December 31, 2005
— Ace I spoke to my friend Steve_in_HB yesterday. He's not a Republican; he's a sort of extreme libertarian with some Republican leanings. But not enough to be a Republican. He's pretty down on organized religion and the religious right agenda, for example.
When I've tried to argue politics with him, he's generally argued against me 50% of the time. Sometimes a little more. Sometimes a little less.
The point he made is that he is the Democrats' target for recruitment. Born in a Blue State, raised in a Blue State, living in a very Blue State. And yet, when he got involved in arguing with some of the liberal posters here, and checking out Fire Dog Lake blog, he was completely turned off.
He's open to the Democratic message -- whatever the hell that might be -- but they just don't seem particularly willing to engage him with anything other than insults and unhinged Get-Bush-At-All-Costs-isms.
Anyway, he wrote something to this effect on the blog today:
I'll tell you some of what I've seen. A string of people coming here not to discuss issues, but rather to hurl canned insults.
Typically the first sentence contains "fascist". There is also a generally sneering use of mock hick phrasing. Some type of allusion to gun racks and trucks. Also, some variation on the Chimpy McHitler when referring to Bush.
Frankly, there is no reason to take these people seriously. They start out with the assumption that Republicans or Conservatives are evil and stupid, not that their fellow citizens are good people who have different political beliefs. How can you have serious discussions with this type of person?
As for "unpatriotic" -
Having reservations about surveillance activities, counter-terrorism tactics, etc is not unpatriotic. However, many of the "liberal" commenters don't really want to talk about trade-offs between privacy vs security, regime change vs realpolitik, etc. They instead take glee in US setbacks, misteps, etc because it helps their political side. That is unpatriotic.
I'm not even a Republican and disagree with a lot of their positions. In other words, I'm the Dems/Libs target audience. But all I see from them is blind anger, petty politicing, sneering elitism, and, at times, a lack of patriotism.
This isn't just the Internet, either. Sure, it's worse on the Internet, and there are a lot more dummies in cyberspace than working at the DNC, but it's just all part of the Big Democratic Message, which seems, to many, to consist of little more than "Impeach Bush, Give Us Back Power, We'll Make Things Better, Though We Have No Idea How, Or Else We're Too Afraid To Share That Information With You For Fear You Won't Like Our Actual Ideas."
The Republicans got their noses bloodied in 1998 when, as many people believed, they seemed to have de-emphasized advancing actual policy debates in favor of pursuing their bete noir, Bill Clinton, with an Ahab-like intensity. Hey, I was part of that madness myself, so I can't point fingers. I do know, though, that whatever the complaints were against Bill Clinton, Republicans failed to convince a majority of the country that we had anything to offer that was better as a substantive matter.
There's little point in giving advice to your opponents -- you don't want to give them useful advice, and besides, they won't listen anyway -- but really, hatred and spite are just not selling, guys. Even at the steep discounts you're offering based on volume, volume, volume.
You don't like Chimpmaster McHalliburton, Fascist Emperor of Hegemonic Terrorism. We get that. You also despise conservatives, anyone more religious than, say, Michael Newdow, and anyone who's ever taken a shot at a deer.
You say you have trouble "getting your message out;" trust me, that part of the message has come through loud and clear. Message received, roger wilco.
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:19 PM (Vs585)
Posted by: ace at December 31, 2005 12:20 PM (UxtY9)
If the democrats want my vote, all they need to do is support free market capitalism, support the war on terror, and tone down the hatred for their right-wing neighbors. I want to defect. Come on, donkeys, give me a reason to vote for you.
Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:23 PM (6hzCC)
There's a real level of hatred coming through their posts that just isn't present in most of ours. Yes, there's some ragging and jabbing, but it's pretty jovial.
No one's calling them PUSSY and fag every three words.
Posted by: ace at December 31, 2005 12:24 PM (UxtY9)
On the nose.
It is the Democrats and their raving, rabid hypocrisy that are making me shun them like a hooker with an obvious case of the crabs.
Anyone who doesnt buy into their BS is immediately labeled trailer trash, Nazi, PNAC goon, stupid, etc.
God forbid any one of them *ever* look in the mirror.
But hey, at least Clinton got to bang the office help.
Posted by: Scott at December 31, 2005 12:25 PM (/93R6)
Isn't technology great. Before we used to have to get on the phone to talk about how smart we were and how everybody else is stupid. Now we can do it on the internet and share it with everybody.
Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 12:26 PM (spTw1)
Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 12:27 PM (Vs585)
It would have been better if she were hot. The most powerful man on the planet and he can't get a 10 to do him? That's embarassing.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:27 PM (AlU3k)
But it's pretty cool that PLV is targeting me specifically now, because that lets me know he's hurtin'. Hurtin' baaad.
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:28 PM (Bjdtq)
If you're hungry, just ask nice.
Posted by: ergastularius at December 31, 2005 12:29 PM (AuKcO)
So when the ACLU sues to keep police from searching bags of subway passengers that's just part of the liberal support for the war on terror? No wonder you don't want a name.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:31 PM (AlU3k)
The ACLU also comes to the defense of fascists to protect their civil rights. The thing that separates us from tyrannies is our constitution and personal freedom. You may want to give away your rights but I certainly don't. There is nothing that excuses a President, who swears allegiance to the constitution, to then turn around and openly and unapologetically violate it. That makes us equivalent to any other totalitarian regime. It is no wonder so many real conservatives are looking for alternatives.
Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 12:35 PM (Vs585)
Posted by: Bill Clinton (The Anti-Chris-Klein) at December 31, 2005 12:37 PM (UxtY9)
And that's why they failed. They focused on Kill Bill. Not "why we have better ideas". They didn't offer any better ideas.
I'm a lighthearted conservative. I think our ideas work better. I like advancing them. I love my country, and the principles of liberty, however flawed the men were who advanced them.
Picking at the flaws, and ignoring the ideals is just pussy shit. To quote a famous man.
Advance some ideas. Let's talk about them. But if all you got is "Rethuglican", well, pardon me and the rest of us for ignoring you at the polls.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:37 PM (k9YTD)
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:38 PM (Bjdtq)
First of all, I do equate the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. The fact that democrats can't see this is a big mark against them in my book. But let's assume for the sake of argument that the Iraq war was a mistake...
In that case, what have the democrats done to help us recover from that mistake? I remember the John Kerry making fun of interim president Allawi (one of the more disgusting episodes of the 2004 campaign). I remember that we needed more troops, no, we need less troops, no, wait... Anyhow, John Kerry said he had a plan, but never revealed it. They offer nothing.
But anyhow, as to the war on terror outside of Iraq...
The left has whipped up ignorant paranoia against the Patriot Act. They should have provided an alternative which does the things that need doing, with only the objectionable parts reworked. Instead, they voted for it and now are trying to veto it, with nothing in place to replace it, to the detriment of our national security.
The left has consistently conflated Gitmo with makeshift prisons in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining the important intelligence work there and slandering our troops with comparisons to gulags and the like.
Does the war in Afghanistan count as the real war on terror? Well, the left has feted Michael Moore's F911 movie, which slanders our troops and claims that the war in Afghanistan was just a plot to build an oil pipeline. Michael Moore was given a seat of honor at the DNC convention, and the DNC chair and the minority leaders in both the House and the Senate endorsed his film.
Yeah, democrats. Thanks a lot for your help.
It wasn't 9/11 that made me a republican. 9/11 didn't really change my world-view at all, to be honest. It was the left's reaction to 9/11. (Sorry this post is so long.)
Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:39 PM (6hzCC)
I harbor no ill will towards those that do. Just not my thing.
Still a fan of the second amendment and firearms, and in my opinion it has nothing to do with hunting.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:40 PM (k9YTD)
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:42 PM (AlU3k)
I wouldn't waste my time arguing or insulting other people...at Left-wing sites. Those who come here for sole purpose of hurling insults are diseased. Have they nothing better to do with their time?
By the way, anyone else have trouble reading the comments on dogpisslake?
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 12:42 PM (wUpr4)
It would have been better if she were hot. The most powerful man on the planet and he can't get a 10 to do him? That's embarrassing."
Posted by digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 05:27 PM
I guess after looking at Hillary for all those years Monica could appear to be a cookie. And that is me being generous.
No sh** though, if he had at least tagged Sharon Stone, or like Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, he might not have been taken to task. We might have even been proud. Good thing he didnt do Pamela Anderson, eh? He would be in the same league as Kid Rock and Tommy Lee (which would have been a step up).
As it is, he was an embarrassment to the nation, and men in general. The other thing was the blue dress. Can you imagine your daughter coming home with "the blue dress" and advising her to save it, and then providing a plastic bag?
You *know* the French and Italians were embarrassed for us, between laughing their asses off and toasting his stupidity.
Clinton and Monica *alone* guaranteed a Republican victory.
Posted by: Scott at December 31, 2005 12:43 PM (/93R6)
I agree. For example, it's illegal to shoot bald eagles, but the NRA doesn't object. The second ammendment is about weapons for killing people.
Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:44 PM (6hzCC)
Posted by: Alex_fs at December 31, 2005 12:44 PM (V5U8u)
Godwin's Law. You lose.
