Today is the day that George W Bush is re-sworn into office for another 4 years.
I love that sentence for the simple fact that those words, combined together in that order, drives lefties apeshit crazy.
So crazy, in fact, that they are planning numerous symbolic protests today.
Let’s list some of them, shall we?
Here in Seattle, Not In Our Name – Seattle Brigade, is planning a rally in the middle of our downtown’s commercialism, Westlake Center.
Someone, NOIN won’t name who, has been posting flyers around town that say “Start a fire, blow up a bank”. The NOINers say that it is a government agency that is trying to “set up Not In Our Name for political attack”.
Doubt it. The NOINers are famous for not policing their own. More than likely, it is one of their more lively members thinking they’re more progressive than the rest.
Just south of me, in Portland, OR, there is a whole lot going on today.
They’ve got a carnival, a Bean Bush Bash, an Inaugural Day Funeral Procession, a labor march sponsored by non other than the Industrial Workers of the World, a Food Not Bombs rally (because food is a human right?) and a SCRAP The Regime dance.
But best of all, Code Pink is putting together a “Tin Foil Hat Parade”
From their site:
Have you ever had the discomfiting suspicion that powerful people get together and plan nefarious things such as fraudulent elections? Well, you must be one of those “Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Theorists” we are constantly being advised to ridicule.
Well, we say Stand Up and Be Proud! You are invited to wear a tinfoil hat of your own design, and to carry a sign that suggests you might just be one of those TFHCT’s — on January 20, Counter- Inaugural Day. Oh, and dress in PINK!
You have to wonder how many of these people will be going to therapy tomorrow.
Nationally, there will be dozens of other protests across the country. Including the NotOneDamnDime boycott group and the Turn Your Back On Bush gang.
Symbolism must be all that they have left.
Be very careful when you’re out and about today, most of these people aren;t very stable mentally. You thought that the freaks outside the RNC in NYC were in need of medication, well, Bush has actually won and is being inaugurated. If their heads don’t just spontaneously explode, they’ll be lucky.
I may be mistaken, and if so, please correct me, but I do not remember Republicans coming out in this manner either time Clinton was elected.
And they call us “Wingnuts”.
Why would the Republicians protest Clinton? He was a REPUBLICAN through and through—a big business stooge who signed the defense of marriage act, continued the militaries homophobic Jim Crow, and screwed the poor.
The only significant difference between Clinton and Dole is the ability to get an erection.
Thanx for the PDX Intell, AK…I’ll upgrade my Concealed Carry today to the 1911 with TWO extra mags of Cor-Bon when I take my Mrs shopping.
Schloss Rivrdog is, of course, adequately armed now with the addition of the CETME battle rifle “Black Rose”, and a stash of 500+ rounds of her favorite food, Aussie 7.62X51 FMJ.
Your site paints a very stereotyped portrait of what it means to be a Democrat. Perhaps if you took some time to see past the right-wing propaganda, you might realize that these protests are a legal and creative (even humorous) way of reminding the world that Bush has done some questionable things while in office.
You’re big enough to get down from the shoulders of the Republican party, aren’t you?
Sorry Carl, I’ve never actually been a Republican. I have voted Republican in the last two presidential elections (00 & 04), but before that (92 & 96) I voted Democrat. Chalk it up to misspent youth.
I don’t need to stereotype Democrats, they do it themselves.
Of course the protests are legal. Creative though, is in the eye of the beholder. I see nearly everyone of these exercises in banality as full of nothing but symbolism.
Symbolism has become the favorite tool of the Dems these days. Rhetoric without substance, and that is why they are failing.
Look at the confirmation hearings for Rice this week. They knew she was going to be confirmed, but they went on and on for two days with their empty words, deliberate mischaracterizations and lies.
So to clarify, I am not on the shoulders of the Republican party. I can stand up for myself, thank you very much. You, however, seem to have an esteem problem that results in projection.
Hmmm…
Voting Republican is a pretty good indicator that you support the ideas of the Republican party.
Examples can be found in both the Republican and Democratic parties of stereotyped behavior.
