KaskadskyjKozak

Listen Richard, I have not bought anything I am told without question, that should be evident even to a dolt as yourself. We must ask questions, then formulate a position. Is it acceptable if N. Korea has nukes? What would the potential consequences be? What should our policy be? You prove my point in my comments to Squid. You are just a sniper with no ideas of your own, just like the majority of your politically-like-minded ilk. As long as you have no ideas, then don't be surprised when someone else makes the decisions for you.

1) email or internet discussion forums are flawed in their inability to provide the 'back and forth' of a conversation. And there are no visual clues, voice inflections, and so on. 2) this site is replete with 'caricatures' of the right, Christians, conservatives, etc. To criticize me for supposedly engaging in this is rather ironic. Whenever I attempt a serious give and take with someone, it always seems to lead to the same old cliches: "Bush sucks", "Iraq is a quagmire", "blood for oil". blah blah. 3) I don't know what you are referring to with straw man comments, but if it is the post to which you directly replied, then let me clarify. Bush's detractors continually harp on how shitty his policies are, but never espouse any of their own. It is way too easy and convenient to snipe and engage in monday morning quarterbacking. I want to see if anyone has any constructive policy suggestions regarding Iran and N. Korea. So far, there are none. The left is waiting for Bush to "fail" and then attack his policy, whatever it was. I don't see any thought about the issues facing us up front, yet alone how to address them. This is Iraq allover again - what do we do this time? As for the original topic of this thread, you can be damn sure, that the "blame America first crowd", including professors like Churchill, and that seditious lawyer, will be spewing all kinds of rhetoric about how we are to blame for Iran and N. Korea - we made them build the bomb, we made them kill people, we deserve what we get. All of us are, after all, "little Eichmans"...

What if N. Korea invades S. Korea again? What if they launch a nuke at S. Korea? What if a dirty bomb goes off in the US, and there is strong evidence (but doubt enough for the ACLU types to wring their hands over) that the source was the N. Korea nuclear weapons program? What if China says that if we retaliate against N. Korea that they will retaliate against us? The pretense for war in Iraq was: WMD + dictator who might use it + imminent threat (weapons could wind up in terrorists' hands). Unless N. Korea is lying, two out of three of these points are certainly TRUE in N. Korea - no debate about this. What should be done about this now, especially if N. Korea attempts nuclear blackmail, or continues in their irrational intransigence? Those are the questions that should be discussed, but instead the Bush-haters continue to spout off about the folly of the "axis of evil speech", and devise ridiculous conspiracy theories - like how he wants to invade Iran and convert the Muslims.

If you're looking for a true madman, you'd better pay attention to Kim Jong Il (or however that human Chia-Pet spells his name).

I remember hearing reports during the first few days of the movie "Independence Day" that the movie audiences cheered when the aliens blew up the capital building... Samuel Clemens has some classic quotes that come to mind regarding our leaders: click here

Yes, I am using the rhetorical "you". And I am not trying to argue the case for (or against) military intervention in Iraq or Kosovo, but point out where most people (maybe not YOU the person) exhibit profound hypocrisy in their rationalizations for the (lack of) support of various policies. There has so far been no military intervention in either N. Korea or Iran. There are security risks in both countries (- or are there?). I'd like to hope people can start to formulate their positions w/r/t what should be done in those two situations irrespective of who is currently the president. What should we do now? When would military action be justified? Last time I checked there is no oil in N. Korea, but plenty of human suffering. Ulterior motives? Devil's advocate, out...

Was flipping through talk radio stations last night and listened to that idiot O'Reilly for a few minutes. He had (I believe) R. Kennedy Jr. on as a guest. He claimed that the US could eliminate dependence on mideast oil and reduce emissions significantly by raising gas mileage 7 or 8 m.p.g. Seems doable, and a reasonable step in the right direction to me. Unfortunately, it is being blocked by *both* parties because of special interests.

Gee, you weren't "too keen". Isn't that special. You also weren't vociferously criticizing Clinton to the degree you do so w/r/t to Bush's policies, now were you? Seems the intensity of your indignation is directly proportional to partisan politics. Ah, but how often do we hear that there is "no threat from Iraq", implying "no national security" issue. One would conclude that this would be a litmus test for those making the argument w/r/t the necessary conditions for the use of military force. But you say there was "no ulterior motive" w/r/t Kosovo, just a "humanitarian mission". Meaning "no national security issue". That's the first point of hypocrisy. Then, when those who argue that the current mission in Iraq is a "humanitarian issue", that is shot down as a legitimate reason for our presence - "the Iraqis need to take care of their own problems". But, in Kosovo, a "humanitarian mission" was justification for the use of force. That's the second point of hypocrisy.

You miss the point. Think "political role reversal".

If she swallowed, we could've save a hell of a lot of time, money and energy! Ditto for doing laundry...

And you forgot to mention they were all ATHEISTS.

Bullshit. Kosovo

1) I took the remark as being a way to make an old man feel good, and nothing more. 2) The remark was extrapolated well beyond the "applauding audience". It was applied to ALL CONSERVATIVES in the US by the left-wing spin-meisters. If you refuse to acknowledge any demagoguery on "your side" than don't expect the "other side" to make similar acknowledgements.

The left does the same in it's characterizations of misstatements on the right, or individuals on the fringe. For the former, consider Trent Lott's statements on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's birthday. The left characterized these as "exposing how conservatives really think about race issues". It was questionable, in fact, whether the statements indict Lott specifically; extending them to everyone on the right was a despicable slandering of all conservatives in general.

I don't drink brass monkey like to be funky Nickname Eazy E your 8 ball junkie Bass drum kicking to show my shit Rap a hole in my dick boy I don't quit Crowd rocking motherfucker from around the way I got a six shooter yo I'm mean and brave Rolling through the hood to find the boys Kick dust and cuss crank up some noise Police on my drawers I have to pause 40 ounce in my lap and it's freezing my balls Hook a right turn and let the boys go past and I say to myself, "They can kiss my ass" Hip to get drunk got the 8 in my lips Put in the old tape Marvin Gaye's greatest hits Turn the shit up had the bass cold whomping Cruising through the east side south of Compton See a big ass and I say word I took a look at the face, and the bitch was to the curb Hoes on my tip for the title I'm holding Eazy-E's fucked up and got the 8 ball rolling

Nalivaj

Were you farting under the blanket all night?

My biggest gripe with her in the past was that she was riding on the coattails on her husband and taking power without earning it (e.g. through an election). She's paying her dues now, and as such I find her to be more legitimate.

She is a very strong candidate - much stronger than Gore or Kerry. And a lot smarter too. She has been playing the political game very well this past year, and the move to NY as a senator had added credibility and gravitas to her as a serious candidate. Like who? Give examples of such potential candidates for each party that this would apply to - meaning people you could vote for?

You'll be singin' a different tune when she gets the nomination.

Hillary wouldn't allow it anyway.

Then Bubba could be reelected.

Google "Kerry IQ". You'll turn up some interesting links.

More likely certain hypocrites on the left would revolt against the idea of a "chick" running the country. Nice try - keep telling yourself this. The real reason the Dems hate this prospect is that they fear losing their de facto psychological stranglehold on the black vote through race-baiting and socio-economic dependency. Without the solid 90+% Black constituency, Dems will slip farther from ther 51-48 minority - deeper into the abyss.

I think Hillary would beat Condi, especially if Obama is on the ticket.