Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More bombs... there you go. Why didn't anyone else think of that?
The fact of the matter is that a huge part of what created this whole mess is Bush's policy of only talking to his friends. You don't do that- all that accomplishes is creating an echo chamber, which is a skill the necons are very gifted at, but in reality it's not a very useful or beneficial skill. Thus, all the input he received on Iraq from inception to now has been basically a bunch of guys telling him what he wanted to hear, and all the input he's received has been wronger than wrong (not poorly implemented- just flat-out, plain-old wrong). And because all that advice and information was pathetically wrong, we are now in a position of weakness. So yeah- like it or not, we do have to talk to Iran and Syria, especially now that we are not in the position of strength where we can pick and choose agendas.
I think it should be every neocon cheerleader's obligation to spend a month in the foreign country of their choice, where access to the mainstream US media is completely cut off. The only lens to the world would be through the media of their "host" country, and its people. I think that would open a lot of people's eyes to what the rest of the world thinks of this country right now, and open people's eyes to the fact that we do not own this planet, and that other countries matter, too.
The media in the Middle East is run by terrorist so who cares what they think. The only thing they are good at is showing terrorist propaganda, same as CNN.
I disagree we are not in a position of weakness, why would we talk to terrorist? Iran and Syria are part of the problem. If we do put ourselves in a position of weakness it will be over for the United States. This Iraq surrender group needs to go back to the drawing board.
How would you decribe Ronald Reagan? Moderate or radical?
Say whatever about his policies, Ronnie knew the game of give & take. Some of the most noteworthy points of his presidency were the results of compromise.
Domestically he managed to realise his policies with a Democratic House. Granted, I think the Chicago school of trickle down freak-o-nomics was wacky on paper, even worse in practice, but he didn't achieve his goals by calling his political opponents UnAmerican EvilDoers.
Internationally he confided in Margaret Thatcher. In spite of being ideologically in tune with him, she was considerably more astute at international relations and Ronnie knew it. He was hard on the rhetoric but took opportunities for dialogue. Look at Gorbachev & Perestroika. The man gave Ronnie an opening and he took it. Who'd have thought that after scolding Mikhail to tear down the Berlin wall, he'd wrap up his presidency with a trip to Moscow?
Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 12-07-2006 at 09:23 PM..
More bombs would accomplish more than we are accomplishing now.
No, it really wouldn't. Bombs don't discriminate between noncombatants and bad guys. Carpet-bombing the Middle East is only going to turn the entire world against us --- and rightly so. You can't bomb your problems away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea
It worked in the past,
When?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea
it's better than asking the terrorist for help. What is your opinion of that?
Moderates stand for absolutely nothing, they have no core values. They stick their finger in the wind and see which way it blows. This goes along the same lines as black and white and right and wrong. Can you give an example of a great moderate?
Excellent point, Sweattea...no pun intended. I still prefer Bill O'Reilly, but if we were all clones, the world would be so boring...and what would we be doing right now, instead of debating and conversing online? Never mind, don't answer that...lol
mb919...Just out of curiousity...how do YOU know who Bush talks to? If you don't know, I don't think it's fair to assume things. I understand that you disagree with him, but please be factual if you decide to state something of that nature.
Last edited by Kimbercuddles; 12-08-2006 at 01:59 AM..
Reason: blonde
mb919...Just out of curiousity...how do YOU know who Bush talks to? If you don't know, I don't think it's fair to assume things. I understand that you disagree with him, but please be factual if you decide to state something of that nature.
It's common knowledge that Bush refuses to talk to states he thinks are sponsoring terrorism. He sees Iran and Syria as terrorist states. The ISG recommended a change in policy where talking to Iran and Syria is necessary, implying that Bush isn't talking to these countries now. I'm not making assumptions.