Posted by: marcus at December 31, 2005 12:45 PM (mq+EB)
To each and all of you, even Gene and PLV, I wish you and yours a Happy New Year.
and ace, thank for the fun.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:46 PM (k9YTD)
It's not like any other animals we eat are killed in much more of a 'humane' fashion.
And shooting at a deer doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to hit it, therefore, unlike cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc at slaughter, the deer has a chance to get away.
Most hunters eat what they shoot, and abhor those who simply trophy hunt.
As for No Name, please tell us all how the Iraq war is illegal, and all about how many freedoms you've lost...
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 12:47 PM (w9g/S)
Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 12:47 PM (Vs585)
I think Bubba's one of those guys who likes that kind of southern belle. She was probably a 10 to him.
Posted by: sandy burger at December 31, 2005 12:48 PM (6hzCC)
The only serving Klansman is a Democrat.
Robert Byrd ring any bells?
Posted by: Scott at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (/93R6)
I am. Anyhow, having posted that comment about hunting, though, I kinduv regret it. I don't think people really hunt for food, so I think that sadism is part of it. But I think it's a lot more humane than eating factory-farmed food. So, uh, I guess I kinduv mostly retract my comment. It was poorly thought out and poorly worded.
Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (6hzCC)
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:53 PM (AlU3k)
I understand that. I sure have my differences with the right.
But that's why I brought up the DNC convention, the DNC chair, the Senate minority leader, and the House minority leader, to demonstrate that it's not just about one person. It's about a message from the Democrats.
Rush Limbaugh has never had that kind of support from the Republicans.
Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:54 PM (6hzCC)
It is no wonder so many real conservatives are looking for alternatives.
The "real conservatives" he's referring to are the ones we can do without.
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 01:00 PM (Bjdtq)
For that matter, Rush Limbaugh has never slandered our troops, to my knowlege. (And no, I am not a Rush fan. I've never listened to his show, and from what I've been told, I doubt I'd like it much.)
Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 01:00 PM (6hzCC)
Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 01:04 PM (Vs585)
Rush only acts pompous to get under the skin of his liberal listeners. Unfortunately, some conservative listeners don't stick around long enough to get the joke. Or they're elitists without a sense of humor.
Either way, those who consider Rush Limbaugh a blow-hard are flat wrong. He has a keen ability to organize his thoughts and express them quickly, neatly, and eloquently.
The hunting thing: I kind of agree with. There's no "sport" in a man with a firearm (with scope!) stalking a timid woodland creature. A man with a knife hunting a bear...now that's different.
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:07 PM (bkMzk)
Although I don't personally know one hunter who does not love to eat that which he hunts, and I've grown up in hunting camps.
As for No Name, although Rush Limbaugh is a better version of Bill O'Reilly (who I find to be an ass), there is no comparison to FatAssMoore.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly pose opinions based in fact, while Mooreon is an outright lying propagandist, and as noted, was given a prime seat at the Dem convention.
His propaganda is swallowed hook line and sinker by the left, and regurgitated as 'fact'.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:08 PM (w9g/S)
Selective memory? Moore covered the RNC for USA Today. He was an honored guest at the DNC. If you can't be honest, at least be careful in your lies.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 01:10 PM (AlU3k)
Why would any of you want to argue with this person?
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:11 PM (bkMzk)
Make no mistake, if the deer had a chance it would eat you and everyone you love.
I don't listen to Rush because I've got a job and it doesn't include listening to the radio. The couple of times I've listened I didn't see why people hate on him so much. He's kind of funny, and he's obviously trying to be entertaining. It must be working because he's still getting paid for talking.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 01:14 PM (AlU3k)
Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 01:16 PM (Vs585)
Not really arguing, just poking him with the stick of truth. They go away if you throw enough light on them. Just like shadows.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 01:16 PM (AlU3k)
Posted by: at December 31, 2005 01:17 PM (AlU3k)
Again, said wild animal doesn't just pose for you in the open, especially ones that fly.
Then of course, there is the dressing of the animal when you do kill it, and later the butchering etc.
It is sport, it is a skill, it is damn fine eating.
And come the day that the shit hits the fan, you may want a friend who knows how to hunt and gather.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:19 PM (w9g/S)
Yes, it's true. I cannot tolerate anti-semites.
As for differences of opinion, it's my opinion that vegans, vegetarians and anti-hunting animal rights enthusiasts are morally retarded, yet me and SJKevin co-exist. Funny, that.
Man, hearing the things people like No Name have to say to justify themselves never ceases to amaze me.
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 01:24 PM (Bjdtq)
It's called the mainstream media (MSM).
And people can debate Rush and Bill, and as you've seen just in these postings alone, many conservatives disagree with much of what they say.
The MSM does not stand for dissent, and the left just nods its collective head yes to all the mooreon and MSM propaganda.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:24 PM (w9g/S)
Concerned about civil liberties? Fine but don't pretend that protecting civil liberties absolutes won't get (possibly millions) of Americans murdered. Brutally. NY Post reported the Feds and NYC had an exercise about what to do in response to a Midtown nuke of Hiroshima size. Conclusion: 1.6 million dead.
That's the ultimate downside of going about the War on Terror by protecting civil liberties absolutes most. You ask most Americans they don't want us cutting off body parts, but don't have a problem with listening in to the (then unknown) person that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the 9/11 Architect, was advising on how to maximize casualties in blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge.
Message to Dems:
1. You can't have it all. Anymore than you can eat chocolate cake all the time and not get fat. Offer a balanced program of civil liberties and anti-Terror that's SERIOUS and addresses peoples #1 priority (to live, not get murdered) and you'll get serious consideration.
2. ALL Bush has is the War on Terror. Dems should consider May 1945 when the Brits turned out Churchill for Labor. By WINNING decisively, you enter the post-Bush phase. By saying all the time you're unwilling to: go to war with Pakistan and or Iran to get bin Laden; go to war with Iran to prevent them from nuking us; objecting to Senate resolutions against Iran wanting to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" etc you are useless in winning the war against Islamic Caliphate terror and get pushed aside.
Dems act as they do because they are a coalition of wealthy, "write a check make the bad men go away" liberals, "lifestyle" twenty-somethings without families to protect and care for, and special interest groups and Tammany-Hall style ethnic spoils groups. Middle class (and especially straight white working class-middle class guys) have gotten the "drop dead and go away" message very well thank you. Until Dems drop the Soros-Jackson-Dean-o Alliance and get populist they will be unable to even consider military force to defend America (quick name the one time Dems were able to consider ground force casualties to defend America and destroy it's enemies in the last 30 years) or find average people worth protecting.
Clinton? Bagged Gennifer Flowers (local anchorwoman), Elizabeth Gracen (former Miss Arkansas and "Amanda" on Highlander), but that has to be balanced against both Monica and Paula Jones. It's rumored he DID bag Sharon Stone but that can cut both ways. He did however make life easier for the comedy writers on the Tonight Show, Letterman, and Conan O'Brien. Need a closing joke? Go to Clinton. Which is his true legacy.
Posted by: Jim Rockford at December 31, 2005 01:25 PM (4878o)
As one of the resident whipping boys of AoSHQ, some of the insults aren't too lighthearted. But they are generally more civil than the profanity and spittle laden stream of cliches and insults hurled on left wing blogs. Condescending here? Sure. Aggressive? Yeah. Stupid-as-all-get-out? Sometimes. But all I have to do is go over to Pandagon for 5 minutes to fall in love with Brewfan all over again.
I'm not sure what it is, but even the worst wingnut forums on the internet (the worst threads from FreeRepublic? LGF? Schlafly?) don't even come close to the nastiness on most average liberal blogs, even the reasonable ones. Look at Kevin Drum's comments section sometime - I don't agree with Drum that much, but he's a civil, reasonable guy. But for some reason, even his comments section is a sewer of nasty invective, even on threads where he solicits comments and specifically asks for civility! It's like the inmates can't stop themselves.
I think this paradigm has something to do with more young, dissatisfied "rebels" against authority gravitating towards left wing ideology as their form of personal expression of uniqueness/unconventional belief/intelligence. Like your average college kid that starts learning that the history of America is more complex than apple pie and freedom, and feels BETRAYED and unable to contextualize the "bad" with "good" and still rationally arrive at "good."
It's the only explanation I can think of for the peurile nastiness of the discourse.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at December 31, 2005 01:27 PM (hDDCf)
Hope you get what you need and want next year.
Posted by: harrison at December 31, 2005 01:32 PM (ZBys+)
There's a difference between a guy sporting fatigues and skulking in the woods waiting for Bambi to put his sweet little lips into the stream for a drink of water than a guy raising and slaughtering tasty steer on a ranch.
I have no objections to people going out and shooting animals -- keeps the population in check. Torturing and abusing animals is very wrong and immoral. I do not equate hunting with torture and abuse. But there's really no contest or challenge in modern hunting.
Sure, it's hard to kill a deer*. But, apart from being shot by another hunter or falling out of a tree, there is no risk or danger for the hunter.
*I killed a deer in 1995. That bastard did a lot of damage to my old BMW, and I'm glad it was dead -- it could have killed me!
