians anyway; otherwise, the missile defense base would be in Iraq or Israel. George Bush ruins all that he touches; after 8 years, I can only think of 2 ideas of his that I like. There is the AIDS initiative in Africa, and even that has strings attached regarding contraceptives; and the protection of vast areas of underwater reefs. That’s it…two. Given Incurious George’s track record, we should just reverse course on all his decisions. Too bad it’s at least 4 years too late, if not 8. The Supreme Court that stopped the Florida recount in 2000 sure handed us a prize, didn’t they?

By John

November 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Good point Jay. While you’re at it,

Why is it our job to feed third world countries?

Why is it our job to end world poverty?

Why is it our job to help stop AIDS?

By Tommy Maddox

November 14, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Why all the worry? The new president is going to sit down and talk with all the bad guys and they are going to put away their weapons and not kill any more people. Truly remarkable.

Enjoy - that’s what’s coming - then you all can complain about the aftermath as being the fault of someone else.

By getalife

November 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Midori,

He set the standard on evil.

Sarkozy Chides Putin On Tough Talk: “You Want To End Up Like Bush?”

Sad but glad he is over.

By dave

November 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Jay - Because doing so is in the best interest of our national security. Is that really so hard for you “progressives” to understand?

By bt02

November 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

well, like john said. lets not just stop at protecting the safety of the europeans (and again, they WANT us there), but also the health. lets stop all world health initiatives. stop funding the UN. Stop sending money to allies overseas. Stop every dollar from leaving these shores and only spend it in the US. f* the rest of the world. they can feed their own darned hungry, heal thier sick, and protect themselves. we dont give a crap if they die as long as welfare moms can keep having babies to increase their welfare and we can keep bailing out the unions for more votes.

By G

November 14, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

We should not install the missile defense system in Europe unless the European countries pay for it.

No more free military protection for the world unless they are willing to pay for it.

Our military should not be paying rent to have our bases on their soil either.

The US could enjoy the economic benefits of having these bases here.

The US is basically broke.

By AJC/DNC Management

November 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

San Franfreako-

A senior aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was fired from his post last week after he was charged with distributing and receiving child pornography. According to an FBI affidavit, an unnamed person “distributed more than 600 files containing graphic images and movies of child pornography to an undercover detective that [the person] believed was a 13-year-old boy”-WaPo

I know, I know, it’s O.K. unless you tell other people not to do it, right, liberals?

Sickos.

By LOLO

November 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Because the missle defense system is not only to protect our allies and interests in Europe but as a first step in a preventative defense system that we will set up globally (inclding on ships and satellites) to protect our soil as well. We cannot affford to let Iran successfully launch missiles into Europe and then get progressivly better at this to the point where they can send one to our shores.

Secondly, your point about European countires not wanting us there is not entirely true. While the people of these countries may see imperialism (that’s why better relations should be fostered via diplomacy), the leaders certainly want security guarantees while nile not proclaiming to want help from the US so as to not upset their populations.

Lastly, it is also a defense against the ultra-agressive Russians in their quest to regain old Soviet bloc territories and control the world’s energy supply via physical aquisiiton and price controls over Europe, thus destabilising Europe’s and then the world economy whereby the Russians would be particulalry insulated.

By Ron Mexico

November 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

All I have to say is after 4 years of the big “O”, you are going to have to sleep in the bed that you made. When Russia decides that Europe is theirs, no one else is going to come save Europe. A good offense is sometimes the best defense. All you pant-hugging Obamabots are about to get your fill of European weenie-ism. Russia doesnt care how hard you negotiate, force is the only thing Putin understands.

By mm

November 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Because it’s another government handout for the defense contractors run by wingnuts and defended by wingnuts.

Notice the wingnut answers to your question Jay.

“Eeewww, I’m scared.”

If they want the missiles, they should pay for them. If they don’t want them, they should pay the consequences.

By Peadawg

November 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Jay, I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s just like helping other starving/poor countries. We have so many poor, starving, jobless people right here in America. Let’s help them first, then go overseas.

By Peadawg

November 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

The French don’t like us unless they are getting invaded and need our help.

By Randy

November 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

No one can say you and Pat Buchanan disagree on everything.

By Rufus

November 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

In order for a ballistic missile to fly from Iran to the U.S., it has to pass over Europe. Wouldn’t it be better to intercept it there than here? There’s a benefit for Europe and for us. If we shut down our European bases, they won’t magically reappear in the U.S. They’ll just go away along with most of the military folks occupying them. Then our military will look a lot like it did before 9/11.

