U.S. ends search for WMD

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501d.asp

 

And Nuke -- with the military industrial complex being in place with massive amounts of corporate welfare and bailouts, how is that "personal responsibility"?  Or the current "Its not our fault that the intel was so bad so we didn't make a mistake" line from the Bushistas -- why not take "personal responsibility" and say "We f***ed up!" 

 

"And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military industrial complex?" -- Murray Rothbard

 

 

I couldn't come up with more bulls*** than that if I went to Pamplona, Spain with a shovel.

 

 

War is a necessary evil because this is a nasty world and smiles and flowers from "progressives" aren't going to keep anybody safe. The fact is that nobody wants to go to war just for the hell of it.

 

Tell me who on the right favors conscription? Everyone within the Bush Administration has stated innumerable times that there will be no draft. In fact, the people that want the draft re-instated are all LIBERALS!

 

The right favors putting money back in the taxpayers pocket rather than in the hands of government. The left wants confiscatory tax rates to re-distribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't. That's socialism.

[Rex Kickass]

Sorry dude, but not all "progressives" are peaceniks.

 

Progressives believe in liberty, equality and responsibility. That means that progressives believe that war is sometimes necessary, but they want to make sure that there's an airtight case for the war or that the American public is truly at grave and immediate danger.

 

Fighting a war of choice is not progressive, you're right. Because it's not responsible.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Sorry dude, but not all "progressives" are peaceniks.

 

Progressives believe in liberty, equality and responsibility. That means that progressives believe that war is sometimes necessary, but they want to make sure that there's an airtight case for the war or that the American public is truly at grave and immediate danger.

 

Fighting a war of choice is not progressive, you're right. Because it's not responsible.

 

 

I agree with you on 1/3rd of your argument.

 

Point 1.

 

Progressives don't believe in liberty. How do you explain Political Correctness (I.E. thought control ) ? How do you explain social engineering? How do you explain their line of thought that suggests government can run peoples lives better than people can?

 

 

Point 2.

 

Equality? I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. They wont be done trying to re-distribute people's wealth until the squeege guy has the same amount as Bill Gates does. The problem with that is that it was tried once.......in the Soviet Union, and what happened was that everyone was equal alright.........equally miserable. Unless you happened to be in the top circles of government that is.

 

Point 3.

 

How on earth can you say that they believe in responsibility when they are of the opinion that people cannot be trusted to run their own lives? How can you say they believe in responsibility when they want the government to micromanage even the most minute aspects of people's life from cradle to grave?

Edited January 14, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[KipWellsFan]

Define regressive.  If it's regressive to live in a society where people are not coddled by government from birth to death & not a place where the government practices wholesale social engineering on it's entire society then I'm all for being regressive. 

 

"Progressivism" is nothing more than a euphamisim for handing over control of your life to government.  It frowns on individual freedom because "progressives" think they can run your life better than you can run it yourself.  It's all fine and dandy as long as you conform.  If "progressives" ever got any serious control then American Society would turn into one similar to the pussy whipped, piss ant bunch of cheesedicks that you saw in the movie "Demolition Man".  "A bunch of 47 year old virgins sitting around in their underwear singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"

 

f*** that.

 

Well I have no idea what that whole post is about but by progressive I mean allowing gays to marry, getting rid of the death penalty, improving education instead of military, considering environmental problems. I don't see any of these types of things happening.

 

------------

 

John Spartan: [to machine on wall] Thanks a lot you s***-brained, f***-faced, ball breaking, duck f***ing pain in the ass.

Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

[KipWellsFan]

I agree with you on 1/3rd of your argument.

 

Point 1. 

 

Progressives don't believe in liberty.  How do you explain Political Correctness (I.E. thought control ) ?  How do you explain social engineering?  How do you explain their line of thought that suggests government can run peoples lives better than people can? 

Point 2. 

 

Equality?  I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.  They wont be done trying to re-distribute people's wealth until the squeege guy has the same amount as Bill Gates does.  The problem with that is that it was tried once.......in the Soviet Union, and what happened was that everyone was equal alright.........equally miserable.  Unless you happened to be in the top circles of government that is. 