What do you have against symbolism? The Republican party uses symbolism too. It a good way to express an idea in a way that people can relate to.
Newsflash! Lies are endemic to politics. Again, the Republican party uses lying as a tool.
I’m sorry you felt the need to resort to personal insults. Perhaps my original comments came across as insensitive. But thanks for the free psychoanalysis.
I do again ask that you try to see Democrats as a collection of individuals, and not apply the worst behavior of certain people to this group as a whole. I put effort into doing this for Republicans, and have found it a very helpful exercise in promoting an open mind.
In any case, congratulations on your man winning.
-Carl
Yes Carl, I never said the Repubs don’t stereotype themselves, you just didn’t bring it up before.
The difference between the R’s symbolism and the Ds symbolism is that once the ‘expressing of the idea’ portion is over, they actually try to act on that idea. ‘Feeling my pain’ doesn’t actually help relieve my pain. Knocking my federal taxes from 1/3 of my paycheck to 1/4 of my paycheck DOES help my pain.
I’m sorry you are so sensitive that my pointing out the obvious was taken as an insult. And you’re welcome.
If you want to step up in here and say that this site “paints a very stereotyped portrait of what it means to be a Democrat” and try to convince me you are fairer and more open minded than I, then I should expect you to step on over to Eschaton and the Daily Kos and tell them the exact same thing about their protrayal of Republicans.
Make sure you send back a link.
Until then, you’re just here whining. Sorry, but that seems to be the truth.
I will stop applying the worst to the group when that group starts speaking out against the worst.
Boxer and her hypocrisy, Kennedy and his hypocrisy and self-righteousness, Byrd and his racism, McDermott and his treason and civil rights violations, etc, etc, etc. These people are heros to the folks on the left, when they should be hounded out of the halls of Congress instead.
Thanks for the congrats, now go tell the protesters how Bush is not Hitler. When they throw stuff at you, maybe you’ll see why I have disdain for them.
I have many times spoken to Democrats about perceiving Republicans fairly and not generalizing. But that’s not as big a problem now that Republicans have near total control of the government as is the fact that some people seem intolerant of the slightest dissent.
You say that I’m whining and that’s an expected tactic, often taken from the Ann Coulter training manual. The next step is usually an attempt to provoke an argument or throwing a expletive-laden temper tantrum. I’d like to think that I’m conversing with someone who is better than than that. If I am, go ahead and let me know what you think Democrats need to be aware of, and I will do my best to understand your point and discuss it fairly with others who may disagree.
Honestly, if you can put up a site that contains so many accusations about Democrats, you should expect one to come along once in a while and question you about it.
And there’s no need to apologize.
-Carl
Good for you Carl, you have been shouted down by the vitriolic on your own side. You should start a blog and talk like that to them. Wait until your first DDOS attack. See how much you want to tolerate them then.
And please, before you go off and tell me I�m going out of a playbook, why don�t you use that keyboard thingy and type �Ann Coulter� into the RNS search box. I�ve taken hits from Repubs for not worshipping the dust she exudes.
Nice try though.
Let me give it a shot. Your next comment will contain mild compliments used in a slight of hand fashion to try and convince me I need to be the bigger person and give in to you. If I don�t you will try the tactic again, and again, and again, and again.
How�s that?
Let�s see, what do Dems need to be aware of? Hmmm.
Well, one thing they need to know is that if al-Qiada or some other group of terrorists kills 100, 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 people, it won�t matter one whit if the people who were killed had universal health care or were members of a union or had fully subsidized housing or free substance abuse treatment and it won�t matter to their surviving family members either.
However, it will matter a great deal if the people aren�t allowed to own any type of firearms they want so that they can protect their homes from a terror attack so the Dems need to get off my back about my firearms and knock it off for a bit with the new social program crap and STFU and give us some time to kill an assload of terrorists until the threat goes away.
And Carl, I don�t mind folks questioning me about my accusations/vitrol. What I do mind is when they don�t question me about it and ask me to tone it down a bit because I �don�t seem to understand yada yada yada�.
