Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all. I will be quiet today - I cannot add anything to Jim’s essay. A do-nothing Congress is the key to social progress and prosperity, but I support the war on terrorism (btw, you need to read Ann’s hilarious spin on Lieberman-Lamont published this morning) and tax cuts anytime. I would qualify the “confirmation” point, with the adjective “conservative;” I like consistent judges, rather than the unstable types who gave us “Kelo.”

By Mid-South Philosopher

August 10, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

It is true the nature of the Congress is such that it has become more of a hinderance than an effective legislative body. The radicalism of both political parties in the Congress (fanatical, pro-socialist Democrats and fanatical, theocratic Republicans) leave little room for a social liberal/nationalists. We are a dying, if not dead, breed.

I am not sure anything can be done. Ideally, a constitutional amendment (and I believe it would take an amendment) limiting terms of member of Congress would help. I rarely vote for the re-election of anyone at any level of government. But the power of the money interests (both liberal and conservative) make the average citizen feel as though, “what is the use!”

By getalife

August 10, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

Thank you England for thwarting another attack.

I thought we would fight them over there so we won’t fight them over here.

Ridicilous.

This is the way we fight terrorism for many generations to come.

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 10, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

I’m predicting a Democratic majority in either the House or Senate after the elections for one simple reason: checks and balances. I don’t think Americans trust either party, and voters will strive for the Dems to control one house in the hope that it will bog things down and truly nothing will be done…

By Jim's a Dummy

August 10, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim….a quick request…sorry for change of topic.

I’m interested in how the free market served us with regards to BP and the pipeline shutdown in Alaska.

Absent regulatory pressure/oversight, how was the market supposed to incentivize them to maintain their pipelines? How will the market penalize them for failing to do so (obviously, state and federal penalities don’t count here)? Should I not buy gas from BP now?

And further, how is the free market serving us when a small cobal of interests (opec) are colluding to fix oil production and price?

Can you expand on that? Arguing about congress is tired.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

“Jim’s a Dummy” @ 8:22, quick, you have a large hole in your pocket and hundred dollar bills are falling out. We need regulators immediately, to incentivize you to sew up your big fat hole, as you do not respond to market pressures.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

Getalife, I must have missed something. Did we annex England?

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

Dear holdingAJC, I respectfully disagree. Voters do not blame parties and do not think about checks and balances unless they think a maniac is in power (e.g., Hillary’s helath care in 1993 was a galvanizing force.) Voters blame individuals when they are unhappy. Thus, Connecticut did not suddenly turn red, they voted against a long-term incumbent. I think your premise is flawed.

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

Dont forget how well Bush spent his political capital.

President Interrupted.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

England stopped another terrorist plot for planes heading here.

If you are planing to fly there are new restrictions.

By Jim's a Dummy

August 10, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

Jmblaw,

I re-read my comment and I’m not sure where you got that I’m suggesting there be more regulation. Those are solid questions about a very real, very current issue.

Jim is a champion of the free market and writes about the failures of government regulation often. I’m intersted in hearing his opinion, not your worn-out reactionary dribble.

That said, if you think you have a real answer that doesn’t involve name calling, knock yourself out.

By have mercy

August 10, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Did we annex england? If a plane travels between the US and England and the bomb was designed to explode between England and the US then you could say that there is a virtual annexation. How does that change the content of the question concerning the theory that the US could draw radical islamic terrorists to Iraq like an ant trap and kill them there rather than in the Western world?

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Hey, that’s not fair. Jbmlaw said he was going to stay mum and then he’s turned into some sort of garrulous troll. Totally unfair, and I formally object, (with all due respect).

Jbmlaws last four comments: Ditto, ditto, ditto, and D’OH!

.

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 10, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw: My premise certainly doesn’t apply to Connecticut voters this time. What I’m thinking of is more a collective consciousness of “vote the bums out” when one party is in power for an extended length of time. Readers of this blog an exception, I certainly don’t think (sadly) we as a whole have thoughtful analysis when we go to vote…unless of course we’re voting for American Idol lol

By Liberal

August 10, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Good morining all,

We definitely dodged a bullet today. Hats off to the British and American authorities. This planned attack may have been attempted by a “self-starter” cell, meaning it had no direct link to bin Laden. If this is the case, we’re going to have to gear up to confront a totally different beast.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

have mercy?

I see you bought into W’s bs about fighting them over there.

The way to fight terrorism is what happened today and 9/11.

The problem with the wars is it made it much worse and they are lined up to carry out more plots.

The wars united the Muslim world and there will be more attacks for generations to come.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Good morning Liberal. Hope your day is off to a good start.

We absolutely dodged a big bullet. It sounds like you are seeing it for what it is. We are facing a global threat. Its not just about Bin Laden or Iraq anymore.

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Of course it’s a do-nothing Congress - the rednecks are in control.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Liberal,

Good morning.

Yes, this is how you fight terrorism.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Back to the topic.

The recent elections are a step in the right direction. Reed, McKinney and Lieberman losing gives me hope for the future of this country.

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

With elections looming, expect a rainbow of alerts, all phoney, just like ‘04.

Remember the Chicago Seven a couple months ago? All hooey. The 911 conspirators are free to do as they please thanks to Cheney, Bush, and Rummy. They couldn’t spot a real terror threat if their jock straps had velcro snaps….ouch.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

The Congressional Black Caucus is becoming a pretty sick joke these days. Their regimented leftist cowardice, lack of vision and ignorant blind addiction to appeasement is unbelievable. Though credit where credit’s due – many, but thankfully not all of their craven white/hispanic leftist appeasing bruthers and sistas are just as corrosive a threat to the USA.

Last night I watched in stunned disbelief as a (black) DemoNcrat congressman from MD humiliated himself with his abject ignorance on the middle east. He was asked several searching factual/conceptual questions about the current situation, most of which he either literally didn’t know the answer to or simply blustered/waffled his way through. NO understanding, no lateral thinking, no conceptual understanding. He didn’t even know who the main players are in Iraq. He evinced NO evidence of any analysis, he just peddled unthinking, empty robotic sneers at Bush et al. All he actually offered was obtuse liberal sloganising with NO serious thought about the long term consequences. Ending with some cop out drivel about getting the UN to do something they have NEVER been able to, i.e. actually enforce a peace by disarming a terror group in the middle east.

Its funny how the lefties always hide behind the UN which as we’ve seen is corrupt to the core, and proven to be utterly ineffective anywhere in the middle east. After all, as we’ve also just seen, the sick joke that is UNIFIL missed @ 15,000 illegal missiles plus all the other Iranians/Syrian arms build up of Hizbollocks, in direct contravention of yet another worthless UN resolution that the towel head terrorists just utterly ignore!!

Its chilling that some one this ignorant is in a position to actually vote on matters of vital national security. And he’s not alone. Johnson, McKinney’s vanquisher is undeniably not much of thinker and is a dire public speaker. But no one in Congress, now McKinney’s gone is as dim and stupid as Maxine Waters. This pathetic treasonous woman makes my neighbour’s parrot look/sound like Churchill !!

These three examples are by no means alone in Congress but in fairness its NOT just the black demoncrats who are queueing up to roll over and play dead, although their blinkered appeasement seems especially unassailable and any votes they take affect all of us.

Make no mistake about this … its also not just the naïve, isolationist, unthinking leftist politics that I object to, genuine differences of opinion are fair enough. Its the appalling level of geopolitical ignorance of so many leftists who simply parrot simpleton appeasing rhetoric/slogans and doltishly equate the very scary notion that what would be criminally insane withdrawal from Iraq would be some kind of high moral closure. As if the Iranians and Syrians and millions of other mohammedan fascists would simply leave matters there with no further attacks on western interests.

Obviously its unrealistic to expect every congressman to be an expert on every subject but this MD moron was WILLINGLY on the top rated live cable news show to supposedly discuss this matter.

Liberals are now risking the medium and long term freedom and security of this country and the west with their increasingly hysterical undermining of a very dangerous geopolitical situation, a scenario that is literally becoming the equivalent of the summer of 1939. Albeit a few time zones further away.

another superb visionary column by Ann…

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Getalife makes a formidable point: Reed, McKinney, Lieberman…..Look at the caliber of individuals we have to choose from…..are we proud of our elected officials, or the candidates? I’m not. Who are these people and how did they get anywhere?

Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld. Please. How did we get here? Now we are at the mercy of knaves, the Knaves Who Say Terror!

Better: The Knaves Who Sow Fear.

Best: The Knaves Who Cried Wolf

aw it all stinks. got nothing this morning, except to say, that a troll isn’t just someone who impersonates IDs, but also someone who posts 57 times a day and drowns out participation by others. Nobody should post more than a handful of posts and that’s only if they were a geek living in his grandma’s basement playing video games and blogging.

Some commenters have very interesting insights, but guess what? You cant find them because it’s too hard to pick them out among jbmlaw’s beneficient cornucopia of wit and wisdom.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Liberal,

nice to see you have the stones and vision to deal with this properly. Unlike so many of your party, including the black caucus and the white leftist cut and run crowd

By SW

August 10, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

The terrorist in the UK were forced to do something earlier than planned, they had no idea they’re inside source would lose her seat in the 4th District.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Im standing up and cheering TFTT. Great post!

As far as the gentelman from MD and others like him, they are merely being what thier dumbed down constituents want them to be. Full of anti-war, anti-bush rhetoric, no redeeming moral or intellectual qualities whatsoever. Just soap-box rabble-rousing.

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Despite the many mediocrities and morons in Congress, it is first nature for some rednecks to focus their fears, inadequacies, and hatreds on the Congressional Black Caucus, especially (given the racism, misogyny and femiphobia of the redneck) the black female members.

Did you know that every member of the Congressional Black Caucus was elected by the voters in their district?

Now - my queston to all you rednecks, it is your proposal that ignorant Georgia rural trash elect representatives for districts in Maryland?

And - why do you hate our Constitution?

In the mean time, you might want to work to get a better Congressperson in your district - other than John Lewis, a true American hero, the rest of the delegation is no better than mediocre. Some are much bigger buffoons than McKinney - Westmoreland, Norwood are a couple of true clowns.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

lies,

No wonder you are spewing so much hate, Ann Coulter.

