NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:35 PM) Nuke, This post is the prime example of our nation's biggest problem. You have neatly categorized stuff as Us or Them. We are all the US. The Dems don't go and hibernate during a GOP term nor do the GOP during a Dem. I find it disgusting that you cannot embrace all Americans, just the ones who back the GOP. And by the way, some pretty disgusting individuals call themselves conservatives. We have accomplished all these things as a nation. Democratic led initiatives have led to cleaner water, cleaner air, and safer working conditions. But that didn't happen with just Dems working on it. It happened with a great deal of compromise and cooperation. You ave pointed out how Kerry supported the initial invasion, would you like to give him credit for the fall of Afghanistan? I have? I'm not the only one.......did you read the post I quoted when I made that one? Evidently not.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:30 PM) We also live in a country that has checks and balances. Unfortunately, this isn't a world of ham and plaques. That means that occasionally, minorities need to be protected from abuse and violations of their liberties. It's not something I expect everyone to understand. Maybe once the conservatives find themselves on the short end of their freedoms and liberties, they'll understand what progressives have been talking about all along. AHHH But you already are... The ACLU is hard at work trying to stamp out any trace of christianity in this country. Unfortunately for you , when you piss off the majority that creates a backlash and it's one you're having a hard time dealing with.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:18 PM) Ok, Vietnam was a mistake. And lots of progressives knew that. And it was also apparent to many - well before the days of LBJ picking out targets - that it was not a threat to our national security. So you could make the argument that LBJ was guilty of the same thing that our current president is guilty of, having a s***ty foreign policy. You didn't even mention Carter's decision to withhold aid from Ethiopia because of its decision to align with the USSR in 1979, causing roughly one million deaths from starvation. I'll let that slip though, not many people know about the Sunday School's teacher deviation from morality. I never debated about whether or not Afghanistan was the right thing to do. It was from the beginning. They clearly helped to make 9/11 happen by hosting Bin Laden, and refusing to surrender him. Nobody here ever debated Afghanistan, so don't line me up and say that I'm against that theater. Gulf War II differs from the other three conflicts significantly because there was no provocation into attack. Iraq did not invade another state in 2002 or 2003. Iraq was not linked to a single instance of terrorism against the United States or its allies - (and if you bring up monetary gifts to suicide bombers' families, than we oughta been bombing Saudi Arabia too) and didn't meet the same criteria as the other three theaters. Further, there was already a containment regime around Iraq that was suiting our policy just fine for the previous dozen years and insured that Hussein couldn't do anything major without us knowing... and without causing any significant American casualties. So, no, these four theaters are not the same. Two were ideological based. One was a response to a direct attack on American soil, and the other was based on a pipe dream from one small segment of the American politic. Korea was not a mistake. The decision to fight Vietnam was not a mistake, the way we fought it was the real mistake and it was a tragic one. Afghanistan, even most of the left agrees that was necessary. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq 2 were all fought on percieved threats to our national security.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:09 PM) So the only solution to get something to stick is to put it in the constitution. Because if its in there, it can't be unconstitutional. Listen, you may be willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not. There's not a lot of things I'll fight for. But I'll fight for my freedom and I'll fight for yours and anyone else's. Because its the right thing to do. Its the progressive thing to do. And its the American thing to do. Does that go for state constitutions as well? Like I said. You are hypocrites for imposing the will of the very few on the many by way of litigation. You are all for choice alright, just so long as it doesn't run contrary to your beliefs. The people vote for the people who enact the laws and in some states they enact them themselves via ballot initiative. Suddenly the will of the people is null and void because a small minority find the laws that the majority pass objectionable?

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:00 PM) The Korean war was fought by US troops under UN command, by the way. And was a response to Communist North Korea invading West backed South Korea. Sadly, due to a miscalculation on the part of the US Army command, the US continued to press beyond Pyongyang. Had our side stopped at the capital when it fell, chances are that the DPRK would be no more. Oh yeah, the Republicans controlled Congress, 1946-1954. We went to the aid of an ally attacked in Korea, but then again I guess Progressives are just a bunch of pussy peaceniks. Vietnam was started under Kennedy, again in a fight against communism. And that is a fight where blame can be shared. Roughly have of the 58,000 dead were under Nixon's watch. Last time I checked, progressives don't claim Nixon as their own. This too was fought under an ideological imperative, although many progressives had realized that this war was unwinnable and had sought an exit from Vietnam by the mid 1960s. There really was no difference between the 4 wars in question. Korea, Vietnam, Afghinastan and Iraq were all started because the government percieved a threat to our national security. So why were the 1st 2 ok but not the last 2? You're absolutely right about Vietnam BTW. It was unwinnable because the left ensured that we fought that war with both hands tied behind our backs. Was it not "progressive" Lyndon Johnson who sat in the White House basement at 2 AM night after night picking targets that individual pilots could strike? Was it not Lyndon Johnson who expressly prohibited the Air Force from attacking the NVA's air defenses before they were operational then had them attacked when they were nearly impenetrable which directly resulted in the capture or death of hundreds of pilots? Was it not Lyndon Johnson who said we could not go into Cambodia and deny the NVA its safe haven there and was it not the left who called Nixon a butcher for bombing Hanoi and going into Cambodia?

