Political discussion thread

crimhead wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I think even if their old as long as they have their mental faculties in tact, why not let them hang on as long as they can serve?  Granted I would have liked to see Strom Thurman go away a lot sooner than he did.  But given the number of old geezers in the senate, don't expect them to vote to change the rules anytime soon. Nor do I see them changing it after they are gone. They like having those lifetime jobs that the rest of us can't seem to get.

Come on, considering out political leanings either one of us could be easily elected senator from our respective states.


Edited by Slartibartfast - May 18 2009 at 15:51

I think even if their old as long as they have their mental faculties in tact, why not let them hang on as long as they can serve?  Granted I would have liked to see Strom Thurman go away a lot sooner than he did.  But given the number of old geezers in the senate, don't expect them to vote to change the rules anytime soon.

Edited by Slartibartfast - May 18 2009 at 15:51

So Sen. Robert Byrd D-WV, was hospitalized Friday due to a temperature spike from an infection. My question to you is....Is 91 years old too old for someone to be in politics? Or is it the fault of the electorate for not voting out or getting another option for someone who has been in Congress/.Senate for over 50 years?

Edited by crimhead - May 18 2009 at 12:58

The most effective  weapon terrorists have found to wield against us isn't  the headline-grabbing  suicide bomber or even the deadly roadside bomb, the IED. Such weapons can  harm us, but they can't stop us. Terror's super-weapon is the lie. Lying about  civilian casualties is the one sure way to impede or even halt US (or  Israeli) operations, to force such tight restrictions on our troops that  they can't win. The casualty con's so effective as both propaganda and tactic that terrorists everywhere have  adopted the technique. It's been so successful that our enemies long ago  transitioned to the next phase: creating civilian casualties and blaming  us. It works. The  media love the charge. Our  troops and pilots are always guilty even if proven innocent. Because so many on the left want us to be guilty. Few journalists  bother to investigate. If the Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas says it,  it must be so. In Media Wonderland, terrorists never lie. Now every successful strike on a Taliban  target generates the instant claim that the dead were all civilians. And it isn't just  the media who back the Taliban. The Obama administration - a case study in instant foreign-policy ineptitude - signs up, too. This week, Taliban  terrorists publicly beheaded three civilians in Afghanistan's Farah province, then herded women and children into compounds from which they fought  government forces and US advisers. With a vicious  ground battle under way, the Talibs knew attack aircraft would appear. According to military sources, they set up the target. And, just in case, they slaughtered those women and children with grenades before any aircraft  appeared. The entire massacre was a planned media event. And who gets  blamed? Not the Taliban. Before the smoke cleared, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was apologizing. (Apologizing is one thing this administration does with real enthusiasm.) Our Secretary of State  played right into the Taliban's hands. It was instinctive on her part.  Clinton and her new Cabinet peers know that our military's evil. No need to say a single word about  the Taliban's atrocity. A few hours later, President Obama stepped up to his mike and read a prewritten statement about his meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's bookie-in-chief, President Asif Ali Zardari. We'd need to comb the historical records, but it's just possible that no American president  ever read a statement so out of touch with on-the-ground reality. The platitudes were thick, the substance was thin and the vision was pure fantasy. No criticism of Karzai for consistently  playing the populist card and backing Taliban claims. No criticism of Zardari for cowering while the Taliban overruns his country and its huge military twiddles its thumbs, dreaming of a war with India. No, our president  announced that he's going to bring  civilian resources to bear now, sending $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan. Yet self-impoverished Pakistan has more than 170  million angry Muslims. Our president's going to make them our pals for an annual nine bucks a head? It wouldn't matter if we poured in $90K for every Pak. Multi-year development projects are useless against an insurgency that's 60 miles from the capital. We're turning a home fire extinguisher on an inferno. The Pakistanis have to fight. If they're not  willing to fight to save their own country, there's nothing we can  do. Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, the Taliban strategy  of creating civilian casualties - and lying about who the casualties are -  is undercutting any potential effectiveness of the 21,000 more troops we're  sending to that worthless, hopeless country. At the end of the day, the Taliban strategy works because our own government sides with the terrorists against our troops. Instead of begging for forgiveness, Clinton needed to take a firm position. She should have said: "The deaths in Farah province were entirely the fault of  the Taliban. To punish these terrorists and better protect Afghan civilians, we're loosening our rules of engagement. We will not tolerate this cynical use of women and children as unwilling weapons of war. These war criminals will be hunted down and killed." Instead, Hillary blamed our military. Again. This is war, Madame Secretary. Tragic  mistakes happen, but the incident in Farah province wasn't an error. It  was a brutal, cynical set-up. And you stabbed our troops in the back. Again. If the Obama  administration doesn't want to fight, it should bring our troops home now. And let's see how much good those civilian-aid workers do.

Edited by Slartibartfast - May 16 2009 at 12:04

JJLehto wrote: And if we get into a "whos crazier debate" Rush or Ron Paul well...thats a toughie

Please do not lump Ron with Rush.  I actually have respect for Ron's opinions.

Padraic wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: So if you are a Republican and proud of it, I am not. I would never accuse you of being one without getting to know you better and you showing yourself to be one.  Fair enough? Sure - sounds like a good approach to take with, well, everyone.

Apologies if I insulted you then.

Edited by Slartibartfast - May 12 2009 at 06:18

crimhead wrote: Surprise,surprise. Dick Cheney was on Meet the Press this morning and he sided with Rush Limbaugh instead of Colin Powell when Powell commented that the GOP needed to move more towards the center. Why does Dick Cheney matter anymore? The man is out of office, he has little or no credibiliry and yet news organizations keep giving him a forum in which to speak.

actually the one thing I respect him for is his integrity.. of course it's integrity about unfortunate things, but it's integrity

Henry Plainview wrote: crimhead wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#30631653 Why do people even pay attention to Keith? The only difference between him and Rush is that Keith is occasionally funny in between the tirades.

This.

Also @ The Doctor:  I just needed a name change, sorry that my old one is missed.

Henry Plainview wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: Umm, most Libertarian's are far from anarchy. They are just against having the government try to run everyhting in the world, which is what both of the main parties seem to want. I think some of them go to far, but if a few more got elected it could serve to pull this country in the right direction. I know they're not true anarchists, but I've read more than one article by libertarians talking about how Somalia proves no government isn't as bad as you think. Which drastically misses the point, as it only proves that no government is better than a government actively trying to harm its citizens.

 ^ yeah and try swaying a modern society that Somalia is a good model