More Pelosi Lowlights

[Guest Paul]

This line always cracks me up. It's basically saying "he's kept us safe ever since that time when he didn't keep us safe." :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only that, it's a stupid argument. Terrorism is a result of how much some people hate us and want to hurt us. By invading and occupying Iraq, we magnified the terrorist threat by increasing the number of terrorists, and diminiishing not only our international support but also international cooperation against terrorism. Foreign policy experts in both parties broadly agree that the Iraq war is a disaster, many of them think the worst foreign policy disaster in our history. We have the unprecedented phenomenon of generals leaving the military and speaking out against the administration and its policies. We have soldiers returning from combat and running on anti-war platforms.

People like BushBacker and Patriot are too blinded by their sense of "rah, team!" to see straight. They're like the bull who sees to moving red object and goes after it, completely oblivious to the sword behind the cape.

[Guest BushBacker]

This line always cracks me up. It's basically saying "he's kept us safe ever since that time when he didn't keep us safe." :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him up we may have avoided 9/11. If Clinton had acted on ANY of the terrorist attacks that took place on his watch, we may have avoided 9/11. I wonder if it's the Kool-Aid that causes such memory loss ??

[Guest Guest]

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him up we may have avoided 9/11.  If Clinton had acted on ANY of the terrorist attacks that took place on his watch, we may have avoided 9/11.  I wonder if it's the Kool-Aid that causes such memory loss ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU are the one with the memory luss, IF Bush had listened to CIA warnings of the imminent danger of attack 9/11 may have been avoided.

And other than in your overactive, delusional imagination where is there any credible evidence that bin Laden was ever offered up in a manner that made him imppossible to miss?

[Guest Autonomous]

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him up we may have avoided 9/11.  If Clinton had acted on ANY of the terrorist attacks that took place on his watch, we may have avoided 9/11.  I wonder if it's the Kool-Aid that causes such memory loss ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It must be, since it has only been a short time since the last time I refuted you making that claim.

[Stixx3969]

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him up we may have avoided 9/11.  If Clinton had acted on ANY of the terrorist attacks that took place on his watch, we may have avoided 9/11.  I wonder if it's the Kool-Aid that causes such memory loss ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet you could find a way to blame the repsonse to hurricane Katrina on Clinton as well?

Talk about living in the past.

[Guest Guest]

I bet you could find a way to blame the repsonse to hurricane Katrina on Clinton as well?

Talk about living in the past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, the aftermath for Katrina can be laid ENTIRELY on the dorrstep of Ray Nagin, and Kathleen Blanco. I have news for you Sparly..the FEMA Compact CLEARLY states that the organic units at adisaster scene are to expect to be on their own with NO outside help for up to 96 hours from the onset of the disaster. Also, FEMA, and the Federal Govt Cannot even START helping without a declaration of Emergency on the part of the State Governor, which in the case of Hurricane Katrina, didnt happen until well AFTER the event. Evacuation, and the sheltering in place of people during and immediately after the storm was ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Mayor of New Orleans, and the Governor of Louisiana. THEY Screwed the Pooch, THEY failed their people miserably.

[Bryan]

Not only that, it's a stupid argument. Terrorism is a result of how much some people hate us and want to hurt us. By invading and occupying Iraq, we magnified the terrorist threat by increasing the number of terrorists, and diminiishing not only our international support but also international cooperation against terrorism.

Oh, really? How about an example of how international cooperation against terrorism has diminished, not counting the Democratic Party in the United States of America?

Foreign policy experts in both parties broadly agree that the Iraq war is a disaster, many of them think the worst foreign policy disaster in our history.

So many, apparently, that Paul can't name one of them.

Paul appears to be doing his typical ambiguous argument, and by that I mean an argument that so lacks in specifics that the incautious listener is likely to overestimate the reach of the argument.

The situation regarding Iraq is complex and has many dimensions. There is broad agreement that the performance of our intelligence services (not to mention the many others who agreed with our conclusions) led to a decrease in U.S. credibility. There is also broad agreement that the post-war strategy in Iraq, at least up through this point, hasn't been particularly effective.

Paul probably hopes that the reader draws far more into his claim than that.

We have the unprecedented phenomenon of generals leaving the military and speaking out against the administration and its policies.

What generals left the military because of the administration's policies, as your statement appears to suggest?

Beyond that, I'd suggest that the phenomenon probably isn't new. General George McClelland had substantial differences with Abraham Lincoln and ran against Lincoln in the presidential election of 1964. The fact that the complaints of generals reach the public probably has more to do with the pervasiveness of journalism along with the same cultural change that led Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to break with a long tradition in which former presidents do not use their status as former presidents to undermine the current president rather than anything particularly different about the current president.