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:34 PM (NYAeF)
Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at December 31, 2005 01:34 PM (Bjdtq)
Funnily enough, I always considered my right-wing values to be part of MY expression of uniqueness/unconventional belief/intelleigence/what-have-you, though that's certainly not the reason I believe what I believe. I suppose that's a function of growing up in Montgomery County and not knowing a SINGLE person who wasn't a liberal Democrat until I went to college, though.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 31, 2005 01:40 PM (SpD3r)
Jm Rockfish, good post!
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:44 PM (NYAeF)
Filet mignon tonight, leg of lamb tomorrow, with homemade pork-venison sausages for starters.
Likewise, it's hard to get injured in the slaughterhouse, unless you're in line.
However, I was with a buddy who put down his rifle to take a crap.
Mr Buck came out right behind him, and tried to drive his rack up my friend's ass. It was quite the wrestling match, and there was nothing to do but watch from where I was. By the way, you also don't want to be on the wrong end of those bambi hooves...
Anyway, my buddy got ahold of the rack from above, and kept driving the antlers down until he tired the buck out enough so that he could reach his buck knife and kill him.
Same guy likes to go wild boar hunting with dogs and his knife. (Keeps a .45 on his hip.)
Now I know you can imagine how deadly those tusks are...
Yeah, I hang out with an extreme crowd.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:45 PM (w9g/S)
And these leftist twits can't understand why no one here wants to have a civil discussion with them.
When everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie, people aren't generally willing to be civil, you know? Saying Michael Moore isn't a Democrat is like saying Sean Hannity isn't a Republican.
Obviously there is a great deal of disagreement within the Democratic Party. We don't all sing out of the same hymnbook. Iraq is a good example of where there is a great deal of disagreement.
Bwaaaaaahawhawhaw!!!!!!! Yes, such an OPEN-MINDED group. Say, where's Joe Lieberman been lately, anyway?
Take a hike, jackass.
Posted by: The Warden at December 31, 2005 02:03 PM (Zxtyv)
One - did Bill Clinton illegally bomb Iraq throughout the 90's? Yes or no will do just fine.
Two - are the majority of Democrat Senators and Congressmen also guilty of crimes, as they voted with the Republicans to authorize use of force in Iraq?
Three - did Clinton illegally attack the Serbs in Kosovo? Please recall that there was no UN resolution for that action, unlike in Iraq? Again, yes or no will suffice.
If you honestly say yes to all of the above, you have credibility and may continue. If not, you're just a power hungry turd who will do and say anything to get the democrats back in power.
Posted by: Jack Burton at December 31, 2005 02:13 PM (5m29+)
Posted by: The Warden at December 31, 2005 02:41 PM (4XV/D)
We all aren't Pat Robertson, or agree with him at all. We aren't as rigid as the media makes us out to be either. My favorite bloggers are Ace, Protein Wisdom and Beautiful Atrocities. All are NOT religious in the least and Jeff at BA is a gay Republican.
I don't judge. I will leave that to God. We want what everyone wants. A better world. So Steve, come visit and learn a bit about organized religion. My blog is usually more political than religious, but this week it may a bit more religious since I am going to be live blogging the Family Research Council's "Justice SundayIII" on Jan.8th in Philly.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at December 31, 2005 02:57 PM (VGhak)
Bwaaaaaahawhawhaw!!!!!!! Yes, such an OPEN-MINDED group. Say, where's Joe Lieberman been lately, anyway?
Nah, there's a whole range of opinion. It goes from BUSH IS EVIL to BUSH IS STUPID. You can see where this vibrant discussion comes from.
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 02:57 PM (Bjdtq)
Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:01 PM (4XV/D)
You'd think a pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-strict church/state separation, blah blah sort of woman would also be in their target demographic.
You'd be so wrong.
Posted by: ilyka at December 31, 2005 03:02 PM (c0ZqE)
And that's the truth.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at December 31, 2005 03:09 PM (VGhak)
All of the hunters I know do not leave their kill, they take it for processing, and eat it.
Try as I might I cannot find a moral difference between this and eating a Big Mac.
Posted by: robert at December 31, 2005 03:20 PM (Rb4Qc)
Posted by: Madfish Willie at December 31, 2005 03:30 PM (SyfL7)
Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:34 PM (4XV/D)
Posted by: spurwing plover at December 31, 2005 03:41 PM (rAMmL)
Amazing how none of those polls translate into winning elections.
Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:47 PM (AlU3k)
I even support your right to get married someday, PLV.
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 03:47 PM (Bjdtq)
You mean as opposed to not taxing and spending us into poverty?
The Republicans are a spent force. Not only are they incompetent, they are corrupt. Bush has screwed up just about everything he has touched. The nation knows it. The polls reflect the reality. In 2,006 we get a chance to start cleaning up the mess. Hopefully there will still be time to save the nation.
Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:48 PM (4XV/D)
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 03:52 PM (Bjdtq)
Nuggets of wisdom are in every comment by Spurwing. (I just can't seem to locate them.)
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 03:58 PM (LZ5Oz)
It's just that the dude's a walking strawman, so I figure it's probably helpful to point out that he isn't exactly a good person to have policy discussions with. But hey, if you want a guy to say
string them all up next too MICHEL MORE and CINDY SHEEN and make them watch the originl GOZILLA with RAYMOND BYRR
Spurwing is your man!
Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 04:03 PM (Bjdtq)
However Bush gets failing grades on controlling spending and the growth of the gummint. He got my vote the last time simply because he was not John Kerry.
Open invitation for the Dems to post what they stand for. The only thing I can determine the Dems stand for is obstruction. They have not proferred one single idea in the last six years. All they have done is to be against Bush.
Posted by: rls at December 31, 2005 04:38 PM (Lh7Vt)
My guess is that he's ace or more likely Michael.
Posted by: max at December 31, 2005 05:10 PM (lin9B)
Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 05:53 PM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 05:55 PM (/Rdy2)
There's an innocence about Spurwing. Never any foul language or references to sex. Evidence suggests Spurwing is a 25-30 year old male, living with his parents, not a big reader, loves television, video games, comic books, and movies.
When you think about it, there's not much difference between Ace and Spurwing. Except we know who the virgin is of the two.
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 06:00 PM (fJGoa)
Al Sharpton perpetrates an enormous hoax (Tawana Brawley) and is successfully sued for this, he causes a riot in which 2 people die and numerous businesses are destroyed. Even though he is a race baiting, thug and charlaton (gee sounds like he's a black David Duke) he announces that he is running for president as a democrat and he is regailed by the DNC and is given adulation and credibilty by mainstream democrats.
He is only one of many, many such people that have made the democrat party their home. The differences are glaringly obvious, the republicans recognise scum and deal with them accordingly. The democrats on the other hand either praise and worship these types or they extoll their victimhood.
Posted by: The Real Steve at December 31, 2005 06:04 PM (Z2KQp)
Oh man, Sortelli. I should not have been drinking the diet 7-up (crazy new year's eve, eh?) when I read that. Spurwing is one of the best attractions of this site! I scour the comments searching for his nuggets. We should copyright him (or patent or trademark or whatever, I'm sure one of the hundreds of lawyers who hang around here will be happy to lecture us on which is correct). Don't listen to them Spurwing, we love you!
Posted by: Doc at December 31, 2005 06:48 PM (6AcTX)
Yes the Republicans make their scum the head of their Party.
Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:39 PM (4XV/D)
we've got it under control.
Posted by: Diebold at December 31, 2005 07:42 PM (VGnNm)
And as evidenced above, the Left continues to make the same mistakes, expecting different results.
Thank God for freedom of speech. Every Moonbat should be given his own rooftop to shout from.
Posted by: Fen at December 31, 2005 10:08 PM (DR3vR)
"I am, unfortunately, related to conservatives. Real jackass Fox News watching, muslim hating, midwestern yokels who were born with a silver head up their asses."
This is why I sometimes sarcastically say "I was born in NYC, grew up in NJ, have a masters degree from NYU, and currently live in California. Am I allowed to express an opinion and have it be respected? Do I have the qualifications to be in the club?"
It kind of reminds me of the jackasses I would meet in NYC who turn up their noses at folks who live in the NJ suburbs of the city. Meanwhile they just moved to NY from Oklahoma less than a year ago. I don't have anything against Oklahoma, but putting on the airs of a snobby cosmopolitan because you lived in NYC all of 4 months is pretty comical.
Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 11:02 PM (spTw1)
Yes, fucktard, and Howard Dean is a clear-thinking, brawny hands-on leader who has a strong foothold in the real world.
Happy New Year, dickcheese.
You studs are on a roll.
2006 should be a watershed, neigh, a brokeback ridge for you.
Whatever animal you like.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 01, 2006 12:13 AM (w9g/S)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:11 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 04:21 AM (ofzm+)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:25 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 04:27 AM (ofzm+)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
The jokes on you morons.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:38 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 04:51 AM (ofzm+)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:54 AM (mpIFY)
Amen! Don't let the doe-eyes fool you; deer are cynical, manipulative bastards. Just look at the statistics on cars hitting deer -- no way is that an accident! They're the kamikaze jihadists of the animal world.