In the mortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, “my goodness”.

“Ugotta B. Kidding”.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

redneck vermin … I only castigated the black caucus because of this witless moron I saw on TV last night. If it had been a white witless moron I’d have posted the same political content with obviously a slightly different (racial) focus. I did a QUICK google search on a few black caucus members and iraq - they ALL (the ones I checked out) want to cut and run and they ENDLESSLY sneer at Bush and the war on terror. My comments are SPOT ON … as ever you humiliate your genetically flawed inbred dumbarse with your usual utterly dishonest imbecility!!

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Get, I’m not surprised TFTT is enamored with Annie the Tranny. I bet TFTT reads his/her website in the nude.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Please folks, stop with the Rush, Ann, Hannity, NRO, etc… opinionions and think for yourself.

It ruins your credibilty and makes you look like you do not have your own brain.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

lies,

Who was this moron you speak of?

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Well, TFTT, even if I believed you, which I don’t, you played the race card anyway so I played it back at you. And my King always beats your three.

Realist loved what you had to say, your race card appealed to him. But he likes low cards, because he likes to lose. You know, the Confederate bullsheet and all.

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

The main difference between 1994’s midterm blowout for Republicans and the upcoming november sweeps is the condition of the country.

In 1994, we liberals handed over a shining beauty.

In 2006, we liberals are going to be thrown a big brown hairy mess: USA as road kill, that is, victim of corruption, incompetence and spin, Cheney style.

Cheney’s disappeared lately. I noticed that last week and then a comic mentioned it on last comic standing last night. He’s right. Something’s up. Probably Cheney is designing the schedule for terror alerts as we barge into the november elections.

“Lets see, we’ll start with a yellow, then maybe a red, then orange, then….. is there a nice shade of chartreuse to match my daughter’s lifestyle choice?”

How nice….

By Realist

August 10, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

No, the truly sad thing for the likes of getaclue and white trash redneck vermin, is that the idiocy and downright lunacy of the black caucus has bled over to the mainstream dems. So at this point, there is no differentiation between the blacks and whites of their party. Many of them are all equally anti-american, unpatriotic, and well, just plain embarrassing.

I dont hate a color, I hate liars and cowards.

By SW

August 10, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Redneck, since you are black it is natural for you to defend your race, a natural and acceptable move on your part. However, to say there is a bigger baffoon in Congress than McKinney, well….you went a little over the edge there bud. WXIA-11Alive captured the real McKinney quite well, on film and audio. Don’t you think her band of Mohammed thugs she literally surrounds herself with are as racist as any redneck you’ve ever encountered? Or do you find the yarmucke remarks by one of her Mohammed thugs acceptable? Last but surely not least, one can easliy interchange the word redneck with ghetto blacks and both would be applicable.

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Realist, you are 32 years old according to your posts, and you aren’t in Iraq?

Evidently, you’re either gay or a coward, or both. Put your fatratass where your loudmouth is, or STFU.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

redneck vermin

Ms Coulter’s political analysis happily happens to coincide with mine on virtually all non religious issues. However I feel she is a little restrained on the subject of both liberals and mohammedan fascists - virulent types of pestilence that need to be culled ASAP…. smirk

Unsurprisingly I see that you are still projecting your own sordid sexual fantasies into cyber space redneck vermin. I naturally assume your frustration is growing because your inflatable big nosed Streisand doll has recently developed an unfixable puncture!!

Funny how you yet again completely ignore my astute substantive points about liberal appeasement/cowardice and just post abuse - which of course I am more than happy to mirror back!!

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Bush hating eunuch … the appeasing moron in question is the dishonourable Albert Wynn.

redneck vermin HA HA HA HA

NO RACE CARD FROM ME redneck vermin - just straightforward facts!!

To your lousy King I play four aces … Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice

By Realist

August 10, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

wow, kind of testy this morning arent we vile redneck snake? If this is all getting to you, nobody would mind if you took some time away from your hate-spewing. It must get tiring.

As for my enlistment into the armed services, I choose to remain stateside and work and provide for my family and stay involved in my community. Should my country need me, you can be assured I would step forward. As far as my cowardness, well, if we could only sit down and discuss that face to face sir, I may convince you otherwise on that one. Yes Im sure I would.

Now you have a good day sir, and try to relax more. Its really not healthy to be obese and full of hate and stress.

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

TFTT, you silly moron, I have responded to your posts before, and your posts are just variations on a theme - that we aren’t killing enough people in the Middle East and somehow we’d be winning the war if it weren’t for liberals, or blacks, or some other strawman you dig up for the day.

Here’s a generic response from me for any of your posts: Even though TFTT sits on this blog most of the day rather than Iraq, TFTT thinks killing more Arabs and destruction of their countries are the answer for every problem. I don’t.

Feel free to cut and paste.

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Just a few thoughts: As far as Congress, unless there is a really galvanizing national issue, and face it, few people feel directly impacted by what we are doing in the M.E., only a few seats change parties each election. Even Viet Nam did not significantly alter the face of Congress. The make-up of Congress is so evenly divided that can go either way, but it’s doubtful there will be much change.

I do hope, however, that Lieberman gets reelected. Regardless of your views of him, most would rate him as a quiet, reflective man who does what he feels is best for the country. We don’t need more strident, in-your-face, obnoxious politicians. Boy, do I miss Everett Dirksen.

For those of you debating terrorism: 9-11 woke a lot of you up, but many of you still need to study your history. Terrorism activity started a steep upswing in 1970 when the PFLP (PFLP + Fatah = PLO) hijacked four jets. I don’t think it’s coincidental that terrorists started flexing their muscle at the same time the US was showing weakness in Nam.

Most terrorist groups are radical Muslims. Do not for a minute think they are only attacking the US and Western industrialized countries. They are attacking anyone who is not Muslim, and even Muslims who do not belonging to specific sects. Their motive is not based on what we do, but who we are - or, rather, who we are not. Those who are not of their faith must die. They have been at war for over thirty years. If we don’t fight them, wherever they are, terrorism will just get worse each year, as it has for the last three and a half decades. If you really want to see terrorism increase, just pull our troops out of the Middle East.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Morning all,

I only got to make a quickie post yesterday (sometimes I do actually have to work :^) ), but I was struck by how comparatively pleasant and informative the blog was.

Seems that with the first few posts today, we’re on the verge of turning nasty again. I’d ask that we’d try to stay clear of that. Jim’s topic is both rich and ripe for discussion, and we should collectively try to keep it from being spoiled by pandering to some of our baser vices.

Just a thought.

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

From Realist’s last post, a fancy way to say “Coward”:

As for my enlistment into the armed services, I choose to remain stateside and work and provide for my family and stay involved in my community. Should my country need me, you can be assured I would step forward.

By Toad

August 10, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Someone, please define “troll.”

By redneck Congress

August 10, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

rarringt, I’ve work today too, I leave the idjits to you - you know who they are…

By getalife

August 10, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Realfake has been caught lying like W. He has about that much credibilty too.

He is a poor blog baiter.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Should my country need me

Waiting on the draft?

By Realist

August 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

You know, some of you truly are a disgusting uncivilized bunch. I think I need another shower this morning after coming in here….

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Redneck vermin

love the inflammatory systematic dishonesty you post all day every day …

The whole point of the liberation of Iraq is to stop the killing innocent arabs at least in that country … the US does NOT have any kind of policy to kill innocent arabs deliberately. Arabs are sadly killing other arabs though every day. This is NOT the USA’s fault but is entirely on mohammedan fascists - both sunni and shiite. Funny how your twisted world view can’t see the blindingly obvious.

Indeed many US military heroes have been killed/wounded because they have been too cautious in the rules of engagement.

Its impossible to impose a solution on the middle east, what is possible though is to give the local folks a decent chance at sorting it out for themselves without the usual genocidal mohammedan dictators the region historically mostly has had. This is what is happening now in Iraw, unfortunately the Iranians are deliberately and viciously sabotaging this as democracy and freedom is something the mad mullahs hate and despise.

By Sara

August 10, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

I will cast my vote towards a person running for Congress that has the gonads to publically question just why is it we must allow Muslims on non-resident VISA’s into the US anyway? Our liberal immigration policies are the cause of our woes, we have to excercise some tougher rules here. Case in point, the ‘missing’ Egyptian students that were suppose to be going to the University of Wyoming. Young Arab Muslim men seeking to go to the University of Wyoming sounds as suspect as wanting to only fly and land a jet, not to take off.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

lies,

Well the first reason was WMD’s threat but we seem to ignore that fact.

Iranians are deliberately and viciously sabotaging this as democracy and freedom is something the mad mullahs hate and despise.

Bingo, now you are talking. It is their plan and it is working. The neocon plan played right into their hands. Get it now?

By Realist

August 10, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

It is completely assinine to slander or condemn me because Im not in the military fighting in Iraq when the lot of you clearly are not making any greater a contribution to the country yourselves (evidenced by the fact that you are here all day). I admit, I am a physical specimen and of ripe age to be in the military, but again, I am honoring my obligation to my family and my community. There are more than enough younger, red-blooded American young men and women out there ready to fight for what they beleive in, the war and Terror and thier commander in chief George Bush. And you libs hate that dont you. You hate it that our young men and women (all voters mind you) are signing up for the armed forces in record numbers rather than growing hair down to thier a*s and smoking weed and running off to canada. We know you hate it, but its fact. Get over yourselves McGovernites.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Realfake,

I thought you were going to take a shower.

Please do, it will cool you off.

Coward.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

How is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Realist,

In other words, like Cheney, you simply “had other priorities.” I don’t understand your repeated attempts to defend the standard neocon party line.

All you need do now is buy yet another yellow ribbon to show you “support the troops” while continuing to call for increased military action. After all, we should kill ‘em all, so long as you or your kids don’t have to get your hands dirty….

And some on this blog wonder why the country is so upset. Jim spoke of dems “losing their soul” last week. The truth is, traditional limited government conservatives increasingly mourn the fact that the GOP lost its soul long ago.

From yesterday’s blogs, it seems clear that many of you have a certain affinity for Tuesdays. Good. If you liked the second Tuesday in August, you (and a few choice republican congressmen) are really gonna get a kick out of the second Tuesday in November.