Have a good weekend.
Great. Now that we’ve exchanged pleasantries, here is my mild compliment, used in a slight of hand fashion:
I agree with you about firearms. Keep ’em. Buy more. Get 50 round clips. Shoot the guy who walks into your home uninvited at 3:00am. really.
I think Americans should be able to buy them with about the level of current restrictions. I’m in AZ, right now, and it’s a little odd to be able to buy a Glock at the mall, but I don’t see people who buy guns legally using them recklessly. Also, there’s so many of them available illegally, it just doesn’t make sense to prevent their authorized sale through proper channels.
The removal of assault weapons ban concerns me a little because once in a while, somebody goes off the deep end and an AK 47 can do a lot of damage mighty quick.
What are your thoughts on armor piercing bullets? Should they be available to the public?
Or are we not past the acerbically argumentative stage yet? You’re not going to make me swear, are you?
-Carl
Excellent Carl, now we just have to get you to stop voting for people who think anyone who owns a firearm and isn�t a powerful politician is a looney gun nut.
You shouldn�t worry about the sunsetting of the AWB. All we need to halt the guy who goes off the deep end is to get the majority of the law-abiding citizenry to carry their firearms in public. Those folks are generally always crazy, but they usually aren�t stupid.
As for armor piercing (AP) ammo, I don�t see why it shouldn�t be allowed for general consumption. Other than a 22lr, every rifle round will pierce a bullet proof vest or a car door or an exterior wall.
Most handgun rounds will do the latter two, but the vest can generally stop them.
However, as was shown in LA a couple years back, criminals wear body armor too. For that situation, my first ten rounds in my �always on� 1911 is the now banned Winchester Black Talon ammunition.
It is illegal to manufacture now, but since I don�t mind paying the price, I buy the stuff made before the ban.
Just another example of one of those ‘feel good’ but utterly useless laws full of symbolism.
If the LAPD had been allowed to carry this ammunition when those guys robbed that bank, they would have had an easier time of it.
Anyway, just my opinion. And you can swear if you want to.
Hmmm, I didn’t think a 1911 could hold more than 10 rounds, except for the one in the chamber. What capacity is your magazine?
I do think that a vest should be usable against handguns, which seem to be the gun of choice of people who commit crimes with guns. Therefore I have to disagree that armor piercing bullets should be available at KMart. Perhaps a license should be required for this type of bullet? I realize it’s a slippery slope controlling any kind of weapon or ammunition, but if I was in law enforcement, I’d want some reassurance that my vest was worth wearing.
And the voting thing is a good point. As you know, when you vote for a candidate, you get the whole package, not just the aspects that you agree with. I don’t currently care to have a gun in my possession (I do own one) so it’s not a large obstacle to me voting for someone who seems willing to fund more educational and social programs at home than wage war overseas.
I think the people who want to seek excessive gun control sincerely believe that it will make their communities safer. I disagree. I do think that there are too many accidents with guns, and people need to be smarter about storing and using them. But the same can be said for cars and paint thinner.
But, guns aren’t an issue for me. War is an issue. Precluding gays from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals is an issue. Dishonesty in big business is an issue. Unemployment is an issue.
The integrity of the voting process is a big issue. It appears to me that both Democrats and Republicans believe the other side commits voter fraud. I think they are both right. What do you think?
Also, do you mind if I ask if you were (or are) in the military?
-Carl
Sorry for the delay in responding. All work and no play, you know.
I�ve got an 8rnd mag plus 1 in the chamber and then the first round in each of my follow-up mags is a BT. In the follow-up mags, I stagger the BT�s with Hydra-Shoks.
Unless the criminal goes out with a frame of mind to just hunt constables, I doubt they�d want to pay the price for the BT�s, even when they were legal. Think at least $28 for 20 and you�ll be at the bottom of the price scale. And if they are out to hunt officers, they�re more than likely to ambush them so that the range is close enough for a head shot, where the officer is unprotected.
It was fear factoring that got the things banned in the first place. The ammo had been available for a decade and not one officer was ever shot at with it, let alone killed.
