Republicans Finding Their Voice?

republican-symbolOver the last week or so I have seen countless articles discussing the current state of politics and proclaiming that the Republicans have found their way back to relevance through the topic of national defense. Along with that are the childish debates about whether Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or Colin Powell are the proper choice to be the voice of the new Republican party. I read these articles. I watch the videos. I listen to the speeches. And one thing that just sticks in my mind is that the Republicans are grasping at straws. Not one of those three men are fit to be the “voice of the Republican party”. The Republican party has no voice today because they do not stand for anything. They lost their relevance because they pandered and abused and lost their principles. When will that party wake up?

The Republican party is in a hole. Their is no arguing that. In fact they are in a much larger hole than the Democrats were in during the period where they actually believed that John Kerry was a good choice as the Presidential candidate. I remember that time and thinking that the Democrats are simply “lost”. But they had one Obama Media Priapismadvantage that the Republicans don’t have…. the media. Oh, I know they have talk radio (where all the big shows are on during the day while people are at work) and they have Fox News. But let’s not kid ourselves. The liberals have the media. And that gave them a distinct advantage. Hell the media lovefest for Obama was obvious, and more important, effective.

No, the Republicans don’t have the media to help sell their lies to the masses in the same way the Democrats have had them to sell their lies to the masses. And they don’t have a public education system that fully supports the Republican agenda in the way that Democrats do. And they don’t have a higher learning system that cranks out hundreds of thousands of liberals every year. Dumb kids who won’t become Republicans until they hit their 30’s or 40’s and realize that “peace, love, dope” doesn’t get you anywhere. Kids who believe in the wealthy having their wealth taken for the “greater good”, and who will remain in that mindset until the wealthy is them. 

And since the Republicans don’t have those things, they are in a real bind here. Because there certainly isn’t a lot about their message that is going to resonate with anyone. There is a reason, my friends, why the largest segment of voters categorize themselves as independents. And those categorizing themselves as Republicans is a number that seems to be shrinking every day. Let’s be clear on a few of the issues that have been at the center of the Republican “resurgence” this last week:

National Defense. The Republicans are better than the Democrats on National Defense. For all you liberals who want to take offense to that, bite me. It is a clear fact and one that you should be pissed at your party for. The Democrats are considered “weak” on national defense, and rightly so. Both sides screw the pooch on this issue, but the Republicans screw it a little less effectively than the whiny Democrats. 

Democratic Mind ChangingDemocrats claim to want to end all war. That is an outright lie, ladies and gentlemen. The Democrats have been responsible for as much war-mongering as Republicans. Obama has not moved us closer to getting out of the entanglements that we were up in arms about during the campaign, and he has no intention of doing so. In fact he is expanding one of them and doing nothing on the other. Bush had already set us up to leave Iraq prior to leaving office, so he gets no credit there. The Democrats voted to attack those nations right along with the Republicans. The only difference is that the Republicans didn’t change their mind as soon as a public opinion poll told them to. No, my dear readers, the Democrats love war as much as anyone, they just fight wars like a bunch of pansies. Bullshit rules of engagement, limited troop deployments, too much play nice and let’s talk about things.

Republicans claim that war is an unfortunate reality. That is an outright lie, ladies and gentlemen. They don’t believe that for one little second. No, they like war. They see it as a economic positive. They see it as a way to spread their vision to unwilling nations. But the one thing they do well is fight wars the way they should be fought, with downright nastiness. War is an ugly thing. And it should be avoided at all costs. But if war comes to you, you fight it. No rules, no limited troops, no holds barred. Enemy combatants, screw em. Civilian casualties? Republicans Liight FuseShouldn’t have let those terrorists hole up next door and helped to hide them. If Democrats are going to fight wars, and they are, then they could take some good lessons from the Republicans. My daddy always said, “no fight is a good fight” but he followed it up with, “but if they are going to make you fight, there are no rules and you make them wish they never challenged you”. 

But the reality is that both parties have their heads up their collective asses when it comes to national defense. Because the best national defense is to take up a position of DEFENSE. There does not need to be offense in order to make national defense a necessity. Iran wants to talk smack? Who cares. North Korea wants to develop a Nuclear missile? So what. They can do all they want. It doesn’t matter. The second they launch one at us, turn their entire country into a giant sheet of glass with no reservations. If you are really the greatest power on earth, make sure that they know an attack on us means the end of their nation. And I mean the end of it. No one lives. And once you ensure they are clear on that point, you bring your troops home and defend your country. You attack no one who doesn’t attack you. America would be surprised how many in the world have no desire to tangle with her if she merely stays home and minds her own business. THAT is proper national defense, my friends. Defense only. An interesting concept that neither groups of idiots seems to be able to comprehend. 

Rush CigarRush Limbaugh, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney. Oh the war of words between these three is entertaining, I will give you that. But the national debate over which of them is, or should be, the “voice” of the Republican party is absolutely ridiculous. None of them are or should be. Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard. He embodies all that is wrong with the conservative “base”. He is bigoted, hateful, divisive, and downright dishonest. I know there are elements of truth to some of the things he says, but if you want to be the voice of a nation, you don’t get to be that by using forms of dishonest coercion to gain support. I know some of you like Rush. I don’t. I respect him, and I support his right to say what he says and do what he does. But use some of those new philosophy skills we learned last week and apply them to Rush. You will be surprised how much support you will lose for him. 

Cheney Baby EaterDick Cheney is… well, he’s Dick Cheney. I really don’t have that much of an issue with Dick Cheney. Liberals hate him because the media tells them to. But I actually see him as the type of person that you want running the ship in a storm. Willing to make tough decisions, willing to stand by them when the storm is over. And willing to stand up to the opposition and argue his case, regardless of the media bias against him or the enormous popularity of today’s Hollywood President. However, he is not the guy you want running the show when there is not a storm. Because he cannot turn off that ruthless streak that makes him effective in a crisis. I won’t go as far as to say that the man is evil. I think that is a constructed persona created by the media. But he is mean. And before all you liberals jump up and down and scream all those horrible things you want to say about him, how many of you have met him? How many of you know anything about the man that wasn’t fed to you by the media? I thought so. 

ColinPowellColin Powell is a veteran of this country and a man that served his country in one way or another for most of his adult life. However, he has, over the last several years, been a big opponent to the Republican party. That does not mean, however, that he is not a Republican. Karl Rove said it best on Fox News Sunday Morning the other day. He said if Powell says he is a Republican, then he is. There is not a membership test. And he supports Powell’s right to find those other Republicans who believe what he believes and gain a foothold in the Republican party, even taking it over if that is what the people want. Lord knows I don’t like the Republican party as it stands, maybe I will like his version better. 

Crooks and Liars_ Reid and PelosiNancy Pelosi. I understand that Nancy’s demise lately has been a good pick me up for the Republicans. But let’s be honest, how does this in any way show that the Republican party is good? It doesn’t. What it shows is that Nancy, the leadership of the Democratic party, is just as bad as the Republicans. And a hypocrite. There is a big difference between her bad actions proving the Republicans to be good and her bad actions simply putting her down to their level.

The CIA lied to you Nancy? Bullshit. Nancy is a liar, a hypocrite, and a downright nasty person. She is not fit to represent anyone. She is divisive, hateful, spiteful, arrogant, and has no interest at all in making this country a better place. She is only interested in power, and specifically her access to it. Make no bones about it, there is NO ONE she will not throw under the bus to get where she wants to go. Nancy, in my opinion, is the Rush Limbaugh of the Democratic party. She is the anti-christ. 

Conclusion:

The Republican party is not finding its voice. And it is not going to until they wake up to the reality of the American voters. Despite the orgasmic claims of the Democrats, this country is predominately conservative. And until the Republican party truly becomes a party of principles, they are going to wallow in the quagmire of playing the game the Democrats way. And the deck is stacked against them when they do that. They simply aren’t as good at playing the class warfare game. They don’t have the media or the schools. 

The Republican party should take my above version of a proper national defense and make that the foundation of their platform. THAT would be a change in Washington. And they can follow that up by respectfully telling the christian right that they love their principles, but refuse to believe that the government has the right to legislate that people abide by the words of the bible. If the Republican party wants to make a resurgence in today’s America, I have their platform. Come talk to me. But I promise that a new slogan for the party will be “VDLG…Yes We Can”. I can sum up the winning strategy in a few words:

Very Damn Little Government and a return to the principles of Liberty.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. TruthSeeker says:

    Very nice post!

    I agree with everything you said. I could care less if N.Korea wanted a nuclear weapon. If they are willing to drive that country deeper into the void, so be it. Eventually the country will implode and they can only blame themselves. We shouldn’t give them ANYTHING. We will make it clear to them that if we think for a moment they are going to attack us, we will annihilate them. PERIOD.

    I do find it Ironic that during the Bush years, republicans were called war-mongers when now Pres Obama and Pelosi is using very hard words for N. Korea’s latest test. Can you see the hypocrisy?

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Yeah, but the difference there is that all N Korea is going to get from the Government now IS words. Of course, that’s as it should be, but stern letters of protest or harsh language is just a waste of breath and time. We should do as USW says and just let them self-destruct on their own. If they point their weapons and fire them at us, then turn them into a radioactive glass parking lot.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        And to hell with millions of people that have no say whatsoever in the course of action of their government? Sad. Very sad.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          No one is saying Ray that they should be attacked unless we are first. But if we were, then what would be the proper response? Harsh words? If they hit us with a Nuclear weapon, we should not respond in kind?

          NO. In that case, yes, to hell with their citizens. But in the Meantime, it’s not up to us to be the world police and tell another soveriegn nation what thay can or cannot do. Like it does us any good to anyway. Nothing short of war will stop them.

          What is sad about saying that we should defend ourselves?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Ok – well if we’re talking nuclear to nuclear then the end game is quite simple eh? The point is we never get to that point – that does require negotiation and in some cases strategic military action.

        • Well Ray, you have a government that does whatever the hell they want to and a populace that just sits there and takes it. What’s your answer? Engage them in debate?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            A populace that just sits there and takes it? From everything I have read and studied the North Koreans are likely the most oppressed people on Earth – suggesting they just get off their asses is very naive. If the change doesn’t happen organically then it happens externally.

            • Yes, they are oppressed and what exactly would you have us do about that?

              If their oppressive government should, shall we say, lob one somewhere, then what reaction would you prefer?

              Let us remember, these are the same hooples in charge who 59 years ago decided to take a tour of South Korea.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                1. What do you mean by ‘lob one’? A nuke? Something else? I sense itchy fingers here.

                2. Their oppression and screwed up government? Poverty breeds extremism which tends to breed terrorism (imho). Organic change will happen eventually, maybe not at the right pace – engaging diplomatically is the best path forward for now.

              • Bama dad says:

                Ray

                See Number 11 below.

              • Well, if anyone should have the itchy finger syndrome, I would think it would be the Kim dynasty. As pointed out they were the ones that initiated the tour of the South in 1950. Those folks are legally insane. Read up on your Korean war history. If they nuke sombody it would probably be their neighbors to the South, those, how did they used to say it? Oh yes, “Running Dog lackeys of Imperialist Capitalism” or was that “puppets of imperialist capitalism?”. Or possibly the Japanese whom they have had some issues with for a few centuries. We could, I guess, just sit it out and chuckle as the Strontium 90 drifted East.

                Yes, they are poor but I don’t get your point. The government has made them poor through criminal mismanagement. Kim, his generals and his Army eat rather well I think. Therefore I don’t think our problem is a result of his poverty. I would doubt the average North Korean has the physical energy to hate anyone, least of all us.