By Barbara

August 10, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Sara, amen Sister! If this country is such a bad place, how come we can’t keep people from coming over here in droves? And when they do, they form little Anti-American groups and fight against us. I think we need to be much harder on folks who want to come over here, visiting, vacation, or whatever. And we should be able to keep track of them better while they’re here. And if someone wants to move here, they should have to give up their citizenship in their home country, and pledge allegiance to the USA (sorry Truth, I’d grandfather you in just because you’re so cool…..)

getalife, getahobby! A new one! ‘Cause calling Realist and TFTT names instead of responding to their legitimate questions makes you look like the moron. Just a little friendly advice……

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Of course earmarks are down when the biggest crooks (earmarkers) in the congress are about to be indicted with more to follow. DUHHHHHHH!

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

I agree with Jim’s comment about redistricting. We used to call it gerrymandering, until the SC said it was mostly ok.

Redistricting by parisans gives us what we have today; a country broken up into 435 largely homogenous districts, where there are relatively few competitive races. As a result, the winner in these permanently Republican or Democratic districts is frequently the person who caters the most to the basest part of the base. That’s why we have ideological extremists on the Hill who don’t really get much accomplished.

The best way to change things is to create, where possible, truly competitive districts. Imagine, for example, if the 4th (dem) and 5th (rep) districts were combined and then split in such a way so the new areas had equal representation of both groups. More often than not, the winner would, by necessity, have to be a moderate, listening to both sides and willing to work with most everyone.

In a way, that’s what happens at the state govenment and U.S. Senate level. Whether you love or hate whoever is holding that office, they’ve either got to represent the majority of interests statewide, or, like Leiberman (who I kinda liked) they get replaced.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Rarringt, Nice to see you back. Hope all is well.

Again, with regard to questioning my dedication, committment or contribution, or whatever it is that you are questioning, I will answer, as I did yesterday in your abscence, with this quote from Give War a Chance-

Any rich man does more for society than all the jerks pasting VISUALIZE WORLD PEACE bumper stickers on thier cars. The worst leech of a merger and acquisitions lawyer making $500K a year will, even if he cheats on his taxes, put $100K into the public coffers. That’s $100K worth of education, charity, or U.S. Marines. And the Marine Corp does more to promote world peace than all the Ben & Jerry’s ice cream ever made.

By Toad

August 10, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Congress wasted a lot of time this session pimping for the November elections by proposing ridiculous amendments to the Constitition — limiting marriage (a state issue) and prohibiting flag burning (a non-issue). Pure pandering and not at all productive. Constitutional amendments are serious changes, not for topical vote pandering. Oh, and an emergency vote to save the life of ONE woman.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Keep your advice Babs.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Barbara is absolutely right. Realist and I have yet again posed awkward questions/commentary for the Bush hating demoNcrats and they run away from answering them like scalded possums.

I did pledge allegiance Barbara during my citizenship ceremony - although I did ‘silently’ exclude ALL sports teams from that :)

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

getalife, surely you don’t believe that Iraq isn’t/wasn’t a breeding ground for terrorists. I know - they had no link to 9/11 (as if that were the only terrorist attack on the US). Well, Germany had no link to Pearl Harbor, either.

Try this:

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

a.k.a. PLF-Abu Abbas Faction

Description

The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) splintered from the PFLP-GC in the late 1970s and later split into pro-PLO, pro-Syrian, and pro-Libyan factions. The pro-PLO faction was led by Muhammad Zaydan (a.k.a. Abu Abbas) and was based in Baghdad prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Activities

Abbas’s group was responsible for the 1985 attack on the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer. Strength Unknown.

Location/Area of Operation

Based in Iraq from 1990 until 2003, the group currently is based in Lebanon.

That’s just one group of many. Let me know if you would like to know of more terrorist organizations that were breeding in Saddam’s Iraq.

By Barbara

August 10, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Come on Truth, you live in Atlanta - you have to cheer for the Falcons and the Braves. You have to!!!

By JK

August 10, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

You hate it that our young men and women (all voters mind you) are signing up for the armed forces in record numbers rather than growing hair down to thier a-s and smoking weed and running off to canada. We know you hate it, but its fact. Get over yourselves McGovernites.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Hahahaha! Hahahaha! DADGUMMIT, that’s funny! HAHAHAHA! The only way you could be funnier is if you put a box of laundry soap on your head (Tide), painted your face and torso red, and stood up for the cameras at a football game holding a roll of toilet paper on a plunger in one hand, and an Jim Beam & coke in the other! HAHAHA! I’ll look for you on the tee-vee in November, Dude. HAHAHA!

By getalife

August 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

J Tom,

Thanks but no thanks. I will stay the course with the WMD rhetoric to remind people the reason for invading Iraq.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

I note the Bush haitng eunuch STILL wont actually debate anything on here. And still denies its a far left type.

My analysis of the black caucus/liberal appeasers is spot on.

Where is THEIR plan to deal with Iran, Hamas, Hizbollocks etc … and dont just endlessly bleat about the slimy craven worthless UN!!

THey - the left - have no plan, they just react poorly to events and now dont even make much noise about any pre-emptive strikes against obvious targets should the need arise, in the entirely likely event that the joke UN led discussions will fail.

Sooner or later this is going to turn into WW3 or whatever number you give it … unless the mohammedan fascist are confronted and stopped by a concerted, united alliance … but the US will find itself suddenly rich with self interested EU allies once its actually really started. But for now the lefty cowards and demagogues are sadly winning much of the the PR battle with the party of hate media in the US and the shameless BBC leading the charge!!.

By Liberal

August 10, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

JTom,

To tell you the truth, I prefer the good ol’ fashioned PLO/European Reds-hijack a plane and release the hostages-form of terror to what we got now. Ah, them was the good ol’ days…

By Realist

August 10, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

rarringt, Redestricting so that the winning candidate would “have to be a moderate”? So you want to appease both sides and to hell with the majority rule? Typical.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Barbara - I meant English national teams.

I have been to many Braves games and I follow them loyally now!! - but I detest NFL - its bastardised rugby with crash helmets !! Basketball is even more moronic though !!

By getalife

August 10, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

lies,

Giving yourelf “you are doing a heck of a job” is funny but you never answered my question of who you are speaking of?

You see, conservatives lie and you have to verify what they spew.

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

getalife, Uh huh. Personally, I think Saddam should have been overthrown simply for his support of terrorism, so we’re doing the right thing regardless of the stated reason. I also wonder how the dynamics of US politics would change if Israel found Iraqi-made WMDs in Lebannon. If WMDs are ever found, would you then become a staunch supporter of our current ME efforts or simply find another excuse to condemn it?

By Realist

August 10, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Nice retort JK. Very eloquent.

btw, I dont get any tv coverage up in the luxury boxes.

By Call'em as I See'em

August 10, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Realist - you are a chickenshit, hypocrit. Bawk, Bawk!

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

By getalife

August 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

J Tom,

Thanks but no thanks. I will stay the course with the WMD rhetoric to remind people the reason for invading Iraq.

You pick em:

First: WMD’s Second: Get rid of dastardly Saddam Third: Well…to democratize the country Fourth: The war on “turrurizm”. Fifth: Uh……That man tried to kill my daddy. Sixth: Just because I wanted to dammit!

By JK

August 10, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Darn. Way to spoil my day, dude. I was so looking forward to seeing your big, Bama, biscuits & gravy gut hanging over your britches on TV! Although it’s better we don’t get to see you cry when Kenny Irons stuffs it to your “D-fence.”

By getalife

August 10, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

JTom,

I firmly beleve in the facts. 9/11 was planned and carried out by OBL and his group. The Afganistan invasion to go after these terrorists was the goal never accomplished. They were in Tora Bora but for some reason W decided to use the rescources to invade Iraq. I thought that was crazy and started reading about W’s intention to invade Iraq since he took office. I look at the facts and ask why and how? I do not blindly believe what they say because this adminitration has a problem with the truth due to no accountability.

By Mark the Lib

August 10, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

My analysis of the black caucus/liberal appeasers is spot on.

Oh really? Says who, you?

What is the Con plan to deal with Hezbollah, Hamas, etc? Don’t say we’re killing there so we don’t have to kill them here nonsense because we’re not. We’re killing Iraqis and no one else.

WW3? Now that’s funny. Cons think we’re on the verge of WW3. Like any Middle Eastern Country has enough firepower to start WW3 with us. A true WW3, with WW2 being the barometer won’t happen unless we get into a fight with China. Anything else is a neighborhood scrap, so kill the WW3 talking point. It sounds stupid, it is stupid and no one believes it.

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Liberal- Your good ol’ fashioned hijackers-and-release-the-passengers morphed into hijackers-and-crash-the-plane-into-buildings. And the PLO didn’t release Klinghoffer. For those too young to remember, Leon Klinghoffer was a retired appliance manufacturer from New York who was disabled (from a stroke) and used a wheelchair. Four Palestinian militants hijacked the Italian cruise ship that he and his wife were celebrating their 36th wedding anniversary on. They shot him in the forehead and chest while he was sitting in his wheelchair. The militants then forced the ship’s barber and a waiter to throw his lifeless body and his wheelchair overboard. His ‘crime’ against the terrorist was being Jewish. This happened in 1985 - by a terrorist organization that was later given safe haven, protection and support by Saddam. Human rights should be accorded to humans, but many terrorists do not qualify.

By MrLiberty

August 10, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

So far all this congress has done is decrease our liberty and freedom. I certainly don’t see how any group of Democrats could spend more than these Republican controlled houses have.

I would have to agree with some of the posts that Congress doing nothing is the best thing Congress could do, but in this case I would have to say that if they would get off their butts, wake up to reality, begin impeachment proceedings and follow through with convictions for both The Dictator and his vice-tyrrant, that would be outstanding. Then, if they could strip these two, along with Gonzales, Rice, and every other member of the administration of their citizenship and turn them over to the world court for war crimes prosecution, we would be off to a great start

Sadly I believe that leaving behind a police state is the legacy this congress and dictator want, so no doubt we will be looking to fight back more of the same over the next 2 years.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Realist,

Thanks for the shout out (and apologies for my part in adding to the nonproductive vitriol last week).

