Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll stick with, primarily #1.

So, if the Left had just stuck with and supported Bush, he could have and would have done Iraq better (troops and resources)?

And Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress would have put the $$ towards troops, weapons, and supplies rather than the various other projects you've named, if only the Dems had let them?

And Rumsfeld's doctrine of military transformation is also politically motivated?

Wow, Bil, I thought these guys were supposed to be principled and have big brass balls. After all, they spent years alternately screwing the Dems in the bunghole and telling the Dems to do it themselves. Was that all a show, were the Dems really so powerful without even knowing it?

Your analysis makes it sound like Iraq effort and the whole Bush administration was fraught with political cowardice and shameless pandering -- at the expense of the lives of brave young Americans.

But y'all put up with that stuff for years just waiting for the ability to reshape the Supreme Court. And he gives you Harriet Miers? A bitter brew, indeed.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm not the one arguing cultural relativism. Take it somewhere else, Bilmore.

You threatened to kill the president? Yeah, I bet you stay well away from that relativism stuff.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Interesting. I distinctly recall seeing on this board a photoshoppe of Harriet with her face superimposed on a peace protestor during a march.

Can't find it now. Odd, that.

Wan't me. I wonder if you any of the no personal responsibility moral relativists will be gracious enough to apologise for the lies. Yeah, right.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And why is that hard to believe S_A_M? I don't personalise criticism of W. Even when the lefties (like dimwit shill, Michael Moore) say he is stupid and anyone who votes for him is a stupid religious freak. I know better. I would expect that you (et al) do to. Although some continue to prove me wrong with think skinned, baby's arse soft sensitivities. Perhaps if we all joined hands and sang the Cum-by-ah?

If and when I posted something saying that the GOPers are essentially corrupt, immoral murdering nazis who have sold their souls to corporate interests (for instance), I'd expect some of them on the Board to be offended. You apparently would not be. So be it.

If I say W is a chimpanzee (for instance), I would not expect any of you to be [eta: personally] offended

I'm not offended by what you say, because I so rarely take it seriously when you spew out one of the multiple-adjective posts complete with photoshops. It seemed to me that Wonk and Sidd know you better, and actually care about what you think, so they get a bit pissed. I can understand it.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ty just doesn't understand that once the activists have screwed it up, the non-activists have to actively fix it, so that they can then guard it from the activists, who might want to change it back.

Seriously, in terms of smacking down Congress, and sometimes states, the Rehnquist court was rather "active."

S_A_M

I don't think that one can validly misdefine a central term and then use that misdefinition indefinitely to redefine another's argument.

"Activist" originally meant, one willing to go beyond the words of the Constitution in order to rule on what it "ought to" have said, or what it "meant to" say, or what emotions and feelings were hidden in the penumbras and the byways of the heart of the Constitution or some such idiocy. Ty wants to redefine it as, "willing to ignore some precedent". But, when groups of Constitution-rewriting justices have wrought their harm, it's not "activism" to take it all back to the words. If you think that that argument doesn't work, then it's a simple matter if choosing a new word for it. Let's try "honest reader of the C" v. "lying sack of I-wish-I-had-a-penumbra-of-my-own."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
As pointed out before me, this is the most preposterous attempt to turn something into the other party's fault I have ever read.

No, you've misinterpreted.

It's the loyal opposition's duty to oppose. No big deal. My original point was simply yhat it's humorous and ironic to now hear the D's complain about low troop levels.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
You threatened to kill the president? Yeah, I bet you stay well away from that relativism stuff.

The interesting thing is, Wonk gets deleted for his post that arguably raised issues under the Federal statute which prohibits threats against the PotUS, et al., and yet not one leftie here will duly criticise Dimwitted Senator Mary Landrieu when, on the public record, she blatantly violates the same statute with a expressly explicit threat against the physical being of the PotUS, which she has the ability to imminently carry out. And repeats the same threat when given the chance to back down.

Imagine, Bilmoure, iyw, if Bush made the same threat against say, Nagin. What result?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Goddamned insurance companies.

Hear, hear.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the loyal opposition's duty to oppose. No big deal. My original point was simply yhat it's humorous and ironic to now hear the D's complain about low troop levels.

That is true -- kind of like hearing the Bush admin. using Miers' religious faith to support her nomination.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If and when I posted something saying that the GOPers are essentially corrupt, immoral murdering nazis who have sold their souls to corporate interests (for instance), I'd expect some of them on the Board to be offended. You apparently would not be. So be it.