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:42 PM) Nuke: How many of those amendments would have passed banning interracial marriage in the 1950's? Would those have been the right thing to do? Funny, how in these circumstances too many conservatives, and people in general, can't seem to determine right from wrong, but seem to have a clear idea of black and white when it comes to putting American lives at risk. Before you say that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are two different things, remember this. They both involve consenting adults in a republic where our foundations clearly state that "All Men are Created Equal." So why does the government have any business telling people who they can and can't get married to, provided that they are legitimate consenting adults? But I thought this whole argument was about progressives supporting people's right to choose. By that logic you should be supporting both the gay marriage amendment and your hypothetical interracial marriage ban. When people choose something you don't agree with does that suddenly make them forfeit their right to choose? The people of those 11 states voted to ban gay marriage and a small group of gay rights activists and their lawyers seek to defy the will of the people by challenging them in court. This is nothing new to the left though. When Proposition 187 passed in California in 1994 the left tied it up in court and prevented it from ever taking effect. Now that Arizona has passed a similar amendment the left can be expected to do much the same thing. A bunch of hypocrites is what you people are. You complain about not infringing on people's right to choose and letting them think for themselves but when they disagree with you and enact laws that run contrary to your beliefs then they are suddenly a bunch of "wing nuts" and you do everything in your power to frustrate them. Explain that away.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:15 PM) Wow, so you only read GOP spin points huh? Progressives don't believe that government runs your life better than you do. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe the government should say whether a same sex couple is less equal than a heterosexual couple. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should decide what a woman should do with her body in the beginning stages of pregnancy. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should have the right to exercise the death penalty against its own citizens. Progressives believe in rewarding hard work. So those who have a family that works hard for the little that they have should have the opportunity for basic medical care, a solid education for their kids, an insurance policy like Social Security to protect against financial default in old age. Progressives also believe that the weakest among us have a place at the table in a civil society. Progressives believe in responsible, fair governance. A government that allows for transparency in itself and one where the people control the government and not the other way around. Progressives believe in times of national crisis that everyone should share the burden and make sacrifices. Progressives are what made this country great in the 30s and 40s. Progressives are who helped the Army integrate in World War II, who got electricity to rural areas where the market wouldn't bear it, who got the elderly and infirm the basic protection they deserve in a republic that values people. What do the Conservatives have to show for their time in office? McCarthy, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden. It was conservatives like Henry Kissinger who helped to develop the "Salvadoran option." It is conservatives like our president who want to recodify discrimination in our constitution, and who talk about fighting the war on terror while leaving our borders unprotected. But, hey, the people know better right? As long as they're on your side apparently. The ban on gay marriage was voted on by 11 states and passed by all. Evidently the people want it and not the state. How do progressives propose to reward hard work? By taking away from those who earn and re-distributing their wealth to those who don't? Spare me. Socialist robbery is all that is. What do Conservatives have to show for their time in office? The demise of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the freeing of millions of people in Eastern Europe, the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban regime, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Recodify discrimination? If by that you mean an end to racial quotas ( reverse discrimination ) then you can add that to their list of accomplishments. Explain how we've left our borders unprotected when we've spent billions to hire border patrol officers, deployed the most sophisticated technology available to help catch illegal immigrants and increased funding to improve the monitoring of our harbors by an exponential amount, Also please explain to me why this is such a concern to you now when before 9-11 cracking down on illegal immigration was government sponsored racisim? That's one thing I can't quite compute. BTW, "Progressives" have Vietnam and Korea on their record and I seem to recall us losing about 100 times as many men in those 2 wars as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:13 PM) Much of the same could be said about modern "conservatives" in power -- the state knows better than gays to let them get married, have equal rights etc. The state knows better for education via NCLB. The state hates welfare for the poor but has no problem subsidizing the already rich... The f***ing up of America is a bi-partisan effort. It is the people that don't want gay marriage.......In all states where a ban on it was proposed it passed in the last election. By fighting such things in court your side is defying the will of the people. The state runs education on all levels yet "progressives" are opposed to funding school vouchers for parents who want to send their kids to private schools. Setting standards for states to follow is not a bad thing. Handing money to people who dont work as opposed to giving tax breaks to companies who employ people and drive the economy? Tough choice.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:06 PM) Well I have no idea what that whole post is about but by progressive I mean allowing gays to marry, getting rid of the death penalty, improving education instead of military, considering environmental problems. I don't see any of these types of things happening. ------------ John Spartan: [to machine on wall] Thanks a lot you s***-brained, f***-faced, ball breaking, duck f***ing pain in the ass. Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute. Not only should the death penalty not be abolished it should be expanded and imposed in a uniform manner to cover Murder 1, Rape and the sale of narcotics. Improving education instead of the military? Funny how people b**** about a lack of education spending when there's something like 5 BILLION dollars in federal education funds that go unspent every year.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:55 PM) John F Kerry, September 30, 2004. John F Kerry, September 4, 2004 John F Kerry, August 10, 2004 John F Kerry, September 9 2003 John F Kerry, May 3 2003. So enough about where Kerry stood, ok? Not enough. Go back to 2002 when he was on the Sunday morning talk shows saying up and down "Iraq is a major threat and needs to be dealt with." Notice also how he gets farther and farther away from the position he shared with Bush in 2001 and 2002 the closer we got to the election.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:45 PM) Sorry dude, but not all "progressives" are peaceniks. Progressives believe in liberty, equality and responsibility. That means that progressives believe that war is sometimes necessary, but they want to make sure that there's an airtight case for the war or that the American public is truly at grave and immediate danger. Fighting a war of choice is not progressive, you're right. Because it's not responsible. I agree with you on 1/3rd of your argument. Point 1. Progressives don't believe in liberty. How do you explain Political Correctness (I.E. thought control ) ? How do you explain social engineering? How do you explain their line of thought that suggests government can run peoples lives better than people can? Point 2. Equality? I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. They wont be done trying to re-distribute people's wealth until the squeege guy has the same amount as Bill Gates does. The problem with that is that it was tried once.......in the Soviet Union, and what happened was that everyone was equal alright.........equally miserable. Unless you happened to be in the top circles of government that is. Point 3. How on earth can you say that they believe in responsibility when they are of the opinion that people cannot be trusted to run their own lives? How can you say they believe in responsibility when they want the government to micromanage even the most minute aspects of people's life from cradle to grave?