                We have been engaging them diplomatically since 1951? The first two years resolved, I think, the height of the chair legs at the table. Otherwise, it’s really not accomplished a lot has it? This is not to say that by them not shooting (on a regular basis) at us, there have been some benefits. South Korea has prospered and probably could defend itself. The negatives however are that that same loony cabal is still in place, killing its own people and basically playing chicken with the world.

                I don’t pretend to have all the answers but if they continue this international blackmail game they have been playing, somebody is going to have to do something sooner or later other than talk. So, again, what’s your pleasure?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Well – may not be the answer and I don’t like us getting our noses dirty in all this – but where are the Chinese in all this? One would think that given the history there could be some diplomatic relations initiated through China rather than US directly.

              • Going down below to # 11

    • Alan F. says:

      You have only 2 choices with North Korea:

      #1 is hardball and does not take an arse kicking off the table regardless of any public weeping from the “socially evolved” over the issue. The emotionally weak would not even exist save for the efforts of the arse kickers and its been that way for millennia. Don’t believe me? Where went the shining happy warm and squishy goodness of today’s enlightened society in New Orleans that September? Shooting at EMT services in broad daylight while the cameras rolled on!? The looting, rape and soaring murder rates that happened there are a truth many of you refuse to accept because it goes against your beliefs. I’ve said it before, the luckiest thing for Ghandi was it being the British because the other powers of that day would have vanished him and Ben Kingsley would be without his Oscar.

      #2 is welfare. North Korea gets what it’s wanted all along which is a “play nice” cheque every month from the one country who currently would pay for such a thing. You don’t think the “have not” Korea in the north lusts away over that “have” version of themselves to the south and realizes fully who made it that way? Put the pipe down.

      I’ve been looking for their rhetoric, that of the other “radicals” as well and it steps up in both content and fervor as the public flailing of Bush itself does. All along they were watching CNN for their dove to be sitting in the oval office and they have him. Now make that cheque payable to “radical of the week” and you might as well post date a few to save on postage.

  2. USW, Good read as always, I especially agree with National Defense being just that, we’d all be better off if we minded our own business. As far as government as a whole, I feel that they have been failing the citizens for years, if not decades. Wish Flags “ignore them and they’ll go away” position would actually work, might save alot of lives down the road.

    G!

    • Alan F. says:

      That’s bull. America’s success has come from a stellar campaign of making hay in other people’s yards. Its always been about accessible resources and markets and will continue to be such. You don’t believe for a second that America has made its fortunes within the confines of America itself? You can’t possibly believe countries across the globe, including Canada, have been pumping out their resources for pennies on the dollar to America without that same American big business being active in each countries political system do you?!?

      Head on back to that “realness of reality” deductive reasoning bit of the blog, try using it and then rebuff me. America the island? Holy crap I can’t believe you even pitched that.

      • Bee in my Bonnet says:

        There is some truth to what Alan F. says. In February, the US imported more petroleum from Canada(2.515 million barrels per day) than Venezuela(1.139 million/day) and Saudi Arabia(1.115 million/day), combined. There is also a constant fear that the US will appropriate our water as we have it in abundance.

        • Bama dad says:

          Bee

          The US is not forcing Canada, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia to sell us oil. Right now those countries are “making hay” off our appetite for oil.

          • Alan F. says:

            You see Imperial Oil but fail to recognize ExxonMobil? Suncor without fathoming who Sunoco is? I have to break another heart I guess but here goes. The vast majority of oil, gas & mining in Canada is on the front door a Canadian company because doing such holds back “nationalism” which is a very very very bad thing to any of the multinationals (American or any other “player”) dealing in resources belonging to a country other than their own. Care to look up all the instances of American companies getting “the boot” when a country nationalizes its resources? No? How about an even better one, instances of American companies setting up shop in another country as to bypass antipollution and worker safety laws? Don’t want to think about that either?

            In this instance I can tell you with certainty, you haven’t a clue as to what you are defending.

            • Bama Dad says:

              I am not defending anything, I just said we are paying and paying big for imported oil.

              • Alan F. says:

                But those you are paying are indeed themselves card carrying registered voter know a zip code other than 90210 AMERICANS.

              • Bama Dad says:

                ????????????

                What are you trying to say?
                Speak slowly, so I can understand.

              • WE AREPAYING A HUGE PRICE FOR IMPORTED OIL, WHY NOT DRILL OFF CALIF.COAST, IN ANWAR, OFF COAST OF EAST USA, FLORIDA OIL IS THERE BUT THE NICE ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE BLOCKS IT. BY THE WAY, MY TIME IS 8:21 PST, GRETA SAID KOREA NOW HAS FIRED 6 NUCLEAR MISSILES, LAST ONES ABOUT 1 1/2 HRS AGO. SO THE KOREAN PEOPLE ARE HALF STARVED, WHICH EFFECT BRAIN POWER AS WELL AS PHYSICAL GROWTH, NO WONDER THEY DON’T DO ANYTHING. NOT ON ANYBODY’S SIDE, JUST SO SAD THE PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE TO SUFFER FOR THE PROUD AND ARROGANT. USA WILL BE THE SAME, IF W E MAKE THE NEXT ELECTION?????????????

              • SFC Dick says:

                fired 6 nukes?

                Hmmm….

                I guess the whole fusion process didn’t kick in on the bombs or we are all taking the impact of 6 nukes pretty well.

                or

                maybe they test fired 6 missles capable of carrying nuke war heads.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Why should our Government be in other Countries business. Business can do as they please, but our GOVERNMENT should stay out of other Nations politics. Not that they will. Let’s face it Alan. It matters not one bit what “We the People” think. Our Government has not listened to the people in decades. And it’s only going to get worse.

        • Alan F. says:

          It all renders down to “they have something that you want” which is the people’s end and “its better to control a thing than be controlled by it” which is business’ end. Inroads into the political system of another country facilitate supply and assure a measure of control. I see the relationship of business and politics as one of host and symbiont with them switching roles on occasion.

  3. I have to agree on this one. They have just lost their voice on almost every issue. They spend most of their time spitting insults on each other. I think that you really dont need the mainstream media to get rolling again. You need someone who is willing to go out and stomp the ground actually talking to people. I just have not seen that yet out of anyone from that side. Rush is radio guy, but unless you plan to run for office and try to change things-I dont have time for you. It is easy to make fun of people. Powell is a person who I think has a good heart and is trying to do something different. But I think this is as far as it will go for him. Cheney is just mean, which is great in a war, not so good during other times. I think he needs to just retire and enjoy the grandkids. You have had your time, but I dont believe he will ever be the future face of that party. Should be interesting how they plan to move on from here.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The right can use the Internet as much or more than the left – no need for the MTM.

      • Alan F. says:

        Most people’s use of the internet consists of Facebook (neighborhood voyeurism) and YouTube (America’s Funniest Candid Jackasses Gone Wild) when they are not engaged in mining for whatever is beyond porn.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Wow – a lot of interesting ground covered so lets rattle a few of these off and get the blood moving this morning!

    Dick Cheney – its interesting that you find his leadership effective in crisis – if by effective you mean choosing an incorrect course of action and then backfilling all those messy little supporting details then sure – he is very effective. You don’t need the MTM to tell you that – there have been more than ample corroborating accounts of this guy to fill a library.

    Lush Eightball – no comment – don’t go away mad Lush, just go away

    Colin Powell – k – here is the shocker – I think this man is the best hope for the right at this time. Maybe you all think he is too moderate for the purist in you, but if you’re looking to broaden your platform (electorate) then you need to broaden your message less you become completely irrelevant and find yourself slithering back to Lee Atwater/Karl Rove style politics.

    Nancy Pelosi – ok – I get it – you don’t like dear old Nancy. Not many people do – but let’s get all the cards on the table shall we? She is not the only politician to question the accuracy of what the CIA is claiming in their briefing memos – who is the Congressman that writes everything down – including the day he was supposedly in the same briefing as Nancy and he was not? Oh – and the CIA never lies about anything? Huh?

    National Defense – not sure where you’re headed with this – at first I thought I was reading a manifesto for why we need to return to the days of Reagan – build up a big bad military that scares the shit out of everyone. How so are Republicans better on National Defense? What exactly does that mean other than ‘bite me’?

    and (so you don’t think I am cherrypicking)

    “If you are really the greatest power on earth, make sure that they know an attack on us means the end of their nation. And I mean the end of it. No one lives. And once you ensure they are clear on that point, you bring your troops home and defend your country. You attack no one who doesn’t attack you. America would be surprised how many in the world have no desire to tangle with her if she merely stays home and minds her own business. THAT is proper national defense, my friends. Defense only. An interesting concept that neither groups of idiots seems to be able to comprehend.”

    – That is one of the most misguided things I think I have ever read! Something tells me that Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad don’t really give two squats about how big and powerful we are – they do the things they do to agitate and win concessions. What I find troubling is the testosterone-laden idea that the second someone picks a fight with us then we turn ‘them’ – their people, their land into a parking lot. Something tells me that what we did to/in Japan would not have the same effect with a Muslim country – e.g. we turn an entire world of Muslims and likely every ally we have against us. I sense you don’t give our military enough credit to have to resort to strategies long abandoned (kill ’em all n let God sort ’em out – looks good on a t-shirt or as a phrase to use during happy hour at the VFW – not a good military strategy).

    • Black Flag says:

      I always laugh at those that claim Iran is somehow causing a problem when its the USA that has Iran surrounded with a few hundred thousand troops and 3 (or is it 4 now) carrier battlegroups.

      One wonders who is picking on who for a fight.

      • BF;

        I chose to honor USW request yesterday and not turn it into a polical discussion. I decided to respond to those comments you posted yesterday today, but first I would like to garner a better understanding of you’re overall position.

        Are you an anarchist?

        How much Government is too much? Should we have a Constitution (in some form)

        Do you love you’re country?

        Out of the last 6 Presidents who would you rate highest on your “OK” scale?

        Given the circumstances of December 7th 1941 and the historic alliances of Japan and Germany do you feel we should have or have not declared war on Japan?

        Why do you think we went to Viet Nam?

        Why are we in Iraq?

        Do you believe that 9-11 was an act of terror by a foriegn entity?

        What is your thoughts of Barac/Berry? (I didn’t vote for him and do not believe he is qualified to be the President, therefore I refuse to call him by his current title)

        Do you grieve for your lost friends and loved ones more on the anniversary of their death?

        How would you structure the Republic in which we live in order for it to be a more perfect union in your eyes?

        Why do you chose to live in the US+

        Who should be responsible for defending your freedom and liberty when they are threatened?

        Why do you hate the government?

        Do you believe in any of the Constitutional Ammendments?

        How should a country be governed? What powers should that ideal governing party have?

        You are obviously well educated and thougtfull. You display a great deal of knowledge, and the ability to communicate effectively. As such I always try to first understand each man/woman’s mantra prior to touting my own. I have found it makes for a more spirited discussion.

        Please endulge……………

      • Alan F. says:

        I too laugh but at Nancy dearest playing the victim. Reminds me too much of Leona Helmsley’s staring role in “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” or Donald Trump’s “I only play and ass in real life.”

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I think you missed this part here Ray from USW.

      “Iran wants to talk smack? Who cares. North Korea wants to develop a Nuclear missile? So what. They can do all they want. It doesn’t matter. The second they launch one at us, turn their entire country into a giant sheet of glass with no reservations.”

      He is talking about a Nuclear Attack, not just any old threat. Other than that, he is talking about pulling ALL troops from other Nations and leaving them alone. This is my view also. The best offense is a good defense, so to speak. We should let soveriegn Nations decide their own fate.