Posted by: Guy T. at January 01, 2006 05:11 AM (o21lR)
Posted by: not_steve_in_hb at January 01, 2006 05:43 AM (voGDC)
lol You're not kidding.
If ever there was an arguement against Evolution, it is that the f'ing deer never get that the safest route to survival is AWAY from the oncoming car.
BTW, love guns, love meat, just can't get myself to shoot Bambi. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Gordon at January 01, 2006 06:00 AM (i0N3d)
A recent poll asked Republicans and Democrats whether 2005 had been better for them personally than 2004 and whether they expected 2006 to be better than 2005. The question aimed solely at their personal lives yet Republicans responded overwhelmingly more optimistically than Democrats. A sense of optimism is generally a genetic predisposition that parents recognize in their children at a very early age. The modern Democratic message seems tailored to people in need of an external target for their inner rage.
The media doesn't help matters. I understand that airplanes landing safely isn't newsworthy, but I think modern liberalism has embraced (at least to an extent) the philosophical view that happiness is for idiots (to paraphrase DeGaulle). After all, happy, well-adjusted, energetic people are usually content to be left alone, rather than in search of the secular religions the Left offers its followers.
I don't know about you, but I've met very few activist liberals who were fundamentally happy people. This excerpt from an article by Martin Seligman touches on coverage of the concept of personal happiness in the NY Times:
Martin Seligman, "Misreporting Science in the New York Times: Against Happiness" July 29, 2004.
"The New York Times Book Review has always reviewed the latest wrinkles on Freud, Jung, and (just today) the sexual abuse of children But no review of Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice, no review of George Vaillant’s Aging Well, no review of David Myer’s The American Paradox, no review of David Whitman’s The Optimism Gap, no review of Kahneman, Diener, & Schwartz’s Well-Being (the Nobel Prize is apparently not enough to make it “heavyweight”), no review of Howard Gardner, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and William Damon’s Good Work. Only one of the dozen or so recent serious books on happiness has been reviewed, Gregg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox. It is a balanced and thoroughly researched study of striking economic and social progress since 1950 juxtaposed to no increase in happiness over the same time period. Finally taking notice, the New York Times Book Review denounced it as “slapdash nonsense.”
What do these books and stories have in common? They are good news. They suggest that virtue, well-being, nobility, happiness, and meaning are all within the realm of human possibility, and that life is not just unmitigated tragedy, violence, and meaninglessness. And they are based on solid, painstaking science involving hundreds of thousands of subjects, hundreds of refereed articles, and scores of doctoral dissertations from the most reputable universities in the world.
If it bleeds, it leads
But take a shoddily researched and truly lightweight account that can be run as “Against Happiness,” and it leads.
Yes, there are professional pessimists. Yes, there are nattering nabobs of negativism. There are media dedicated to the dividends of darkness that both reflect a cultural bias toward despair and simultaneously shape it. They are enormously influential, and if you wonder why our young people are in the midst of an epidemic of depression and meaninglessness in the presence of unprecedented wealth, education, and opportunity, you might start with what they read in the New York Times."
Posted by: The Raven at January 01, 2006 06:05 AM (Msel+)
...feel tiny, insignificant and humbled before the sheer size and power of the universe? You are, at heart, a lefty.
...feel awed, uplifted, as though your very heart will explode with the joy and power and amazement of being part of such a thing? You are, at heart, a righty.
Posted by: S. Weasel at January 01, 2006 06:12 AM (epZHU)
I always wonder what mental contortions someone has to accomplish to arrive at such an absurd conclusion.
It must rival what those little 85lb women do in the circus when they twist their selves in the shape of a Coney Island pretzel.
A couple Q's for ya PLV:
1. How many US citizens visit Israel as tourists each year?
b. Were they not under threat of being blown to Reeses Pieces size by Palestinian suicide bombers whose families were "rewarded" by Saddam with a cool $25,000? (A figure that went up BTW to 35k just before the war)
2. How many US warplanes were shot at patroling the northern and southern no-fly zones?
3. How many US Presidents did Saddam plot to assassinate?
4. How many US warships did Saddam damage (and nearly sink) with air launched Exocet missiles?
5. I presume you would agree Saddam signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of hostilities in 1991.
If so, under internationl law why would Bush NOT have every legal authority to resume combat?
This should be interesting, assuming PLV has the guts to even attempt a coherant response.
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 06:22 AM (Jmli5)
Good point guys.
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:25 AM (mpIFY)
Democrats are more man-of-the-people types, you know, like George Soros and Howard Dean and multimillionaire Hollywood actors and Ivy League snobs, always willing to offer the shirt off someone else's back for those in need.
They have no respect for the constitution. They come out in public and wipe their ass with the constitution and say, try and stop me from trashing the principles this country is based on. They don't want to pay any money to keep this country going. They are in the process of bankrupting the country.
Funny stuff. If there is any principle this country is founded on, it is that the government should leave people the hell alone and not tax them. The Boston Tea Party was over a 3% tax. You use 'country' as a synonym for 'government', but I reject that equivalence. Hey, did you know that tax receipts in 2005 were at an all time high? Cutting taxes can bring in more revenue, because people risk capital to start businesses only if the potential windfall from that business is not taxed out of existence. And I only wipe my ass with the Constitution in private, thank you very much; I have a special room for it so that I can use my Dom Perignon bidet immediately afterwards.
They start wars against people who have done nothing to us, and then refuse to send any of their own to fight the wars.
You can argue the wisdom of the Iraq war, but it is silly to argue that Hussein did 'nothing' to us. The 1993 bombers of the WTC fled to Iraq afterwards, and Hussein gave them asylum, and there is strong evidence he assisted them beforehand, because they entered the US with Iraqi and stolen Kuwaiti passports. Iraq regularly commited acts of war against our pilots patrolling the no fly zone by firing missiles at them. There are innumerable other examples, but these alone are not 'nothing'. It's not like Hussein was innocent of provocation of the US like, say, Milosevic or anything. Since the majority of soldiers vote Republican and support Bush, we do send our own to fight the wars.
They elect draft dodgers to office and call them war heroes.
Draft dodgers like Clinton? W did not dodge the draft. Joining the National Guard is not 'dodging'. Bush's unit could have been called up at any time, just as today's NG units are serving in Iraq. W didn't volunteer for combat before joining the guard, but that is not the same as dodging the draft. And W's father was a bonafide WWII war hero, one of the youngest pilots ever (16 years old when he joined), and was shot down in combat. It's not like the Bush family was indisposed to serving their country.
But, the most disgusting thing about the traitors in the Republican Party is even though they refuse to support the country financially, [i.e. pay 100% tax, Ed.] openly disobey the laws of the country [?] and run away and hide when it is time to fight for the country, [see above] they are the first to wrap themselves in the flag and pretend they are patriots.
At least we're not rooting for American defeat against Al Qaeda.
What a foul stench these lowlife cocksuckers are.
Well, you got that right at least. I am very much a foul stench.
Posted by: caspera at January 01, 2006 06:31 AM (jylGY)
You tell me what the legal justification for the war in Iraq was. I've been through this before with idiots like you to no avail, but who knows, maybe you can make something up. While you are inventing an argument can you also tell us where all the WMD are, that your idiot leaders kept telling us were over there? Maybe that moron Bush has found them under his desk by now.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 06:32 AM (mpIFY)
Thanks PLV for you non-response. 5 questions, no answers and a bunch of hate filled bile and invective.
THAT my friends is THE poster child for the Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan arm of the Dem. Party.
And may I say as a 20 year Vet, you're a disgrace to whatever Mil uniform you may have worn for however little or long. (that refers to your lack of knowledge of civil discourse not your personel views)
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 06:41 AM (Jmli5)
Here you go - Senate voted 77-23 in favor.
And please, sir, show me prior to the war where you stated that there were no WMD's in Iraq? Because if you did so, you wd have been the only one at the time to believe that. In fact, I forsee 06 being the year in which the elected officials of Iraq uncover a lot of these weapons, whether in Iraq, the Baka'a valley or elsewhere.
Posted by: H at January 01, 2006 06:43 AM (TSiQu)
At least spurwing doesn't pretend to be a vet.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 06:45 AM (f+QmI)
Hey PLV, in all seriousness, are wars justified legally? I mean, Congress voted for it in this country, so that angle was covered. I think though, that what you're getting at is that the U.N. didn't approve it. Is that your point, that any act of aggression not sanctioned by them is "illegal"?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 06:45 AM (irxhK)
Andrew, are we or are we not part of the UN? If the answer is yes, tell me which act justified our attack against a nation that did not attack us first?
Marc aren't you the guy who claimed to know every officer who ever served in the Artic. You are a lying piece of shit and you have the nerve to call me a disgrace. Get lost idiot.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 06:50 AM (mpIFY)
Ah, the pseudo-sophistication of a liberal, usually encapsulated on a bumper sticker to the effect of "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Thoughtfulness equals misery - this little non sequitur has been making miserable people feel better about themselves since western civilization began.