Government firearms education isn�t necessary. It can easily be done by the parents or, if the parents themselves do not own firearms, friends of the parents who do. It is only three rules; 1. Treat every gun as if it was loaded, 2. Don�t point a gun at anything you do not want to destroy, and 3. Keep your finger off the trigger.
It is just that easy. I have been around firearms my whole life. At age 6, my mom OK�d my dad to hang his 03-A3 rifle collection on the wall. I knew by then those three rules. Never had an accident. Never hurt myself or anyone else.
No government involvement necessary.
I understand your synopsis of getting the whole candidate, but there is also the withholding of your vote. If you take the local race here that Jim McDermott was in, there was more write-in votes for Dems in the primary that if, in the general, people had held back their votes instead of just voting for the party, it would have been a close race between him and the Repub candidate.
Just filling in the circle for a candidate to act as a protest vote against the candidate of the other party does not make the candidate you voted for earn your vote. That and it is pretty ignorant.
War is an issue for me as well. I have been waiting for someone to get elected who has enough balls to go after Hussein and the al-Qiada types since before I was able to vote.
I like to put it like this: George W Bush kills terrorists dead, Iraq is a roach motel for terrorists.
Every since Hussein signed that cease fire back in 91, he has violated it. I have no trust in the UN and was kind of glad when �the useless debating society� wouldn�t give us a thumbs up to go in because we wouldn’t have to fight under their limp-wristed rules like last time. �Oil-for-Palaces� is just icing on the cake.
I don�t like the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage either, but it sounds as if Bush has decided to not push it for a while and there aren�t any actual rights being denied in the case of same sex marriage (equal protection does not cover something as abstract as �love�), so that is a non-issue for me.
Just like in government, there is dishonesty in big business, just as there is in small business. Bust �em up and lock �em up, can�t do much more than that.
As for unemployment, I live in a state that is almost always (and is currently) in the Top 5 of unemployment rates. What I see in the local unemployment scene (read: software) is a number of people who have over-specialized and don�t want to change careers. They get into making their buggy whips and don�t want to go bolt on taillight assemblies. I also see a number of people who treat the first two months like vacation and then get to �look for a job� mode when the bennies are starting to get short, and by that time, every other software engineer in town is looking for a job. Which is why I was against extending the benefits.
Another thing I see, and it is a decidedly more annoying trend, is ex-highly paid �victims� of the dot-com bubble burst not wanting to take a job that doesn�t pay what they used to make, so instead they sit around and complain.
At my place of employ, my new tech guy used to work for some obscure ex-dot-com place and they paid him $80K. He now makes $42K and bitches all damn day about it. I don�t even think he is worth the 42 with his attitude. Arizona is �too far� and �too hot� to move to, even though they were hiring techs and softies like crazy there a while back. If Bush really was �the worst President since Hoover� like the Dems were saying during the election cycle, why weren�t the people who were complaining about being unemployed picking up and moving where the work was like they were doing in Hoover�s time?
The whole entitlement attitude is the part of unemployment that is the issue for me. People feel entitled to get paid benefits until work comes to them. Screw them, go work at McDonald�s and get off my wallet.
The only thing I see with the Repubs and voting integrity issues is the copyrighted software in the voting machines. The left was waving around the quote from the guy at DieBold all during their limp Ohio strangulations when the guy actually only said that in the context of Florida and there were only a very few of the DieBold machines in Ohio at all.
You see what I mean about symbolism?
On the Dems side, I actually see documented history of the dead voting, felons voting animals voting, etc.
Straighten out the software issues and give me a verifiable printout of the voting machine and I�ll take the Rebpubs straight up. But I�ll never trust the Dem election machine, especially after living in the county that worked the Repubs over in Washington.
On the topic of my former military service, here at RNS I go by the line of �None�. I don�t want to have to hold it up as some sort of qualifier for my opinions, so I don�t ever mention it and sometimes even go as far as to deny it. I don�t have any cool stories I can tell anyway.