We have soldiers returning from combat and running on anti-war platforms.

... following an intense effort on the part of the DNC to find former soldiers to run against Republicans. They hoped it would increase their credibility on the war--maybe it worked during the 2006 election. People have had time to see that the Democrats can't build a consensus, however, so it probably won't work again.

In any event, majorities of soldiers tend to favor conservative policies regarding application of military force. Paul offers us exceptions to prove the rule.

People like BushBacker and Patriot are too blinded by their sense of "rah, team!" to see straight. They're like the bull who sees to moving red object and goes after it, completely oblivious to the sword behind the cape.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul apparently still isn't above using personal attacks.

Review his argument. It consists of unsupported assertions (business as usual for LaClair).

[Guest Guest]

YOU are the one with the memory luss, IF Bush had listened to CIA warnings of the imminent danger of attack 9/11 may have been avoided.

And other than in your overactive, delusional imagination where is there any credible evidence that bin Laden was ever offered up in a manner that  made him imppossible to miss?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yesterday the Democrats passed a bill that would have loosened restrictions on stem cell research. Bush vetoed it.

We need a Democratic Congress and a responsible president. This doesn't necessarily mean a Democratic president, but it definitely means not a Republican because those guys are too beholden to crazies like the one who opened this topic. The current Congress is far from a model of courage and integrity, but with the right leadership it can undo some of the damage the radicals in what used to be the Republican party have done.

[Guest Guest]

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him up we may have avoided 9/11.  If Clinton had acted on ANY of the terrorist attacks that took place on his watch, we may have avoided 9/11.  I wonder if it's the Kool-Aid that causes such memory loss ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's YOUR excuse for memory loss? Or is it just plain stupidity?

Where does YOUR DELUSION come from that bin Laden was ever offered to anyone on a silver platter?

[Bryan]

Yesterday the Democrats passed a bill that would have loosened restrictions on stem cell research. Bush vetoed it.

Good for Bush.

We need a Democratic Congress and a responsible president.

You love the political posturing you're getting from Congress, eh? If only those pesky Republican's hadn't sunk their plan to install a system for secretly attaching earmarks to their bills ... and taxing oil companies--everyone's got to love that! It's not like the taxation on the oil companies will get passed right along to the consumer--is it?

The modern Democratic Party isn't your father's Democratic Party any longer, unless he was part of the faction strongly sympathetic to communism and/or socialism. The modern Democratic Party wants to pursue policies that have failed in Europe and elsewhere.

Wise up, Democrats.

This doesn't necessarily mean a Democratic president, but it definitely means not a Republican because those guys are too beholden to crazies like the one who opened this topic. The current Congress is far from a model of courage and integrity, but with the right leadership it can undo some of the damage the radicals in what used to be the Republican party have done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed. Let's get rid of scientific advances made with adult or placental stem cells, and replace it with new research using stem cells from aborted fetuses.

Bush made the right call on the stem cell issue. It's the same call that Clinton had made, though Clinton never got around to funding fetal stem cell research at all (I'll wait while you Democrats pile on Clinton for being an irresponsible president).

[Guest Guest]

Yesterday the Democrats passed a bill that would have loosened restrictions on stem cell research. Bush vetoed it.

We need a Democratic Congress and a responsible president. This doesn't necessarily mean a Democratic president, but it definitely means not a Republican because those guys are too beholden to crazies like the one who opened this topic. The current Congress is far from a model of courage and integrity, but with the right leadership it can undo some of the damage the radicals in what used to be the Republican party have done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cord Blood, and Adult Stem Cell research has garnered proven, repeatable treatments for over SEVENTY diseases and syndromes, including Lupus, Chron's disease, and a number of others. Thus far, Embryonic Stem Cell research has produced No Viable results, in fact Embryonic Stem Cells have to date proven highly unstable, and in animal testing have a tendency to cause tumors. So, of COURSE we should keep dumping money into the research that has the LEAST amout of success, and ignore what is actually working... You people make me laugh.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Cord Blood, and Adult Stem Cell research has garnered proven, repeatable treatments for over SEVENTY diseases and syndromes, including Lupus, Chron's disease, and a number of others.  Thus far, Embryonic Stem Cell research has produced No Viable results, in fact Embryonic Stem Cells have to date proven highly unstable, and in animal testing have a tendency to cause tumors.  So, of COURSE we should keep dumping money into the research that has the LEAST amout of success, and ignore what is actually working... You people make me laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely correct. However, you're preaching to the "Hate Bush, Blame America First" crowd, and they hate the truth.

[Strife767]

Indeed.  Let's get rid of scientific advances made with adult or placental stem cells, and replace it with new research using stem cells from aborted fetuses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That, if untouched by stem cell research, will simply be thrown away. Yes, that's a much better use for them.