By LOLO

November 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

It’s funny how the progressives find a “it’s not our job” mentatility when its Bush’s idea but yet they want us to sign the bogus Kyoto accords to save the nonexsitant global warming consequences in Antartica, donate billions of dollars to AIDS support in Africa, and bequeath hundreds of billions more to the world body of the UN.

If you want to support a non-intervenionist platform, at least don’t sound like a kid only the playground who was told that nobody wanted them in their group. At least put forth a very strong policy of national defense at home and tell the other countries who perceive us as the enemy to enjoy their nuclear winter. Just saying, “but they don’t want us there” and running home leaves us, the United States, vunerable.

By Think

November 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

It is our job because we do not want every power in the world developing an ever increasingly powerful military.

Spending money now will save us lives and even more money if we ever have to really go to war(think WW1 &WW2). This has been our policy since the end of WW2. We police the world so that others don’t have to. It is clear that the rest of the world powers trust us to do this by the fact that none of them have a blue water navy. They don’t even try to project power all over the world.

By Dusty

November 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Well, Ms. godzie, still spouting the old lib line on feeding the poor, educating the chillun, etc. etc. We have always tried to do that under any circumstance.

We did before and looked the other while Europe turned into a busy gas chamber. Only HOW MANY MILLIONS DIED IN THE HOLOCAUST while we took care of ourselves?

We hope Russia’s history has changed. That Putin is going to lead more democratically than Stalin who killed more Russians than persons killed in the Holocaust. Now Putin removes more and more of Russian freedom and moves against small states like Georgia.

We do not wish to go to war AGAIN to save Europe and the UK. But after them, we would be next on the to-do list of conquerors. As has been said here, deterent is better than war.

Isolationism will not work for long no matter the reasons for it. No place in the world is “isolated” anymore. Putin knows that. So does George W. Bush.

By I'm With Stupid

November 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

You are right, Jay! It will be much cheaper and easier to clean up the world after a limited nuclear arms exchange (assuming that it doesn’t spiral out of control and become a worldwide, thermonuclear holocaust) than to try to build & deploy technology to deter such an incident.

By JackLeg

November 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

I have seen Mr. Godzilla, he is a brainless lizard that stops on buildings, but he is much smarter than his wife. The reason we put missile defense over there is because we have protection treaties with those nations that are our allies. But liberals don’t need allies, or do they? 50 Billion, which is chump change compared to what we are giving the same rich people that have already proven that they don’t know what they are doing. It is the same amount of money the auto industry wants to prop up the UAW. It is the duty of the children to take care of their parents, not the government, I take care of mine. How about the poor people in America, they drive a 10 year old car, have a cell phone and cable TV; the truth is if you are poor in America it is because you chose to be.

By ron

November 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Dear Jay,and Dear Mrs. Godzilla,——-Mrs. Godzilla has it right.We like to hear thngs go BOOM!!!—- We like to hear things go BOOM——over there.I would like to see the first line of defense in the country,Georgia,than the state,Georgia.

By og

November 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Meet Jay Bookman, how can one man be so wrong, so often, about so many different things?

Of all the columns of yours I have read I have as yet to see you make a correct statement about ANYTHING!

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Thankfully the blow-em-up crowd has FAILED to be re-elected.

La la la la la…….

By Goldie

November 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

We serve as a back-up to our allies in Europe… if they build their own missile defense systems and ask the U.S. for a stake in reinforcements, shouldn’t Congress discuss the extent of any U.S. involvement?

By mm

November 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

They still don’t quite grasp the reason the lost the election. With them, it’s business as usual.

By Jeff

November 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

liberals are the first to want to gut the military and spend no money at all (Jimmy Carter?) and then you cowards are the first to scream when you are threatend “why is the US not protecting me” It has always amazed me the amount of people in this nation that has never picked up a weapon and stood a post in the US armed forces but feel they have the right to be critical of those who protect them.. But it is a free country, until The left wingers make it a socialest country, and then none of you will be able speak your mind because you will be arrested.

By just me

November 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

I hate to disagree with you, Jay, but we probably owe it to Europe since we owe them almost as much money as we owe the Chinese.

By Doggone/GA

November 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

“I hate to disagree with you, Jay, but we probably owe it to Europe since we owe them almost as much money as we owe the Chinese”

Ok…then let’s repay the debt and let THEM spend it on whatever defenses they think they need.