And when you've wasted your limited time on this planet screaming about demons that exist only in your head, who exactly was stupid? The modern Left's problem is very definitely not that they are too thoughtful - the point of Ace's post. It is that they've transformed politics into personal therapy, a much-needed balm for the turmoil, anxiety and fear they feel.
Politics as Prozac. And if the Left is feeling really, really emotionally out of sorts, then Bush (or Reagan, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. It doesn't matter.) becomes really, really evil, while more well-adjusted people wonder where all this rage is coming from.
Posted by: The Raven at January 01, 2006 06:51 AM (Msel+)
The definitive, and legal, reference is the 1991 ceasefire agreement.
And BTW PLV how many of the captured Kuwaiti soldiers/citizens did Iraq return to their home country as mandated by that ceasefire?
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 06:54 AM (Jmli5)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:56 AM (mpIFY)
We already told you which "act" (the UN has resolutions not "acts.") The '91 ceasefire.
And please PLV point out my "lies" and just one more question, just where the hell is the "artic?"
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:03 AM (Jmli5)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:05 AM (/Rdy2)
This sort of makes my point, doesn't it. I can't imagine any time in my life when I would have written a paragraph like that - both substantively meaningless and childishly insulting. This is exactly Ace's point and the one I was trying to make - there's an over-the-top animosity on the Left that can't be explained by substantive policy disagreements.
If by "doing just fine" you mean you have neither house of Congress, the Presidency, the majority of governorships nor any clear message on any serious topic, I guess we just define "fine" differently.
Posted by: The Raven at January 01, 2006 07:05 AM (Msel+)
Yeah, we are definitely part of the U.N. That's the problem, though. Which laws are we talking about? Like I said before, the government in this country used the democratic process to go to war. So, from that angle, it wasn't illegal. So are you arguing that the United States law is actually superceded by U.N. policy?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:07 AM (irxhK)
As far as his credentials: you're talking about someone who knows nothing about the military, can't spell the locations of his supposed 'assignments,' and constantly lapses into the idioms of the current generation.
Leave him(?) to spurwing or let him starve.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 07:07 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:15 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 07:15 AM (7AJk5)
Thanks for clarifying that.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:16 AM (mpIFY)
Republicans do this? Really?
The military serves at the pleasure of whatever administration is in office; whether its Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, it does not matter.
However, military ballots do trend overwhelmingly Republican.
So when Clinton engaged in military action against a country which did not pose any aggressive threat to the US- without going on bended knee to ask the UN for approval, mind you- he was sending WHO to war (illegally, based on your criteria for 'legal' wars)?
Democrats? I think not.
Not that it matters, since its a volunteer military, and they serve the Country, not any particular part or party.
Which you do not seem to understand.
They serve all of us.
They protect YOU, even if they don't agree with you.
If you are an American, its their job to protect YOU.
I bet it cheers you up when you think of people who disagree with you being killed, even if they are your countrymen.
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 07:18 AM (6krEN)
I'd prefer it if you stuck to your promises and simply fucked off.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:18 AM (mpIFY)
Are you fucking serious?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:18 AM (irxhK)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:20 AM (irxhK)
Obviously you have never bothered to read it.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:20 AM (mpIFY)
Let me ask you Proud Liberal Vet - what was your rank, MOS and what does your dd214 list your discharge as? Because after reading your idiocy, i call bullshit - either you are a deranged fuck or a 14 yr old jack off, pissing around with Mommy's computer.
So which is it?
Posted by: H at January 01, 2006 07:21 AM (TSiQu)
Or maybe you meant these numbers, or was it this poll taken during the sixth year as President.
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:21 AM (Jmli5)
Posted by: S. Weasel at January 01, 2006 07:22 AM (epZHU)
Your "fact" is an immense crock of Pelosi.
Posted by: Rick at January 01, 2006 07:23 AM (t5P1h)
Okay, I'll bite. I have read it, but I'll go pull out my copy. Any particular section or Article you want to point me to?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:24 AM (irxhK)
And that is spot on.
It really does make it nearly impossible to have a civil conversation with somebody when they start with that assumption.
I may think that the end result of Dem policy is socialism and loss of freedom.
But when I talk to a Democrat, I can't hiss and sneer at them, tell them that they will be the end of the American Dream, and that they are Stalinist supporters, and expect them to engage me in thoughtful discourse.
I think I could expect the next round of conversation to be uhhh... brief, loud, and pithy.
And it would hardly reflect badly on the Democrat to be rude right back to me, since I would be the one who put him/her in that situation.
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 07:28 AM (6krEN)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:29 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:32 AM (/Rdy2)
Payback is a bitch isn't it?
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:32 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 07:38 AM (ofzm+)
and National Missile Defense?
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (Jmli5)
I don't blame you for not remembering, though. you were, what, about 8 or 9 when that happened?
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (/Rdy2)
Anyhoo. Let's disabuse the view "the democrats" are the dark angels of republican heaven. You people here spend much too much time finding dialectical tension in the idea of what you call "the liberal." Both parties, since the 50's have played the legitimation game with voters: SS, "defense" and government investment accomplished in large part to help capital externalize unwanted costs.
About the "fiscal state," read one of your rightwing prophets: Herbert Stein.
And murdering kosovars, and iraqis, and....for "our interests."
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (irxhK)
Failed history class also, Clinton WAS impeached.
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:42 AM (Jmli5)
Try section 3, article 2.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:44 AM (mpIFY)
Not sure what your point is, and your link doesn't work. Can you elaborate?
"Placation," BTW, is an inside joke based on a Chris Klein interview.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 07:45 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:45 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet on January 1, 2006 12:05 PM
Doncha love it when a liar unmasks himself? How many posts have you made since that one PLV?
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:46 AM (Jmli5)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:47 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 07:49 AM (/Rdy2)
As a matter of domestic law within the United States, Congress may override a pre-existing treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement of the United States.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 07:50 AM (f+QmI)
Article 3, section 2 says exactly nothing about what we're discussing.
Seriously dude, I'm trying real hard here to take you at your word and be reasonable, but you've got to come to the table with something better than that.
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:51 AM (irxhK)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:52 AM (mpIFY)
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court..."
SNAP! I've have been OWNED!
I'm such a fucking newb.
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:54 AM (irxhK)
equanimous: in full control of your faculties
disabuse: free somebody (from an erroneous belief)
dialectical: of or relating to logical disputation
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, erg.
Posted by: just trying to help at January 01, 2006 07:55 AM (v1LqI)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:57 AM (irxhK)
So tell me Holier than thou, what Chruch has taught you how to call people liars, fags, etc, etc?
Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:57 AM (Jmli5)
Posted by Proud Liberal Vet at January 1, 2006 12:47 PM
Thanks for the attention, now get out of my face.
Posted by: Jesus Christ at January 01, 2006 07:57 AM (v1LqI)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:59 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 08:01 AM (/Rdy2)
I treat people the same way they treat me. I don't feed diamonds to pigs.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:01 AM (mpIFY)
Although I'm still not sure which treaty we violated by going into Iraq, and I'm definitely not sure what the hell you're talking about with this "Article 2, section 2" stuff. Maybe you meant a different Article?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:03 AM (irxhK)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:03 AM (mpIFY)
I find that very hard to believe. And BTW - it's "pearls before swine. " I think you're actually supposed to read the Bible.
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 08:05 AM (ofzm+)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:06 AM (irxhK)
There's little difference between both parties. wrt, the "fiscal state," both parties have expanded command/control state investments in order to win electoral legitimation and improve capital accumulation at the expense of working families and global development.
Stein refers to "fiscal crisis" as in part the failures of both parties to better induce keynesian stimulus. Both parties got it assbackwards: in good times capital raided revenues, in bad times deficits expanded even more.
Just one ex. the diff. between D&R is mirage.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:10 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 08:11 AM (ofzm+)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:14 AM (mpIFY)
Stein's book: The Fiscal Revolution in America: Policy in Pursuit of Reality
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:15 AM (AuKcO)
Is that like when I rub my copy of "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" against my wang?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:15 AM (irxhK)
Link still doesn't work, but that's OK - your synopsis didn't seem too contentious, at least to me. I'd say that the constituencies of the parties, however, *do* have substantial differences, as described by Lakoff. So you have the parties playing to those differences in order to promote their power structures.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:16 AM (f+QmI)
I concede defeat. There, I said it.
Your pretty smart. Would you be willing to join my pub trivia team?
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:19 AM (irxhK)
Thanks, PLV, your check is in the mail.
Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at January 01, 2006 08:19 AM (Bjdtq)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:20 AM (irxhK)
no. it's like when slam your balls between the covers of My Pet Goat.
or when you hump your mag thatcher fuckdoll.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:21 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:22 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:23 AM (mpIFY)
See, I already tried that. Doesn't work--the book just doesn't have the weight I need.
The O.E.D., on the other hand...that's my kinda Friday night, baby!
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:25 AM (irxhK)
Keep right on hoping, asshat. And feel free to off yourself when it doesn't happen.
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 08:28 AM (/Rdy2)
Yeah, but the we're not implementing the false transition to Internet Idiotese until 2008, in order to trick the Democrats into changing their platform from "BUSH SUCKS, FAGS" to "BU$H SUXXORZ FAGG0TZ LOL" in time for the campaign.