 

Point 3. 

 

How on earth can you say that they believe in responsibility when they are of the opinion that people cannot be trusted to run their own lives?  How can you say they believe in responsibility when they want the government to micromanage even the most minute aspects of people's life from cradle to grave?

 

 

Bah just because a government supplies health care doesn't mean they run your f***ing life goddamnit. Right wingers are the ones saying you can't marry a guy. I don't believe for a second that whether liberals or conservatives, progressives or regressives run a country do they run your lives. This is bulls***!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I agree with you on 1/3rd of your argument.

 

Point 1. 

 

Progressives don't believe in liberty.  How do you explain Political Correctness (I.E. thought control ) ?  How do you explain social engineering?  How do you explain their line of thought that suggests government can run peoples lives better than people can? 

Point 2. 

 

Equality?  I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.  They wont be done trying to re-distribute people's wealth until the squeege guy has the same amount as Bill Gates does.  The problem with that is that it was tried once.......in the Soviet Union, and what happened was that everyone was equal alright.........equally miserable.  Unless you happened to be in the top circles of government that is. 

 

Point 3. 

 

How on earth can you say that they believe in responsibility when they are of the opinion that people cannot be trusted to run their own lives?  How can you say they believe in responsibility when they want the government to micromanage even the most minute aspects of people's life from cradle to grave?

 

Much of the same could be said about modern "conservatives" in power -- the state knows better than gays to let them get married, have equal rights etc. The state knows better for education via NCLB. The state hates welfare for the poor but has no problem subsidizing the already rich...

 

The f***ing up of America is a bi-partisan effort.

[Rex Kickass]

Wow, so you only read GOP spin points huh?

 

Progressives don't believe that government runs your life better than you do. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe the government should say whether a same sex couple is less equal than a heterosexual couple. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should decide what a woman should do with her body in the beginning stages of pregnancy. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should have the right to exercise the death penalty against its own citizens.

 

Progressives believe in rewarding hard work. So those who have a family that works hard for the little that they have should have the opportunity for basic medical care, a solid education for their kids, an insurance policy like Social Security to protect against financial default in old age. Progressives also believe that the weakest among us have a place at the table in a civil society.

 

Progressives believe in responsible, fair governance. A government that allows for transparency in itself and one where the people control the government and not the other way around. Progressives believe in times of national crisis that everyone should share the burden and make sacrifices. Progressives are what made this country great in the 30s and 40s. Progressives are who helped the Army integrate in World War II, who got electricity to rural areas where the market wouldn't bear it, who got the elderly and infirm the basic protection they deserve in a republic that values people.

 

What do the Conservatives have to show for their time in office? McCarthy, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden. It was conservatives like Henry Kissinger who helped to develop the "Salvadoran option." It is conservatives like our president who want to recodify discrimination in our constitution, and who talk about fighting the war on terror while leaving our borders unprotected. But, hey, the people know better right? As long as they're on your side apparently.

[KipWellsFan]

Jeeze those last 3 posts have all the exact same message. Too bad I can't explain myself with the eloquence that Winodj does.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well I have no idea what that whole post is about but by progressive I mean allowing gays to marry, getting rid of the death penalty, improving education instead of military, considering environmental problems.  I don't see any of these types of things happening.

 

------------

 

John Spartan: [to machine on wall] Thanks a lot you s***-brained, f***-faced, ball breaking, duck f***ing pain in the ass.

Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

 

 

Not only should the death penalty not be abolished it should be expanded and imposed in a uniform manner to cover Murder 1, Rape and the sale of narcotics.

 

Improving education instead of the military? Funny how people b**** about a lack of education spending when there's something like 5 BILLION dollars in federal education funds that go unspent every year.

[Rex Kickass]

Not only should the death penalty not be abolished it should be expanded and imposed in a uniform manner to cover Murder 1,  Rape and the sale of narcotics.