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

One of the more encouraging things about reading some of these post-election posts is that it is amazingly obvious that the flat-earth “conservatives” have such a profound disconnect between what they proffer and current realities.

I suppose that is the result of sleeping through high school and inadequate critical thinking skills.

This bodes well that the unable to evolve neo-cons are rapidly going extinct.

Another election or two should do it…

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

AMVet

Here’s a big AMEN to your 2:59

By Mort Merkel

November 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

“picked up a weapon and stood a post in the US armed forces but feel they have the right to be critical of those who protect them”

– Why Col. Nathan R. Jessup, your movie quotes are showing. Jay mentioned nothing about “gutting the military,” or spending “no money.” He rightly questions why the U.S. taxpayers should pay for a missle shield for Europeans?

I say if they want it, sell it to ‘em. If not, put that money into our own protection, or give it back to taxpayers. Questioning questionable spending, whether on the military or any other government function is neither liberal nor conservative – it’s exercising good citizenship. You just have to be an American to do it, veteran or not.

By Greg Mendel

November 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

It’s our job for the same reason Bush decided it was our job to invade Iraq. We claimed we were enforcing a United Nations resolution. The UN didn’t want a rogue nation enforcing its resolution, but we did it anyway — because George Bush and his neocons wanted to invade Iraq no matter what.

Bush wanted to invade without even consulting the UN, but Powell persuaded him to apply the figleaf of going through the motions. That led to inspections to find Iraqi WMD, which weren’t finding anything, but Bush was determined to invade, regardless. The inspectors had to leave because Bush was about to attack.

Any missile defense shield is as about as reliable as a lottery ticket, but it’s a source of Republican handouts. Also, by putting it next to Russia, Bush is begging for another Cold War, if not a hot one.

Bombs, nuclear or not, are unlikely to be delivered by ballistic missiles against Europe or the United States. Such attacks are much more likely to be smuggled-in weapons. That’s why fighting terrorists really is more like police work than military operations.

Certain European countries have nuclear weapons. Any country who attacks them will get a shower of nukes back.

But, don’t worry, wingnuts. Your Commander Codpiece will leave us another war before he slinks back to Crawford. Cheer up! As always, somebody else will do your fighting and dying, while you play armchair Caesar on a blog.

By TW

November 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

I suppose that is the result of sleeping through high school and inadequate critical thinking skills.

Well said, AmVet. Fits perfectly with Simple Sarah, as she is the introductory paragraph of an essay without the rest of the paper - cover art, at best…a $150k paint job on a car that won’t start.

Hopefully, however, our conservative friends will eventually quit licking their wounds and return to the table with a dialogue worthy of our great nation.

By Mort Merkel

November 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

And, by the way, Jeff. Col. Jessup was an accessory to murder, aka, the bad guy.

By Armyguy

November 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

It’s called “NATO”….if they get attacked, we are obligated to go to war.

It’s also called “deterence”.

And not just against the Iranians.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Does NATO require we build things that go BOOM in other countries?

I don’t think so…..

By what the heck

November 14, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

I have to wonder if Ms. Godzilla, Midori, getalife and Snarky and Kookman think we should also just stop sending our money over to help with anything. You all are the ones saying we should support Obama and apparently think he’s going to perform miracles on 1-20-09. We will see about that doubtful though. Yet you want to continually dog Bush as though everything he says or does is wrong. Until Obama has actually taken office and shown what he is or can do we shouldn’t praise him. I don’t agree with everything that Bush has done and I’m sure I won’t agree with everything that Obama does. But hey isn’t that the way it is….very few people agree with anyone on everything.

By TN Gelding

November 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

It isn’t.

And it certainly merits review. But it could end up being money well spent.

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

By Joey

November 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Way to go Jay. Once again your brilliance points to a solution not just for the US but for the world.

If our elected leaders follow Jay’s advise and determine that it is not our obligation, responsibility, or duty to help defend and protect our allies, then there is butone choice. Withdraw! Withdraw everyone/everything. Bring everyone and everything home. Missles, tanks, jeeps, planes, bombs, and especially our men and women. Bring them home from everywhere.

Yeah. That’s the ticket.

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

TW, it is noteworthy that the once-maverick, once respected RINO (who correctly said of Six deferment Saxby’s attack on Cleland, “It is worse than disgraceful. It is reprehensible”) is NOW openly hugging the contemptible Saxby and battling on his behalf.