Have a nice Sunday.
RE: Sorry for the delay in responding. All work and no play, you know.
I hope to know soon. My current job is a tad under-demanding. I start a new one on Thursday that I hope will push me harder.
RE: Gun stuff:
I can accept what you said. No argument from me.
RE: Just filling in the circle for a candidate to act as a protest vote against the candidate of the other party does not make the candidate you voted for earn your vote. That and it is pretty ignorant.
I understand your point. Protest voting, as you describe it, is a symptom of ignorance, laziness, or both. But, just because someone votes against a candidate rather than for a candidate, it doesn�t mean that they aren�t trying to choose the better person for the job.
RE: War is an issue for me as well. I have been waiting for someone to get elected who has enough balls to go after Hussein and the al-Qiada types since before I was able to vote.
Some of the problems, for me, with the war in Iraq are:
1. Americans were told that we were going to war because there was an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction when there was no real evidence that those weapons were in Iraq.
2. Americans were led to believe by the Republican Party that there was a connection between the 9/11 terrorist attack and Iraq, when there was none. Iraq became a haven for terrorists because of the war; it was not so before.
3. Bush had made it very clear that Diplomacy was not an option. Because of this, the only option left was the ultimatum he made to Hussein, which we all knew would result in war.
4. The �shock and awe� approach maximized death and destruction. It seems completely within the abilities of our government to send in some sort of covert force to just take out Saddam and his highest ranking cohorts. Also, the idea that resistance would not rise from the ashes of such a strike was incredibly short-sighted. Call me a �bleeding-heart liberal,� but it troubles me to hear about civilians being horribly injured and killed. America installed Saddam into power, and now they suffer so we can remove him. That seems wrong to me.
5. The use of the ideas of �freedom� and �God� as motivators for soldiers in this particular war seem unconscionable, for the above reasons.
Regarding jobs and the economy:
Bush did not cause the economy to collapse. And I don�t feel bad for your tech guy either. IT people were paid entirely too much for a long time and it went to their heads. Just fyi, I work in IT.
However, I think Bush�s approach toward assisting its recovery is wrong. I think the Kerry campaign had a good idea with promoting tax laws that helped jobs stay in the U.S. Or at least not encouraging jobs to be exported.
I don�t mind corporations making a lot of money. All I ask is that they balance their books legally, pay their workers a living wage and provide health benefits, not destroy the environment with pollution, and make products that are reasonably safe. Oh, and when they fail, not expect my tax dollars to bail them out. If you want to talk about an �entitlement attitude� toward welfare let�s not exclude big business from the equation. The fact that Martha Stewart went to prison while other CEO of larger corporations that committed much larger crimes remained free is eyebrow raising, to say the least.
And arguably most important is the voting integrity. Let me just say that any voter fraud is an abomination of Democracy, be it on the part of the Democrats or the Republicans. To me, the fact that the company that made the voting machines had strong connections to the Republican Party was patently absurd. When they argued that attaching printers to their voting machines would be too problematic, I just couldn�t believe it. It�s a frickin� printer! Another thing I heard was when the Republican Party was questioned as to why a Latinos were not included in a list of minorities who were being investigated for reasons why they should not be allowed to vote, the reason cited was that �the databases were not compatible.� Anyone who works with databases knows that data can be exported and imported in many different ways and format, and the only reason it could not be done is because someone did not want it done. Anyway, there are plenty of instances where it has been documented that Republicans have tampered with the voting process. Here is one: Note that I have deliberately chosen a non-liberal source. This is not symbolism � this is voter fraud.
Also note that I�m not saying that all Republicans are corrupt. I�m just saying that corruption probably exists on both sides. Personally, I don�t think either the Democratic or Republican parties can be trusted with the voting process. I tend to trust the Democrats a little bit more, but that should be obvious.
RE: I don�t like the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage either, but it sounds as if Bush has decided to not push it for a while and there aren�t any actual rights being denied in the case of same sex marriage (equal protection does not cover something as abstract as �love�), so that is a non-issue for me.
