Quote:
I never suggested that gun control or Iraq is the singular reason you choose to back Obama. I just said that if I believed the way you do, I would buy all the ammo I could get my hands on.

Quote:
And to make it clear, I am 100% for stomping terrorists into a greasy smear.  But I do not, and have never thought that we could achieve a net win such that our effort would be paid off as a benefit to the US.  No slight is intended to the troops (I love one of 'em) but the cost paid in terms of destabilizing the middleeast and loss of international stature in pushing the attack is unlikely to bear any positive dividends. 

It's a question of how best to absorb the downside of this approach and to balance the books as best we can under the circumstances.

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Care to elaborate on that?

Love to 

When the subject is terroism, the US has been hopelessly naive for years.  With the huge stores of potential energy in planes, chemcals (fertilizer?), germ warfare, etc we need to deal with the reality that a few madmen can wreak disproportionate havok on the world.  When the planes hit the towers I wasn't suprised.  It had been tried before.  (I don't have the cite in front of me but I can dig it up.  During the Regan administration a man attempted to hijack a plane out of Baltimore with the intention of plowing it into the Whitehouse)

As much as we might like a real enemy to fight against we don't have one here.  This is not a country or even an organizd force.  it's a bunch of loosely orgainized criminals.  They should be ground into the dirt and their graves despoiled. 

BUT...

Iraq had nothing to do with it.  We went in under false pretenses (objectively) and destabilized the one secular regime in the area.  It cost us money, international prestige and gave the enemy a recruiting banner. 

Binladen was looking for a way to drag the US into a war in the Middle East and Bush salivated when the bell rang.  (Pavlov's president)  Rather than run the crimiinals to ground he put the real mission aside to pursue a neo-con fantasy where we make a happy democracy and the neighbors go "Oh wow! Gotta get me one!"

The middle east is not going to be a happy democracy anytime soon.  That requires a population ready to accept the responsibility.  It's not there yet.

So for our troubles we've given alqueda a recruitment poster (we invaded without obvious provocation.  Sure, you can make an argument that it was justifed, but to those in the country...?  When the WMD evidence did not come out on our side...?)... we've given them a training ground (Saddam would NOT have tolerated this, despite being a blackhearted scumbag.  His interest was in Iraq, not Islam)... we've squandered a great deal of international good will by virtue of being wrong about the WMDs... and to top it off, the goerment we're putting into place is sympathetic to Iran.

It's simply NOT a winning proposition no matter how you spin it.

We can't put the genie back into the bottle and should attempt to minimize our losses but this is not and never will be a "victory" scenario.

Even when you grant credence to the curent administration and their "surge" strategy... It was a means to an end.  To give room for political reconcilliation.  And it ain't happening.  In abundance.

And the worst of it is that this quagmire is reducing the effective force that we can bring to bear on those acutallly responsible for 9/11.  We cannot muster enough troops to deal with Afghanistn or Pakistan if necessary.

We ABSOLUTELY need to take retaliation against those who harm the US, but we need to keep our efforts focussed.  By allowing the degree of collarterall damage we have here (effectively a country) we only benefit the end goals of the terrorists.

Binladen is a cave dweller.  By pretending he is an enemy worthy of war we have conferred on him a stature he does not deserve.  he's a criminal, end of story.  By treating him like an actual threat we're helping to make him one.  In todays world any creative individual has the ability to disproportionately cause havok.  We need to cope with it, because it won't change. (think McVeigh... Did we declare war on Michigan?  Or perhaps a better parallel would be Ohio)

Quote:
This is getting pretty funny.  Even if we take the article at face value... so what? 

He knew a socialist therefore he is one?  That kind of logic doesn't pass the laugh test.

I've known a number of racists in my life... does that make me a racist?

As far as endorsements go... Anyone in politics is going to get an endorsement from someone they would rather have just kept their mouth shut.  With our system being what it is, endorsements are  not always given to someone who shares all your values but to the person who's values are less odious then the other guys.