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:25 PM) You're right. John Kerry and Al Gore did needlessly support combat in Iraq. However, they also said that troops shouldn't proceed into Iraq without a phase four, post war plan. But I guess saying that "you should have planned the whole thing out" is the same as saying "you should never have gone in the first place." First of all let me say that I agree with you that there wasn't any postwar plan to speak of. I recall the weeks immediately after major combat ended we were over there wondering what, exactly, we were supposed to be doing. "You should have planned the whole thing out" is not what Kerry, Gore and others said. They said, in true Monday Morning QB fashion that Bush was a liar ( yes they used that word many many times over ) when they held the very same positions about Iraq that Bush did. I guess that makes them liars too huh?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:11 PM) http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501d.asp And Nuke -- with the military industrial complex being in place with massive amounts of corporate welfare and bailouts, how is that "personal responsibility"? Or the current "Its not our fault that the intel was so bad so we didn't make a mistake" line from the Bushistas -- why not take "personal responsibility" and say "We f***ed up!" "And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military industrial complex?" -- Murray Rothbard I couldn't come up with more bulls*** than that if I went to Pamplona, Spain with a shovel. War is a necessary evil because this is a nasty world and smiles and flowers from "progressives" aren't going to keep anybody safe. The fact is that nobody wants to go to war just for the hell of it. Tell me who on the right favors conscription? Everyone within the Bush Administration has stated innumerable times that there will be no draft. In fact, the people that want the draft re-instated are all LIBERALS! The right favors putting money back in the taxpayers pocket rather than in the hands of government. The left wants confiscatory tax rates to re-distribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't. That's socialism.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:17 PM) Awwwwwwwwwwww SNAP! Seriously, changing your mind when it becomes obvious that your position is flawed is bad? When there are American lives on the line? Sorry, I wanted a President who wasn't concerned with standing firm as much as protecting the lives of Americans. Funny but I kept hearing them say "It's time to do something about Iraq". Well someone did something and here they are with their 20-20 hindsight calling Bush a liar and a war monger when they held the same position he did. It's not flexibility, it's hypocrasy.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) Here's a thought. A government wants to control how aid is distributed within its own borders. After 9/11, if the French or Germans wanted to bring troops into NYC to help with recovery efforts, do you think the US would have stood for that? Just because you're being charitable doesn't mean you suddenly have free reign over a country's sovereignty. I dont recall us wanting to change anything about how the Indonesian government wanted to run their country. About all I really remember hearing about was how we were going to build roads, clear debris, treat the wounded and sick and provide them with food and drinkable water. None of which they were capable of without foregin assistance. The comparison does not hold at all. First we're called "Stingy" by the U.N. & now that the full resources of our country are brought to bear to help those in need we're told we're not wanted anymore. And so the America bashing around the world continues. :rolly