      As far as the Muslim Countries go, what has 50 years or so of interference in their affairs gotten us? Aside from their undying hatred? We should leave them alone. They will destroy themselves without any help from us. We should let them.

    • Ray, I agree to some extent that wiping out a country may not be the best course of action, and would kill many innocent people (N. Korean’s have no say in their govt.). On the reverse, had we used that strategy in Nam, or sooner in WWII, how many American lives would have been saved? If we mind our own business, then get attacked without provocation, I would have to seriously consider the “kill em all and let God sort em out” idea, if it could save American lives. War is plain stupid, but it happens, often for the wrong reasons. I think we, as a country should let the Iran’s and N. Koreas of the world understand that the results of any aggressive actions toward us or our allies, will have a high price to pay. If they attack, then they had been warned. If they chillout and mind their own business, then the policy deterred them from aggression.

      G!

    • Spouting the Liberal line again this AM Ray? Sorry, but I just cannot buy it. Dick Cheney, as much as the liberals hate him, was the right man for the job post 9/11. Tough decisions had to be made and he has no problem with that. He has, of late, had to defend the actions of the Bush administrations “torture tactics”, which were in fact not torture (IMO) because of the current administrations unwillingness to accept responsibility.

      Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. It truly galls the Left wing because he is usually right (correct). They cannot stand to have anybody question their motives or actions…they will attempt and possibly succeed to mitigate his input with the Fairness Doctrine…fair to who?

      As far as Colin Powell is concerned, I respect him for his service, but he is a Liberal in Conservatives clothing, just like John McCain…moderate they are called, but I consider them both too weak to lead the nation.

      Nancy Pelosi…I totally agree with USW on that one…just nasty.

      I only slightly disagree with USW on national defense. If one of our staunch allies, such as the UK or Isreal requests our assistance, I personally believe we should provide support. I also believe that taking the fight to the extreme Muslim sects such as Al Queida was the correct action. My only problem with Afganistan is that we are doing too little…if we are in it, lets end it by whatever means necessary. I would think that the first time a nuclear weapon was lauched at the US, if we responded with “turning the whole country into a sheet of glass”, then the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il would give a little more than two squats, and perhaps they need to see a little dose of reality.

      • Black Flag says:

        Terry,

        How does Israel qualify as a “staunch ally”?

        What war did they send their troops?

        Not in Korea, nor Vietnam…. heck, when did they send THEIR troops to help the USA?

        • I’ll concede that point BF…you are correct that Isreal has not lent itself to our causes militarily. They (I suppose) are considered our ally due to the fact they among the minority with regard to being a democratic state amongst many that are not.

          • Black Flag says:

            There is plenty of democracy in the Middle East – the problem seems to be that it isn’t the people we want to win that wins.

            Iran elected democratically, and the CIA overthrew him in 1950’s in favor of the hated Shah.

            Palestinians elect their government, but nope – not our guys – so we ignore them.

            USA is not interested in democracy at all for the region. They are interested in control of the region.

            I had a series of previous posts outlining the history of Western involvement in the Middle East – if USWep is interested, I can reprise them, plus my other 3 volumes in a post series.

            • USWeapon says:

              I think it would make for an interesting debate with a lot of new readers. Throw em together and send when you have time.

      • Terry, I agree with your assessments on each of the so-called Repub leaders, which ironically are getting that name from the left. No one on the right seems to view any of the three as their voice, so let’s not let the left speak for us.

        None of these three currently hold a position of power either, however, that is where the danger of Nancy is different – she is third in line! Behind Biden! OMG…..how? how? how?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Terry – I’m glad you at least recognize that Dick Cheney was the real culprit rather than Bush Deux. Just because Cheney made tough decisions does not make them right – and we can argue torture all damn day long.

        Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer…..and a liar…..and a gutless scumbag. And who is crying about a fairness doctrine? I keep hearing the right wing bitch about more air time!

        • Bush surrounded himself with good people…one of which is Dick Cheney. The current POTUS could take a lesson from him…in that and many other ways.

          The mere fact that you (considering your political beliefs, and I have read many of them) solidifies my belief that the reason you despise Rush so much is that he is revealing exactly what the Liberals don’t want revealed…the truth.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            The current POTUS Terry, Is an ass kisser extraordiaire, and surrounds himself only with other, less capable ass kissers.

            Non ass kissers need not apply.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Terry – or I could say that ‘your hatred of Obama solidifies the fact that everything Obama espouses is the truth’. Kinda pointless eh? Lush plays to the worst common denominator in the right, same as a Jeanine Garofalo on the far right – they may mean well, and feel that their version of the facts is the truth, but it stands to reason that what Lush does is only deepen the divide.

            And Dick Cheney? Please educate me as to what is good and right about him? His role in torture? Draft dodging? Halliburton? Valerie Plame? Flip flopping on gay rights?

            • SFC Dick says:

              What the Ray?

              Dick Channey had time between his torturing and running haliburton by ghost proxy to do something to Val?

              and crap, who doesn’t flip flop on the “GAY ISSUE” what exactly is the “Gay Issue” today”

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                SFC – am tired of this guy being held up like an American Idol all politicians should aspire to be. I’ll give the guy some credit – I think he is positioning himself to fall on a sword that others may not have to. And the guy has stones – he at least has the guts to come out and say to our faces that he screwed us in the rear – “yeah it was me America, and no reach around for you”.

              • SFC Dick says:

                Oh yeh, I get that impression from the man myself.

                He’s a lightning rod for the oposition. I don’t think he is the root of all evil or the anti Christ,but I get the impression were the rumor or line given enough legs in the media and some talking head confronted Dick with it I believe Dick would say “Dam right I’m the root of all evil, Damn right I’m the Anti Christ, There is no middle ground when you are the root of all evil or the Anti Christ and I take those positions seriously as does the American people.

                I think I’ll need Jack Nicholson to play VP Chenny in the real expose.

  5. Lemminkaenen says:

    I feel like it is too early for the Republican party to be uniting under a single voice. They just lost the elections to the Democrats, and are now in something of a disarray. Right now I think that a lot of people are trying to simply cut losses and figure out how the streams of power are running. The government has been dealing with a long string of “crises,” and until things start quieting down, the minority will have a hard time organizing. Nobody is ready or willing to step up and take the reins, and for now that might be a good thing. The lack of clear leadership on both sides of the aisle opens up the system so that government reflects the dynamics of the individual representatives instead of the blind following after a “strong leader.”

    • Black Flag says:

      The Reps had a leader in Ron Paul – who espouses many of the same views as USWep.

      He was resoundingly rejected.

      Bears repeating. There is only one game in DC – that is, the Party of the Elite. The entry into that game is unavailable to everyone who doesn’t have a hand-picked ticket.

      Stick to State politics – its your only hope (though I believe futile at that, anyway).

  6. Having computer problems,wordpress will not let me post. NSA must have taken them over.

    Too funny, USW. The press has is suffering from a painful woody caused by their crush on Obama.

    A friend stated to me the other day, “people will elect someone based on charisma 80% of the time.” I think that is a problem for the Republicans, McCain was/is not a pretty face. So they need a face with a voice that is appealing.

    Parts of “The Hook”, by Blues Traveler.

    It doesn’t matter what I say
    So long as I sing with inflection
    That makes you feel that I’ll convey
    Some inner truth of vast reflection
    But I’ve said nothing so far
    And I can keep it up for as long as it takes
    And it don’t matter who you are
    If I’m doing my job then its your resolve that breaks

    Because the hook brings you back
    I ain’t tell’in you no lie
    The hook brings you back
    On that you can rely

    There is something amiss
    I am being insincere
    In fact I don’t mean any of this
    Still my confession draws you near
    To confuse the issue I refer
    To familiar heroes from long ago
    No matter how much peter loved her
    What made the pan refuse to grow

    Was that the hook brings you back
    I ain’t tell’in you no lie
    The hook brings you back
    On that you can rely

    And what works for singers works for politicians as well. Frequently its not what they say, but how they say it. Mass hypnosis.

    The Republicans also missed the boat on the “Tea Parties”. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, and should have been outspoken of their praise for the movement.

    Respectfully, I dis-agree with you on adopting a defensive only military policy.
    Had we not entered WW2 against Germany, would we still exist as a nation? Europe and Russia would have fallen. So it would have just been a matter of time until we were attacked, but it would be us alone against the world.

    I believe politicians are not very thoughtful of the consequences of their actions. N. Korea wants S. Korea? We have 30,000 American soldiers based there, and the S. Koreans do not seem to like us very much. So why are we there? S. Korea is a democracy, with a similar outlook of government? Damnifiknow.

    Iran is not so easy. We must have oil from the Middle East since our government will not let us drill for it here in the US. We also muse decide if we will let them destroy Israel. And this might be the greatest danger. Picture Iran as the new Germany, bent on world domination, as the Koran calls for, with Ahmadinejad as the new Hitler. Are we better off to wait and see if they are that crazy? Or do we engage in smaller conflicts, show our resolve and wait for them to mature as a civilization, so we can all stop making war?

    As for Colin Powell, he lost me when he supported Obama. A fiscal conservative cannot support a “spend us out of this mess” politician.

    • Black Flag says:

      Had we not entered WW2 against Germany, would we still exist as a nation? Europe and Russia would have fallen. So it would have just been a matter of time until we were attacked, but it would be us alone against the world.

      How could you possibly imagine the USA could be attacked, when the masses forces of the Germany Armed Forces – weighed solely against a militarily crushed nation of UK – couldn’t sail 10 miles to victory.

      Germany could not occupy Russia – though she could have defeated her (as they did in WW1).

      Iran hasn’t invaded another country for 300 years – yet you make such baseless claims of a wish to conquer. Iran has no goals in the region that they haven’t already achieved – their own nation.

      They care less about Israel OTHER THAN Israeli treatment of Palestinians on humanitarian grounds. Iran has already signed and supported the Oslo accord and offered numerous mediation efforts – all rebuked by the USA.

      • Flagster,

        How could I possibly imagine—-. Vivid fricken imagination. Fueled by too much SciFi and beer.

        Did many of the French not join the Germans after their defeat? Why would the Russians or others be any different? The UK & Russia would have fallen without material support from the US. That would have been grounds for war from Germany’s perspective. So complete isolation means all nations conquered by Germany or Japan. And if we kept selling Japan oil, no war with them.

        “Baseless claims of a wish to conquer”. Do you believe they are rushing the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes only? Ahmadinejad has advocated the destruction of Israel. Yasser Arafat walked out of the Camp David accords when offered 97%
        of the territory they were demanding. The Palestinians don’t want peace. They want to destroy Israel, or they would not keep attacking them, would not elect a terrorist group to govern them, and would not keep taking weapons from Iran, who shares their goal.
        And did Iran not disrupt the oil supply a few years back? Until the US stepped in and secured the Gulf of Oman?

        • Black Flag says:

          Did many of the French not join the Germans after their defeat?

          Not in any numbers worth recognizing.

          Why would the Russians or others be any different?

          Because their Russian.

          What affinity would a Russian fight on behalf of a German?

          The UK & Russia would have fallen without material support from the US.

          UK, perhaps, …. Russia would have been “defeated”, but impossible to occupy.

          And I agree that material support was key.

          So think what you’re arguing.

          A nation, thousands of miles away by water, supplied by a nation whose ingenious supplies more than made up shipping losses was enough to forestall an invasion force that needed 10 miles to cross.