I tell you, it's hard to stay ahead of the curve with these guys, as the chaps at DU have already started.
Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at January 01, 2006 08:32 AM (Bjdtq)
good. as far as the fiscalization of the state goes, really, as far as the welfare state goes, no diff. between the parties.
The policy is bad in any case for bottom four income quintiles.
But, good for capital.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:33 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:39 AM (mpIFY)
But, I'll play your your games.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:42 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:43 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 08:47 AM (KX4TE)
You're probably not smart enough to notice this, by the way, but erg isn't exactly on "our side" here as you imagine it.
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:48 AM (Bjdtq)
My favorite is Scrabble. But PLV always kicks my ass.
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:49 AM (irxhK)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:49 AM (mpIFY)
I blame ID.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:50 AM (f+QmI)
It's that "new spelling" they're teaching in 4th grade.
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:50 AM (Bjdtq)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 08:53 AM (KX4TE)
Is that why he appears so much brighter than the rest of you ankle biters?
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:54 AM (mpIFY)
karl rove id: heheheeee!
It's a theory of power here: acenomics: Nietzsche without virtue.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:55 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:55 AM (irxhK)
I only go to you because of what a genius you are Dave.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:56 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:56 AM (irxhK)
I'm not sure I agree entirely with this - it's certainly not tailored to help them, but the second and third quintiles aren't doing badly, and there are indications that there is significant mobility within the classes. In the bottom two quintiles we should attempt to distinguish between the mobile immigrants and the indigenous indigents.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:57 AM (f+QmI)
Appears to whom? You didn't know otherwise until I pointed it out to you.
Stick around us, PLV, you might learn something else today, and that would make the second time knowledge has entered your brain in a year.
And could I suggest going back to your "Unapologetic Liberal" handle, which at least is true?
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:57 AM (Bjdtq)
ah - should read "among the classes."
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:59 AM (f+QmI)
Yeah. It's that "new math" they're teaching these days...
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:59 AM (Bjdtq)
I imagine if I sit at your table eventually some crumbs of wisdom will flow down my way, unless of course you insist on keeping a monopoly on it.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 09:00 AM (mpIFY)
Be thankful we're not as frugal with our diamonds as some.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:01 AM (f+QmI)
That's a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:05 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (KX4TE)
Posted by: Nietzsche at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (Bjdtq)
"Be thankful we're not as frugal with our diamonds as some."
Yes but you have so much more to give.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (mpIFY)
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 09:07 AM (Bjdtq)
Income mobility increase? certainly not.
If you refer to Glenn Hubbard's eightees research, you're in trouble, because his sample wasn't scientific.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 09:08 AM (AuKcO)
The dynamic U.S. economy is characterized by an extraordinary degree of income mobility that has been all but ignored in the recent debate on reducing federal income tax rates and phasing out the death (estate) tax. Opponents of tax relief are criticizing commonsense reforms because they claim that "only the rich" will benefit. Yet the notion that low-income or high-income groups are composed mostly of the same people over time is an illusion.
Again, I'm not saying that the system is designed to help the lower income strata, but I don't think you can presume that it's harmful without quantifying the harm.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:27 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Tiger Woods at January 01, 2006 09:32 AM (KX4TE)
1. He's a Christian, but he hasn't read the Bible.
2. He's an expert on the Constitution, but he hasn't read that either - and doesn't think he needs to.
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 09:33 AM (ofzm+)
Isn't it adequate to locate income disparities by the simple distribution of all incomes? Doing so shows 1979 to be the apex for distributive equality. vDownhill ever since.
Seldom do people escape an initial class position. Despite what O'Reilly says.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 09:39 AM (AuKcO)
Combine that with what we knew previously:
3) He claims to be a veteran but knows nothing about the military, and calls himself an "American Hero," something no self-respecting vet would do.
4) He says he lives in SF, and he's got an obsession with calling people 'fags.'
I think it's a cry for help.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:39 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 09:40 AM (KX4TE)
So which of the studies referenced in the article didn't have adequate sample sizes?
Isn't it adequate to locate income disparities by the simple distribution of all incomes?
That doesn't say anything about mobility, and isn't definitive as far as the root causes. But let's start there. Can you give me a link, or did you pull it off a gov't site?
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:46 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 09:59 AM (Bjdtq)
1. He's a Christian, but he hasn't read the Bible.
2. He's an expert on the Constitution, but he hasn't read that either - and doesn't think he needs to."
Where did you learn that Jenny, in the feverish imaginations of your wingnut mind? And what did we learn about you today, besides nothing? I've never seen people with nothing to offer, other than their hatred, brag so incessantly about their contributions. If I were you I would worry more about your own salvation, rather than pointing out the faults in others. Didn't you read that in your Bible?
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 10:45 AM (Y53pz)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:45 AM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 10:47 AM (Y53pz)
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 10:48 AM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 10:49 AM (Y53pz)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:49 AM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 10:51 AM (Y53pz)
It used to be you could argue issues with them in a civil manner. Now it seems they merely rant, rave, and finally call you a vile name. Theories, anyone?
Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 10:51 AM (gETp4)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:52 AM (/Rdy2)
I'm trying to locate a recent study, I think IMF, showing declining mobility in u.s. and the methodology parses the variables well as I recall. Do you know it?
I did a double take on the heritage article because EPI data is based on nominal income-inflation? I'm not sure, but don't think so. There's not enough there to make a judgment.
I'm aware inequality is not immobility. As you are no doubt aware, and asfaik, the two insinuate each other in what I believe is commonly referred to as "generational mobility"--do children exceed parents real incomes? One widely used method is to find whether what amount a parent's economic advantage (measured by income, education investment, etc.) is passed on to children. U.S. and Britain are double that of nordic countries.
I've read chunks of this book: Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe, Edited by Miles Corak. Really good lit rev. of methodology and wideranging studies show growing immobility.
"Pete" Apeterson's '93 book is also a good one: Facing Up: How to Rescue the Economy from Crushing debt and Restore the American Dream.
About the '79 figure. No time to find the cite I culled from the Green Book. But I'm confident I'm right.
I'll try and find that other report.
p.s.: even if incomes rising and equality falling, I would still argue against the present arrangement of marketplace "opportunities" because, among other things, the real losers are people like those who live in iraq.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 10:53 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 10:53 AM (Y53pz)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:56 AM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 11:00 AM (irxhK)
This is very interesting to me (particularly the larger discussion, though sorting out the income mobility/maldistribution situation is also of interest), but I'm going to have to beg off for a bit. Supposed to be revolutionizing cooling and desalination technology today, but I'm ditzing around here procrastinating.
So I'm going to unplug the router and try to get some serious work done. Let's try to continue this later.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 11:02 AM (f+QmI)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 11:04 AM (Y53pz)
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 11:21 AM (ofzm+)
I admire the kind of hunting where people eat what they kill. If they don't eat it, seems a little wrong. I know hunting isn't really often done today as a survivalist thing, but it is nice to know some people have the skills to eat that way if they had to somehow. Someday all the conveniences we are used to will be interrupted for a while.
Posted by: Village Idiot at January 01, 2006 12:00 PM (N5NIk)
One of these days hubby and I should take up the hobby.
Haven't had venison or pheasant or wild duck in prolly ten years.
I'm always thinking about the doves under my bird feeders. Never had them before, and I hear they're crazy delicious.
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 12:07 PM (6krEN)
Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 12:56 PM (ofzm+)
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 01, 2006 12:59 PM (VGhak)
Lessee...styrofoam coolers, dry ice, and prepaid shipping labels...anything else you need RWS?
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 01:03 PM (6krEN)
Not only is that not me,
everyone knows that GOP gays are tops,
This known as the Gannon Rule.
Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 01:31 PM (gETp4)
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 01:39 PM (Bjdtq)
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 01:40 PM (6krEN)
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 02:39 PM (6krEN)
Although I kind of liked my anonymous Jesus comment to PLV, but I'm not bitter.
Posted by: adolfo velasquez at January 01, 2006 02:41 PM (/zGfa)
everyone knows that GOP gays are tops,
That's so true Log. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 02:42 PM (Y53pz)
Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 02:46 PM (Bjdtq)
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 03:01 PM (6krEN)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 03:06 PM (/Rdy2)
I am honored. Thanks for the pat on the back.
Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 03:23 PM (gETp4)
Well, on the flip side, why don't Republicans care about Halliburton and PNAC? We get angry about $100 Halliburton loads of laundry and gallons of gas, clear-cut war profiteering. Republicans respond that if you wanna make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs, and surely it was an honest mistake. And they just keep on breaking eggs. The difference is, each example of cronyism and graft infuriates liberals like myself even more, whereas it seems to soothe Republicans somehow, to the point where Halliburton can do no wrong.
And PNAC, well, can you blame us for being a little suspicious? Read that manifesto; the short version is, "We, the undersigned (Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, etc) want to take over the world. Our best bet is to invade Iraq after a terrorist attack." Seriously, I'm not making this up -- that's the gist of it. And this was written in 1999. Two years later, well, we all know what these guys did, but it was supposedly all about WMD, and we know how true that turned out to be. It's pretty obvious that the PNAC crew didn't deviate much from their original plan they wrote before they got into the White House.