 

So another thing that the government should decide for its people? Many progressives share a similar view with true conservatism. That people have choices in life and if they should so choose to use a narcotic substance, the government has no business keeping them from doing so, as long as it is done in a nondisruptive manner.

 

You know, like how our President did his coke back in the 70s.

 

Oh yes, I went there.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Much of the same could be said about modern "conservatives" in power -- the state knows better than gays to let them get married, have equal rights etc.  The state knows better for education via NCLB.  The state hates welfare for the poor but has no problem subsidizing the already rich...

 

The f***ing up of America is a bi-partisan effort.

 

 

It is the people that don't want gay marriage.......In all states where a ban on it was proposed it passed in the last election. By fighting such things in court your side is defying the will of the people.

 

The state runs education on all levels yet "progressives" are opposed to funding school vouchers for parents who want to send their kids to private schools. Setting standards for states to follow is not a bad thing.

 

Handing money to people who dont work as opposed to giving tax breaks to companies who employ people and drive the economy? Tough choice.

[Texsox]

[KipWellsFan]

It is the people that don't want gay marriage.......In all states where a ban on it was proposed it passed in the last election.  By fighting such things in court your side is defying the will of the people.

 

*Hijacking thread*

 

This was one of the dirtiest moves by Karl Rove in the 2004 election, making sure almost all states had this gay marriage proposal on the ballot during the election. Because most Americans I believe are against gay marriage, which I guess is their right. But when they see this proposal last second it reminds them that they want a right winger in power who would never let such an evil thing as gay marriage happen.

 

 

Meh just my observation.

[Texsox]

*Hijacking thread*

 

This was one of the dirtiest moves by Karl Rove in the 2004 election, making sure almost all states had this gay marriage proposal on the ballot during the election.  Because most Americans I believe are against gay marriage, which I guess is their right. But when they see this proposal last second it reminds them that they want a right winger in power who would never let such an evil thing as gay marriage happen.

Meh just my observation.

 

I wouldn't classify it as a dirty move. I would call it a brilliant stategy.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Wow, so you only read GOP spin points huh?

 

Progressives don't believe that government runs your life better than you do.  Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe the government should say whether a same sex couple is less equal than a heterosexual couple. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should decide what a woman should do with her body in the beginning stages of pregnancy. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should have the right to exercise the death penalty against its own citizens.

 

Progressives believe in rewarding hard work. So those who have a family that works hard for the little that they have should have the opportunity for basic medical care, a solid education for their kids, an insurance policy like Social Security to protect against financial default in old age. Progressives also believe that the weakest among us have a place at the table in a civil society.

 

Progressives believe in responsible, fair governance. A government that allows for transparency in itself and one where the people control the government and not the other way around. Progressives believe in times of national crisis that everyone should share the burden and make sacrifices. Progressives are what made this country great in the 30s and 40s. Progressives are who helped the Army integrate in World War II, who got electricity to rural areas where the market wouldn't bear it, who got the elderly and infirm the basic protection they deserve in a republic that values people.

 

What do the Conservatives have to show for their time in office? McCarthy, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden. It was conservatives like Henry Kissinger who helped to develop the "Salvadoran option." It is conservatives like our president who want to recodify discrimination in our constitution, and who talk about fighting the war on terror while leaving our borders unprotected. But, hey, the people know better right? As long as they're on your side apparently.

 

 

The ban on gay marriage was voted on by 11 states and passed by all. Evidently the people want it and not the state.

 

How do progressives propose to reward hard work? By taking away from those who earn and re-distributing their wealth to those who don't? Spare me. Socialist robbery is all that is.

 

What do Conservatives have to show for their time in office? The demise of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the freeing of millions of people in Eastern Europe, the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban regime, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

 

Recodify discrimination? If by that you mean an end to racial quotas ( reverse discrimination ) then you can add that to their list of accomplishments. Explain how we've left our borders unprotected when we've spent billions to hire border patrol officers, deployed the most sophisticated technology available to help catch illegal immigrants and increased funding to improve the monitoring of our harbors by an exponential amount,

 

Also please explain to me why this is such a concern to you now when before 9-11 cracking down on illegal immigration was government sponsored racisim? That's one thing I can't quite compute.