A shameful vacillation and the final exclamation mark on the end of an awful performance. And in retrospect, it is immensely satisfying to know that this man and his vapid beauty queen will not get anywhere near the Oval Office…

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

In my opinion, it isn’t our job to police the world, or protect it, but this is kind of a gray area.

No, I don’t think it is our job to set up this missile defense system, but the real reason is why do we think we need one?

Do we really believe that Russia or Iran or China or any other country will carry out an attack on a European country? If so, then we need to address the problem of why they would feel so inclined to do so.

That’s what European countries do, they are not trigger happy like we are because they have more at stake - say, like their asses are within firing range.

Once we become more independent on oil and other energy, and other “stuff” the rest of the world and not have so much “debt” owed, it will make us a stronger nation and a stronger ally.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

what the heck

answers

2.No, he will lead. Under that leadership America will perform miracles. You could too.

You too could be a voice of hope.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Another thought,

Like I said earlier, it isn’t our job to protect the world, but we sure as hell begged and/or demanded the rest of the world come help us when we went into Iraq.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Thanks for posting that Ayers interview. He’s certainly an interesting guy.

By dw

November 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Bookman, Mrs. Godzilla, Midora, and the rest of the wild fans:

I’ve been reading your blogs for many weeks now and all I can say is “get a reality check!!!”

The way you folks blog makes a person think the messiah has come to earth. How fortunate you are that Barry has decided to come to earth and live among you. He will save you all and you will have eternal life and bliss. Long live the humanist god, Barry.

By Midori

November 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

What the Heck:

what I actually think is friends don’t let friends post stupid.

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

Thank you.

I love reading some of the nonsense from Ronnie’s boy Michael.

Like the other delusionists in the hemorrhaging GOP, he now trots out the new mantra that their recent back to back electoral humiliations are the results of their policies of the past eight years.

WRONG!

They are the culmination of twenty eight years of failed ideology.

That is why a quick fix for the fraud conservatives is simply going to be impossible.

It is realistically going to take them a decade to recover from nearly thirty years of their abysmal track record.

But it is comforting to realize that the old guard will never change their myopic ways and no new guard is yet on the horizon.

Maybe one decade is optimistic…

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

it is immensely satisfying to know that this man and his vapid beauty queen will not get anywhere near the Oval Office…

Can I hear an AMEN?

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

Seems the lovely Guv was not elected to any leadership positions at the RGO…..

What a surprising lack of confidence the GOP has in their own “annointed one”….

(what would the female form of messiah be anyway…messiah-ette?)

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G.,

Why would they pick a loser? Snicker. (Not the candy bar, but a real smart-a* snicker)

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

AMEN!

By Midori

November 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Hi Bosch,

anytime!! :)

LOL — The haters are sure out in force today.

Like the rest of the Deep South, they still haven’t figured out that they lost the Civil War. Hence, their immense lack of civility

ROFL!!

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Losers pick losers. It’s a “branding” thing.

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G and Bosch,

The aforementioned Michael Reagan has an article that says that very thing about Sister Sarah! Well, that she is the next Ronnie, which is the same thing.

http://www.reagan.com/column.cfm?id=84

Who then, pray tell will be the next Edwin Meese and will they re-implement the War on “Pornography”?

And who plays the role of the quasi-criminal Ollie North?

Losers then and has-beens now…

By Midori

November 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G:

both you are Bosch are WRONG

Losers only pick their noses :)

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Midori,

I have really been waiting to hear Ayers speak - I thought he did a good job in that interview. I knew he wouldn’t dare do it before the election - I bet McCain would have paid him millions to give someone an interview before the election.

I liked the way he kept refuting the stupid questions the reporter was asking.

It’s interesting, but many of us I’ll bet have had coffee or dinner with someone like Ayers - I know this older woman and her husband who we’ve had dinner with a couple times in the past - come to find out she was a radical anti-war hippy - I was shocked, and impressed all at the same time. What a woman!

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Midori,

And their butts.

AmVet,

So many roles to fill for the next dramatic presentation of “GOP Losers on Ice!”

By Midori

November 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Heh!!

Bosch - I like to think of myself as Angela Davis’ illegitimate daughter :)

Yeah, I really appreciated that interview.