I�d suggest giving the word �marriage� back to religions completely. Have people be �United� legally and �Married� in their church or other place of worship. If a couple is legally �United� then they get all the current legal benefits of marriage. Let a person�s religion determine what �marriage� means to them.
Thanks for writing all that in your response. I don�t mean to take up too much of your time; it sounds like you�re pretty busy.
You have a good Sunday too,
-Carl
P.S.
Nice rifle.
Heya Carl,
�just because someone votes against a candidate rather than for a candidate, it doesn�t mean that they aren�t trying to choose the better person for the job�
But their vote is a sign of support for all of the positions that candidate supports. �Lesser of Two Evils� voting is ignorant. I am trying to wean myself from doing it as well, though, sometimes I just can�t stop and did so only once this last time around.
On your points:
1. I do not remember anyone saying the words �imminent threat�. I remember that we were told we needed to stop a growing threat before it became imminent.
2. Nor do I remember anyone saying anything about a connection between Spetember 11th and Iraq. I remember saying Iraq+al-Qiada, but that is all.
3. We had over 6 months of �Diplomacy�. We went to the useless debating society, we went around the world to each country we thought would like to help and asked for support. But alas, we were only able to get 40 some odd nations to give support and the UNichs decided they would rather let a �diplomatic process� that was killing Iraq civilians, including an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children, go on and on and on as Saddam was building a record number of ultra luxurious personal residences.
The demand of resign and go into exile was very reasonable as a demand to stop a war. If Saddam cared about �his people� as much as he now claims to, he would have done it
4. If you think �shock and awe� �maximized death and destruction� then you might want to go look in the history books at the bombings of both Dresden, Germany and Tokyo, Japan in WWII.
Precision guided munitions are life savers. Yes, they still have about a 10% miss rate, but you have no idea how many lives were actually saved during the �S&A� campaign. Also, you have to remember that the majority of those bombs are laser guided. That means that it takes someone on the ground to point the aiming device. There were some very brave individuals on the ground in the cities doing the aiming, usually less than 200ft away from the impact point.
I think you could say that they have an interest in being accurate.
You might also want to read up on the massive amounts of security that Saddam and his cohorts surrounded themselves with. Any �covert operation� sent to take him/them out, while it would have been very popular (and very highly vied for) in Alpha circles, it would have been a suicide mission and probably for naught. Hussein had at least a dozen known doubles and Uday and Qusay had at least three doubles each, hence the necessity of DNA testing once we were pretty sure we got them.
Also, the Lancet�s 100,000 number is flawed on its face. You know that. You have to break some eggs. I have never met a person who thought that going into combat was going to be easy.
5. I have seen the word freedom used to motivate our soldiers. But I have not heard �G*d�. But even if I have missed the useage, what is wrong with that. You surely have heard the term, �There are no atheists in foxholes�. I am but a Deist and it never offends me.
It isn�t as if the words were meant as �G*d says to go kill�. What is so wrong about telling the religious among the troops that their respective gods are watching over them?
If you listened to the announcement that GWB made on the day of the invasion, you�ll not hear about WMD�s, you�ll hear about the stopping of a growing threat and the freedom of the Iraqi people.
On employment, while I do not like outsourcing, I don�t think it is the governments job to stop it or even punish it. If people want job security, they should go to work in the fields of plumbing and HVAC. Unions have killed the manufacturing jobs in this country, all the while, extorting money from those who believed in them.
And if Bush�s approach was wrong, why is it working? Or if you agree that it is working, why would any other ideas work better or faster?
�All I ask is that they balance their books legally, pay their workers a living wage and provide health benefits, not destroy the environment with pollution, and make products that are reasonably safe.�
The books part I agree with, but the rest is under heavy dispute.
Living wages are a folly. You simply cannot expect an employer to pay $12-$15 an hour to a person with little to no skills and who may or may not be able to speak English. If a person wants to waste their life without gaining any saleable skills, they should expect to make very little money until they upgrade.