I agree that one can show their patriotism without donning a uniform, and agree that working for a living and raising a good family counts in a major way. Where I part company is where one backs a policy (or lack of therein) that puts people in harm’s way for nothing more than economic gain.

We’re not there for the spread of democracy, and it’s disingenuous to make that argument. After PGW-I, we returned Kuwait to the monarchy. Since then it’s still, well, a monarchy (albeit with a board of representatives that acts purely in an advisory capacity).

The truth is, our administration looked before it leapt. The last thing they want to do is bring democracy to that region today. They know that, as it stands, there would be one election only, where islamists would come to power and then summarily eliminate the electoral process.

Back to Jim’s point. The easiest way to effect change here, as in the middle east, is on a local level. Redistricting changes are done at the state level by your local representatives who should be exceedingly accessible. Press them to do so. When they balk, because to redistrict would make them work for their positions that much harder, you will begin to realize how deep this problem is and has been for some time.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Want to get rid of W? When the congress changes hands bring unmerciful pressure to know what was discussed in Dicky boy Cheney’s energy meeting. Bring the oil company execs back before congress under oath. If the truth ever comes out people, it’s all over for Bush. He would be impeached.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Yes, the GOP needs to stay at home in November so we can have some oversight for our government.

Plain and simple reason to do something good for your country.

By Toad

August 10, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Amelia, Great comments, but the contents of the secret energy policy meeting won’t be revealed. Cheney appealed all the way to his buddies at the Supreme Court and they decreed the energy meeting discussions can stay secret.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Another thing folks. Oil is a national security issue. The oil companies are given break after break after break. They have enjoyed record profits. Yet they can’t spend the money or dedicate the resources to maintain essential pipelines? Give me a frikkin break. We need someone in the Oval Office with a big enough set of cojones’ to get that kind of crap under control. When we get someone with the strength to tackle those issues, then we have a TRUE patriot running the show. Not just a trash talkin (“mission accomplished”) brokeback cowboy taking care fiddling while the country implodes around him. Rome had their Nero. We’ve got our burning Bush.

By Mark the Lib

August 10, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

I have a few questions for the war-mongers. Since Britain has supposedly thwarted a terrorist attack, who are they going to attack? Do we only attack when we lose people? I know you guys want to attack a country for this right? Who’s it gonna be this time?

By JK

August 10, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Toad, was it Scalia that Cheney went on a hunting trip with right before this case came before the SCotUS? Or was it a different justice? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, the level of which an honest man would recuse himself. But then, the GOP are all about the confict of interest when it benefits them.

I still don’t understand. If he’s our Vice President, doing business AS our VP, why don’t we have the right to know what he’s doing? Why all the secrecy if there’s nothing underhanded to hide? Anyone? Anyone?

By getalife

August 10, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Amelia,

I had to change the channel, W is lying again.

Sigh.

The facts to center around one reason for W’s crusade and that fact is big oil.

By Toad

August 10, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Yep, it was Scalia and he refused to recuse himself. I guess Cheney promised to not pepper him with shot if he’d rule in his favor.

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

MrLiberty, obviously you did not experience the US under FDR’s monarchy.

Amelia, two things: First, you have to link Bush to Cheney’s energy meeting to impeach him. More significantly, if the ‘truth’ of those meeting has never come out, and if it did it would cause an uproar, then how do you know what the ‘truth’ is? I’ve always wondered where and how conspiracy theorists got the ‘rock-solid truth’ about things that no one else is privy to. If Dan Rather couldn’t get fake minutes of the meetings, then I suspect there’s nothing to report.

By Liberal

August 10, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

JTom,

I know. I was just kidding around. But it is interesting to see how terrorism in/from the Middle East has morphed over the years. The terrorists that Saddam harbored back then, although still sick and pathetic, were secular and were motivated largely by nationalism instead of religion. Although terrorists back then murdered many innocent people in a very cowardly manner, terror back then was used largely to gain attention rather than to annihilate.

However, Al Queda is a totally different bird—an organization motivated by religious fundamentalism whose purpose is to attack and exact revenge through mass murder. Al Queda has singlehandedly changed the perception of terror into something more sinister and boarderline genocidal (yes, we all know that terrorism has always been viewed negatively). Older terrorist organizations like ETA and the IRA have largely renounced terror in order to distance themselves from this new perception.

By Liberal

August 10, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

C’mon Toad,

Give credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of balls to shoot an old man in the face…:)

By Mark the Lib

August 10, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Cheney is a POS. In reality I don’t dislike Bush. I don’t think he deserves to be President because he’s a dummy. Dumb people make dumb decisions and his track record is incomparable. He has allowed Cheney along with Chalabi, Screwball, Wolfowitz and every other neo-con nutcase to take us into Iraq with no end in sight.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Realist,

It’s about taking the long view. At the end of the day, a fair business deal is one where everyone gets something, but no one gets absolutely everything they wanted.

So it goes (or should, anyway, with politics). Remember, if economics is the science of distributing limited resources, then politics is the art-c*m-mechanism by which said resources are distributed. Moderates would make sure a majority of people were served. Moderates would work with other moderates.

Let’s face it, in an age of “do-nothingness,” it’s the Blue Dog Dems, moderate GOPers and the Gang of 11 and other bipartisan groups who really reach across the aisle with something of interest to both sides that gets deals done, and productive legislation passed.

Ask yourself, which is better: Remain politically marginalized by absolute fealty to ideology and get precious little accomplished, or be willing to bend and bargain a little, and get great things done?

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

JK, The best ‘anyones’ to answer your question are dead. The framers of the Constitution explicitly stated that such consultations are exempt from any public scrutiny. Perhaps because they had the wisdom to understand that many times you can give an honest opinion in private but not in public.

By Call'em as I See'em

August 10, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Conservative Entitlement: I’m entitled to sit on my chickenhearted a*s and blog while REAL believers fight for my cause.

Of age conservatives, stop leeching of the sweat and courage of real believers, pull yourselves up by your flip-flops and go enlist!

By clarkslawga

August 10, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

I’m back….no one should care, but I am.

And why? I have a few minutes and I see that the fake Brit TFTT (who strikingly enough is not using a crap-load of fake Brit speak) is once again playing her “you’re a poopy pants because you don’t think just like me and Hannity” game today.

You’d think I’d get tired of calling out this fake…but you’d be wrong.

Today’s post is most informative and virtually proves my point that this pathetic loser is really just a wastrel living in a trailer park in Valdosta. The only thing missing from the latest screed is the word n****r.

So now not only are you a fake, but exhibit your narrow-mindedness in a whole new way.

Fake and narrow minded. You are just like Ann. But at least Ann appears to have a life and something better to do than spend 8 hours plus playing poopy pants games on the internet.

OK. My time is up. Back to work. Its your time to call names. (I suggest Poopy Pants, it’s a good all purpose name. Or maybe even “librul” but you over use that one. Oh and bring out more Brit-speak. Your latest drivel is not very convincing.)

God its great to have a life other than this mess. You should try it sometime, Fake. I warn you though, It’s alot harder to fake being English in real life than here. You might actually have to have some human interaction other than with hubby Billy-Bob and your 10 trailer trash kids if you did come out.

Poopy Pants, Librul, Fake.

Love, Anal-Loser Ga

By sct

August 10, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Its amazing the beating Dekalb County voters took these last 2 weeks because of McKinney. Well it turns out DeKalb voters are the smart ones.

The Republicans on the other hand re-nominated scandal ridden congressmen Delay and Ney. Both won their primaries by a landslide.

Another case of “conservative values” being over-rated.

By rednecks - Chickenhawks

August 10, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

For Realist

A list of his “heroes”.

By Call'em as I See'em

August 10, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Conservatives are like battered wives, they are isolated and brainwashed to the point they’re going to stand by their man no matter how many times he’s caught cheating or slaps them upsides the head.

By War Eagle

August 10, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

geta life-Lieberman is for keeping the fight on Muslim soil. Your Lamont wants to cut and run like a chicken! Lamont wants to tax and spend your money on bums like minority handout entitlement holders. If you want to throw your money away-give it to me-I’ll invest in some nice tax free bonds.

By JK

August 10, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

J Tom, if, as you claim, Cheney and the energy execs were well within their rights to hold secret meetings which may or may not have resulted in higher prices for us(FACT that has occurred) and higher profits for them (FACT that has occurred), then surely WE are within our rights to be pretty g—da——d suspicious, and to ask questions, don’t you think? Perhaps YOU like being screwed out of more and more of your stagnant paycheck (I’m not privy to that info) but there are plenty of us who don’t appreciate it, thanks.

When exactly did asking valid questions become something to be ridiculed?

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

I’m back for a while. For those who don’t know what TFTT and I found so amusing, here is a short sample, the explanation of the Nutmeg’s rejection of a life-long 95% leftist democrat former VP candidate:

“Democrats don’t oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a “D” after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of “Scoop Jackson Democrats.”

Any democrat who opposes the war on terrorism is now a target, from the moonbat left. For all of you who revile Ann, you must concede the logic in the observation, that any democrat opposing the international war on terrorism will suffer opposition.

Or, is there a moonbat plan to fight terrorism that has been drowned by the shrillness of the Deaniacs? I watch and wait.

Unrelated, a short partial-apology to “Jim’s a Dummy” @ 8:22. In my attempt to turn a dry but simple economic argument into a witty double entendre, I added two unnecessary adjectives; the addition turned the post into something that sounded mean-spirited. For the tone, I apologize to JaD, and I fear that may have set off other bad feelings on this blog today, for which I apologize to everyone else.

On the other hand, I remain totally contemptuous of the substance of the original post, lamenting the lack of “market discipline” facing BP. To paraphrase Inego Montoya, “That does not mean what you think it means.” Every ounce of lost oil costs BP actual dollars. The moment the losses exceed the costs of repairs, BP faces “market discipline.” Thus the hole in your pocket argument. I forget that not everyone majored in economics.

Also, welcome back Clarkslawga, I noticed your absence.

By Sara

August 10, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Liberman will win in CT. The pictire of Lamont with Tawana Brawley’s baby daddy and JJ will ensure a victory for Joe.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

And what do you know about economics jbmlaw? Furthermore, if we the people can be surveilled and spied upon all in the name of national security, why can’t an oil company be sanctioned for not maintaining infrastructure so crucial to our national security. According to Mr. Bush, he has the power to do whatever he wishes in time of war or national emergency.