          YET you believe this same nation, without thousands of miles of risky supply line would be defeated by an enemy who would have to cross that fragile and risky water of thousands of miles while carry all of its supplies without a viable “unsinkable aircraft carrier” base (like the UK was for the USA)!!

          Do you see what you’re arguing??!?

          “Baseless claims of a wish to conquer”. Do you believe they are rushing the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes only?

          OF course! What makes you believe otherwise, except for rabid propaganda!

          What is exposed here is a lack of understanding of Iran.

          Iran has oil, but very little refinery capability. Yes, it IMPORTS its gasoline. It make more money selling oil but costs plenty to use it for itself.

          Nuclear Energy does two things for Iran – remove the dependency on its natural resource AND lowers its cost of energy production.

          Ahmadinejad has advocated the destruction of Israel.

          No, he didn’t.

          Get his words properly translated – and not through Fox News.

          The Proof:

          The full quote translated directly to English:

          “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

          Word by word translation:

          Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

          Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s web site:
          http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

          Yasser Arafat walked out of the Camp David accords when offered 97%
          of the territory they were demanding.

          First, Arafat was not Palestinian – and the PLO does not represent the Palestinian people.

          The Palestinians don’t want peace. They want to destroy Israel, or they would not keep attacking them, would not elect a terrorist group to govern them, and would not keep taking weapons from Iran, who shares their goal.

          You do know who’s country it was BEFORE it was Israel, right? It was called …(sit down)….

          Palestine

          So who attacked who, again?

          And did Iran not disrupt the oil supply a few years back? Until the US stepped in and secured the Gulf of Oman?

          Hmm ,let me see – in a war between Iraq and Iran – with the USA supplying the Iraqi’s with weapons (including chemical weapons) – and you wonder if the Iranians might have a problem with that????

          PS: It’s their GULF – do you ever wonder why its called the

          PERSIAN Gulf???

          • Bama dad says:

            BF

            “What affinity would a Russian fight on behalf of a German?”

            Over a million men with ancestral roots in the Soviet Union fought together with the German armed forces against the USSR. Of all eastern volunteers, the Cossacks were allowed to muster the largest single concentration within the German Army. Cossacks had, in fact, been operating as part of the Wehrmacht from virtually the start of Operation Barbarossa.
            The summer of 1942 marked the high tide of German success in the East. In October 1942 the Germans established in the Kuban a semi-autonomous Cossack District and were now in the position to recruit Cossacks from these areas, the POW camps, and defectors from the Red Army. Of the latter, the most significant was the desertion of an entire Red Army regiment (Infantry Regt. 436) which, with all officers, went over to the Germans on August 1941. Its commander, Major I.N.Kononov, was a Don Cossack. He had a distinguished career in the German service, ending the war as Major General in the XVth Cossack Cavalry Corps under the command of the German General Helmuth von Pannwitz.

            • Black Flag says:

              Oh – I agree in that case – as they were fighting Red Russians.

              Don’t expect they would hold the same fight against Western Powers, though.

          • Bama dad says:

            BF

            “OF course! What makes you believe otherwise, except for rabid propaganda.”

            Long range ballistic missile testing makes me believe otherwise.

          • You do know who’s country it was BEFORE it was Israel, right? It was called … A lot of damned names. Philistines seems most appropriate to me.
            Note that the Islamic period came after the Hebrew Bible period.

            Paleolithic and Neolithic periods (1 mya–5000 BCE)

            Chalcolithic period (4500–3000 BCE) and Bronze Age (3000–1200 BCE)

            By c. 1190 BCE, the Philistines arrived and mingled with the local population, losing their separate identity over several generations.

            Iron Age (1200–330 BCE)
            See also: Iron Age

            Hebrew Bible period

            Persian rule (538 BCE)

            Hellenistic rule (333 BCE)

            Hasmonean dynasty (140 BCE)

            Roman rule (63 BCE)

            Byzantine administration of Palestine was temporarily suspended during the Persian occupation of 614–28, and then permanently after the Muslims arrived in 634 CE, defeating the empire’s forces decisively at the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 CE. Jerusalem capitulated in 638 CE and Caesarea between 640 CE and 642 CE.[91]

            Islamic period (630-1918 CE)

            Arab Caliphate rule (638–1099 CE)

            Umayyad rule (661–750 CE)

            Abbasid rule (750–969 CE)

            Fatimid rule (969–1099 CE)

            Crusader rule (1099–1187 CE)

            Mamluk rule (1270–1516 CE)

            Ottoman rule (1516–1831 CE)
            Territory of the Ottoman Empire in 1683

            After the Ottoman conquest, the name “Palestine” disappeared as the official name of an administrative unit,
            Egyptian rule (1831-1841)

            Ottoman rule (1841-1917)

            British Mandate (1920–1948)

            • Black Flag says:

              Opps, you missed Egypt.

              Egypt was the first empire that ruled that area circa 1500BC

            • Black Flag says:

              So I think we should let Egypt decide, not?

            • esomhillgazette says:

              And the US belonged to the Indians, oh er excuse me, the Native Americans before we’uns stole it from them.

              The Isrealites stole the Country from the Caananites. The Persians etc. stole it from them. And so on and so on until the Allies stole it back for the Iraelies in ’48. Now they’ve got it and they ain’t gonna give it back without one helluva fight.

              Stealing one country from previous inhabitants has happened all through history.

              Happy day after Memorial Day LOI!

      • Bama dad says:

        BF

        “How could you possibly imagine the USA could be attacked, when the masses forces of the Germany Armed Forces – weighed solely against a militarily crushed nation of UK – couldn’t sail 10 miles to victory.”

        Lack of air superiority. The German air force was a tactical air force and not a strategic air force. They could not project power. No air superiority = no little boats crossing the channel.

        • Black Flag says:

          So, imagine if that Air Force had to fly 1,500 miles before even engaging defense forces at the coast of America — and try to dominate THAT sky….

          Nada. Impossible.

          • Bama dad says:

            BF

            They could not do it in 1939-1940 but in 1945 they were testing a long range bomber that could reach the US. All it takes is time, they were so far ahead of everyone else in military equipment and design it was scary.

            • Black Flag says:

              You can’t be serious.

              Nazi war propaganda still is effective even today.

              They had no means, nor ability to achieve overflying the USA.

              It wasn’t until 1952, the B-52 was the first bomber capable of intercontinental travel.

              German in 1945 was crushed into her borders – and fell in May 1945.

              Yes, they had rockets and jets – but so did the Allies. The Allies didn’t build rockets since they didn’t need them – and jet aircraft range was insignificant at that time to be of any use over the European Theater.

              • Bama dad says:

                BF

                The whole point of this particular discussion was that the US did not enter the war and that Germany would have defeated UK and Russia. Given that point, Germany would not have been crushed in May 1945 and would have had the time and resources to ramp up to a position to confront the US. Nothing to do with Nazi propaganda, their military in fact was more advanced technology wise than the rest of the world.

              • Black Flag says:

                No way.

                The Germans were way over extended as it was – partisans were wrecking havoc in Yugoslavia and occupied Russia – they’d be all tied up in pacification resistance.

                Further, there is nothing Germany could have done more than the Soviet Union did post-war, in fact, probably a lot less.

                I have no idea where you believe any nation, or even group of nations, could possibly have the power to project military force over the two largest oceans on Earth, to engage a country where the concentration of resources and manpower is overwhelming.

                Frankly, its preposterous.

                But, that’s my learned opinion.

  7. Bee in my Bonnet says:

    Ok, everyone has an opinion on who is NOT the voice of the Republican Party. Does anyone have an idea who may become the voice of the Republican Party?

    • Bee, Maybe we could recruit Larry the Cable Guy! Could you imagine campaign speeches?

      G!

    • Black Flag says:

      Sarah has the political backing – if she wanted it.

      But other than her, Ron Paul, but he was shut out.

      It really doesn’t matter, though – it will change nothing in DC.

      • Bee in my Bonnet says:

        What about Jindal or Pawlenty? I agree with Palin, but I think she would get just as much pushback from the Republicans as the Democrats as she would attempt to clean house.

        • South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford, Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels all bear watching. But none of them have the charisma of Sarah Palin, and IMO if the Repubs want to win they need someone with that sort of presence.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        IMO BF, it would take YEARS, if not decades to reverse the trend of Washington to go straight to hell and take the rest of us with them. Even if Palin were elected, and started a turnaround, she wouldn’t be in office long enough to do more than begin.

        That’s not saying we shouldn’t try though. Just be prepared for the long haul. First we’d have to get through that damn economic reset. And you of all know what that’s going to do. But that’s going to happen eventually anyway ain’t it?

        • Esom,

          It could happen every two years. If incumbents were to loose, and a majority of those elected were not kiss ass party loyalist (either party), or were independents. All spending bills originate in the house.

  8. Bee in my Bonnet says:

    There was a survey out recently that showed that those who identified with the Dems and Repubs were both down and that Independents polled in higher numbers.

    Independents = 39 %
    Republicans = 22%
    Democrats = 33%

    These Independents identifies as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In fact, the Independent number surged passed the Repubs and Dems in February, right around the time the Stimulus package was passed.

    Could this be a third party?

    • Black Flag says:

      The problem is that they are ideologically too diverse to rally, IMO.

    • RWBoveroux says:

      How can you be fiscally conservative and socially liberal??? A liberal mind set means that you believe that the government has the answer to any particular issue. This requires the government to spend money. A fiscal conservative would hold to a more restrictive monetary policy, thus reducing the things that government can do.

      Therefore, a fiscally conservative social liberal is an oxymoron.

    • Alan F. says:

      Nope just Canadian tourists.

  9. esomhillgazette says:

    While it’s true that the Republicans will never get back to power until they reconnect with Americans through a new policy or Dynamic Leader, just who would that be? So far, all I have seen from them is finger pointing and blame avoidance.

    They will have enough trouble coming back with the MSM against them without this. What they need to do is tend to their own knitting and stop worrying what Obama and Pelosi are doing. Stop concerning themselves with what others are doing to them and stop doing things to themselves and their Party members.

    Maybe if Cheney, Limbaugh, and Powell would all come together to make changes in the Party and bring them back closer to what The Party is supposed to be about, they would have better results.

    Stop blaming each other and start working together. Blame for the lost election is misplaced. The Republicans lost because the MSM was against them from the start, they picked a moron for a candidate, and finally, the Democrats had a dynamic politician and smooth talker who was able to shmooze a gullible public into believing he was the next Jesus Christ on Steroids. Combine all this with an almost too convenient Economic collapse just before the election, and Poof! Looky what we got!

    One thing the Democrats were right about though is the fact that the Republicans have lost touch with America. They still are. As USW said most of the Country is still Conservative. When the Republicans come back to Conservatism; REAL Conservatism, they might get back to prominence. Until then, uh-uh.

    Who will come to save the day? I don’t know. But Superman is already a Democrat and is already President, so they will have to pick another superhero. But they better stick together whatever they do.

  10. As far as I’m concerned Powell, Cheney & Limbaugh are not and should never be the “new voice of the Republican Party”. Politically I don’t care much for any of them. I liked Ron Paul for his beliefs and bringing the USA back to the principals in the Constitution, but the man always sounded like such a crack-pot whenever he opened his mouth. Just reminded me of that wierd guy on the corner claiming he was abducted by aliens and anal probed. I like Palin alot, just don’t think she could handle the bs from the media without at some point telling them all to go screw themselves, which might be what needs to be done anyway…would be alot of fun to watch though!

    I have stated before that America shouldn’t be the world police. I think we should back our firm allies to the fullest (UK and Australia come to mind) in whatever they have going on. Dropping nukes and wiping out an entire country would be a huge mistake but I have no problem with letting the Seals go in and smoke some piss ant countries leaders if the need arises.