Health benefits is another part of that. If they have saleable skills, they�ll be able to choose their employer, preferably one who does issue benefits. If everyone had saleable skills, every employer would be making better and better offers in the realm of health care bennies.
It is called free market economics. The better the offer from a prospective employer the better the quality of employee they will attract. Since we still have a useless public school system that squirts out thousands of people with substandard knowledge and skills every year, we are ensuring that the car wash will have plenty of employees in the near future.
The environmental issues are overblown. Sure, there are plenty of examples the enviro-dweebs can use, but when they do so, they are de facto saying that �every corporation is going to pollute the environment if they get the chance, so let�s strangle them with burdensome regulations and have to hire an entire compliance department�.
If you have ever had to work directly with OHSA, you�ll see what I mean. My company got fined because we didn�t have a soap dish in the bathroom. Never mind that we use soft soap dispensers, regulation such and such demands a soap dish.
The only regs we need are a realistic list of pollutants and a realistic list of places not to put them and a realistic list of fines for violations. What we have now is a 10,000+ page book of regs that sometimes cancel each other out.
Utter foolishness and actually harmful if you ask me. BTW, I work in the trash and recycling industry.
As for a safe product, the market will control that as well. If a product kills or injures people in its design, it won�t be made for long.
I don�t like corporate welfare any more than you seem to and have criticized it on these very pages. As for Martha Stewart vs. other CEO�s, it is convictions were talking about, right? If a prosecutor cannot get a guilty verdict, then it is not entirely the government�s fault.
I have listed out my idea of voter reform here
http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/archives/005432.html
Take a read.
As for marriage going back to the churches, fine with me. But then we�d have to redefine the entire civil court guidelines and tax code on the topic. And if you look at what the DNC has fought for on the topic of taxes and their largest major contributor being the lawyers, you can see that that will not go very far.
Have a good week, Carl.
Let’s work on 1 and 2 for now:
Re: “I do not remember anyone saying the words �imminent threat�. I remember that we were told we needed to stop a growing threat before it became imminent.”
“Absolutely.”
-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
-President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
-President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
-White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
-President Bush, 1/3/03
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
-President Bush, 10/28/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.”
-President Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraq/20020926-7.html
RE: “Nor do I remember anyone saying anything about a connection between Spetember 11th and Iraq. I remember saying Iraq+al-Qiada, but that is all.”
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.” — State of the Union Address (1/28/2003).
“The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it’s a comparison that is — I can’t make because I can’t distinguish between the two, because they’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” — George W. Bush (9/25/2002)
“So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad…There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented.” — Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor (9/26/2002)
“Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” –Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (9/27/2002)
“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” –George W. Bush (10/7/2002)
“He’s got connections with al Qaeda.” –George W. Bush (10/28/2002)
“We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.” –George W. Bush (10/14/2002)
“This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks.” — George W. Bush (10/31/2002)
We know he’s got ties with al Qaeda.” — George W. Bush (11/1/2002)
“… in terms of its [Iraq’s] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, “The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq.” The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see.” — John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control (11/1/2002)
“We know that he’s had connections with al Qaeda.” — George W. Bush (11/2/2002)
“We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda.” — George W. Bush (11/2/2002)
“And, not only that, he is — would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn’t be able to see his fingerprints on his action.” –George W. Bush (11/3/2002)
“This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections.” — George W. Bush (11/4/2002)
“He’s had contacts with al Qaeda.” –George W. Bush (11/4/2002)
“This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda.” — George W. Bush (11/4/2002)
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. — George W. Bush, State of the Union Speech (1/28/2003)
-Carl
It just occured to me that you may not consider an asserted link between Al-Quaeda and Iraq to imply a link between 9/11 and Iraq. I do, since it was clear that Al-Quaeda was responsible for the attack and the fear of another such attack was used to justify the war on Iraq.
-Carl
Just so you know I’m not ignoring entire rest of your response…
I’m going to take some time to consider your other points and read your post on election reform. I may even not argue against the ideas, but rather try to incorporate them into my views.
I’m no economics guru, so I can’t speak to that area much, but I’ll probably have trouble with the idea that people who work full time don’t deserve a living wage.