 

 

BTW, "Progressives" have Vietnam and Korea on their record and I seem to recall us losing about 100 times as many men in those 2 wars as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edited January 14, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Rex Kickass]

It is the people that don't want gay marriage.......In all states where a ban on it was proposed it passed in the last election.  By fighting such things in court your side is defying the will of the people.

 

The state runs education on all levels yet "progressives" are opposed to funding school vouchers for parents who want to send their kids to private schools.  Setting standards for states to follow is not a bad thing. 

 

Handing money to people who dont work as opposed to giving tax breaks to companies who employ people and drive the economy?  Tough choice.

 

Nuke: How many of those amendments would have passed banning interracial marriage in the 1950's? Would those have been the right thing to do? Funny, how in these circumstances too many conservatives, and people in general, can't seem to determine right from wrong, but seem to have a clear idea of black and white when it comes to putting American lives at risk. Before you say that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are two different things, remember this. They both involve consenting adults in a republic where our foundations clearly state that "All Men are Created Equal." So why does the government have any business telling people who they can and can't get married to, provided that they are legitimate consenting adults?

 

I'm sorry Nuke, could you show me an example where there was a Federal "Free Money to fat unemployed lazy bastards" act?

 

And if you bring up welfare mothers, I'll have to bring up Halliburton and Enron and I think we can both agree that those are tired examples that carry more symbolism with them than fact.

 

However, I will tell you that Progressives do work hard to keep businesses local and jobs for their people. Here's an example, Greenville, Michigan - where progressive Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm took an active role in finding government incentives in keeping the largest factory in the town in Michigan. The company said that they could save 83 million dollars by moving its factory to Mexico. The Greenville city government and the State of Michigan, under Granholm's direct leadership found 83 million dollars in tax savings to keep Electrolux there. The company, part of the group that "drive the economy" decided to move anyway.

 

P.S. They can't seem to solidify their Mexican deal, so now the company is begging the government to put their 80+ million dollar deal back on the table.

[KipWellsFan]

I wouldn't classify it as a dirty move. I would call it a brilliant stategy.

 

One in the same nowadays.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke: How many of those amendments would have passed banning interracial marriage in the 1950's? Would those have been the right thing to do? Funny, how in these circumstances too many conservatives, and people in general, can't seem to determine right from wrong, but seem to have a clear idea of black and white when it comes to putting American lives at risk. Before you say that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are two different things, remember this. They both involve consenting adults in a republic where our foundations clearly state that "All Men are Created Equal." So why does the government have any business telling people who they can and can't get married to, provided that they are legitimate consenting adults?

 

 

 

 

But I thought this whole argument was about progressives supporting people's right to choose. By that logic you should be supporting both the gay marriage amendment and your hypothetical interracial marriage ban. When people choose something you don't agree with does that suddenly make them forfeit their right to choose? The people of those 11 states voted to ban gay marriage and a small group of gay rights activists and their lawyers seek to defy the will of the people by challenging them in court.

 

This is nothing new to the left though. When Proposition 187 passed in California in 1994 the left tied it up in court and prevented it from ever taking effect. Now that Arizona has passed a similar amendment the left can be expected to do much the same thing.

 

A bunch of hypocrites is what you people are. You complain about not infringing on people's right to choose and letting them think for themselves but when they disagree with you and enact laws that run contrary to your beliefs then they are suddenly a bunch of "wing nuts" and you do everything in your power to frustrate them.

 

Explain that away.