By Toad

August 10, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Lieberman can’t suffer a loss gallantly. When he was running for VP he ran for Senate at the same time. Afraid to lose that paycheck!

By Call'em as I See'em

August 10, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

JBML,

If they are honest and have nothing to hide why do they care who sees what went on?

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

JK @ 12:32, I am totally with J Tom on the Cheney task force, and for reasons that have nothing to do with Machiavelli or with Bismarck’s aphorism on sausage.

The creative process requires people to think aloud collectively, without retribution, if you really want to explore every dimension of an issue. In this world of “gotcha” politics - e.g., Bush on the open mike at the summit two weeks ago - a secret meeting is the only way to really think through all dimensions of an issue.

I know, from your perspective, such “gotcha” politics is the only way to stop those with a free-market philosophy - only by controlling the debtate can you stop the forces of freedom. We are now on to that game.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Liberal

its not to do with fantatical religious perceptions for the ira and eta, its clearly not a coincidence that suddenly there were leftist govts willing to pacify them.

the fenian thugs in Ulster gave up terrorism because they finally realised they could never win although mcguiness/adams et al never admitted that publicly of course. but at least of equal importance was that scum fein were allowed a place at Stormont and the spineless Tony Blurrr govt handed them virtually everything they wanted politically, until the Unionists finally outsmarted them politically a couple of years ago in the N Irish Assembly. The rejectionist so called ‘real ira’ was largely a failure, except for one infamous bombing outrage that killed around 30 people.

Eta similarly have thrown in the towel although for slightly different reasons, hoping to follow the scum fein path and not just because the cowardly spanish pinkos who tamely surrendered to arab terror have gone after eta hard.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

By Toad

August 10, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Amelia, Great comments, but the contents of the secret energy policy meeting won’t be revealed. Cheney appealed all the way to his buddies at the Supreme Court and they decreed the energy meeting discussions can stay secret.

That’s exactly why you bring the execs back before congress, put them under oath, and ask them direct questions about the meeting. This issue can be revisted. And surely it can be framed where congress gets to determine the truth of the testimony. Ask them specifically about Iraq or boots on the ground in the middle east. They can take the 5th, in which case we have the answer. They can lie, and be prosecuted. Or they can save their gutless selves by telling the truth. It can be done.

By CBF

August 10, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Redneck: you using the word coward? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

By Call'em as I See'em

August 10, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

The Republican majority, turned their back on John Mccain in the 2000 primary just as fast as the Dems turned on Lieberman. Everyone knows it’s not about what you’ve done in the past, but what are you doing for me now, and who has a better chance of winning.

It’s like football, a veteran QB might have won three superbowls, but if he starts to slip, they’ll replace him with ANYONE they think will bring them back to the promise land.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Dear Amelia, I’ll match economic arguments with you any day. The non-sequitur in your post tells me limits of your expertise there.

Callem, you probably think I am psychic, knowing what you were planning to ask. No, Cheney had his spy satellites watching your keyboard, asked me to draft a quick response.

By Call'em as I See'em

August 10, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

I’ll really will start to worry if a satellite can see INSIDE my house! LOL.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Actually, Amelia, the executive is not answerable to the legislative branch - minor contitutional issue with the nickname “separation of powers.” Legislative can defund, or criminalize activities (Demos have famously worked to criminalize policy differences for the past generation.) Cannot compel an answer.

Self incrimination only applies to potential judicial matters, and there clearly is none implicated in the Cheney task force.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

By Call’em as I See’em

August 10, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Conservatives are like battered wives, they are isolated and brainwashed to the point they’re going to stand by their man no matter how many times he’s caught cheating or slaps them upsides the head.

That is absolutely the best analogy anyone has ever posted here of the ideologues on the lunatic fringe of the republican party. Absolutely great!

By Realist

August 10, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Rarringt, I apologize for my abrupt abscence but a lunch offer at my favorite thai place could not be refused. In a nutshell, for me to take your opinion, I have to be of the belief that we as a country arent already doing great things, and that there is some great need to level the playing field (dumd down to use a conservative catch phrase) society. We have a class system as does any evolved society. And there will always be those at the top, in the middle and at the bottom. The have’s will always be scorned by the have not’s, and vice versa. The poll that was being touted and quoted here yesterday and again on cnn.com this morning, shows that conservatives and democrats have clearly split views on this very issue. We cant see it your way unless we first concede the country has gone to hell and is in complete failure. And we just dont see it that way. I agree that needs to be some bargaining and working together for the greater good, but I dont think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Things are never at thier best during times of war. We have been here before, and we heard the same “end of time” gloom and doom rhetoric we are hearing today. It simply isnt true.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, actually you talk a good game, but in reality you’re full of sh&%. And it’s very easy to see. What you really know about most of the things you pretend to know will fit in a thimble. You are nothing more than a Rush Limbaugh wannabe. Sorry to be so catty folks, but it’s about time someone challenged all these pseudo know it all Bushnik apologists.

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m back from radiation and there’s jbmlaw bestowing pearls from his mind’s (brown)eye, like so many pellets from a dyspeptic rabbit with dysentery.

I dont think you post enough, jbmlaw, and instead of nonsense, why dont you regal us all with your take on the success/failure of Newt Ginrich’s Contract With America? Ever read it? Every single program was a failure or a lie. Smaller, less intrusive government?

We had surpluses back then, and it was too much temptation for the no-bid-contract minded Republicans.

Pirates have taken over our country. Pellets litter our blogs. Is there no relief?

By JK

August 10, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I’m trying to follow your logic with regard to the Cheney task force, but I think I need more help.

Your statement, “only by controlling the debtate can you stop the forces of freedom. We are now on to that game.” is lost on me.

Who is on to what game? I am not the one trying to “stop the forces of freedom.” It’s OUR government. WE should be informed and involved. Secrecy is for monarchs and dictators. MY life is an open book, (thanks to Congress and ChoicePoint!), yet I am not a paid servant of this Republic like Dick Cheney.

As to the task force, if the secret meetings had resulted in GOOD things for the American people, instead of high profits for a few, we’d be a lot less suspicious. Again, when you berate people for asking questions, you only make us more suspicious. After the stunts they pulled in California four years ago, I think there’s plenty of reason to be suspicious going forward. Plus, YOU still cannot answer the questions, ‘cause the answer is still a secret.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Also, Amelia, thanks for your defense of my comment yesterday. I know I am frequently a jerk, sometimes inadvertently, but I thought I was comparatively innocent in that one particular case; I appreciate your support.

By Observer

August 10, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

The Bush crowd could take a crap on some of these wackos faces and they would call it ice cream.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Observer,

Amazing isn’t it. They choose party over country.

The whackos should sit out the upcoming elections. They have done enough to our country.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

This blog is such a nice slice of America. You have concervatives talking about ideas and theories, admitting thier shortcomings and failures, but truly fighting for a solution. Then you have the democrats barking insults after insult after insult with no solutions or ideas other than impeach Bush! and get out of Iraq. Its a sad state of affairs really. You are going to suffer another whopping defeat in 08 and we will be cursed to listen to your insults and whining of voting irregularities for another 4 years.

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

arguably the best analogy for coward;y leftist pinko wacko appeasers is the timeless one of kool aid drinking lemmings drinking deadly poison at the People’s Temple

By time for the truth

August 10, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

arguably the best analogy for cowardly leftist pinko wacko appeasers is the timeless one of kool aid drinking lemmings drinking deadly poison at the People’s Temple

By sct

August 10, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

The fact of the matter is Realist, is that Democrats don’t owe anyone an explanation.

The failed Administration and Republican Congress sure does owe the American people an explanation. Its the Republicans the American public put in power.

Leaders don not scream about the failures of their opposition. They lead. The fact is the Republican Revolution is over. Died at a very young age. Corruption and poor leadership doomed it. Plain and simple.

By JK

August 10, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Time fer Troof: A cold beverage for you on a hot day, Sir.

By Jesus is a Liberal

August 10, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

So much attitude today. Too bad I missed alot of it this morning.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

The fact of the matter is Realist, is that Democrats don’t owe anyone an explanation.

Go look at your recent liberal slanted CNN poll. The american people still dont want to hand over the government to you clowns. Better start explaining to someone sct.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Realist, the neo-cons ideas and theories are what got us in this mess. Keep apologizing for their failures. We understand. It’s the ideology that matters, to you lemmings, and the results are to be ignored.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Good question JK, and worthy of a full answer; I’ll try, subject to the limits of my thimble.

Many conjoined ideas, must explore separately.

“… only by controlling the debate …” One of the first tricks taught in law school is to “control the witness.” If handling your own witness, your own witness may say something irredemably stupid. If a witness for the other side, he may something impregnably brilliant. Thus, control the scope of questioning, so only your own thesis is presented.

“That game” is the “gotcha” game, otherwise discussed at length, where the leftists magnify form over substance. Good example: if Bush gives 10 reasons to go to war with Iraq, and one proves to have a weaker foundation than reasonably believed even by the prior administration, it becomes “Bush lied.” Gotcha. Does not have to be a true criticism, just has to be one that is not subject to disproof.

Example of my thesis: A leftist affirms that he is not trying to stop the forces of freedom. But he implcitly limits the definition of freedom so as to exclude his Arab brothers in Iraq. The leftist thus controls the debate by Orwellian doublespeak and stops the forces of freedom - bombus interruptus.

“Our government” - I agree, but it needs to go on a diet.

“We should be informed and involved.” Don’t ride that horse too long or too hard. I have been married for almost 29 years. I should be informed and involved in every aspect of my spouse’s existence. Dear, tell me everything you did, minute by minute, beginning at the moment I left this morning. (I would find myself running into her knife six times.) Or perhaps you think your interest in government is more compelling than your interest in your marriage; try that argument with your spouse.

“Secrecy is for monarchs and dictators.” And also for 12 year olds getting abortions. Of course, parents are monarchs and dictators. There you go again, controlling the debate; I’m on to that game.

Parenthetically, JK, if your life is truly an open book attributable to Choice Point, you may be the only one. I think I have heard of no incidence of identity theft arising from that purported outrage. I do monitor that particular issue, professionally.