The reporter must have been a card carrying wingnut. He certainly showed :)

By dw

November 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

To Midori,

So if someone disagrees with your opinion/ideology then you automatically brand them “haters” and can ignore their opinions. That sounds alot like the intolerant “tolerant”. Sounds like in your world that anyone that disagrees has no representation or rights. Now that a government that is most likely to shift to the left is on its way, it can totally ignore and “hate” the other 46%.

By Midori

November 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

dw,

I consider someone who hates as a HATER

Any more questions?

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Midori,

It’s funny that a lot of people don’t realize that when people are really passionate about a cause, they resort to some pretty radical stuff - you know, like throwing tea in a harbor and starting a Revolution. We were created from revolution, and people are freaked out when people talk about it now.

I think that’s what Ayers was talking about when he said they didn’t do enough. He probably felt like they lost their revolution because so many were killed and that’s what they were trying to prevent - to say that was a crazy time is an understatement and trivializes the absurdity of what was going on.

It’s interesting that he’s a professor of education now, as I feel that is the only way to end violence and oppression is through education. He’s done a significant amount of work in teaching diversity, and is very well respected for that.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this

Bosch and Midori

I lived in Chicago in 68.

Had family involved on both sides of the fight.

My big sister dated a guy the Feds thought was SDS but was actually undercover CPD. They’d sit out on the porch after their dates…..there’d be a couple of black cars parked within sight.

My dad always walked down the street knocked on the window and introduced himself….

He’s a hell of guy still.

By yankee

November 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Why not pay for their army too. What’s the difference/

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

dw,

I always found it interesting that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and didn’t win a majority of the vote in 2004, but yet he completely alienated almost half of the country’s populace by pushing forward his extreme right wing agenda, regardless of almost half of the populace disagreeing with such policies.

Obama said he would be everyone’s president, even those who didn’t vote for him or disagree with him, he said he’d listen to that voice and work with them.

All we can do right now is hold him to his word, and if he doesn’t then scream like hell.

By Midori

November 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

It’s interesting that he’s a professor of education now, as I feel that is the only way to end violence and oppression is through education.

I was struck by that as well, Bosch.

And thank God he put to rest that “Obama’s political

By Midori

November 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

It’s interesting that he’s a professor of education now, as I feel that is the only way to end violence and oppression is through education.

I was struck by that as well, Bosch.

And thank God he put to rest that “Obama’s political career was launched in Bill Ayer’s living room” meme.

By getalife

November 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

Lets charge them 100 billion. We need the money.

“WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush on Friday picked a federal prosecutor in New York to be a Treasury-based special inspector general to oversee the massive $700 billion financial rescue plan.

If confirmed by Senate, Neil Barofsky, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, will be responsible for conducting audits and investigations of how the government spends the bailout money. He will also will report on the value of any assets acquired by the government and why they were purchased.”

I am guessing Barfsky is a crook. I do not think we should allow w to get involved. He has done enough damage, thank you very much.

By h ryder

November 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Lets not protect other countries and see just how long until foreign and domestic terrorists are creating havoc, bombings suicide bombings, armed people shooting and killing where they please. I prefer such activities occur elsewhere even if there is less in my wallet. Better than a bullet in me or any other citizen within our borders. Yes, I know this is selfish and crass, but when distilled, it, in my opinion, is survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle outside our shores.

By what the heck

November 14, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry but Obama didn’t run his campaign that what a campaign manager does. What I find ironic is that he ran on the key word change, yet he will probably appoint the same people that are in Washington now what was the change? Ms. Godzilla you really believe America is going to perform miracles with Obama as the leader?? You really believe he is the Messiah don’t you. Midori you, Snarky, get a life and Ms. Godzilla should take your own advice about “friends don’t let friends post stupid” STUPID.

By dw

November 14, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

To Midori,

Just remember that works both ways, lib and con; and how do you know what is fueling a person’s opinion. NO one can really know.

By AJC/DNC Management

November 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

Aahhh, yes, another lovely day for socialism:

8,497.31 down -337.94 -3.82%

Much more of this and we’ll be……..gone.

They wished for a depression to win the election.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

what the heck

and who vetted and selected the campaign manager?

smart folks know it’s the wise candidate.

You apparently think America can’t work miracles.

That’s pretty sad dude.

By Taxpayer

November 14, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

That’s so astute of you, Andy, to note that the economy is going farther in the tank while on Bush’s watch. You Republican’s should be more careful what you wish for.