For me, the war is the biggest issue. If it wasn’t for the way that came about, I probably wouldn’t be so opposed to a Republican leader (though I would still prefer a sensible Democrat).
-Carl
Heya Carl,
I�m going to need an exact quote of the question asked on this one.
�Absolutely.�
-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an �imminent threat,� 5/7/03
I don�t know if you wrote the follow up line, but that is quite vague. Also, you might want to check the date. We had already been in Iraq for a month and a half by the time this quote is reportedly from and I thought Fleischer had stepped down by then. Mostly because of this next one.
�This is about imminent threat.�
-White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Remember by this time, we had close to 100,000 troops in Kuwait. The information was that still that Iraq could fire artillery and missiles laden with WMD at them. What was the context of the question?
�Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.�
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
This one I�ll give you. But I love Rummy like a grandpa, so I can�t fault the guy. Where was this said BTW?
Other than that, all I see are a number of �Iraq is a threat� comments. If you don�t see how they were, what with Salman Pak and al-Zarqawi in country, then I can�t help with that.
And you are correct, ties to al-Qiada does not equal ties to September 11th to me. Sometimes, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Though, after the act, if they get together and applaud, you have be kind of suspicious.
As for the �living wage�, first of all, the language on this topic has been moved to Orwellian status (the reason for my apostrophies).
Let�s try this, if a guy working for $7.50 an hour can only afford to buy 1 loaf of bread per week for $1 suddenly gets his salary doubled to $15 an hour, will he be able to buy two loaves of bread or maybe some sandwich meat for the bread?
No. Because the wage is now mandated by the government, the maker of the loaf of bread has to increase his employee�s wages. So does the company that transprorts the bread to the store. And so does the store. So now, that loaf of bread costs around $1.75.
His land lord had to raise the rent to pay for the increased wages of the maintenance guy and the power, gas, cable and telephone companies had to raise their rates due to the new wages for some of their employees, like the folks who answer the phones and do the dispatching.
So now, everything has gone up in price anywhere from 50% to 100% and this guy’s doubled salary is now worth only about 25% more than what it would have before the mandated pay increase.
This is why your Big Mac now costs $2.99 instead of $2.00.
It is also called government mandated inflation.
If people get themselves some skills, they don�t have to worry about having the government get them a raise that a majority of them have not earned.
Take your time with the rest of the info, I am busy, but I can usually find the time to write back in short order. If you want, and it would be easier for me, if you just want to do this via email, that works.
Bonus points for bringing Orwell into the discussion. You have to admit though, it isn’t just for Democrats anymore (cough, “Patriot Act”, cough).
I understand that in order to keep prices down, wages must be kept appropriate, and if the costs of housing, food, health care and other necessities are low enough such that $7.50 an hour is a “livable wage”, so be it. The problem is that you just can’t get by at this rate of pay. Read “Nickel and Dimed” if you’re interested in the reality of that situation.
Also, I may not be an economics guru, but I just cannot believe that most big businesses cant afford to pay a few dollars more per hour when their CEOs make millions per year. Note, I’m not saying that Capitalism is evil, just that workers who may not have the ability to rise higher than low-level employment should be able to share in the American way of living. I worked helping individuals with mental health disabilities (depression, etc.) for three years, and just to get past the discrimination was a huge hurdle. Add the fact that these people needed some minor accommodations to allow them to do their jobs and you have a recipe for a completely disenfranchised and non-productive member of society.
I’m just saying that it should not be all about market economics. Society should take a look at reciprocating effort into supporting its members, just as they should be responsible for contributing to society.
RE: I�m going to need an exact quote of the question asked on this one
Q Well, we went to war, didn�t we, to find these � because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn�t that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this. And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He�s had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I will say that I appreciate your articulate posts. I think it’s important to know where “the other side” is coming from and this discussion has helped. Perhaps it’s more important for Democrats right now, since our party is, shall we say, “having some issues with its sense of identity” right now.
I’ll probably be taking this offline and emailing you with further responses.
-Carl