If I say W is a chimpanzee (for instance), I would not expect any of you to be [eta: personally] offended

I'm not offended by what you say, because I so rarely take it seriously when you spew out one of the multiple-adjective posts complete with photoshops. It seemed to me that Wonk and Sidd know you better, and actually care about what you think, so they get a bit pissed. I can understand it.

S_A_M

Translation: Sidd and Wonk have skins as thin and soft as a newborn (and unaborted) baby's arse, while I, S_A_M, despite my mild leftwing delusionalism, at times, am comfortable engaging in the rough and tumble rhetoric of political discourse

Yes, I essentially agree with that translation. Thanks for weighing in.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, if the Left had just stuck with and supported Bush, he could have and would have done Iraq better (troops and resources)?

No, no, no. You too? Geez. My point was simply that I luv to see the D's now complaining about too few troops. It's simply one more sign that they consider the average voter to be a dolt with no memory. Do you think these contradictory positions, taken with a view as to "what sounds zippy RIGHT NOW?", actually improve their credibility?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
And Soros, and the NYT, and Rather, and PBS, and Michael Moore, and The Ghost of Wellstone, and . . . . Hey, it was a close election. These things count.

Interesting how imposing those forces look in the rear mirror.

I'm incredulous that you believe that the Forces of Liberal Evil would've said in 2002 that "well, 120,000 is one thing, but 200k? 300k? Omigod!"

For those on the Left that hated going, they hated going regardless what of what the number was. It was a boatload of people. That you think the Bushies flinched -- because of the Democrats -- by sending 1 boatload instead of the 2 or 3 that we really needed simply makes no sense.

And yet we're paying for bridges and roads and medicare drugs and NCLB and free immigration and the resultant bennies and . . . tons of unneeded shyte on bush's watch. There's more than enough to thrash out to pay the marginal costs of more troops.

I was thinking more about the sacrifice of blood than the treasure, but I agree with your that Today's GOP has become quite proficient at spending.

Actually, we do. As shown during the Katrina hysteria, we've only called up about - what? - 15%-20% of the available reserves? We've only deployed a minority of the actives? There's plenty more out there, plus you seemingly discount the ability to boost pay and bennies and draw more in. Plus, a draft.

Yeah, the draft would've gone over quite well with the American public. See Alt. #2.

Remember one of Rummy's motivations for this? A larger force is politically unpopular, and so he wanted to be able to do more - to get more and better results - with fewer opportunities for political dissent and hysteria, which translates into fewer troops and costs.

So you're saying that we're dictating our military policy by Rummy's desire to avoid political problems? That's rich.

I'll stick with, primarily #1.

And, if it happens that things DON'T turn out well, the Dems and the MSM are lined up to take the blame for torpedoing what was otherwise really a nifty policy and execution by the Bushies. Bonus!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
. . . and yet not one leftie here will duly criticise Dimwitted Senator Mary Landrieu when, on the public record, she blatantly violates the same statute with a expressly explicit threat against the physical being of the PotUS . . .

With Landrieu, there's that whole "I'm actually too stoopid to accomplish anything I attempt" defense, which, when it's a BARD burden, makes prosecution a waste of time. It's like a diminished capacity defense, but with nicer suits.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap


I was thinking more about the sacrifice of blood than the treasure, but I agree with your that Today's GOP has become quite proficient at spending.

the sacrifice of blood is still more when the Dimwitted President, his wife and minions sit on their collective hands for 8 years. It leads to about 3000 dead. In one day.

And that is not counting the camel he shot in the arse with a cruise missile in our national defence.

For shame.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, no, no. You too? Geez. My point was simply that I luv to see the D's now complaining about too few troops. It's simply one more sign that they consider the average voter to be a dolt with no memory. Do you think these contradictory positions, taken with a view as to "what sounds zippy RIGHT NOW?", actually improve their credibility?

Huh. You said:

Know what really entertains me? The new D line that Bush didn't put enough troops in Iraq. Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.

Followed by:

Tell me why the admin would worry about keeping troop levels as low as possible if not for the purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo. Tell me why it would argue with its own generals, if not because it knew that the more troops it sent, the louder the D's would object, and the more chance that the right course of action would become politically unacceptable. I imagine that, left with no opposition, Bush would have sent way more people. He'd have no real reason not to.


You want to stare at your cake as you digest it. Can't do that.

Now, see, it's not really so much that the Dems' monstrous influence caused Bush to consciously pare back, and keep back, the number of troops as a political calculation, but instead simply that you like to laugh at the Dems as being hypocritical.

Uh huh.

Certainly, that retrenchment is easier to defend. Kudos to you.