[Guest Paul]

As poor as the Republicans were on fiscal responsibility under Bush, you're going to find the Democrats worse. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither party gives me much confidence, but the historical record is that the Republicans became hopelessly corrupt to the extent they lost power in just a dozen years. The difference between the parties is that the Republicans oppose government, and don't mind undermining it. By contrast, Democrats have to be at least a little more honest to have any claim on power. So while the Democrats slowly grew more and more corrupt (and arrogant) in their fifty-or-so years of power, the Republicans never cared about social programs, and some of them are happy every time government gets a black eye. It's no accolade to either party, but it does explain why one is even worse than the other.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Neither party gives me much confidence, but the historical record is that the Republicans became hopelessly corrupt to the extent they lost power in just a dozen years. The difference between the parties is that the Republicans oppose government, and don't mind undermining it. By contrast, Democrats have to be at least a little more honest to have any claim on power. So while the Democrats slowly grew more and more corrupt (and arrogant) in their fifty-or-so years of power, the Republicans never cared about social programs, and some of them are happy every time government gets a black eye. It's no accolade to either party, but it does explain why one is even worse than the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You neglected to say that taxes have ALWAYS gone up during democratic leadership. And if Hilliary or Obama get elected, hold on to your wallets. They both favor free college tuition and social security benefits for illegal aliens. Imagine the border situation when the word gets out the U.S. gives free tuition and S.S. benefits to anyone that can get here.

[Guest Guest]

You're absolutely correct.  However, you're preaching to the "Hate Bush, Blame America First" crowd,  and they hate the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hate the truth?

We haven't HEARD ANY truth from the Shrub White House

[Bryan]

Neither party gives me much confidence, but the historical record is that the Republicans became hopelessly corrupt to the extent they lost power in just a dozen years.

What a load of hogwash.

There are many reasons for the loss of the House and the Senate in 2006. The primary reason was probably the war in Iraq. The secondary reason was probably the appearance of corruption produced by the informal (perhaps sometimes otherwise) partnership between the DNC and the mainstream media. They hopped all over Tom DeLay for preposterous reasons and did a great job of minimizing Democrat connections to Abramoff.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0105/p03s03-uspo.html

The press has cried "scandal!" at every little thing the Bush administration does, but if you look at the record the administration has been remarkably free of any significant scandal (compare the previous six or seven administrations).

The difference between the parties is that the Republicans oppose government, and don't mind undermining it.

Huh? Republicans as anarchists, eh?

By contrast, Democrats have to be at least a little more honest to have any claim on power.

No, you're missing the Democratic appeal. The Dems promise their constituents stuff. Like retired folks. The Dems promise to fund Medicare and demonize Republicans for trying to keep Medicare costs under control (for example, the lower increase of the Medicare budget that Democrats called a "cut" some years ago). That kind of tactic is very effective. With more retirees reliant on Social Security, Democrats tend to have a strong appeal to people who want the government to supply their needs.

Same thing with health care, earned income tax credits ... all the little entitlements that help the Dems buy votes. The Framers would be appalled. Democrats don't need to be honest at all. All they need to do, really, is accuse the Republicans of stuff and keep making big promises to the the people who will be dependent on government for their income. The media picks up on it enough to make it stick in Average Joe's mind. If Average Joe votes, he takes that programming into account. But it works especially well if there's big issue to connect with it. National prosperity made it possible for Americans to forgive Clinton for practically anything (even if the prosperity was artificially bolstered in the public mind by the news coverage).

It's also a fairly wide window into the Democrat stance on illegal immigration. Amnesty is great for Democrats since they can rely on a majority of the new citizens to lean Democrat.

So while the Democrats slowly grew more and more corrupt (and arrogant) in their fifty-or-so years of power, the Republicans never cared about social programs, and some of them are happy every time government gets a black eye. It's no accolade to either party, but it does explain why one is even worse than the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Via fairy-tale.

Republicans do not believe that it is appropriately the job of the federal government to run social programs. Private organizations such as churches should primarily assume that role, and state and local governments secondarily.

Make charity an entitlement and you've set up a powerful economic drain that offers incentives for unproductive behavior (not to mention the handle it gives leaders on the votes of those beholden to the government for their income).

[Guest Guest]

The press has cried "scandal!" at every little thing the Bush administration does, but if you look at the record the administration has been remarkably free of any significant scandal (compare the previous six or seven administrations).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Lying a country into a disastrous war.