    The other countries that ask for our help should be financing the operation, we can start by handing Iraq’s government a bill for services rendered or they could sign over a controlling interest in their oil fields until we are paid in full. Either way works for me. Our troops based in some of these other countries, (Germany & Spain for example) pack them up, send them home and place them on OUR borders. Time these countries took care of themselves for awhile.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Kym, you sure you’re from California? ‘Cause you sure don’t sound like it with that Hellfire and Brimstone attitude!

      “but I have no problem with letting the Seals go in and smoke some piss ant countries leaders if the need arises.”

      Oh Lord, Am I envious of your husband! 😀

      • I currently reside in California, but have lived all over the US. My husband gets uhhh “irritated” with me over some of my opinions which is why he used to cringe if I went to the Navy Wives Club meetings, seems I tend to step on the wrong toes quite often. hehe

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Well. I can see why if he’s in the Navy. Have to keep from offending the brass after all. But I like your attitude myself. Wish more Californians had the same one.

          Since you’re in the Navy, where are you really from? I mean raised? Sounds like somewhere conservative.

          • I was born in Ohio, moved when I was like 2 to Boston, from then on it gets real blurry. Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas, Texas, etc., etc., etc. My dad retired to Bakersfield, CA which used to be conservative but now wants to be just like LA. Most of the center of Cali is fairly conservative, LA and San Fran dominates politically though which is why we end up with Pelosi’s. With my husbands Navy career, we were stationed primarily in San Diego with a 3 year stint in Fallon, Nevada…which is where we will retire to in 5 years, God willing.

            • OK Kym:

              Top Gun question of the day. Do you know where Ione, Nevada is?

              Fallon used to grow the sweetest canteloups in the west.
              Not a bad place to retire to.
              JAC

              • Ione huh…nope, can’t say that I’ve heard of it. Been to Winnemucca, Tonopah and Elco though. We were at Fallon before they moved Top Gun there, however they did film alot of the dog fight sequences for the movie there and gave Tom Cruise a “ride” in an F14…poor guy almost puked. My husband was stationed at Miramar during the Top Gun days, all I can say is fighter pilots are the most arogant, cocky, know it all SOB’s on the planet and the absolute best at what they do!

              • Never made it to Austin either?

    • Black Flag says:

      Mercenary US Army – hmmm…

      “Want a revolution and have cash, have M1 Abrams to travel!”

      or

      “We’ll shoot the bullets, you throw the bucks!”

      Interesting business proposal….

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Hey, why not Flag? Since our Government won’t stay out of other people’s business anyway, we might as well get some profit from it. Our boys and girls are dying right now for NOTHING.

        • Black Flag says:

          Yeah, if they got to share in the loot.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Nah, I don’t mean loot. I just mean if we’re going to Militarily kick ass, then why not make it profitable? It pisses me off that we destroy, then rebuild all these Countries.

          Let’s destroy them and let them pay for the necessity. Can’t be any worse of us. Instead of paying folks to hate us, they could pay us for the priviledge of hating us.

      • BF…not for civil revolutions but like in the case when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They asked for help, we helped. It cost us $$$ to help them, they should reimburse us. Why should we foot the bill for everything?

        • Black Flag says:

          Why should the US government even get involved in that?

          If a US solider wants to go fight for Kuwait on his own accord and reason – no prob.

          Why should others be compelled to go fight? It had zippo to do with defending the USA.

  11. Bama dad says:

    Ray

    Negotiation worked very well in 1938. Only 70 million or so died after that little talk.

    The phrase “peace for our time” was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement.[1] It is primarily remembered for its ironic value. The Munich Agreement gave the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in an attempt to satisfy his desire for Lebensraum or “living space” for Germany. The German occupation of the Sudetenland began on the next day, 1 October.
    Less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Germany and its invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II

    • Black Flag says:

      A bit of over simplification.

      First, Sudetenland was part of German Confederation up until 1919, when the Allied powers redrew Central Europe out of the empires of Austria, Germany and Russia.

      Even Poland was part of the Russian and Austrian Empires, and not a country of its own until 1919.

      In 1938 and German annexation of Sudetenland territory, Poland seized that part of the former Duchy of Zaolzie which it considered linguistically and ethnically Polish.

      Until 1939, when most of the region was attached to the Nazi Reich, the Polish border stood just to the east of Ostrava and Frydek-Mistek.

      Russia and Germany had concluded a Pact that would create a buffer region and staging areas between their hostile governments. They both were readying for the inevitable war between them.

      Western Europe simply got their nose in the way of this fight. Hitler believed (and he probably would have been right) that the Western Powers would come on his side against the Communists.

      Both Russia and Germany invaded Poland in 1939 – and Russia seized the Baltic States as well as territories from Romania and Hungary that were previous Russian land that the Allied Powers had written off to the new countries in the Balkans craved out of the defeated Russian Empire.

      Most people have absolutely no idea of the utter disaster the victory of WW1 was for the Western World.

      Nearly every mess in every part of the world today is the result of that ‘victory’.

      • Bama dad says:

        World War II really began with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles of 28 June 1919.

        • Black Flag says:

          I believe it began with the horrific stupidity and bigotry of my (distant) cousin.

          Churchill was hell-bent on engaging Germany. He hated Germans – why, I’m not sure.

          He manipulated, maneuvered and designed alliances that continually boxed in the German Empire – trying to force a fight.

          It was the British Crown’s personal intervention – under the designs of Churchill to intertwine the Russian Empire into an alliance with France – with the British committed to a mutual alliance with France (after French disaster of the Prussian War fresh in their minds) against Germany.

          His bigotry resulted in a hundreds of millions of deaths. What a guy.

          • Bama dad says:

            I think Georges Clemenceau was worse than Winston. At the end of WW I Clemenceau was the one that really wanted to punish the Germans for whipping up on France in the 1871 War and the destruction of so much of their country during WW I. He wanted to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically. The old German military had whipped that French butt to many times for his taste. Your right, old Winston did not like the Germans.

            • Black Flag says:

              That he did –

              And so, the WW1 was revenge for the Prussian War, which was fought against Napoleon III whose cousin wanted the Spanish throne that was slated to go to the cousin of the German monarch.

              Of course the French wanted to claim it since it was Bonaparte who had seized and occupied Spain 1812.

              So, one can point to Bonaparte as the cause of all strife…..

              …but he came into power due to the counter-French Revolution, which had overthrown the Republic, which had overthrown the Monarchy.

              That overthrow of the French Monarchy was a direct consequence of the American Revolution.

              So, its all the USA’s fault to begin with!

              (USWep will roll his eyes again).

              But, seriously, I believe WW1 was the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.

              It has caused direct consequences – almost every war, political unrest and economic turmoil since 1914 can be directly traced to that disastrous victory.

            • Black Flag says:

              And ya know why the Prussians won the war against the French…

              …because of the US Civil War!

              Yep, direct cause and effect.

              The Prussians witnessed first hand the devastating effect of the cartridge fired rifles that were developed during the Civil War.

              The rate of fire was overwhelming – and the Prussians being no dummies immediately put it into their armaments.

              The French did not.

              140,000 dead, 150,000 wounded and 500,000 POW’s later, the French wished they had paid attention.

              • Bama Dad says:

                BF

                The French had a better rifle than the Germans. The German rifle was also home grown and was invented prior to the Civil War.

                The Dreyse needle-gun (German Zündnadelgewehr, which translates roughly as “needle ignition rifle”) was a military breechloading rifle, famous as the main infantry weapon of the Prussians, who adopted it for service in 1841 as the Dreyse Zündnadelgewehr, or Prussian Model 1841. Its name comes from its 0.5-inch (13 mm) needle-like firing pin, which passed through the paper cartridge case to impact a percussion cap at the bullet base. The Dreyse rifle was also the first breech-loading rifle to use the bolt action to open and close the chamber, executed by turning and pulling a bolt handle. It has a rate of fire of about 10-12 rounds per minute.
                The gun was the invention of the gunsmith Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse (1787–1867), who, beginning in 1824, had conducted multiple experiments, and in 1836 produced the complete needle-gun.
                From 1848 onwards the new weapon was gradually introduced into the Prussian service, then later into the military forces of many other German states, save for Austria. The employment of the needle gun radically changed military tactics in the 19th Century.
                The success of the Dreyse needle gun spurred subsequent developments in firearms technology, and prior to the start of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, the French introduced the Chassepot rifle. Although the Prussians won the war, the Chassepot proved superior in virtually all respects compared to the needle-gun, which was slowly becoming obsolete. With the subsequent unification of Germany, the Dreyse needle gun was replaced by the Mauser Model 1871 rifle in German service.

    • Black Flag says:

      Regarding Korea –

      Again, without any historical understanding, the USA created and continues an unholy mess.

      Korea revolted against foreign occupation – first by the Chinese then by the Japanese.

      The Americans decided to seize Korea and invited Soviet Russia to occupy it according to the agreements in the Potsdam Conference, without any consultation of the Korean people.

      Right out of the gate, the American administration under Gen. Hodge placed the hated Japanese back into the positions of government. Further Hodge ignored and refused to recognize all Korean political organizations.

      Uprisings occurred, and the US sided with the Japanese backed government forces – alienating American interests.

      As the situation deteriorated, the Soviets supported their candidate – Jong while the US instituted a discredited puppet – Rhee.

      Both dictators eliminated their respective rivals in their regions – and both leaders were hell bent on organizing Korea under their respective visions.

      North Korea simply hit the starting line first.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      As in response to SK above – I believe China (and perhaps Japan) should have a bigger role in that region with promoting change in NK.

    • RAY,

      That’s not a bad idea except. The Kim dynasty does not seem to care. They think that they can intimidate everyone into giving them aid and keeping them afloat. This would include the Chinese.

      China has been involved through the Clinton and Bush Admins and has not been successful. There were at least three occasions over the past 16 years when we were “assured” by our government that N. Korea had stopped developing weapons thanks to the Chinese government’s cooperation with us. In return they got oil and food and credit in N. Korea. A couple of years later and it had to be done all over again.

      So, here we are back to square one. My problem with China is that they really have nothing to gain by putting on the screws to the great leader. We certainly will not stop trading with them, we need them to buy our junk bonds. I also think back to Nov-Dec 1950, the frozen Chosin and the sheer numbers of Chinese who came over the border to be killed by us or freeze to death in their sneakers. Maybe China has changed but, if I were a Chinese leader and wanted to stir up some mischief with my only real international rival, I might actually egg on little Kim. For that matter, I might ship AK’s and RPG’s to Afghanistan too and send the “how to build a bomb” book to Iran.

      I think in geopolitics, you just have to think to yourself what is the absolutely worst, most disgusting thing I can do. If history tells us anything, that’s usually the way things work out.

      I guess if I had to make a National Security call here, I would probably see if my intel could locate the bastard and his sons and Generals (maybe the next birthday party?) Then, something large and conventional, maybe one of those daisy cutters.After dropping it, I’d jam all their communications. No sense in making the mistake the July 20th plotters made on Hitler. Have the damn plan B ready to go in case you missed him. Let the South invade and stand by with the biggest Aid package since the Marshall plan. The Chinese would have to be let in on it to the extent that if they can’t deal with him, then we will have to. Unfortunately they may take this as bluster and be surprised when we knock him off. Not one US soldier, not one US air asset or naval asset goes north of the 38th parallel. As a matter of fact, if they are rolled up as quickly as I think they could be, the US ought to begin it’s withdrawal from South Korea simultaneously with the invasion of the North. That, should convince the Chinese they have nothing to fear from us. It would also be worth trying to buy off N. Korean Generals once the fun begins. If that doesn’t work, make it look like we bought them off and let them have fun killing each other.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    As people know I am a big Thomas Jefferson fan.