By dw

November 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

You speak of the Bush extreme right wing agenda. What terrible extreme things did the Bush admin do to you or stop you from doing or try to stop you from doing? You make it sound like your rights were trampled. I’m not seeing/understanding it.

By what the heck

November 14, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

DW they don’t understand it either it’s just what they’ve been programmed to say/think.

By AJC/DNC Management

November 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

Here at the conference, when a speaker denounces “Washington D.C.,” he or she is politely referring to Republicans in Washington, D.C. Hence, Palin said, “Washington, D.C., leaders spent public money in disregard of the public interest, just like the opponents they used to criticize.” And Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, said Americans want “the kind of leadership that you see displayed by Republican governors — not necessarily what you see in Washington, D.C.” The dirtiest words here in Miami are “Washington, D.C., values.”-National Review

Bravo!

By AJC/DNC Management

November 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

76 percent of Republicans in a new Gallup poll say they’d like to see Palin become “a major national political figure for many years to come”

Thank you for all of your help, kookman.

By What does it mean to be a Republican

November 14, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Why our economy is just in one of them soft patches — quicksand would be a more accurate description. But, what about all those resilient American taxpayers. Well, they lost their resiliency after extended exposure to eight years of the harshest environment ever seen on this continent. They call it “The Age of the Bush,” a truly dark time for our once great nation but not just yet the end of times in spite of his best efforts.

By CommunistAJC

November 14, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla, Where are your children? Do they know that you spend all day trying to pick up boys on the AJC website?

Jay Bookman, You’re the absolute last person who should be commenting on what the US should and should not do. Actually, I wonder where you will be once Iran launches a nuke at Washington? Oh yeah, the unemployment line with every other unemployed hack journalist.

By TN Gelding

November 14, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

what the heck

November 14, 2008 3:22 PM

We don’t have any money

National debt clock.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

~Albert Einstein

By What does it mean to be a Republican

November 14, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Since McCain/Palin was a losing ticket this time around perhaps Palin/McCain should be the Republican ticket next time. That sounds great. I think they should go for it.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

dw,

My rights are good.

My energy policies aren’t, my energy bills have skyrocketed in the past 8 years. My 401K isn’t so hot either. My military is fighting an unjustifiable war. My kids are in public schools - schools that are being choked by NCLB. My health insurance premiums have increased by a percentage higher than my wages. My roads and bridges are dangerous. I have to worry about the food I eat.

I’ve also been called unpatriotic because I have spoke out against this war.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Oh, and dw,

My children and grandchildren will be paying off our national debt.

By Country Mouse

November 14, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Speaking of why is it our job…..Why is it our job (those of us who have worked hard and sacrificed for decades to put a nest egg together) to take care of all the losers who are too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves?

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

Country Mouse,

Like the Iraqis or Israelis? Yeah, I agree.

By Abomi Nation

November 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

“Jay Bookman, You’re the absolute last person who should be commenting on what the US should and should not do.”

Lol!! The poor kids are still in denial.

Every single Republican is tied for last as “the absolute last person who should be commenting on what the US should and should not do.”

If Republicans want a say then they should start winning some elections. We just got through throwing you out of office because you messed up so bad.

Win some damn elections!!! For now, SHUT UP!

By "The Corporal"

November 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

For the same reason we had to bail them out in WWII ….. because we can and someone has to do it.

The world needs a benevolent (although not perfect) policeman and we are the only ones capable.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Sir Edmund Burke (A European I believe)

By what the heck

November 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

AMEN Country Mouse

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

dw, I am not concerned just about MY rights. But about yours as well. And Bosch’s. And about all American’s.

You’re correct, my personal life hasn’t changed in this regard at all since 9/11.

And the truth is we all should be grateful another has not occurred again. And we owe our thanks to the many thousands of people who quietly make that happen (bureaucratic and disjointed as they are). And yes, George W. Bush, too.

Nonetheless some lives have. Usually college students, etc who were detained as suspected terrorists or accomplices, and their god-given American rights to habeas corpus, etc were instantly voided. In some cases, they were jailed for LONG periods of time and could not call their families, or get ANY help.

The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain suspects, SUSPECTED of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

Seems so unAmerican to me. This is not what we want in this country, is it? Another King George?!

“It is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. ~ Ben Franklin

And that is both the beauty and dismay of our unique and wonderful American justice system.

You’ll pardon my suspicion of Republicans in this matter. Joe McCarthy’s with hunts, Richard Nixon’s “hit lists”, warrantless wiretaps and John Ashcroft’s fear mongering run amok are all the backdrop.