2. Lying to the people about the real reason for the tax cuts.

3. Lying about and covering up the scandalous no-bid contracts in Iraq.

4. Lying about any intention toward any kind of compassion, conservative or otherwise.

5. Conducting a secret government through Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney.

6. Suspending habeas corpus with absolutely no justification.

7. Lying about their intention never to capture bid Laden.

8. Lying about not having a "litmus" test for Supreme Court nominees.

9. Covering for the numerous abuses by the attorney general.

10. Destroying our international standing in the world.

11. Squandering a budget surplus to give more money to their rich friends and allies.

12. Holding an entire country hostage to the narrow interests of a privileged few.

13. Conducting a phony "war on terror" while the real threats go unaddressed.

Yeah, just little stuff.

[Guest 2smart4u]

1. Lying a country into a disastrous war.

2. Lying to the people about the real reason for the tax cuts.

3. Lying about and covering up the scandalous no-bid contracts in Iraq.

4. Lying about any intention toward any kind of compassion, conservative or otherwise.

5. Conducting a secret government through Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney.

6. Suspending habeas corpus with absolutely no justification.

7. Lying about their intention never to capture bid Laden.

8. Lying about not having a "litmus" test for Supreme Court nominees.

9. Covering for the numerous abuses by the attorney general.

10. Destroying our international standing in the world.

11. Squandering a budget surplus to give more money to their rich friends and allies.

12. Holding an entire country hostage to the narrow interests of a privileged few.

13. Conducting a phony "war on terror" while the real threats go unaddressed.

Yeah, just little stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why you should never drink Kool-Aid. If this post doesn't scream paranoia and complete loss of reality, then nothing ever will.

[Stixx3969]

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why you should never drink Kool-Aid.  If this post doesn't scream paranoia and complete loss of reality, then nothing ever will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I saw in another post where you said you were educated? Yet all you ever come up with for an arguement is "Kool-Aid Drinker"

You may be educated. Unfortunately there are alot of "educated idiots" in the world.

[Strife767]

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why you should never drink Kool-Aid.  If this post doesn't scream paranoia and complete loss of reality, then nothing ever will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not fit to judge, as you clearly reside in your own personal reality.

[Guest Guest]

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why you should never drink Kool-Aid.  If this post doesn't scream paranoia and complete loss of reality, then nothing ever will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess we can ALL breath a sigh of relief that NOTHING will ever scream paranoia and a complete loss of reality. Of course that's making the big assumption that YOU are occasionally truthful and in touch with reality.

[Bryan]

1. Lying a country into a disastrous war.

What was the supposed lie? Working from the CIA's conclusions as if those conclusions were correct?

2. Lying to the people about the real reason for the tax cuts.

So you don't accept the Keynesian justification? Why not?

3. Lying about and covering up the scandalous no-bid contracts in Iraq.

Citation?

4. Lying about any intention toward any kind of compassion, conservative or otherwise.

... so the Medicare prescription benefit is supposedly not beneficial, and neither was the "No Child Left Behind" legislation (see Ted Kennedy).

5. Conducting a secret government through Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney.

Secret government of what, and what were the supposedly secret actions of the secret government? Or are they still so secret that you cannot discuss them?

6. Suspending habeas corpus with absolutely no justification.

Absolutely no justification? Can you justify that claim?

7. Lying about their intention never to capture bid Laden.

Where did they express an intention never to capture bin Laden? Or did you mistype?

8. Lying about not having a "litmus" test for Supreme Court nominees.

Citation?

Clearly Bush prefers justices with originalist leanings, but that's no different than the types of preferences presidents have demonstrated over the past 100 years or so. It should arguably be a basic qualification for placement on a federal bench (otherwise the judge does not interpret the law but instead effectively writes the law).

9. Covering for the numerous abuses by the attorney general.

And you can name one.

No, really.

10. Destroying our international standing in the world.

Might as well include a few plainly legal scandals.

11. Squandering a budget surplus to give more money to their rich friends and allies.

Sounds like you don't understand how the tax system works. Either that or you're making your charge on the basis of socialist presuppositions.

12. Holding an entire country hostage to the narrow interests of a privileged few.

2smart may be right about you.

13. Conducting a phony "war on terror" while the real threats go unaddressed.

Yeah, just little stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If those are scandals, then the list of scandals for every other president just tripled, making the Bush administration look all the better by relative comparison.

[Guest Guest]

What was the supposed lie?  Working from the CIA's conclusions as if those conclusions were correct?

IF the Shrub had heeded the CIA warning of the danger of imminent attack some time before 9/11 it MAY have been prevented but we KNOW he only acted on what he selectively chose to believe.

[Guest Guest]

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why you should never drink Kool-Aid.  If this post doesn't scream paranoia and complete loss of reality, then nothing ever will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I told the Kool-Aid company. They said you were paranoid.