Edited January 14, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Rex Kickass]

BTW,  "Progressives" have Vietnam and Korea on their record and I seem to recall us losing about 100 times as many men in those 2 wars as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The Korean war was fought by US troops under UN command, by the way. And was a response to Communist North Korea invading West backed South Korea. Sadly, due to a miscalculation on the part of the US Army command, the US continued to press beyond Pyongyang. Had our side stopped at the capital when it fell, chances are that the DPRK would be no more. Oh yeah, the Republicans controlled Congress, 1946-1954. We went to the aid of an ally attacked in Korea, but then again I guess Progressives are just a bunch of pussy peaceniks.

 

Vietnam was started under Kennedy, again in a fight against communism. And that is a fight where blame can be shared. Roughly have of the 58,000 dead were under Nixon's watch. Last time I checked, progressives don't claim Nixon as their own. This too was fought under an ideological imperative, although many progressives had realized that this war was unwinnable and had sought an exit from Vietnam by the mid 1960s.

[KipWellsFan]

And lets not forget this great Iraq war!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The Korean war was fought by US troops under UN command, by the way. And was a response to Communist North Korea invading West backed South Korea. Sadly, due to a miscalculation on the part of the US Army command, the US continued to press beyond Pyongyang. Had our side stopped at the capital when it fell, chances are that the DPRK would be no more. Oh yeah, the Republicans controlled Congress, 1946-1954. We went to the aid of an ally attacked in Korea, but then again I guess Progressives are just a bunch of pussy peaceniks.

 

Vietnam was started under Kennedy, again in a fight against communism. And that is a fight where blame can be shared. Roughly have of the 58,000 dead were under Nixon's watch. Last time I checked, progressives don't claim Nixon as their own. This too was fought under an ideological imperative, although many progressives had realized that this war was unwinnable and had sought an exit from Vietnam by the mid 1960s.

 

 

There really was no difference between the 4 wars in question. Korea, Vietnam, Afghinastan and Iraq were all started because the government percieved a threat to our national security. So why were the 1st 2 ok but not the last 2?

 

You're absolutely right about Vietnam BTW. It was unwinnable because the left ensured that we fought that war with both hands tied behind our backs. Was it not "progressive" Lyndon Johnson who sat in the White House basement at 2 AM night after night picking targets that individual pilots could strike? Was it not Lyndon Johnson who expressly prohibited the Air Force from attacking the NVA's air defenses before they were operational then had them attacked when they were nearly impenetrable which directly resulted in the capture or death of hundreds of pilots? Was it not Lyndon Johnson who said we could not go into Cambodia and deny the NVA its safe haven there and was it not the left who called Nixon a butcher for bombing Hanoi and going into Cambodia?

Edited January 14, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Rex Kickass]

But I thought this whole argument was about progressives supporting people's right to choose.  By that logic you should be supporting both the gay marriage amendment and your hypothetical interracial marriage ban.  When people choose something you don't agree with does that suddenly make them forfeit their right to choose?  The people of those 11 states voted to ban gay marriage and a small group of gay rights activists and their lawyers seek to defy the will of the people by challenging them in court. 

 

This is nothing new to the left though.  When Proposition 187 passed in California in 1994 the left tied it up in court and prevented it from ever taking effect.  Now that Arizona has passed a similar amendment the left can be expected to do much the same thing.

 

A bunch of hypocrites is what you people are.  You complain about not infringing on people's right to choose and letting them think for themselves but when they disagree with you and enact laws that run contrary to your beliefs then they are suddenly a bunch of "wing nuts" and you do everything in your power to frustrate them.

 

Explain that away.

 

 

There's nothing to explain away. You said that progressives believe that government runs people's lives better than they can themselves. I gave you some concrete examples about where that's not true.

 

I also said that progressives believe in equality. That would be both in opportunity and equality under the law. You can sit there and say that progressives should support interracial marriage bans because progressives believe in choice. But its not a very smart thing to say. Why? Because progressives believe in individual choices. Progressives don't believe that the government should keep consenting adults from making decisions that are not socially disruptive.