I first heard Rush in the late 1980s when he had a more local show and he was independent. I drove a courrier route between Sonoma County and the SFO airport. Rush was my salvation from boredom, he was hilarious, witty, and had a ton of gimmicks like sound effects and silly songs, stuff that was cutting edge in talk radio at the time. He made fun of both political parties, he was fairly independent.
Then something happened to him in the early to mid 1990s. He went national and it seems like he cut a deal with the GOP National Committee (or whoever controls Rush these days) because he lost all his independence and just started mouthing the exact same talking points that every other talk show host was using. He has mad game as a talk show host, but it's being wasted on his extreme partisanship. And he's not as funny any more because it's all so predictable. I can listen to one of the Fox News crowd and that will tell me what the talking points are for the day, and sure enough, you spin the dial and there's Ann Coulter, Bill O'Lie-ley, Sean Insanity and all the rest of them saying the exact same things in the same words.
It's small wonder that conservatives in this waning year of 2006 all sound exactly the same. They all listen to the same clones who are all getting their information from the same sources. It's the homogenization of the American Right.
Unfortunately, the Left is trying to imitate this. They shouldn't. The Right still has independents like George Will, Pat Buchanan, Michael Savage (what an appropriate surname!) and Neal Boortz. I like those indies, they actually make me THINK instead of the clones who just march to the beat of the lead drummer.
Rush has no fresh takes. He just preaches to the choir, same old BS every day, LIBerulllllzzzzzzz --- he says that word as if he can make an argument by simply sounding disgusted as he says it, or when he says "HILLary..." Come on, the man is getting senile, he's had too many pills, he needs to move on. Yet when I drive cross-country, all I can find on my radio dial during the late morning-early afternoon is Rush on 5 different AM stations. No wonder the Heartland is Red. They don't have access to any other source of information!
It's common knowledge that Bush refuses to talk to states he thinks are sponsoring terrorism. He sees Iran and Syria as terrorist states. The ISG recommended a change in policy where talking to Iran and Syria is necessary, implying that Bush isn't talking to these countries now. I'm not making assumptions.
The Iraq surrender group are just as qualified as Bush is to run this war. NOT! Why don't they sit down with some military folks instead of someone heading up a law firm that represents the Saudi's.
Why do you keep insisting we sit down and talk with terrorist? Terrorist that want to wipe us and Israel off the face of the map.
Say whatever about his policies, Ronnie knew the game of give & take. Some of the most noteworthy points of his presidency were the results of compromise.
Domestically he managed to realise his policies with a Democratic House. Granted, I think the Chicago school of trickle down freak-o-nomics was wacky on paper, even worse in practice, but he didn't achieve his goals by calling his political opponents UnAmerican EvilDoers.
Internationally he confided in Margaret Thatcher. In spite of being ideologically in tune with him, she was considerably more astute at international relations and Ronnie knew it. He was hard on the rhetoric but took opportunities for dialogue. Look at Gorbachev & Perestroika. The man gave Ronnie an opening and he took it. Who'd have thought that after scolding Mikhail to tear down the Berlin wall, he'd wrap up his presidency with a trip to Moscow?
Evil Empire
In a March 8, 1983, speech in Orlando, Fla., Ronald Reagan shocked sensibilities worldwide when he declared the USSR the “focus of evil in the modern world”; it was an “evil empire.” It was impossible to argue with this claim. The USSR was unspeakably oppressive. The atheistic regime that carried out a “wholesale war on religion,” as Mikhail Gorbachev put it, was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its own people, at a rate and scale that made the Spanish Inquisition look mild. (Vladimir Lenin killed more people in the first six months of the revolution than leaders of the Spanish Inquisition killed over six decades.) A complete catalogue of Kremlin crimes would fill libraries.
Nonetheless, Reagan was vilified for his language.
The Liberals didn't like this, this is a model of how they would like the United States run.
BTW as far as trickle down economics goes I never got a job from a poor person and I doubt the poor are in any shape to hire anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My take on Rush Limbaugh