Secret meetings in government lead to nothing other than policies. Policies are published in the Federal Register, if not required to be enacted by Congress. Your assertion, that the secret meetings led to high profits for a few, is phony. Anyone can invest in the oil companies, they are all publicly traded; some people are not smart enough to do so.

Berating for asking questions: never. Berating for asking questions where anyone should be able to analyze and see the answers: well, sometimes. My single human characteristic, I suppose.

“After the stunts they pulled in California..” I suppose I am slow on the uptake here. Not only do I not know the stunts, I don’t know who “they” am. Not paranoid enough, I suppose. I assume all are men of good faith, until proven otherwise.

My thimble is drained.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

We dont’ bark insults, and a cursory review of Jim’s blog archives would show that for the most part, a liberal moderate would make an argument, followed by some closeminded conservative stating “that’s what I’d expect from a commie, pinko, god-hating, baby-burning liberal (etc. etc.)

Just because one does not like our solutions does not mean we are lacking in them. The difference is one of judgment. Most of the issues you claim we lack solution for are problems that would likely not have happened, or would have happened less severely had moderate voices (on both sides) controlled.

The mess in the middle east is the result of neocon extremist theory colliding with centuries of ethnic and sectarian unrest. Believe it or not, the propaganda taught in Young Republicans meetings frequently does not result in progressive solutions.

But to your point. We do have solutions. Remember, the latest lebanese flareup started when an israeli shell inadvertently landed on a beach, killing 9 lebanese on holiday (remember, it was a tourist mecca two months ago). Extremists on either side reacted, and now we are precariously close to all out war, with multiple parties on multiple fronts, over issues that few westerners know much about.

We need strong diplomacy. Now. Too bad nobody’s willing to wake W up from his nap in Crawford and break the news. Even if they were, we’ve forfeited our position as a reasonable mediator, and need to work and make concessions to all sides to regain lost trust.

It’s a lot more complicated than the “git ‘er done” mentality on this website, but the world is a fairly complicated place. Those who can’t handle it should stay on their ranch, and leave important matters to the grownups.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

It is getting good now. The GOP are digging a hole they will not climb out of in a very long time.

Do something good for your country conservatives, stay home in November.

By sct

August 10, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

From the Realist CNN poll.

Fifty-three percent of Americans said they favored Democrats in November compared to 40 percent for Republicans. And only 40 percent of Americans believe that the Republican led Congress has been a success since taking control in 1995.

Again, its time for the Republicans to start accepting some responsibility. If we had strong leaders those numbers wouldn’t be so bad for Republicans.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 12:52 PM

Self incrimination only applies to potential judicial matters, and there clearly is none implicated in the Cheney task force.

Hmmm. But lying to congress would be a judicial matter wouldn’t it jbmlaw. These execs can be called before congress and put under oath just as the professional athletes were in the steroid hearings. And the problems that those guys have now has nothing to do with steroids and everything to do with lying to a congressional committee. Ask the right questions and if they lie they have run afoul of the judicial system now haven’t they? You’re not really a lawyer are you jbmlaw? Or do you think like GW, that we will just take your word for it?

By Realist

August 10, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

wow rarringt, I wasnt lumping you into that category of insult”ers” but if you say so. I had started to see you as a moderate, not one of the whacko moonbat fringers I was speaking of.

So your stance is that one shell on a beach has resulted in this Israel-Hezbollah conflict? Are you serious? How many meaningless UN resolutions have been ignored and innocent Israeli killed time and time again? They have MORE than given peace a chance.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

A lawyer, well maybe he can give us some insight on this:

By Realist

August 10, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

@ amelia

Just to clarify for you, Bonds is the only sports figure who has run afoul of the legal system. And it has nothing to do with lying to Congress. He lied to a federal grand jury. But hey dont let facts stand in your way.

@ and to sct, we all read the rest of it sir. You cant slant it by putting up only what suits you.

By Stewart

August 10, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

SCT,

You are correct. Republicans need to held accountable! Part of me wants to see the Democrats re-take congress in order to get real conservatives in in 2008. However, if the Democrats truly reflects the pascifist views expressed here, that could be very scary. However we all know that politicians tell you what you want to here and do the oppisite.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

But Amelia, there must be a legal obligation to answer under oath before there can be perjury. If separation of powers pecludes the obligation to even appear, where is the potential violation? The execs will not appear, and have no obligation to do so.

The personal question: I can legally represent you before any court in Georgia, Alabama, or Tennessee. We call ourselves attorneys - the american trial lawyer association has made “lawyer” such opprobrium it is no longer a respectable term. In fact, it is so despised even ATLA is changing its name, to something like “American Justice Association.” Comic. As the WSJ joked, 98% of the attorneys are making the rest of us look bad.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

One serious personal note, to rarringt and Amelia, whom I believe are both people of good faith and intention: “Neocon” is the currently popular epithet used by the left to disparage Jewish conservatives. If you must do so, at least be honest - say “Jews” if that is what you mean.

I don’t think that you are intentionally anti-semitic, but you are making it easier for those who are.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

No thanks, jbmlaw. I use a real attorney. Go watch some more Matlock.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Insults like that, in the face of a well thought out and serious post, is nothing but an indication of a horribly underdeveloped and immature mind.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

I think Amelia was responding, in jest, to my 1:59 post, not to the 2:01.

By Interested Observer

August 10, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Jim, in your list of “accomplishments” for this Republican Congress, I noticed that you conveniently left out the weeks of time they spent on creating a law to apply to a single U.S. citizen, Terry Schiavo. As well as the days and weeks of debate to pass an anti-flag-burning amendment every single one of them knew had no chance of passing constitutional muster. And the no doubt expensive boondoggle trips they’re planning around the U.S. to “listen” to the public’s thoughts on illegal immigration.

Those days, weeks and months were wasted and could have been sent on Social Security reform, among other urgent priorities.

As Lewis Grizzard was famous for saying, if you’re going to tell the “truth,” brother, tell it all!

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

And besides, Realist, one of our wishes on this blog is to train up these young skulls full of mush, to make them productive forces for good.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Interesting argument, Interested Observer: the sanctity of life does not merit debate in Congress. You should run on that platform.

By Amelia

August 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Now I know you’re a fraud jbmlaw. Neo-con has absolutely nothing to do with the neo-conservative philosophy. Another blogger tried to run that one by us while you were supposed to be on vacation. It was debunked very quickly. That person was probably you using one of your multiple identities.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

But Interested, I suggest you get some constitutional advice. Constitutional amendments usually pass muster, even with leftists, except for the second amendment.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure if your last post was directed to me or not. The point was to stop looking at things from such a simplistic perspective. The fact is we really don’t really understand what is happening over there. That’s ok IF we’re willing to make a good faith effort to do so.

No, I don’t think it all started as a result of a haphazard shell. Clearly there were larger agendas at work on both sides. My point is that chances are most people on the blog, and in the larger community, don’t understand the chain of events leading up to Lebanese kids hurling TOW missiles at Israeli kids who fire back with artillery shells.

WWI happened because a serb muslim named Gavrilo Principe decided he was going to teach his Austrian lords a lesson, and because reactionary governments were coerced into action without thinking.

WWIII may happen because a bunch of similar radicals on both sides in the ME coerce states to fight their battles.

This time, though, both sides have nukes. You do the math.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

I missed your debate on “neocon” Amelia, but I think you err. Pat Buchanan coined the term.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Amelia, I stand by my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

By SamX

August 10, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

The Terry Schiavo Republican Congress/Presidential involvement was a display of what type of Republican Values?

A) Conservative values

B) Family Values

C) Corporate No-Values

These Republican value systems conflict with each other so much it would be nice if we had a clarification.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

To rarringt,

Conceding all that, I still dont see how pulling out of the middle east is the solution to a problem we admittedely do not fully understand. It does after all go back over 600 years. I think pushing into Iraq was the right thing to do. Im not sure ousting Saddam from power was the correct thing to do. I think in many ways he was keeping alot of evil forces in check in the middle east (eg. Iran). But diplomacy with a madman is not normally policy and is probably souond policy. So congress voted and spoke and we moved in. We cant go back and undo it. To leave now would leave nothing more than a weak pitiful Iraqi “government” ripe for takeover and a whole country to become the home field for every terrorist group from here to kingdom come. I just dont support pulling out. I dont support backing off of Lebanon/Hezbollah. Show me some liberals who support a middle east policy that includes forces in current numbers, AND diplomatic efforts, I will listen. But if all you can offer is BRING EM HOME NOW and I HATE BUSH, then its just falling on dear ears because its just rabble-rousing.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

lawyer,

Try this one

By Realist

August 10, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Pat, isnt he the guy who 20 years ago suggested we seal our borders and become total isolationist and self sufficient? Hmmm, maybe he wasnt such a nut after all…. lol

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Rarringt Your 1:38 comment mentioned that the latest flare-up was the result of an errant Israeli military shell killing nine Lebanese. That’s like saying the War Between the States was the result of the CSA taking of Fort Sumter. Israel wouldn’t have been firing shells if it weren’t for the hundreds of rocket attacks launched from Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal in August 2005.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Getalife, thanks, great article. Sort of an “in-your-face” to the anti-semites.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

No joke J Tom. And how many UN Cease Fire’s does Israel have to abide by only to get slapped in the face by more rocket attacks and innocents killed? I say death to Hezbollah and any government who harbors them!! The UN is a joke. Diplomacy hasnt worked. Push on ISRAEL!!

By Susan

August 10, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

I’d like to reiterate or perhaps rephrase my question from yesterday.

Given that the British were the ones to not only uncover the plot to blow up planes en route from the UK to the US, and as of last night had 21 suspects in custody, I’d like to know why we knew nothing about it, and why the British had mentioned a week or so ago that a large terror plot was suspected.

It looks more and more like the US is asleep on its watch.

After years in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don’t think we’re even qualified to interdict any sort of terrorism.

Yesterday I asked what Plan B might or should be. Today I pose the same question.

Since what has been done to date is clearly not working, it sounds like the US needs to develop some sort of strategy regarding terrorist interdiction.