 

Last time I checked, Progressives aren't trying to enact laws and constitutional amendments to keep people from doing anything. The last constitutional amendment proposed by progressives was to create a national election standard. Before that it was the Equal Rights Amendment. It's the Conservatives who want to ban things. Same sex marriage. Flag burning. Foreigners. Unfortunately, they also realize that banning things they, or most people, view as unpleasant, is directly contrary to the spirit of the constitution from which this country is based. So the only solution to get something to stick is to put it in the constitution. Because if its in there, it can't be unconstitutional.

 

Listen, you may be willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not. There's not a lot of things I'll fight for. But I'll fight for my freedom and I'll fight for yours and anyone else's. Because its the right thing to do. Its the progressive thing to do. And its the American thing to do.

[Rex Kickass]

There really was no difference between the 4 wars in question.  Korea, Vietnam, Afghinastan and Iraq were all started because the government percieved a threat to our national security.  So why were the 1st 2 ok but not the last 2?

 

You're absolutely right about Vietnam BTW.  It was unwinnable because the left ensured that we fought that war with both hands tied behind our backs.  Was it not "progressive" Lyndon Johnson who sat in the White House basement at 2 AM night after night picking targets that individual pilots could strike?  Was it not Lyndon Johnson who expressly prohibited the Air Force from attacking the NVA's air defenses before they were operational then had them attacked when they were nearly impenetrable which directly resulted in the capture or death of hundreds of pilots?  Was it not Lyndon Johnson who said we could not go into Cambodia and deny the NVA its safe haven there and was it not the left who called Nixon a butcher for bombing Hanoi and going into Cambodia?

 

Ok, Vietnam was a mistake. And lots of progressives knew that. And it was also apparent to many - well before the days of LBJ picking out targets - that it was not a threat to our national security. So you could make the argument that LBJ was guilty of the same thing that our current president is guilty of, having a s***ty foreign policy. You didn't even mention Carter's decision to withhold aid from Ethiopia because of its decision to align with the USSR in 1979, causing roughly one million deaths from starvation. I'll let that slip though, not many people know about the Sunday School's teacher deviation from morality.

 

I never debated about whether or not Afghanistan was the right thing to do. It was from the beginning. They clearly helped to make 9/11 happen by hosting Bin Laden, and refusing to surrender him. Nobody here ever debated Afghanistan, so don't line me up and say that I'm against that theater.

 

Gulf War II differs from the other three conflicts significantly because there was no provocation into attack. Iraq did not invade another state in 2002 or 2003. Iraq was not linked to a single instance of terrorism against the United States or its allies - (and if you bring up monetary gifts to suicide bombers' families, than we oughta been bombing Saudi Arabia too) and didn't meet the same criteria as the other three theaters. Further, there was already a containment regime around Iraq that was suiting our policy just fine for the previous dozen years and insured that Hussein couldn't do anything major without us knowing... and without causing any significant American casualties.

 

So, no, these four theaters are not the same. Two were ideological based. One was a response to a direct attack on American soil, and the other was based on a pipe dream from one small segment of the American politic.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So the only solution to get something to stick is to put it in the constitution. Because if its in there, it can't be unconstitutional.

 

Listen, you may be willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not. There's not a lot of things I'll fight for. But I'll fight for my freedom and I'll fight for yours and anyone else's. Because its the right thing to do. Its the progressive thing to do. And its the American thing to do. 

 

 

 

 

Does that go for state constitutions as well?

 

Like I said. You are hypocrites for imposing the will of the very few on the many by way of litigation. You are all for choice alright, just so long as it doesn't run contrary to your beliefs.

 

The people vote for the people who enact the laws and in some states they enact them themselves via ballot initiative. Suddenly the will of the people is null and void because a small minority find the laws that the majority pass objectionable?

[Rex Kickass]

There's a difference between finding a law objectionable and finding a law unconstitutional. We live in a republic, not a democracy. A republic is a government which rules by majority, but in a way that protects the minority.

 

Denying someone the right to marry is fundamentally against what this country stands for. Denying someone the right to express themselves, in a manner that you may find objectionable, is unamerican.

 

If conservatives can't understand that, maybe they should move to a country where freedoms are subjective.