We MUST not become closer akin to our enemies in this regard, who cannot be bothered by such sensibilities and such quaint notions of justice and liberty.

We are a nation of laws, not Kings.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

I disagree. Shocking, I know. We are not the only ones capable now - 60 years later.

European countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves, they know that part of defending themselves is through diplomacy.

By dw

November 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I appreciate your response and I can understand and see your concerns. Pretty much 95% of America lives it (myself included).

I just don’t think it is as simple as “it is all Bush’s fault.” To complicated and to many factors outside of one person’s control. Sure he has some responsibility. Alot of the concerns you voiced are, in my opinion, due to that human factor of greed. I hate to say it, but no matter who is in office, it will still exist. I do think the war started out justifiable in combating Al Quada. The whole thing, I don’t have enough true inside knowledge to make a guess.

By getalife

November 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State if she wants it.

Enough with the bailouts.

All debts are forgiven.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

And let’s not forget about the rights of our gay and lesbian friends and family members who can not get married to the ones they love.

By CommunistAJC

November 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

AmVet, One thing we can both agree on. 911 changed everything. I just want to ask you one simple question. Do you believe that Obama and the democrats can keep us safe?

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

dw,

Well, the whole point is not to debate each of these issues, it’s that almost half of the American populace disagreed with these policies put forth and were alienated and called unpatriotic, godless, etc. in the process.

We were ignored, and our concerns were ignored, we were alienated, and all we can do is express our concerns and elect those who we feel can do the best job.

I don’t think it’s one person’s fault either, but I can hold Bush’s administration for pushing these policies through to a great extent because he was the President and Congress was under Republican control for six of those years. It isn’t something made up or something that might happen, as with Obama, it did happen.

We have to hold our elected officials accountable, and I’ll be doing the same to Obama if he steps out of line with what I feel is inappropriate. It’s my right and responsibility to do just that. We must have a government that appreciates everyone, everyone’s opinion, of course we can get all riled up on blogs and spew, but that’s what we do, and why our country is so great.

By Dusty

November 14, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Midori is absolutely correct@4:03

She said the HATERS were out in force today on this blog. Considering the fact that 90% of bloggers here today are liberals, there is no doubt about her statement. Way to go, Midori!! You got something right for a change.

By CommunistAJC

November 14, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this

Bosch, The people of many states have spoken on this issue. Even California, the most liberal state in the union, voted it down by a large margin. The bill has been voted against in every single state where it has been on the ballet.

By Bosch

November 14, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

CommunistAJC,

But it violates American citizens rights. I have a problem with that. Sorry, that’s just me.

I have a problem with our government getting involved in defining marriage for one, and violating the rights of a minority group.

To me, gay marriage does not have anything to do with the governance of our country, and should never amend our laws to violate the rights of some of its citizens - that’s very un-American to me.

By "The Corporal"

November 14, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this

To Bosch

I respectfully disagree. In total they might be able to but as a group they are impotent and one country acting alone cannot.

If we don’t, we are inviting WWIII.

sic vis pacum, para bellum

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

Do you believe that Obama and the democrats can keep us safe?

If you mean by totally safe, probably not. But I don’t think anyone really can.

Those b@stards are devious and determined.

And we have a pretty bad track record of sticking our heads in the sand.(Pearl Harbor, the current financial meltdown, and many, many other examples…)

We’ll likely let them walk right in again someday. (Why isn’t that damned southern border of ours under control yet???)

Even so, I believe the current “military first, last and always” approach is short-lived. (OK, a little hyperbole) Either through more prolonged failures or when calmer heads take a multi-pronged approach.

We desperately need true statesmanship such as Carter’s heroic efforts to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian flash point. This effort MUST be finalized.

But I am not naive enough to believe we must also reserve the right to strike anywhere, anytime if other countries won’t keep their terror thugs in check.

Don’t forget, our historical allies have just a big a stake in this as we do. And they are even more geographically vulnerable.

And if resolving our problems peacefully by talking them out vs. killing each other seems like a daunting challenge, I agree wholeheartedly. It is! But if anyone can, it is us.

By TN Gelding

November 14, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

That depends on what your definition of nothing is.

Force always attracts men of low morality.

~Albert Einstein

By AmVet

November 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Link to this

Some REALLY great stuff from NASA.

http://www.vuetoo.com/vue1/situationpagenews.asp?sit=31.

By