Now, whether or not the PNAC plan is a good one is a matter of opinion, but what really scares people like myself is that Republicans act like it's some kind of Da Vinci Code conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. As if it's not right there on pnac.org? How does that work?
Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 05:01 PM (sOfYg)
We don't care about Halliburton because there is no reason to. As to "but it was supposedly all about WMD" well, you need to stop drinking the Kool Aid. The cats out of the bag you know.
(replace the * with a c)
Posted by: BrewFan at January 01, 2006 05:31 PM (0AD+O)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 05:50 PM (Y53pz)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 05:58 PM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:06 PM (Y53pz)
From DoD's own unredacted audit of K&R:
It is illogical that it would cost
$27,514,833 to deliver $82,100 in LPG fuel.
KBR proposed $252,808,547 for unleaded gasoline and kerosene...The supporting schedule reflected costs of $225,599,379, a difference of $27,209,168.
There's a good summary of audits here.
The nigerian bribery scandals, preferential treatment by pentagon, sordid hiring practices...one could go on.
see: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/audits.html, if the link doesn't work. it works in preview.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 06:11 PM (AuKcO)
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 06:13 PM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:22 PM (Y53pz)
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 06:26 PM (AuKcO)
here I've been, working my fingers to the bone coming up with Chris Klein and Anchorman jabs, retorting cleverly, with panache even, and I'm very gracious for that.
And Log Cabin beats me with one original line.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 06:39 PM (xd73D)
As if it's not right there on pnac.org?
Yes, the Pontifical North American College is surely a grave threat to all of us.
Posted by: sandy burger at January 01, 2006 06:47 PM (yYYVZ)
I was expecting you, Dave.
From the moment I pressed 'post' for Log Cabin.
And this is the statement I have prepared:
I'm a nobody. My opinion has no bearing on anyone's well being.
Do with that as you will.
But speaking pubescently of course, you have this thing that's working for you, and we're all gracious for that.
Aren't you glad that Hollywood hasn't given up on making craptastic movies?
Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 06:53 PM (o6H31)
And PNAC, well, can you blame us for being a little suspicious?
Neoconservatives have never advocated colonialism or tyranny. They want to increase US strength and influence while supporting the spread of liberal democracy.
I know that the left is suspicious of that. That's why I don't vote democrat anymore.
Now, whether or not the PNAC plan is a good one is a matter of opinion
I haven't read the exact plan you're talking about, but I have read various neoconservative essays. I do know that some of them have been advocating the invasion of Iraq for a long time. Well, good for them! They were right. They saw what was brewing long before 9/11 woke up the rest of us.
Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 06:56 PM (yYYVZ)
http://www.newamericancentury.org, not pnac.org.
Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 06:58 PM (sOfYg)
I also hear reports of them over-charging the government. Some of it is just the left trying to get Cheney somehow. Some of it may be true. I don't know the details and more than I know the details of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
Pork barrel politics and cronyism are nothing new. I'm concerned about it across the board. If Cheney had never worked at Halliburton, the left wouldn't care about them any more than any other government contractor.
Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 07:01 PM (yYYVZ)
I'm Not Anyone
watch the fucking cutoffs.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 07:03 PM (xd73D)
it's so cute when a troll vomits up an Air America talking point, about the PNAC white paper, the one that says "fighting wars in the 21st century will be difficult and we better be ready"
and that's the plan for global domination!!
it's all the more special when you know not a one of them have read the damn thing.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 07:22 PM (xd73D)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 07:27 PM (/Rdy2)
As to the claim that nobody ever mentioned WMDs. Well, that comes as a great surprise to me; it's the only reason I initially supported the war, back when I read Instapundit and all that. Seemed like every day there was some new story about nuclear plans being discovered nefariously hidden in some scientist's house, and vials of anthrax being waved, and of course aluminum tubes and imminent threats. Turns out that none of that actually happened, and it was all about liberal democracies from day one. Was I dreaming? Guess it was the dreaded kool-aid.
I'm not so sure the neocons are all about spreading democracy. You must at least admit it's democracy at the point of a gun, and that's problematic. But when you have statements like this in bold at the center of the page: (all taken from their web site)
At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.
...well, it doesn't exactly sound Jeffersonian. In fact, PNAC is mostly concerned with goals like ensuring our military can
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars
Not to say that this is a bad idea; you never know, after all. But somehow I get the feeling the PNAC crew kinda likes starting wars. Recent events haven't exactly convinced me otherwise, come to think of it. After all, who else could view this as a problem:
After the victories of the past century – two world wars, the Cold War and most recently the Gulf War – the United States finds itself as the uniquely powerful leader of a coalition of free and prosperous states that faces no immediate great-power challenge.
Oh no! Because, you see...
Underlying the failed strategic and defense reviews of the past decade [i.e., Cheney's DPG and follow-on polemics from neocon hardliners] is the idea that the collapse of the Soviet Union had created a "strategic pause." In other words, until another great-power challenger emerges, the United States can enjoy a respite from the demands of international leadership. Like a boxer between championship bouts, America can afford to relax and live the good life, certain that there would be enough time to shape up for the next big challenge. Thus the United States could afford to reduce its military forces, close bases overseas, halt major weapons programs and reap the financial benefits of the "peace dividend." But as we have seen over the past decade, there has been no shortage of powers around the world who have taken the collapse of the Soviet empire as an opportunity to expand their own influence and challenge the American-led security order.
Well, what does PNAC suggest? That we just go around looking for wars to start? I give you their words, not mine.
Over the decade of the post-Cold-War period, however, almost everything has changed. The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world’s "sole superpower." America’s strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military’s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the "zones of democratic peace;" to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies.
From 1945 to 1990, U.S. forces prepared themselves for a single, global war that might be fought across many theaters; in the new century, the prospect is for a variety of theater wars around the world, against separate and distinct adversaries pursuing separate and distinct goals.
Yeah, pretty much. You can throw in bits about peace and democracy, but it sounds like an endlessly escalating arms race against everyone and no one -- any enemy will do. (Saddam is mentioned several times, but China seems to be their dream enemy.) Anyway, I know "military-industrial complex" is a liberal conspiracy code word, but hell, Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. He was talking about guys like this. I guarantee you the average American did not support the war because of the kind of thinking this paper advocates. They supported it because they thought Saddam had WMDs. I know, I know, Bush never said anything remotely suggesting Saddam had ever even thought about WMDs, but somehow the American public had this crazy shared hallucination... anyway, my point is, PNAC (whose membership overlaps nicely with the Bush Administration) has stated the real reasons for the war and I do not approve of them.
Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 07:36 PM (sOfYg)
Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 07:44 PM (AuKcO)
I've read most of it. It is, admittedly, 90% wonkish discussion about which artillery platforms should be on the chopping block and I'm not really in a position to disagree with their conclusions about such matters. But their overall goal of US hegemony (give me a break for using such "liberal codewords", I mean, they said they don't want to have a global rival, ever.) through military invincibility... I suppose you can see that as a benevolent democracy-loving tyranny, and hey, it could happen, but it's really hard for me to give these guys that kind of benefit of the doubt. I don't like it one bit.
Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 07:44 PM (sOfYg)
but really, be serious scar. and you almost are, and I'll give you that,
what fucking hegemony are we pursuing? c'mon.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 07:51 PM (xd73D)
I hear this over and over from leftists, and it makes no sense to me. We're not gonna shoot any Iraqis or Afghanis if they don't vote.
Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 07:57 PM (yYYVZ)
Exactly right. You can read something nefarious into this if you want to, but count me out. Just look at the military engagements Clinton lead us into (Balkans, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan). What PNAC is describing is reality. I don't like it, either, but that doesn't make it the neocon's fault.
The neocons didn't create evil in the world. But they expect it, and they want us to be ready for it.
Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 08:02 PM (yYYVZ)
Posted by: at January 01, 2006 08:07 PM (l1oyw)
Ferchrisakes folks, read the effing audits! The $8.9 billion never 'disappeared into thin air' - that's unmitigated crap. The $8.9 billion was properly delivered to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance. AFTER it entered the Iraqi's system, the SIG determined that the CPA should have more closely monitored the disposition of the money.
There's no lost $9 billion.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 11:04 PM (HJ3Oq)
So the Army said they would withhold KBR's payments until the dispute was resolved, putting KBR at risk, not the American taxpayer. This is the system working in a pretty routine fashion, although the dollar amounts are quite large. I believe that the whole situation was negotiated, though I'm having technical difficulties pulling up the article from KBR's website.
Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 11:22 PM (HJ3Oq)
This is pretty mundane material. When I served in the early '80s, the military was supposed to be able to support one large-scale conflict and a second small-scale conflict simultaneously. This document recommends a shift from that strategy to a more responsive, flexible force structure capable of handling many smaller scale engagements. Despite sss's claims of extrasensory perception, I see no indication that they are "looking for wars to start."
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 12:03 AM (HJ3Oq)
I read the whole link. I didn't see a resolution authorizing the attack on Iraq. That might be because there is none. Was there a resolution I missed in your link, or are you simply wrong, but because of the grip of totalitarianism that has over taken you, you cannot bring yourself to admit it?