If not for the speed with which MI-5 handled this plot, I would be nauseous to think what sort of coverage we would be looking at today.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that our support of Israel and its Lebanese adventure (15 IDF soldiers dead yesterday) would likely cause us serious harm in the short term. Fortunately, it did not work out the way the folks in High Wycombe planned.

There has got to be a better way than killing more enemies and blowing stuff up. If you think that the current Plan A is working, I salute your naivete and hope you have a stomach for years and years of body bags coming home.

If you are not naive, I think we must insist on the development of a new way to deal with terrorism and get a clue regarding how to fight guerillas.

If we cannot make great strides quickly regarding terrorism and guerilla warfare, we will be facing years in which 9/11 was only the first in a series of avoidable tragedies.

By The Moderate Voice

August 10, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

law, wikipedia is not always the best source for information. Pat Buchannan didn’t coin the term either. But I know a lot of people like to espouse the myth that there is some big neo-con conspiracy running the country right now. I think it is the most over hyped and over talked about segment of American politics today. I didn’t get to post yesterday after the elections from Tues, so I will do that now. Congrats to Lamont. It is very difficult to beat an incumbent in a primary. What was so amusing to me was watching good ole Al Sharpeton and Jesse Jackson jockeying for positoin behind Lamont during his victory celebration. It made me laugh out loud. Talk about a couple of media hounds. Almost as bad as Schumer. Next on my list of is the actions of Cynthia McKinney’s “entourage”. Wow. Talk about spewing hate and racism. I thought she was all about inclusion and good democratic values. I guess I was wrong. If that had been a white candidate people would be up in arms all over the place, lead by McKinney herself. But alas she lost and blamed the election on everyone but herself of course. I am just glad she can’t say she represents any part of Georgia anymore.

By getalife

August 10, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Actually, Pat is telling it like it is lately but the other Pat just went to Israel and is praying for the rapture.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Realist, I apologize to you for my 2:18 post. You were right, and I was wrong. I just always want to believe the best about people.

By The Moderate Voice

August 10, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Susan, where to start. The British have been following this group for months, keeping the US informed all along. Its not like we knew nothing until this morning. To assert that is not intellectually honest. As for the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict, it is not going to change much in the Middle East. If you listen to what Osama and his buddies write and say you will know that they are at war with us based on 50 years worth of foreign policy in the Middle East(basically since the creation of Israel as a state). The only thing that will stop it is for us to completely disengage from the Middle East, which doesn’t seem to be much of an option right now. Not to mention they disdain our support for non-theocratic governments in Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, et al. You should read the book Imperial Hubris by Micheal Schueur(the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden group). It is an excellent read and the best book I have read yet that gives a good understanding of why al Qaeda declared war on us.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Susan, Plan B: http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

And my naivete returns the salute.

By JK

August 10, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I have several links for you on the California energy scams, but Mr. Wooten has blocked my posts three separate times. I think he is trying to “control the witness” or the debate, or the forces of freedom like you were explaining before. What doesn’t he want you to know?

By Realist

August 10, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Yes, Im sure thats it. Now its a Wooten conspiracy against the libs. You guys are certifiable. Really.

Could it possibly be that you dont know what the f*ck you are doing on the computer?

By JK

August 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Stick your head back in your box of laundry soap, Bama boy. Perhaps the blogmaster was afraid my link was to a naked picture of your big red tide-rolling gut.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

I’m not advocating bringing home the troops at this point. It’s too late. You had an allusion to chess in your response. Putting troops on the ground in this scenario is the equivalent of bringing out your queen in the first three moves. Unless you’re a genius (and I submit that isn’t the case with the present administration), you’ve just forfeited your most potent weapon.

Here, our best weapon for over a century has been speaking softly and carrying a big stick. As of Jan. 20, 2001, that’s no longer the policy. The results are, and have been, predictable.

That said, you’re right, we’re there, and now it’s time to work on a solution that can stick. The challenge is, Iran, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon all represent issues that is reality are tangetially related but are perceived to be the same. This is happening because they are being co-opted by extremists trying to find a unifying cause. It’s working: ME folks are solidifying support, and westerners all think it’s just one big mess.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but it seems as though a few things can be done…

None of the above is easy. A lot of suffering will follow, and a lot of people will be forced to relocate a la India/Pakistan. Also, no guarantees of a lasting peace. But giving folks land, representation and a piece of the action has done fairly well over the course of history. This shouldn’t be much of an exception.

J Tom, this is yet another of my overly long blogs, so I’m going to close, but we can talk about Civil War history a bit later.

By J Tom

August 10, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Moderate Voice: While the events of the last fifty years have given impetus to the radical Muslim movement, they are waging a more fundamental war. If we dismantled Israel and relocated every non-Muslim to someplace out of the ME, they would still be conducting world terrorism. There is Muslim terrorist activity in countries which have no interests whatsoever in the ME. Wherever these radicals go, they believe they have a religious edict to set up their own theocracy, whether it’s in Iran or New Zealand, and kill whoever objects.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Susan, you and those like you should be happy to see that the latest terror plots are unfolding outside the US. They are still aimed our citizens, but the plans are being hatched and attempted outside the US. Why? Because that horrible old George Bush and his wire taps, illegal searches, and profiling have made it almost impossible for the terrorist to operate here. Watch how fast that changes if the next administration softens on those policies. Its going to make flying and going to the shopping mall or football stadium a real blast. Pardon the pun.

By Crooked Energy Co Scams

August 10, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

One at a time, then: http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2006/08/07/daily25.html

By Crooked Energy Co Scams

August 10, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

More exploits from Cheney’s buds: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

By Crooked Energy Co Scams

August 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

They’re lauging at the suckers… I mean, consumers. http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A86618

By Crooked Energy Co Scams

August 10, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Perspective: http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02032003.html

By CODE RED

August 10, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Your attention please…..A CODE RED has just been issued…..All Republicans should now hide under their beds……This is a mandatory evacuation…..WARNING….CHICKENHAWKS should also assume the fetal position. CODE RED!!!

By Realist

August 10, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

rarringt, I like all of your ideas. I think to see any of them come to fruition however, we have to be negotiating with a democracy minded leader, not an extremist or a kidnapped government as in Lebanon. I would like to think that the current administrations plans include some of if not similar ideas to yours. But to get everyone to the table, I think we have to continue on the course of military force.

By rednecks are Cowards and Chickenhawks

August 10, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

MV’s post of 2:55 is a good one. I’ll dumb it down for the rednecks and provide a little anecdote.

I had a friend recently return from an extended stay in Kenya. She remarked on the increasing presence of Islamic missionaries in the country, and the large number of mosques (rednecks - mosques are what rednecks call “churches”) being built, especially in the coastal areas. Since Americans send so much money to the Middle East each day, there ends up being plenty of money to build mosques and to proselytize (a fancy word for “gettin’ ‘em to come to Jeezus, ‘xceptin’ of course the Muslim missionary wants them to come to Allah (what the Muslims call Gawd)) for Muslim evangelists.

(For you rednecks, Kenya is a country in eastern Africa. It has a coast on an ocean called the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean is named after the nation of India. The people of India are called Indians, but they are not the Indians you see in westerns. The Indian ocean is on the other side of the earth, a long long way away.)

So, rednecks, every time you fill up your SUV or pickemup gas tank, you send money to sheikhs (rednecks - the guys in dresses George Bush likes to kiss) in Saudi (who give plenty of cash to the Sunni imams (rednecks - a word for preacherman) for their missionary efforts) or the mullahs (rednecks - mullahs are preachermen too) in Iran. You give money to oil companies, who in turn send a big chunk of it to the Middle East, where people there, like good Muslims, give some of it to their mosques, who in turn convert millions of more people for Islam (rednecks - another word for Muslim). Without your pickemup trucks and your SUVs, there would be less Muslims in the world, if you put less gas in them, or drove them less, there would be less Muslims in the world.

The hole in your soul that requires you to buy and drive a big car or truck means that Amurica sends lots of money to the Arabs and they use it to buy rockets, bombs, fund terror cells, and recruit more Muslims. As long as we continue to rely on oil, we will be funding terrorism. Osama says “thank yew, bubba! you moron you.”

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

JK, thanks, now I know what you are talking about. Back around 2000 the socialists in California fixed energy prices; Enron found a way to game the system.

Noting the obvious, if California had not fixed the prices, the market could have corrected itself. By restricting the market, the politicrats made it possible for crooks to thrive. Nothing new about that; socialism corrupts, and absolute socialism corrupts absolutely.

By rednecks are Cowards and Chickenhawks

August 10, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Once again, the redneck misunderestimates the intelligence, courage, and commitment of his/her enemy, and is chagrined when his/her bluff and bluster is called out. Of course, like the animals they are, (except Johnson, who had the decency not to run again), they blame everyone else for their misadventures.

Cases in point:

+The Treason of 1861 - rednecks were confident they could run the Yankee from the field. Despite the incessant bungling of Union generals, the treason was successfully squashed.

+The Vietnam War - led by redneck Commander-in-Chief Lyndon Baines Johnson, over 500,000 American troops were bogged down in needless carnage. They were unable to secure a single objective.

+The Iraq War - despite the braggadoccio of redneck Chickenhawk Chimp-in-Chief and his Mission Accomplished banner, a ragtag group of a few thousand insurgents have kept an occupation army of over 100,000 soldiers chasing their tails, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian casualties, as well as the death of over 2500 soldiers.

+The (so-called) War on Terror - on September 11, 2001; over 3000 people were killed on American soil. The leader of the criminal conspiracy remains at large almost five years later, despite billions of dollars spent in attempts to apprehend.

By jbmlaw

August 10, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

rarringt @ 3:11, that is mostly brilliant. Any reason we don’t privatize oil in Iraq, and send one share/native-born Iraqi instead of socializing the industry?

By Correction

August 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

‘Reagan’ Republican Pete Wilson and his “deregulation” of electricity in California is widely reguarded as the main culprit in the Calif energy crisis.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Thanks jbmlaw,

Per capita nationalization, per share privatization, it’s got the same effect. However, I agree with your deeper point about financial incentives prompting greater efficiency, at least as far as oil recovery is concerned.