    He firmly believed in commerce with all and alliances with none. He also believed that if we were attacked we should show the attacker exactly what a huge error they had made.

    It amazes me how many Americans have been led to believe that we have some sort of moral authority or moral duty to be the world’s police force or the world force for the expansion of democracy. No such thing was intended by the founders, I assure you.

    If America had chosen to lead the rest of the world toward a constitutional republic, we would have been far better served to lead by example rather than try to force the issue in virtually every case.

    Clearly right now, we lack the moral authority to even run our own country let alone tell anyone else how to run theirs. Just my 2 copper.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Yeah, well your 2 copper sounds a whole lot like mine. Why is it that everyone thinks we have to politically own another Country to have commerce with them. They either have our (snicker) ideals to deal at all with them?

      Like you said Peter, we don’t have any morals anymore ourselves. We no longer have ideals. We sure can’t force our nonexistent democracy on others when we don’t practice it ourselves. I guess when we become Socialist then we’ll be like the rest of them. Then we won’t have to export democracy anymore.

    • Very well said Peter and I couldn’t agree with you more!

  13. Stuck in Ohio says:

    I just found your blog site a few days ago and I must say that I am very impressed by the quality of posts and comments. It is a pleasure to find a site that contains intelligent discussion from both side of the issues we face today.

    Todays post was outstanding, right on the money. Looking forward to future posts and comments.

  14. Black Flag says:

    Common Man from above….

    Are you an anarchist?

    Depends on the definition.

    I’m anti-government. But that, too, depends on your definition of government.

    How much Government is too much?

    How much sewage is unacceptable in glass of pure water?

    Any amount over zero.

    Should we have a Constitution (in some form)

    Any group of people can organize themselves in any manner they see fit voluntarily.

    But I know what your asking – a Constitution is a document that is to limit the actions of a government, and is enforced by the government upon itself.

    I’m sure you can figure out why a Constitution has never worked in limiting a government.

    Do you love you’re country?

    I love the people.

    Artificial lines on map make no difference for me. People do.

    Out of the last 6 Presidents who would you rate highest on your “OK” scale?

    None.

    In a reverse beauty contest, Carter – he at least got one peace accord signed. But even that is suspect.

    Given the circumstances of December 7th 1941 and the historic alliances of Japan and Germany do you feel we should have or have not declared war on Japan?

    What ‘historic’ alliance? They had an alliance of convenience – once.

    Japan was provoked into attacking the USA. So, it’s an interesting question you ask.

    If the USA goal was to go to war, then the outcome was exactly what the USA wanted – Japan attacking the USA.

    It is the ‘we’ that throws the question – who is we? I’m sure if the American people were aware at the time of the provocation FDR was creating – both upon Germany and Japan – to push them into attacking the USA, the People may have revolted.

    Why do you think we went to Viet Nam?

    To expand the American Empire behind the failing footsteps of the French.

    Why are we in Iraq?

    To expand the American Empire behind the failing footsteps of the British.

    Do you believe that 9-11 was an act of terror by a foriegn entity?

    Yes.

    What is your thoughts of Barac/Berry? (I didn’t vote for him and do not believe he is qualified to be the President, therefore I refuse to call him by his current title)

    A criminal from Line A of Team Elite, replacing the criminal from Line B of Team Elite.

    Do you grieve for your lost friends and loved ones more on the anniversary of their death?

    Yes.

    How would you structure the Republic in which we live in order for it to be a more perfect union in your eyes?

    On a consistent, moral basis.

    Why do you chose to live in the US+

    The weather is, for the most part, nice and balanced. And Americans speak a form of English.

    Who should be responsible for defending your freedom and liberty when they are threatened?

    Those who are threatened and able, and anyone else who voluntarily wants to help them.

    Why do you hate the government?

    I don’t hate.

    I despise evil, and the foundational premise of government is pure evil.

    Do you believe in any of the Constitutional Ammendments?

    Belief begets Faith, and I have no faith that a piece of paper holds any force over evil.

    How should a country be governed? What powers should that ideal governing party have?

    Precisely, no more and no less, with the powers that govern an individual’s actions upon one each other.

    You are obviously well educated and thougtfull. You display a great deal of knowledge, and the ability to communicate effectively. As such I always try to first understand each man/woman’s mantra prior to touting my own. I have found it makes for a more spirited discussion.

    I agree.

    • Bama Dad says:

      BF

      “Japan was provoked into attacking the USA. So, it’s an interesting question you ask.”

      Are you referring to the embargo of raw materials to Japan by the US? If not please enlighten me.

      • Black Flag says:

        The USA embargo of Dutch East Indies Oil was a direct threat to Japan. Japan had less than 6 months of strategic reserves.

        Japan had to seize the oil – which required the neutralization of British and American Naval forces

  15. “And on behalf of the host and others here, you could make your point without calling people names…”
    “First and foremost, name calling will not gain you any debate points on this site, and more importantly, is not permitted.”

    I’m confused – exactly how do these two statements apply on this site?
    The answer seems to change, depending on who is doing the name-calling.
    Or the issue is only raised when certain people do the name-calling.

    Any clarification on this?

    This whole topic sounds like a victim to me:

    Dem have the MSM, Schools, universities. And anyone who believes the Democrats is a dumb kid – or dumb adult…and since the Republicans don’t have these things, they are in a real bind here.

    Isn’t life just so terribly UNFAIR to the Republicans… Maybe the MSM, schools, universities, and +60% of the American people don’t like the Republicans because the Republicans aren’t very likeable…

    Or is it that +60% of American’s are stupid, and all the intelligent ones are on this blog?

    Or maybe the issue is, as you stated:

    Because there certainly isn’t a lot about their (the Republicans) message that is going to resonate with anyone.

    No one likes their message, and their party is having problems. What part of this is the Democrats or MSMs fault??

    Do you have any sources to back up all of your “known truths” listed in this article? Or are they “facts” because you said them and anyone who disagrees with you has to prove you wrong, or else we’re just all Liberal whiners afraid of a debate?

    After the philosophy articles last week, I thought the attitude and tone were improving here, but last Friday’s post on Taxes and this post have disappointed me. No relevant facts or sources, just ranting about your point of view. It’s your blog – do what you want. But don’t expect anyone to have a civilized debate with you when you start the conversation from such a low-life point of view. There’s nothing to debate here.

    You’re entire rant about National Defense is…I don’t know what…

    Bush had already set us up to leave Iraq prior to leaving office, so he (Obama) gets no credit there

    During the campaign, when Obama suggested he would have all US combat troops out 16 months after taking office, the Republicans screamed bloody-murder about Obama being weak on National Security. The fact that Bush then adopted Obama’s plan and time table tells me who has vision and intelligence, and who deserves credit. Talk about revisionist history.

    But if war comes to you, you fight it. No rules, no limited troops, no holds barred.

    Let’s see, the military wanted more troops in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said no. Before Afghanistan was secure, they made up excuses and invaded another county – with too few troops again. So how can you say the Republicans fight wars with “no limited troops”?

    And your isolationist policy has proven un-workable in the past – like the first 41 years, 11 months, and 6 days of the 20th century. With the interconnected world today, I don’t think it will work any better now.

    So how well do you know Limbaugh, Powell, and Cheney? You tell Liberals not to judge them because we don’t know them. I curious about you personal relationships with them that formed your opinions?

    And I’d really interested in your personal relationship with Nancy Pelosi, considering how justified you seem to think you are in your attacks on her. Do you know anything about the woman that wasn’t fed to you by Fox News?

    And anyone who is offended by this, bite me.

    • USWeapon says:

      The answer seems to change, depending on who is doing the name-calling. Or the issue is only raised when certain people do the name-calling. Any clarification on this?

      No, sir, don’t strain yourself. You are operating on a false premise and incomplete analysis. I do not allow name calling of those posting on the site. You may not call BlackFlag an asshole. You may, however, call Dick cheney an asshole if you so desire.

      Dem have the MSM, Schools, universities. Isn’t life just so terribly UNFAIR to the Republicans…

      Those are simply the facts. I didn’t say it was unfair or anythink along those lines. I simply stated the reality for the Republicans (which in case you aren’t paying attention, IS NOT ME, but then again, as I have said, many folks will only read what they want to read in what I write)

      Maybe the MSM, schools, universities, and +60% of the American people don’t like the Republicans because the Republicans aren’t very likeable… Or is it that +60% of American’s are stupid, and all the intelligent ones are on this blog?

      Or let’s start with the obvious flaw in your statement. That “60%” number you like to throw around is wishful thinking. Let’s be more accurate and take the numbers provided by someone above:

      Independents = 39 %
      Republicans = 22%
      Democrats = 33%

      Which means 78% of Americans don’t like the Republicans and 67% don’t like the Democrats. Seems to me that most Americans think your position is just as full of shit as the Republican position. Wake up.

      Or maybe the issue is, as you stated: Because there certainly isn’t a lot about their (the Republicans) message that is going to resonate with anyone. No one likes their message, and their party is having problems. What part of this is the Democrats or MSMs fault??

      I did not blame the Democrats for the Republican party’s problems. I pointed out realities and factors in their position. Again you are reading into my articles what you want to see there instead of what is actually said.

      Do you have any sources to back up all of your “known truths” listed in this article? Or are they “facts” because you said them and anyone who disagrees with you has to prove you wrong, or else we’re just all Liberal whiners afraid of a debate?

      Which known truths are you looking for? I will admit that most liberal whiners are afraid of debate, but if you take that personally… well, that isn’t my fault. It is my blog though. I provide some facts and some opinions. You are welcome to destroy my opinions with your facts… or don’t. Doesn’t matter to me.

      After the philosophy articles last week, I thought the attitude and tone were improving here, but last Friday’s post on Taxes and this post have disappointed me. No relevant facts or sources, just ranting about your point of view. It’s your blog – do what you want. But don’t expect anyone to have a civilized debate with you when you start the conversation from such a low-life point of view. There’s nothing to debate here.

      You’re entire rant about National Defense is…I don’t know what…

      Bush had already set us up to leave Iraq prior to leaving office, so he (Obama) gets no credit there

      A simple fact. Do you dispute it?

      During the campaign, when Obama suggested he would have all US combat troops out 16 months after taking office, the Republicans screamed bloody-murder about Obama being weak on National Security. The fact that Bush then adopted Obama’s plan and time table tells me who has vision and intelligence, and who deserves credit. Talk about revisionist history.

      Oh you do dispute it. And your logic is that a Presidential candidate suggested that he would do it this way and then the sitting President went to Iraq and talked their government into adopting the incoming President’s plan. Oh, your logic there is flawless.

      “But if war comes to you, you fight it. No rules, no limited troops, no holds barred.” Let’s see, the military wanted more troops in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said no. Before Afghanistan was secure, they made up excuses and invaded another county – with too few troops again. So how can you say the Republicans fight wars with “no limited troops”?

      I didn’t say Republicans have acted flawlessly. In fact I believe my exact words were that they screwed the pooch just slightly less than Democrats. My descriptions of the two parties above was a fair and accurate representation of the general actions of those parties. You can find examples of time where each acted differently than what I said, it doesn’t change the premise.

      And your isolationist policy has proven un-workable in the past – like the first 41 years, 11 months, and 6 days of the 20th century. With the interconnected world today, I don’t think it will work any better now.