Quote:
Sorry, but we're not talking about the odd whacko who endorses a candidate out of the blue.  We're talking about 20 year associations in the case of Wright, and less than satisfactory answers as to why it took him so long to denounce the man's racism, anti-semitism, and blatant hatred of America.  I don't give a damn how reluctant the media is to cover it, or that the Dems think we are persecuting Obama, it is still a legitimate question.  If the situation were reversed, and it was McCain in the same situation, the hue and cry would be thunderous coming from the left and their media cronies.

Anybody who can't see that is being less than honest with themselves, and that is being very charitable.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I can only right now make one comment, Snark. While I understand what you are saying about the courts. I apply a totally different standard. We have something called the Constitution and it is the Courts job to interpret that document, NOT to legislate and create rights out of whole cloth for anyone which are not there, and in many cases cannot even be interpreted to be there...but that too is whole nuther story.

Snark, I am not worried about you having a membership in the thought police, you and have agreed and disagreed many times over the years and i always enjoy a discussion with you.

BTW, Let me repeat, I am no fan of John McCain, he was not my first or my second choice, BUT I believe him to be preferable to the alternative. You haven't lived until you have been the target of John's temper, but when all is said and done he listens, he may not agree but he listens.

Skip

Well Skip, the problem is that both sides legislate and create rights out of whole cloth.  The right has made a cottage industry out of their "activist judge" story but both sides are guilty in this.  (An "activist judge" is someone who disagrees with the speaker)

For my part a huge temper is a serious reason to disqualify a cantidate.  Some of McCain's behavior has been reprehensibe when his dander is up.  With Obama at least I believe that he'll think things through before making a decision. 

I have no confidence that either will come to the right one at the end, but angry decisions are almost NEVER right.  Sometimes when thought through you get to the right decision, even if for the wrong reasons.

Quote:
Quoting Snark:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Your statement implies that you have seen McCain make decisions in anger. Which ones?

Heya Dan,

His temper is fairly well documented at this point.  There's enough evidence in that direction that I have no serious reason to doubt that it's an issue and his current behavior (look at the last debate performance) is surely in line with what's been reported.

I can identify with that.  I have one hell of a temper as well.  But I have the luxury of waiting till the next day before dealing with most of the situations that anger me.  The president doesn't necissarily get that chance. 

And as I said to Skip... given his campaign... does he really appear to have the leadership qualities or the temperment necessary for the job?

On some level I would be more confortable with somene I disagree with that is reasoned in their approach than someone with my values who acts without considering consequences...

"The road to hell..." etc

I guess temperament is as good a reason as many I have heard for voting against someone. Especially when that decision is based on one's own experiences with one's self. Personally, I have never know McCain to act without considering the consequences and I believe any review of his record will reflect my belief in this matter.

I will say that I feel I'm likely to buy larger amounts of ammo in the near future than I normally pruchase.

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Snark:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Your statement implies that you have seen McCain make decisions in anger. Which ones?

Heya Dan,

His temper is fairly well documented at this point.  There's enough evidence in that direction that I have no serious reason to doubt that it's an issue and his current behavior (look at the last debate performance) is surely in line with what's been reported.

I can identify with that.  I have one hell of a temper as well.  But I have the luxury of waiting till the next day before dealing with most of the situations that anger me.  The president doesn't necissarily get that chance. 

And as I said to Skip... given his campaign... does he really appear to have the leadership qualities or the temperment necessary for the job?

On some level I would be more confortable with somene I disagree with that is reasoned in their approach than someone with my values who acts without considering consequences...

"The road to hell..." etc

I guess temperament is as good a reason as many I have heard for voting against someone. Especially when that decision is based on one's own experiences with one's self. Personally, I have never know McCain to act without considering the consequences and I believe any review of his record will reflect my belief in this matter.

I will say that I feel I'm likely to buy larger amounts of ammo in the near future than I normally pruchase.

You, too, eh?