By JK

August 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Soooo…. if you decide to use the word “socialist” to define a group of people, or a state government, then it’s okay for honest capitalists to lie, rip them off, and screw them over? Did they teach you that in law school? Wow. Thanks for being a beacon of light. It’s all about the wording. Got it.

By rednecks are Cowards and Chickenhawks

August 10, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

The economies of the Middle East are nothing but oil. The second biggest industry in Saudi Arabia? Used Mercedes parts.

The economies in Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the Emirates are all one-trick ponies - oil. Since OPEC and Kissinger deciding that the price of oil needed to go way up so the Shah could buy American military equipment in the early 1970s, there have been huge population booms in all these countries. Once again, rednecks, Osama and the terrorists say “thank yew, bubba, you moron you.” for sending your future to them.

By SamX

August 10, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

JK, Republicans are ruled by a combination of 3 value systems. Family Values, Conservative Values and Corporate-No-Values.

So yes in this case they can claim “Corporate No-Values.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Actually, Rednecks, that not entirely true.

They’ve taken their profits and invested hundreds of billions into western industry, most notably with us.

They aren’t just spending money on golden palaces; they’re also buying up huge shares of Fortune 1000 companies, land interests, financial instruments, etc.

My point: their economy is our economy, and vice versa.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Morning all,

I only got to make a quickie post yesterday (sometimes I do actually have to work :^) ), but I was struck by how comparatively pleasant and informative the blog was.

Seems that with the first few posts today, we’re on the verge of turning nasty again. I’d ask that we’d try to stay clear of that. Jim’s topic is both rich and ripe for discussion, and we should collectively try to keep it from being spoiled by pandering to some of our baser vices.

Just a thought.

By rarringt

August 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry about that last post. My computer misbehaved.

By Susan

August 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw-Plan B-awesome. Happily I passed that phase of life, so no worries and no need for Plan A, either.

I think rarrringt made several excellent posts regarding plausible Plan B elements.

Rather interesting that no one else had any real Plan B ideas.

That being said, we’re about to lose power in the n’hood.

By rednecks are Cowards and Chickenhawks

August 10, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Good point, rarringt. Of course, their investments here are backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States” (how much is that worth with the Chimp-in-Charge? and with America running huge deficits in government spending and trade) and in companies run by such stellar ethical and moral leaders like Ken “Kenny Boy” Lay.

By Realist

August 10, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

I see rarringt’s ideas as more of an extension of the current plan, not a new plan altogether. The military force and presence in the middle east is the means to an end.

By Blog Dawg

August 10, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?

Who is the enemy we are supposed to be fighting in Iraq?

Not one Republican in the USA can answer those two questions. Not one.

By The Moderate Voice

August 10, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Blog Dawg, calm down. The mission of the US troops in Iraq is to provide security for the Iraqi government and to train and equip the new Iraqi security forces. The enemy we are fighting are Iraqi insurgents. Plain and simple. Now you are probably going to disagree but thats the answer. Whether or not we are being successful is up for debate. For those that think it has been successful please show me an instance where a government installed in a Muslim country by an outside force has worked.

By Markus

August 10, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

Well if anything is to be said about what happened and what was prevented in London today, it speaks volumes as to why I still support the GOP and this administration. Sure there are major problems as mentioned: runaway spending (many on traditionally LIBERAL causes), handing over things like Education Reform to Democrats (Kennedy), and a bloated bureaucracy known as Homeland Security that needs some consolidation and restructuring.

Bush only vetoing one bill, over increasing stem cell research funding, is ludicrous. If this is what’s called “reaching across the isle” then I don’t like it. However, the Connecticut voters and other liberal left democrats and bloggers threw Lieberman out of their party and replaced him with some no-name nobody mainly because of a stance on Iraq and not towing the party line 100%. Now even if I disagree with the GOP more than 10% of the time recently, I’m not about to look elsewhere right now. The war on radical Islam is just too important. So Lieberman “reached across the isle” about 5-10% of the time, and he gets thrown in front of a train. How ironic that the liberal democrat politicians like Dean now during an election cycle preach about Republicans being divisive, yet the minute a moderate Democrat reaches across, his arm is cut off.

Then of course we have the ongoing war on terror. The liberal democrat response is that we are not at war except in Iraq (“Bush’s war” as if the majority of Democrats didn’t vote for authorization) and Afghanistan (which they barely tolerate), and we should withdraw from Iraq yesterday soon followed by Afghanistan. Of course, the ubiquitous “where’s Osama” screech is heard from the radical left, as if they have any better ideas on how to find him (as if they have any better ideas PERIOD). The mindset of an average liberal democrat is that peace can be obtained by diplomatic means via the UN. If we’d just stop supporting Israel, the islamofascists would leave us alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Revelation after revelation has been made from the mullahs to the radical islamofascist supporters that preach “Islam will dominate Europe and eventually the world.” Europe is just a test bed. But alas, the peaceniks over there don’t see the storm brewing on the horizon either. We have the Sheehans and they have the sheepheads.

Sure, this nation can put the Pelosis and the Deans in power. Sure, this nation can feel “good” about itself again and stick it’s head in the sand about evil forces that want us destroyed again. It worked for the Clinton administration. Sure, we can cut funding from the “military war machine” and divert those funds to “free healthcare for all.” Sure, we can give “free college for all” with all the money spent on ensuring we aren’t attacked by evil false prophecy-following islamofascists. Hell why stop there? How about offering “free cars for all!” “Free clothes for all!” “Free housing for all!” “Free appliances for all.” “Free rent for all!” “ Free big screen TVs for all!” “Free vacations for all!” “Mandatory six weeks of vacation offering to all workers!” “Mandatory ten weeks of paid family leave time for all!” “$20/hr minimum ‘living wage’ by all companies including full benefits!” I mean, where does the insanity of liberalism end? I mean, who’s to worry about being attacked if we just leave everybody alone out there and mind our own businesses here and reach for that great socialist society of Liberal Utopia?

The reason I’m still going to support the GOP this fall is because all these “freebies” that liberal democrats want won’t do us a damn bit of good if we’re all DEAD. What’s it going to take to wake American the hell up? Today’s events will probably be looked on by the numbnut fringe loon left as “overhyping” or “scare tactics” for political reasons. Of course, if we do get attacked, the same kook loon left misfits will say that “Bush didn’t do enough.” Just like when Bush shows up for some event, it’s for a “photo-op.” If Bush doesn’t show up for an event, then he just “doesn’t care about anything.” Listening to these liberal ladies squawk like parrots is telling on how we should be so lucky their candyasses aren’t in power, and hopefully won’t be anytime soon.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 10, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

Wednecks: Since when did YOU liberal DemoNcrats become so concerned about “deficits in government spending”? I’d say probably since Bush became President. You “boys” certainly didn’t mind all that huge deficit spending your beloved DemoNcrats did for the decades they were in power before the Republicans took power. But that was different wasn’t it? I guess what REALLY MATTERS is WHAT the money’s being spent on and who’s spending it, doesn’t it? It’s okay when it’s pi$$ed away on government social welfare programs but be sure to set up a lemonade stand if you need to finance a war. BUT I ALSO AGREE that there is a LOT of totally unnecessary spending by Bush and “the boys”. (Remember, I don’t like the A’hole either, BECAUSE I AM a true conservative) You might also be surprised to find that a lot of us have NO LOVE for “Kenny Boy” and all the other corporate criminals, and there’s lots of them out there these days. But nothing will ever be done about any of it because WE’LL ALL keep voting for these same idiots who keep raking in all those huge donations and doling out favors to their big business buddies…while we all continue our silly arguments! No wonder they think WE’RE the idiots!!!

By Jeff

August 10, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

So I no longer get to post at work… (you should SEE how locked down those machines are!!)

All I got to say is:

AMEN MR. WOOTEN!!

By JK

August 10, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Ugotta Dear, please sit down for this shocker: Many of us were pleased as punch when Clinton submitted budgets that progressively pulled in the out-of-control spending, and when the GOP Congress, even though they hated the guy (for being so slick with the babes, you know), voted for these budgets because, well, they just made GOOD SENSE. Yeah! I know! Amazing! Here’s more: Many of us were also thrilled when welfare reform took REAL shape in terms of welfare-TO-WORK programs, and time limits, instead of the ongoing, purposeless drain that had been occurring. REALLY! HONEST TO PEACHES! Close your mouth, Dear, lest you swallow one of those flies.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 10, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

JK: Your version of what happened doesn’t really surprise me. Surely you’re S**Ting me that Bill Clinton “balanced the budget”. The newly elected Republican Congress drug ole Billy boy crying and screaming to sign the balanced budgets. Remember the “contract with America”? It included a promise to balance the budget. That idiot Bill Clinton “ain’t never” even balanced a checkbook! So you might want to take this liberal BS to MoveOn.org! You’ve got people that “understand” over there!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 10, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

JK: Oh, by the way, does the name Tommy Thompson ring a bell with you liberals? He was the former Republican Governor of Wisconsin that brought the “End Welfare as we know it” program to the Federal level. Boy, it’s amazing how you liberals attempt to re-write history! But you just can’t get away with it anymore!

By Markus

August 10, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

@JK:

According to the Bureau of Public Debt, for the fiscal year ending 09/00 the Federal Debt INCREASED by $18B. For the eight years that Clintoon was in office, national debt increased more than $1.6 trillion (with a T). The last year that federal debt actually declined was in 1960. Look it up for yourself lib, and like someone else said, take that bullsheeiot to Moveon.org! It’s amazing what people can excrement on paper and call it the truth… methinks CBS did that.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

By JK

August 10, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Uh-huh. Sure thing, UB. Re-read your post screeching about how we all LUUUUUUV to p-ss that dough on nothin, and tell me again you made an actual point about your neighbors to the left. Right. I pay taxes, too, a—wipe, and don’t appreciate the waste. I guess you’re rich enough to get Bush’s cuts, huh? Lucky YOU.

(BTW, Sparky, the executive branch proposes and submits the budgets for congressional approval — you know, back when we had checks & balances.)

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 10, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Bill Clinton ended “welfare as we know it” and balanced the budget! Duh-huh!!! And don’t forget…he DIDN’T have sex with THAT woman either!!! Duh-huh!!!

By ZooKeeper

August 11, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Is Ugotta one of the gorillas at Zoo Atlanta?