      There is a GIGANTIC difference between an isolationist policy and a defense only policy. I at no point suggested that we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. I suggested that we pull our troops back and use them for defense only. I am shocked to read that a liberal has an issue with that theory.

      So how well do you know Limbaugh, Powell, and Cheney? You tell Liberals not to judge them because we don’t know them. I curious about you personal relationships with them that formed your opinions?

      Perhaps you should get to know me better before you make your assumptions about who I do or do not know and who I have and have not met. I have not met Limbaugh, but I do know Powell quite well and Cheney well enough.

      And I’d really interested in your personal relationship with Nancy Pelosi, considering how justified you seem to think you are in your attacks on her. Do you know anything about the woman that wasn’t fed to you by Fox News?

      As a matter of fact as someone who worked in Washington politics, I do know plenty about Speaker Pelosi that I did not get from Fox News (who I hold in no higher esteem than CNN by the way, but nice try). I don’t have a personal relationship with her because I don’t like her, and I have my own reasons for that. Again, before you make what you think is a sly little jab at a dumb guy ranting on a blog, you should know who you are talking to. But thanks for playing as today’s contestant on “Who wants to make the biggest assumptions about USWeapon”.

      And anyone who is offended by this, bite me.

      Bravo, good to see you are good and enraged. I suggest you lose the emotion and talk facts. You take these things far too personally. I think that your party is full of shit. I am sorry that doesn’t sit well with you. I also think the Republican party is full of shit. I am sure that won’t sit well with some other folks on here.

      If you want to have debates with logic and principle, stick around. If you think that the debates here are not done that way, then don’t. I hope you do. You seem like a pretty smart guy, just a little too touchy and a little too protective of your party. When you realize that partisanship is not the point, you’ll be ready to read my material without being so offended.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        US, US, US – “there ya go again” – here is the challenge for those of us who do not agree with you 100% of the time – let’s take Nancy for example:

        Perhaps Nancy is the worst person in the world and is all the things you accuse her to be – the sentiment is that when someone such as I or Todd question or challenge that we are either (a) dismissed as liberal jack-offs who cannot prove your opinions wrong (fighting opinions with facts) and/or (b) given the Heisman that we cannot possibly challenge or disagree because you “know things and people that we just don’t know. Period”. What gives? There is no dialogue, discourse or debate if we go down a path of that ends with “I just know stuff that I cannot talk about or discuss so you lose the argument”. Make sense? Why should those who disagree with you be required to counter your unsubstantiated opinions with irrefutable facts less we’re dismissed as whiners? Who wants to play that game? Its like me opining that Michelle Obama has six nipples – a ‘fact’ all liberals know as fact – you’re not a liberal so you have to prove me wrong with facts.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        US – what is also interesting is that you took a very good subject and 3/4 way thru again devolved into an “I hate Nancy” diatribe – if I follow the line of thinking of some of your ardent supporters herein that may suggest you either actually like her or are afraid that she is the truth. Scary eh?

        • Ray,

          Why I bother actually bothers me. I dislike Nancy because first and foremost, she is a hypocrite and I hate hypocrites.

          As some are aware, I actually think unions have a place and Nancy says they do too but Nancy and her hubby own a string of high end hotels/resorts. Guess what? Unions are not welcome there. Oh, I guess their executive boards are, for weekends of fun and frolic but the laborers, those “little people” Nancy loves are not in a union and not likely to be. Nancy and hubby also own a string of vineyards and her grape pickers are not unionized either.

          So here we have this incredible hypocritical symbiotic relationship where the unions let her get away with this crap because she’s on “their” side.

          Your rants about Cheney annoy me especially those about Halburton. I am not a Cheny fan but the main knock seems to be that Halburton is a Contractor and makes a war profit. They then become, I guess, war profiteers. That is usually what happens in wars. The guys who make the blankets, guns, shoes, C-rats etc. all are war profiteers.

          The only problem with this tar ’em all with one brush approach is that it has to be applied across the board. Henry J. Kaiser, father of the liberty ship and Andrew Jackson Higgins father of the Higgins boats were war profiteers too and yet, without them the war would have been more difficult if not impossible to win. can’t have it both ways Ray.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            So you like no bid contracts eh SK? Think it was some accident that Cheney, we get involved in an illegal war and Halliburton gets tapped to make the blankets, guns, shoes, etc? Those things don’t happen by accident.

            • Here I go beating my head against the wall again.

              Let’s see, Higgins and Kaiser were no bid contracts, Boeing B-29’s were no bid. In wartime there are a lot of no bids.

              Who exactly was or could have been a competitor with Halburton? I’d like to know, for the next time, you know when Obama wants to secure Pakistan. Maybe it will be ACORN. Now, that’s a no bid. I know those folks real well.

              Illegal war, in the traditional post WW 2, sense of congress ducking its responsibilities you mean? Yes, without a declaration, you are right but only on that tiny limited point. Seems to me they, including Nancy P were all enthusiastic participants. And Ray, if poor shlubs like me and you could see the problems before they happened I am sure that the wonderful congress with all their briefings and staff could see it coming too. But they jumped in with both feet.

              Re: the CIA controversy and Panetta, all he and Nancy had to do, if they wanted, was invoke the Church committee post Vietnam. That would have gotten all the creaky old hippies (and John Kerry ) up out of their nursing homes and back on the march. Gotta know that history stuff. Sort of been there, done that, doing it again!

              Ever hear the phrase, “an accident waiting to happen”? Unless you are a believer in conspiracies, ie: FDR knew about Pearl harbor, Wilson knew about the Lusitania, the oil companies wanted all that oil off the Vietnam coast there is no way anyone is bright enough to plan these things. They are all a series of small errors and mistakes leading up to one big accident.

      • I’m not “good and enraged.” I’m laughing about this entire post!

        Why all the ranting and raving about the Dems and the MSM when talking about whether or not the “Republicans Finding Their Voice?” If you want to keep blaming the MSM for all the Republican’s problems, go right ahead! It will get you no where.

        And you missed the entire point of “And anyone who is offended by this, bite me.” That was sarcasm, because you said “For all you liberals who want to take offense to that, bite me.”

        Geez, it’s no fun when you don’t get the JOKES!

        • USWeapon says:

          Oh I got your joke.

          And again, I didn’t blame the media or the schools for the Republican problems. What part of that statement are you not getting? I pointed them out as obstacles to the Republicans finding relevance in todays climate.

          Again I point out that you read what you want to read into my statements.

          The sun is getting ready to come up so I will not get into this again right now. But tomorrow you will get my final reply to this line of questioning. It wastes my time to go past that.

          • This is one of your paragraphs word for word. I know I’m just a stupid Liberal and sometimes I have trouble with the English language, but it seems to me that you’re saying this is the way Republicans fight wars, and Democrats should take some lessons from the Republicans.

            Please explain to me the part I misinterpreted?

            Republicans claim that war is an unfortunate reality. That is an outright lie, ladies and gentlemen. They don’t believe that for one little second. No, they like war. They see it as a economic positive. They see it as a way to spread their vision to unwilling nations. But the one thing they do well is fight wars the way they should be fought, with downright nastiness. War is an ugly thing. And it should be avoided at all costs. But if war comes to you, you fight it. No rules, no limited troops, no holds barred. Enemy combatants, screw em. Civilian casualties? Shouldn’t have let those terrorists hole up next door and helped to hide them. If Democrats are going to fight wars, and they are, then they could take some good lessons from the Republicans. My daddy always said, “no fight is a good fight” but he followed it up with, “but if they are going to make you fight, there are no rules and you make them wish they never challenged you”.

            • USWeapon says:

              You read too much into it. I said in the paragraph before this one that Democrats are wrong in the way that they fight wars. I followed it up with the fact that Republicans are liars when they claim that war is inevitable.

              My personal belief is that if you have to fight a war, it is no holds barred. In that single aspect, if Democrats are going to fight wars then they should learn that lesson, either from Republicans or my father. Doesn’t matter where they learn that lesson, but they should learn it.

              But you failed to address the answer I gave to your question. When I answered it, you merely moved on to a different statement rather than sticking to your claim. Your claim was that I blamed the MSM and Democrats for all the Republican problems. I pointed out that I said no such thing. That is what frustrates me in these debates with opposing points of view. I showed you where you read something into a statement that wasn’t there, and were therefore incorrect in your statement. You refuse to acknowledge my reply and simply move to something you feel is a different unanswered question.

              • If I mis-read the article – sorry. But I read one paragraph about how the Democrat’s fight wars, and one about how the Republican’s fight wars. Like you’ve said, I don’t know you personally, so I can’t get into your head to figure out what you mean. I read the statement “no limited troops” in the paragraph about how Republican’s fight wars.

                These type of “conversations” are all about perception. I try to read your articles and all posts carefully, but sometimes I’m sure I mis-read things. And some people have mis-read or taken my comments the wrong way. I take that as a challenge to me to try to write future responses clearer, because if someone does not understand my comments, that’s my fault. Of course, that leads to long responses.

                A far as missing one of you responses, that wasn’t intentional. Usually I cut’n’paste the entire article and comments into an email so I can formulate my response. Many times the formating (like the boxes you used) are lost, and I end up with a mess of text. The mails all go to my home email, but I log on from several different locations so I’m not always working from the email.

                If the article is about “Republicans Finding Their Voice?”, why not stick to that? What do the Democrats, MSM, how they fight wars, etc, have to do with the “Republicans Finding Their Voice?”

                As far as the “known truths” and “facts” I think I was referring to the MSM always being in the Dems pocket. I used to think that when I was a Republican, but as my feelings have changed, I see biases in both directions. Yes, Obama got a lot of good press during the election, but he had a more positive message on the campaign trail, blah, blah. Are there any studies showing an actual MSM bias? Of course, that depends on what you include in the definition of MSM.

                And Chris’s comment about MSM was pretty good – it’s about making money, and the news room might be liberal, but the management is not.

                And quite frankly, I’ve been rereading my comments and I don’t know WTF I was trying to say. Must have been a pissy day at work – and you didn’t help!! 🙂

                And I still don’t think you got my joke – You jumped on the “bite me” comment pretty hard… 😉

      • I’ve been called plenty of things on this site. You’ve never jumped in so fast to defended me as you defend yourself. I don’t care – it says more about the name-caller than anything else.

        As Ray pointed out, your opinions and “realities” are accepted as “facts,” especially by you, while you simply dismiss Liberals and any comments they make.

        I never said +60% of Americans are democrats. Stop straining yourself – and wake up! Obama has a 66% approval rating – that’s a FACT. Although I’m sure you’ll argue it a biased liberal poll – how else could Obama have 66% approval? But you see, the Liberals have figured out that diluting themselves with unsound facts is really not good – it leads to unsound decisions…

        And again, you’re revising history. Bush did not talk Iraq into adopting the current plan. After Obama proposed it, the Iraqi’s adopted it and Bush was forced to negotiate because the “Status of Forces Agreement” expired on 12/31/2008.

        How is my logic flawed? Because you disagree with it?

        Defense only is isolationisms. We pull back to our shores and we lose any influence we have in the world. I’m not promoting war-mongering, just respectable foreign policy.

        I don’t see any reason to re-argue opinions on Limbaugh, Powell, Cheney, and Pelosi.

        Although I find it interesting that now it’s “Speaker Pelosi”…

        Maybe Ray is right and you really do agree with her, but just can’t quite admit it yet…

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Todd,

          You have no clue or concept of how to actually debate, do you?