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 02, 2006 03:42 AM (6f65Q)
geoff beat me to the punch. We've had this discussion here with tubby about 30 times. I thought for a moment scarshapedstar and ergastularius were going to reverse the trend of the trolls who pop in and spout the MoveOn talking points, but, alas, its not meant to be. How sad that otherwise intelligent people just can't parse through the propaganda.
Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 04:55 AM (0AD+O)
You see what you want to see geoff. They're just projecting, and running a bit with the Air Amerikkka rhetoric. PNAC is one of their favorite talking points.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 02, 2006 05:55 AM (4pHf1)
should probably re-read it now that the effects of champagne and beer have subsided (we had a belated New Years' celebration), but my head's all fuzzy and in no inconsiderable pain. But it's like they've never read a military strategy or advocacy white paper before. Shocking - they're talking about war!
And what's with Spurwing's rampage this morning?
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 06:02 AM (HJ3Oq)
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 06:08 AM (AuKcO)
Then list and link the reasons.
even if pointy-headed auditors are happy with services rendered.
Since the auditors have actually looked at the billing practices and the numbers, unlike every liberal critic we've ever entertained on this site, your snarky remark seems blindly arrogant.
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 06:18 AM (HJ3Oq)
lol! ol' ergs putting some distance between himself and scars but still can't quite admit they're full of crap about Halliburton. I'm with you guys, though, in spirit. I think you should continue to pursue your political dreams by pursuing the evil Halliburton.
Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 06:34 AM (0AD+O)
Yeah, what happened to "excellent post?"
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 06:44 AM (HJ3Oq)
I'll concede to you no proof halliburton and subs are crooks. Both the no-bid contracting and the persistent underperformance of the company makes some of us suspicious. The GAO itself confirmed last Spring the no-bidding was aboveboard. One fairly comprehensive piece in Fortune (The Truth about Halliburton) from last April I think supports both your view ("it's ok!") and my view the extraordinaly underperformance of the company combined with connections the company has to the admin. are cause for concern.
But like I said, the structural pressures of the "military industrial complex" on business is what is fundamentally rotten. Pursuit of war in its endless preparation and the growing orientation of corporate capital to the expenditure of capital in armaments is an evil. And Halliburton is a fine example of this problem.
As Ike well knew.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 06:51 AM (AuKcO)
Don't know how many we have around here, but several us work within the military-industrial complex and are familiar with defense acquisition practices. But when they're auditing my little company, you can feel free to disparage them as you wish.
As far as Halliburton goes - their performance and conformance to acqusition regulations needs to be monitored constantly. This is the job of the Army & DCAA, but could only benefit from additional scrutiny from the public. But irresponsible accusations like those of scarshapedstar should be soundly rejected regardless of one's political stance.
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:03 AM (HJ3Oq)
tyrrants make laws untransgressible by tyrants.
it's called power.
the fact proof cannot be satisfactorily produced often means nothing can satisfy "the burden of proof."
It's good to be the king.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:03 AM (AuKcO)
When Ike was president defense spending was ~12% of GDP; Now its ~5%. The amount of that ~5% that goes to any given corporation is, to use a technical economic term, chump change. Maybe that's why conservatives aren't concerned by the fictional 'Military-Industrial Complex'.
Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 07:03 AM (0AD+O)
No. It often means you're paranoid.
Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 07:07 AM (0AD+O)
Or have your head up your ass.
Posted by: zetetic at January 02, 2006 07:09 AM (/Rdy2)
like I said, you can create a "procurement process" accommodating the needs of the preferred contractor.
"cost-plus" and guaranteed returns are good for capital, no doubt. And these practices are anti-market because so friendly to monopolies/ologopolies. The practices are fraught with inefficiencies and open invitation to fraud and price-fixing/gauging/monopoly rents. 75 years of telecomm reg of AT&T serves as a lesson.
No. soicialize the production of defense. And socialize "service." While we're at it.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:12 AM (AuKcO)
Pragmatic nations have always prepared for war, and have thus been more able to avoid it. As far as the "growing orientation" statement - do you have a source for that, because I don't see it.
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:12 AM (HJ3Oq)
whittle your bs down later.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:21 AM (AuKcO)
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:24 AM (AuKcO)
Translation: "I have no response to the logic and reason I encountered here. They promised me at MoveOn that these talking points were bulletproof but geoff and BrewFan just slapped me around like a redheaded stepchild. Oh, the humanity!"
Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 07:32 AM (0AD+O)
Enter the government, which futilely tries to regulate every facet of the contractor's business, with predictable results. The honest contractors are bogged down by hundreds of regulations, and the dishonest one's find loopholes anyway.
For a guy like me with negligible capitalization, the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) limit my profit to 6 - 6.5% (depending on the contract type). Not exactly a bonanza, but I like the work. And of course there's the chicks.
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:32 AM (HJ3Oq)
Oooohhh, he got Marx on me! Get it off! Get it off!
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:34 AM (HJ3Oq)
Posted by: zetetic at January 02, 2006 07:59 AM (/Rdy2)
Posted by: lauraw at January 02, 2006 08:00 AM (o6H31)
Dude, all you gotta do is look at Brown and Root's P&L for the last two years. They ain't even pulling 6%.
geoff, at one time in my life I was intimately familiar with the DFAR, parts 1 though 52. Those books took up most of my little cubicle.
good times, good times.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 02, 2006 08:04 AM (4pHf1)
The guy has marxist theory on his side, which as we know has proven itself again and again, when all you have is actual experience in the defense industry.
Posted by: lauraw at January 02, 2006 08:06 AM (o6H31)
You have my sympathies. But you're right, once you get the hang of things, it's not too bad, and you can even develop a perverse fondness for the system.
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 08:07 AM (HJ3Oq)
Which may be the ultimate weapon - I don't think my constitution can cope with a discussion of the defense industry as seen through the prism of Marxism.
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 08:11 AM (HJ3Oq)
Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 08:26 AM (HJ3Oq)
It doesn't matter no one is interested anyway.
Posted by: at January 02, 2006 09:10 AM (6f65Q)
Any time the government spends money, it's a mess. The defense industry is no exception. I'm sympathetic to some of what the lefties are saying, but I just can't follow them off the cliff into conspiracy-theory land when there simply isn't any evidence whatsoever for it. I do think that the present arrangement stinks, though, although I have no idea what, if anything, I'd want to change. So yeah, I've found this whole discussion quite interesting.
Posted by: SJKevin at January 02, 2006 09:25 AM (yYYVZ)
Seriously, what recent issue suggests that the Democrats can be trusted to leave me alone, leave my money alone and leave business alone to make money? At least the Republicans, in principle and theory, are pro-economy.
Posted by: aj at January 02, 2006 12:04 PM (eXk/K)
More important is why and how, the context, of defense spending. I don't find any uses of american military might in postwar period explained as defense. Rather, what I see is the fist of empire.
And yes, there is a very good argument, not just "marxist" but also libertarian, accumulated capital made idle by lack of investment opportunity, is expended by preparation for war and war. The defense industry in this sense is crucial to capital accumulation. War is a solution to the crisis of investment.
Ike was right.
I'll mostly only use the narrow resources familiar to readers here. For ex." I'll refer to the business press rather than cite to Mother Jones, or whatever.
Because I "placate."
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 12:49 PM (AuKcO)
Posted by: zetetic at January 02, 2006 12:52 PM (/Rdy2)
letters, a few verbs separated by spaces; and a question mark.
you made a sentence.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:04 PM (AuKcO)
Crisis of investment? What does that mean?
Look, if we're sitting on a wad of cash and need something to invest it in, I have tons of suggestions: biotech research, a cure for cancer, nanotechnology, alternative energy sources, space travel, a moon colony, etc. There is no lack of investment opportunity.
Posted by: SJKevin at January 02, 2006 01:07 PM (rGBYl)
I've read your rightwing heroes. I know them. And I use them to shoot the policeman in your head.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:09 PM (AuKcO)
Like when Clinton tried to stop the starvation in Somalia? Or when Clinton tried to stop the genocide in Europe?
Posted by: SJKevin at January 02, 2006 01:10 PM (rGBYl)
That's the basic arg.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:12 PM (AuKcO)
The "left" despises clinton.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:14 PM (AuKcO)
awash in capital. so much, chinese central bankers are financing u.s. consumption. fucking crazy.
Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:18 PM (AuKcO)
This is pure genuis, folks. Just sit back and watch how Ergastularius rolls. Like a f'n hammer.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 02, 2006 01:22 PM (w4Bx4)
I wouldn't go that far. We despise Republicans, Clinton we tolerated because at least he was articulate. However, it would be ridiculous to claim Clinton or any other DLC member is a Liberal.
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 02, 2006 01:23 PM (6f65Q)
I for one welcome our new Rush Limbaugh-packing lizard overlords.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 02, 2006 01:31 PM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Paul at March 20, 2006 09:05 PM (zlyDz)
Posted by: Guy With Crap Life at June 14, 2010 11:15 AM (sjkX9)
62 queries taking 1.3822 seconds, 547 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.