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 05:40 PM) There's a difference between a natural disaster and a march to war that started with lies, deception, intelligence from 2 spies (Israel and Iran) in order to garner political and economic capital for neo-conservatives is power. That's funny because there were 2 American's who were pretty vocal about us doing something about the threat Iraq posed. They too saw the evidence the CIA had accumulated and even went on television a number of times warning us about the "grave threat" they posed. Their names.... John Kerry and Al Gore Funny how quickly their opinions changed when it was politically convienent for them.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:06 PM) When did they form that opinion? I don't have exact details but that's what I keep hearing.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 05:57 PM) Yes, because the "progressives" that controlled government culture during the New Deal era and World War II turned us all into soft, pussies. Progressives believe that governments have a responsibility to its citizens. Apparently the wingnuts that run the country have forgotten that to the point where the House Republican congress wanted to remove ethics rules in the House that prohibit Congressmen from holding posts of leadership while being indicted for felonies. The wingnuts that run this country's government seem more concerned with protecting their own power than anyone else. We now have proof, by our own hands, that the basis for this war in Iraq was false. Now, who's going to get fired? Nobody. Never mind the fact that the New Deal did nothing to solve the Depression. It was the military buildup leading up to WW2 that finally revived the economy. Not only did it not solve anything economically but it left us with Social Security, a socialist ponzi scam that was destined to fail from day one and the children of today are left with the bill. BTW. Most military commanders are of the opinion that Iraq's WMD was moved to Syria in the months leading up to the invasion.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 10:21 AM) Sure the US has helped us in the past and such but today is a new day. It's time to move on and be more progressive. And progressive isn't having a defense budget of over a trillion dollars. Yeah, so I guess by your logic government taking money away from the military and using it on social programs is gonna stop fanatics from knocking down buildings. You're living in a fantasyland my friend. The world is a nasty place and it's men with guns that stand between you and them. "People sleep peacibly in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to commit violent acts on their behalf." George Orwell

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 12:30 PM) One factor that seemingly isn't included in our foreign aid dollars are the billions in defense we spend to keep piss ants from killing each other. We call it peacekeeping, but I'll bet it is in our military spending numbers, not charged to foreign aid. I could be wrong, a quick google search didn't give me a clean link to be certain. No one on this planet has or is spending the dollars or, more importantly, the lives, to keep bullies at bay and dictators from genocide. Wow tex, that was a very "NUKE-like" post. I'm impressed!

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 10:39 AM) Because America as is right now is a regressive country. Define regressive. If it's regressive to live in a society where people are not coddled by government from birth to death & not a place where the government practices wholesale social engineering on it's entire society then I'm all for being regressive. "Progressivism" is nothing more than a euphamisim for handing over control of your life to government. It frowns on individual freedom because "progressives" think they can run your life better than you can run it yourself. It's all fine and dandy as long as you conform. If "progressives" ever got any serious control then American Society would turn into one similar to the pussy whipped, piss ant bunch of cheesedicks that you saw in the movie "Demolition Man". "A bunch of 47 year old virgins sitting around in their underwear singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener" f*** that.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 10:05 AM) Exactly. The French discovered that pissing off Americans can have a financial effect. French? Hmmmm. Do I detect a common thread here? The French would be speaking German twice over if not for us and they repay us with that s*** attitude of theirs. I forget who said this but it's so telling. Charles DeGaulle in 1959 I think it was said he wanted all American troops out of France when they pulled out of NATO's military wing. Our Secretary of State at the time ( I can't place the name ) said "Shall we remove the dead ones that are buried there first?" f*** France.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 10:24 AM) Watch how much of that cycles back to the US in payments to US based businesses like Haliburton. The US has the resources, know how, and services to handle this sort of massive infrastructure work. We even have a company whose expertise is in mass processing of corpses. How long's it gonna be before the conspiracy machine gets cranked up and starts saying the U.S. somehow caused this disaster just to line the pockets of U.S. corporations who handle that sort of thing. Lower Case.......you wanna kick that off for us? :rolly

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 10:24 PM) Of course it was bulls***...Dubya needed an excuse to go finish what his old man didn't have the balls to do in the 1st place.... I agree with you totally on this one. We had an open road to Baghdad, solid international backing and about 3 times the troop strength in theater that we have now. I was 13 years old at the time and was watching General Powell doing his little briefing on CNN showing on the map where our forces were and that there was nothing in front of us and thought to myself....."So what's the holdup? Finish it."

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:24 AM) You are correct. As soon as we no longer need oil, we will see hell on earth as all the world's super powers pull out of the region and start selling weapons to the highest bidders. Hell we'll sell to country A, then sell the antidote to Country B, then a better weapon to country C, until they are all gone. By that logic you could say that the SUV next door is helping to preserve world peace.