          Also, Obama’s Approval Rating is currently 60.2%, not 66% as you claim. In spite of this the current percentage of people that think this country is going in the wrong direction is 48% while the number that think the country is going in the right direction is 45%. Please reconcile those numbers for me. Also, Congressional Approval Rating is at about 30% while over 60% DISAPPROVE of the job the Congress is doing, and lets see, they are almost all Democrats, aren’t they? Reconcile those numbers for me as well please.

          Also, please RE-READ the entire post by USW, instead of cherry-picking it. I think you will find that his point was that Rush, Cheney, and Powell are NOT QUALIFIED IN THE LEAST to be the “voice” of the Republican Party for various reasons, and the Republican Party is not going to find its voice until it gets back to core values. That is what I personally got out of reading the article. Apparently decifering that was more complex than I thought.

          • Excellent point Peter, beat me to it.

            It is like Clinton, it seems to be the callow youth thing. No matter how bad Obama or Clinton screw up they will get a pass. They both come across with that boyish charm that seems to get them another chance. The key is listening carefully to women’s comments about them. I know that might get me in trouble with 51% of the population, but when you are a fly on the wall and just ;listen to the conversations, they are chilling.

            I know JFK had it too as did his brothers. Think about what the Kennedy’s got away with over the years. I still can’t figure out how Teddy survived Chappaquidick to become an “elder statesman”.
            I wonder if Teddy Roosevelt had it too but, at least I think he was mostly grown up.

            Guys like Todd will never get it. This is not “American Idol”. The stakes are much higher. Why can’t people see that?

            • SK Trynosky Sr,
              It would also be helpful if you could explain just what it is that I don’t get?

              Thanks!

            • Because Obama’s 60 or 66% has nothing to do with his performance and everything to do with his perception. If it were his performance then his me too congress would have a higher rating than they do since they are making it all possible. That’s all. Real simple. Re-read my comments on their boyish charm. Perhaps the most telling comment, during the race was that of Chris Matthews with the “tingle up his leg”. That, and that alone should have disqualified him from ever hosting anything vaguely resembling a news program again, ever! It does show us though how “perception” or the American Idol thing drives public opinion these days.

              So, to summarize, you don’t get the idea that politics can and is personality driven. Furthermore, you don’t get that polls must be looked at in context ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY TEND TO CONTRADICT. So Obama’s so popular but the Democratic congress is not and Americans do not think that the country is headed in the right direction and they are worried about the out of control spending and 51 percent are now “pro life”. The last four seem to contradict the first. Does this mean the first is false? No, absolutely not, it merely ,means you have to dig deeper to see what is going on.

              • This is the poll I was referring to:

                http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends

                It shows a 66% approval rating for Obama. That implies 66% of people approve of his performance. And perception is all that matters. What else could you possible measure? Unless every candidate had to sit down with every voter so the voters could really get to know them personally.

                The poll also has numbers for the leaders of congress, both parties in congress, and both political parties. All are much lower than Obama, but Democrats are ahead of Republicans in all categories. Even Nancy Pelosi, who had a bad week and is down 10 points is still ahead of the Republican leaders.

                I haven’t seen it recently so I don’t have a link, but I read an article that said most members of congress get fairly high ratings from their own districts, but those same people rate congress overall very low. A little bit of a contradiction. The assumption in the article was that most people like their own representatives, but not the partisan fighting in congress.

                If Chris Matthews should be disqualified, shouldn’t Rush Limbaugh and all the commentators on Fox News also be disqualified for their opinions?

                Politics is a popularity contest – no question about that. Personality and perception play a big part. Remember Reagan – the Great Communicator. Carter and Mondale didn’t stand a chance because Reagan was a great speaker and very personable. He had that down-to-earth by-golly way of connecting with people.

                As far as the country heading in the right direction, if you go to the above link, scroll down to the bottom and click on “Direction of Country”, you’ll see that “wrong direction” has been trending down and “right direction” has been trending up since the start of the year, when Bush left office and Obama took office. They’re both at about 48% as of 5/21/2009.

                I also saw the poll that showed 51 percent are now “pro life”. But if you looked closer at all the numbers from that poll, it also showed something like 60-70% approved of a woman’s right to choose. That implies to me that 51% would not choose abortion, but a higher percentage feel others have the right to make that choice for themselves.

                US Weapons listed poll numbers for affiliation by political party and independent. I was saying there are other ways to look at poll numbers. I had said in a previous post that you can usually find poll numbers to support just about anything you like. US Weapons response to that was that’s just a Liberal excuse for not providing facts. Here are my facts.

                If you don’t like these polls because of the source, that’s fine. But Daily Kos was pretty accurate leading up to and including the final election results.

              • Let’s pick it up at 19.

          • Peter,
            It sure would be helpful if you could explain how to debate.

            Thanks!

          • See my reply to SK Trynosky Sr for the poll numbers.

            I agree US Weapon’s point was that Rush, Cheney, and Powell are not qualified to to be the “voice” of the Republican Party. So why all the comments about the Democrats and the MSM? If the issue is the Republican party lacking leadership, stick to that.

  16. Dump the political parties. “We The People” did not elect the political parties, we elected the person. If the person runs on his/her own record and ideas then maybe we can start getting honest politicians in our government.

    But then maybe I am just jousting with windmills.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      If I go to the movies I not only choose the movie I am going to watch but the theater I am going to watch it in. Where I live they are both approximately equal, expensive and offer the same prize in different packaging.

    • I agree, G.A….I have an example of what bothers me much.

      “Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California is another Democrat frustrated by the gun debate. When she asks colleagues why they don’t support tougher restrictions, she said, they reply, “You just don’t get it, Woolsey. You don’t have our districts.”

      “It has to do with being afraid they’ll lose their election if they stand up against guns,” she said.”
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/25/liberals-frustrated-on-gu_n_207247.html

      Rep. Woolsey sounds as if she thinks that’s a problem, isn’t that exactly as it should be!? They represent the PEOPLE of their districts NOT just the party they run under.

      We need a Daniel Hannan…

  17. Great talk today folks. I love getting some history knowledge each day. USW, nice reply to Todd. G.A., jousting with windmills is an understatement, the system is too far gone! Todd, I’m an asshole, stick around long enough to prove it! Hit and runs by the left don’t get much respect here.

    PEACE!

    G!

    • I don’t follow – am I the asshole or are you?

      I’ve never been a hit & run here – but it takes time to write a response that has more thought then “Hey, great reply.”

      • perhaps sometimes people run short of time to post more than “hey, great reply”…just sayin’

  18. SFC Dick says:

    ok, I railed against the whole anti Christ as an argument earlier, but I flipp flopp here.

    Yeh, Nancy pelosi is the anti Christ. I’m on board with that one. I love the fact that Dirrector Panetta, a long time and very respect democrat had to give nancy the big dismissive and defend his new charge, tha Agency.

    Ah, the system, eternal and powerfull.

    “as long as my brother is on the field of battle I too shall go. I will not alow him to stand alone, with out me at his side and we two shall shoulder the burden; joined as brothers by our shared sacrifice and bond of unconditional commitment to each other’s survival”.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Panetta is just doing his job and supposedly never liked Pelosi anyway. Were you expecting him to say “your right Nance – my bad – we lied our asses off”?

      • Panetta could just rightly say, “I am the reform guy, I wasn’t there when the bad stuff went on”. He could also invoke the Church Committee hearings of the ’70’s and point out the agency had gone “renegade” again. Of course that would be a lie and maybe he just can’t bring himself to do that.

      • SFC Dick says:

        Ray
        nah, that wasn’t my point.

        It kinda speaks to the whole thing, the reason President Obama now seems to have flip flopped on Gitmo and is even proposing a new, I think tougher, “detention because you suck, and because you suck infinately we reserve the right to detain you indefinitely”. He is now in the system, charged with it’s preservation and defense. I think President Obama takes these duties very seriously.

        He could just as easily stnd up and do a saturday night live bit.

        “hey folks, ya know all that stuf I said about closing gitmo, getting us out of Iraq in 18 months, ya know, change stuf?. Well, I was kinda shooting from the hip in an election, kinda turns out I didn’t really know what i was talking about but now I know. Man, this stuff is serious, so forget all th close this, get out of there stuff. OK?, great. That is all.”

        Dirrector Panetta never was put in a position to say “yeh we lied” they did not. He was in a position to filet’ Polski though, which, out of a better character, he chose to soft pedal. I know what he said and what he meant.

        Damning by feint praise is never lost on me. Damning by no praise at all is pretty rock solid.

  19. So you are not frightened by poll numbers driven by personality rather than by performance?

    There is just so much to say to this I don’t know where to start. The Rev. Jim Jones, David Koresh, The Kims in Korea, Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, Joe Stalin, Huey Long, the list goes on and on and none of it ever ended well. The most telling, and I think frightening thing about Obama was his “Get over it, I won” comment. Even if he got 80% of the vote, he has no right to trample the Constitution. No matter how popular Caesar had become, Cicero never got over his opposition to the destruction of the Republic that he knew was coming. Like modern times, the Senate rolled over for the leader. I’ve never believed it “Can’t happen here”. Of course it can. Admittedly, they were wartime emergencies but Lincoln, Wilson and FDR all proved it can happen here. We were just lucky that the country and its congress regained its brains before it was too late. From a purely constitutional point of view it did not hurt that Lincoln and FDR died in office and Wilson became incapacitated. While I like to believe that they would have backed off their extra legal activities, one never had to take the chance to find out.

    These lock-step votes in our congress have me doubting that the senate will ever be anything other than a rubber stamp. That’s what happened to The Senate of the Roman People too.

    You write off the Republican party. While I don’t have a hell of a lot of use for it either, I could mention, in my adult life, two other times when it was written off big time. The monumental defeat of Barry Goldwater and the combo of Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s pardon of Nixon which got us the peanut farmer without a clue. In my father’s time, there was that little thing called the Great Depression still referred to by my country cousins as “Mr. Hoovers Depression”. So, I would be careful in looking at 2008 as some kind of “Great Leap Forward” (note the irony).

    The abortion polls again make the point. Contradiction. That is part of the problem with simple polls. Anyone who has taken Stat 101, should have been told, on the first day, that “Statistics don’t lie, statisticians do”. The point about the abortion poll is the change in attitude about the status of the baby or fetus if you prefer. That, I think is interesting. If it were possible, it would be nice to compare that with stats on slavery and the view of the black man by whites in general from, lets say 1850 to 1950. Little by little, people “got” it.

    I remember one anti-gun poll back in the ’60’s, the lead question was do you agree that gun violence is out of control? Hell, even I could agree with that but the follow up questions lead you down a path where almost anyone who said yes to question 1 became in favor of more gun controls by question 5, at least statistically.

    With a few days notice, I could devise a poll which would condemn to exile blue eyed left handers. I could begin to re-introduce slavery with the simple first question, “Do you agree that people on Public Assistance should be forced to work for their benefits?” Follow that up with. “Do you agree that people on Public Assistance should be closely monitored to prevent drug/alcohol abuse?” and finally, “Do you agree that people on public assistance who have repeatedly abused drugs and alcohol should be placed on work farms so they can be closely monitored for their own good and pay off their debt to society?”.

    See how much fun you can have with polls? Sometimes I really regret not finishing that Masters in Social Psych.

    Sorry, the Chris Matthews “tingle up my leg” comment is so far over the edge that it deserves a very special place of its own. Should Rush or anybody on Fox say something similar, they too would be on my “Let’s ostracize them” list. Rush came close with some of his fawning over Bush after being asked to play golf with the pres.but he finally came around and started to point out the damage Bush was doing to both the country and the party and the “perceptions” of the party by the public.

%d bloggers like this: