Jun. 9th, 2006 04:32 am
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
razorjakJeeeeeesus FUCKSHIT!!!
Gods, how do these people's brains function? How can they parse this shit? As far as I can tell, this is truly how their minds are set:
Anything good that happened in the Clinton administration happened in spite of him.
Everything bad that happened was directly his fault or that of his wife.
Anything good that has come about during Shrubbo's tenure as Chimp in Thief is directly his glory.
Everything that goes wrong was due to those pesky liberals and leftists who are trying hard to undermine his "great work".
Anything I halfhandedly might "blame" on Bush immediately brings out comments of how "this decision had nothing to do with Bush. It was entirely a seperate group who came up with it." And more than half of those commments end with " ... probably a hold-over from Clinton."
Seriously? How can it go from "All the president's fault" to "Not the president's fault" simply due to the token political party each gets their funding?
Gods, how do these people's brains function? How can they parse this shit? As far as I can tell, this is truly how their minds are set:
Anything good that happened in the Clinton administration happened in spite of him.
Everything bad that happened was directly his fault or that of his wife.
Anything good that has come about during Shrubbo's tenure as Chimp in Thief is directly his glory.
Everything that goes wrong was due to those pesky liberals and leftists who are trying hard to undermine his "great work".
Anything I halfhandedly might "blame" on Bush immediately brings out comments of how "this decision had nothing to do with Bush. It was entirely a seperate group who came up with it." And more than half of those commments end with " ... probably a hold-over from Clinton."
Seriously? How can it go from "All the president's fault" to "Not the president's fault" simply due to the token political party each gets their funding?
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
Wasn't that the Bush plan back in 03? Give the illegal immigrants voting status until after the election ... then deport them.
no subject
Permanent residency should not enter into the equation.
no subject
They're staff.
(Bush and US Administration paranoia keeps ME out of the US. And I liked the damn place).
no subject
Personally, I'd like to see a setup whereby nations on a given list (pretty much the Commonwealth, Japan, some parts of Europe) would have the ability to send workers here and we could send workers there with a minimum of red tape and minimal prior permission to do so. No waiting lists, etc. The caveat being that if you go there, you have to pay or have your insurance provided for and you can't use public assistance except in the most dire of situations. Thus, you'd not be a burden. It would grease the wheels of international commerce and help build additional interrelations between those nations.
no subject
Godelected leader.no subject
Except "heretics" like myself who are loudly defient of the family trend of being bedfellows with the smirking chimp?
no subject
i, of course, vote for a third party in Britain. i suspect i would in the 'states, too.
no subject
no subject
Agreed ...
I just find it funny how many of the bushophiles and those brainwashed by the spooge expelled by the repugnicans try to label me a Clinton-lover.
BTW - for those who don't understand why I use the term repugnican:
They aren't republicans. Republicans are supposed to be for states rights and a smaller federal government. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what this administration has done since day one.
no subject
no subject
My response is, "Did someone just shit their pants? Something stinks."
no subject
no subject
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Quick answer on that. We believe the states ought to make those judgments. Why not let the states do it? They are dealing with these kinds of issues every single day in courthouses all across this country. Let the states make those judgments and decisions. They have different judgments about it. Let the states make that determination. And I would have thought the president... We hear a great deal about states' rights. This is the golden opportunity to support that. And it isn't only those of us, bipartisan, Senator McCain and John Edwards, that take that position. This has been recommended by the judicial conference. It's been recommended by the Chief Justice Rehnquist
no subject
Clinton was a good president, I think. He did some stupid things, made mistakes. All people do. I have seen so little good come from Bush's run -- and no, it's not just him. It's his whole administration. His appointees. His policies. Their policies. To blame one man, fully [as some people do] is ridiculous. Clinton didn't shit sunshine, and neither does his wife [who I truly hope the Democrats don't run, because she can't win over enough voters to save us from 4 more years of Republicans]. Bush doesn't shoot lightning out of his hands to make everything suck, either -- but he may develop that power one day. ^_^
no subject
Thank you for showing your prejudice and close mindedness. It's so nice to see Liberals showing their true colors of close mindedness, condescension, and holier than thou attitudes when it comes to the rest of the country.
Clinton was a good president, I think.
Bull SHIT. He campaigned on the principle that he understood the Internet better than Bush Senior. So did his running mate, I believed them. When they hit office, the president signed into law a bill that would require Telecom Companies to pay for the hookup points that the FBI and law enforcement to access Phone and computer networks. (Digital Telephony Bill) Then he Signed into law the Communications Decency Act to "protect the children" from swear words on the internet. Then he signed CDA II. Then he signed COPA. G. W. Bush signed COPA II iirc. All but COPA II were found unconstitutional.
Then we've got Clinton and the BATF's abuse of civil rights targeting people like the Branch Davidians and the Randy Weaver's Family. The ATF did EVERYTHING that the FBI told them not to do when it came to the Branch Davidians, that's why the majority of the poeple in the compound died. Randy Weaver was entrapped, big time, forced into it and then the ATF invaded his property shot his son and then wondered why he holed up and then shot his wife and baby. That was something that Janet Reno should have resigned for, yet, there was nothing in the press about that because it's ok to persecute white people about guns.
Clinton was not a good president. He had bad Domestic and bad Foreign Policy decisions. The only thing he did internationally was going after Serbia (which I'll observe was supposed to last until christmas and we STILL have troops there. Does that make it a quagmire?)
Clinton also hamstrung the Defense Intelligence agencies by requiring that they only use honorable sources. That's a standard that he utterly failed to apply to Law enforcement or their informants (see Randy Weaver).
Then there's Clinton's stance on guns. Bush Senior didn't help, but Goddamn, I'm tired of Liberals harping on me for my potential for violence because I have a fucking tool in my closet.
I'll get into what problems I have with Bush when I get to work.
(Jak, you wanted a good political debate, you got one.... ;-) )
no subject
COPA, however, is an interesting thing. When I worked at Scholastic, I would bash my head over the most basic things we couldn't do on the Web sites for the books, all because of COPA. I remember sitting in a meeting with a bunch of people, and this lady who had worked in the business for years said, "Yep, this company helped them create that behemoth, and look how it has bit them on their collective asses." It was really far-flung and restrictive. Drove me insane, because I couldn't do an effective job. However, I'm far more scared of what Bush and Co. are doing with the Internet, particularly porn.
The gun thing is stupid. I'm as liberal as it gets, but to me, being anti-gun is the antithesis of liberal. [Actually, I'm probably more of a libertarian, in that I want less laws and restrictions and think people have the right to personal freedoms, accompanied by personal responsibility.]
Clinton was better than Bush, I think, that's all. I don't have much recollection of pre-either of them, so I can't speak to that at all. I only started taking any interest whatsoever in politics after I watched 9/11 happen. But for some reason, it didn't make me shout USA! USA! like so many people. I don't know.
no subject
The sooner that everyone, including the ACLU forgets the concept that it's just the Republicans out to restrict our rights and realizes that the Democrats are just as high and mighty about restricting the rights of the people the sooner we'll be able to really drive it home to the politicians that they're going down the wrong path.
The gun thing is stupid. I'm as liberal as it gets, but to me, being anti-gun is the antithesis of liberal. [Actually, I'm probably more of a libertarian, in that I want less laws and restrictions and think people have the right to personal freedoms, accompanied by personal responsibility.]
This is where I draw the difference between "liberal" and "Liberal". "liberal" means that you're in favor of permissive laws. All things not expressly prohibited are allowed, ie Explicit prohibitions and implicit freedoms. "Liberals" are out to institute all sorts of social modifications to society, No firearms, no violence, Free Speech Zones where you can't offend anyone, Political Correctness, 'Progressive Taxes" to discourage making too much money, Windfall taxes, etc.
Its interesting that the former ACLU Lawyer was one of the Justices that sided with Taking land from individuals in the Kelo v New London court case. What does that say about her Liberalism?
Clinton was better than Bush, I think, that's all. I don't have much recollection of pre-either of them, so I can't speak to that at all. I only started taking any interest whatsoever in politics after I watched 9/11 happen. But for some reason, it didn't make me shout USA! USA! like so many people. I don't know.
I went into the Clinton Presidency expecting a breath of fresh air. Instead I got more heavy federal government with more onerous actions upon me the little guy when they said they were there for the little guy. They were none of that. The way the BATF was allowed to run rampant with zero checks and balances was just the pinnacle of the problem domestically. And then, letting the Iraq problem run for 8 years during the presidency when more should have been done was also a serious source of irritation for me. I can't count how many times I heard in the CNN newsroom a wire feed announcing that inspectors had been held at such and such facility by Iraqi Security forces while material was moved out another gate and the administration failed to do anything.
no subject
I like your Liberals vs liberals. Unfortunately for them, a lot of their ideas are impossible. No violence? I'm not pro-violence or anything, but the entire human existence has been plagued by violence; There's no way to make that magically go away. If they suceeded in getting every gun out of the hands of gun owners, the world would be no safer. One, criminals would still have them, and two, even if they didn't? They'd start using knives. Or power tools. Or wooden 2X4s. Or their bare hands. Free Speech Zones? The worst of them all. That's just what this country is meant to be. They're all so afraid people will speak, listen and learn, especially the way the media feeds people such little bits of the real news, and distracts them otherwise with missing white girls, celebrity babies and shark attacks. The PC, don't offend anyone, don't say anything vaguely offensive, bullshit is irritating, and creating a country of blank-faced sameness.
I see what you're saying on Clinton, but wouldn't you say Bush is even more heavy-handed? I don't think anyone is for the little guy, nor will they be again. They'll get elected anyway, or find their way into power somehow, so they have no motivation to care unless people can somehow find a way to hold them more accountable.
As for Iraq, I honestly don't know. What could have been done? Start this insane war then, as opposed to now?
I think they've all dropped more balls than I can count. I'm, more than anything, scared for the future. It doesn't look like it holds anything remotely close to change.
no subject
What's really odd is that Codified Media outlets have open reign to pontificate about a given politician because they're the Media. Joe Schmoe who has a blog and may write X number of times equaling Y amount of dollars even though he was not compensated for such which is $10 over the soft money contribution limit is in violation of Federal Election law and is now subject to arrest and charges. This is basically how the Speech Equals Money rule. In a way its almost how the Liberals disassemble the 2nd amendment by saying individuals are not the people, but the Federally Funded National Guard is. The 1st Amendment protects the Codified Press and Oficial News Media, not the individual as regards the McCain-Feingold Act.
I see what you're saying on Clinton, but wouldn't you say Bush is even more heavy-handed? I don't think anyone is for the little guy, nor will they be again. They'll get elected anyway, or find their way into power somehow, so they have no motivation to care unless people can somehow find a way to hold them more accountable.
We expect the Republicans to push for stronger police powers. We don't expect the Democrats to do so, yet they do. Both sides are hacking away at civil liberties in the name of either the war on guns/crime or the war on drugs. If you get anyone that's a serious gun owner that has a clue about politics, we all have a scowl on our faces when the Gun Owners Protection act of 1986 is mentioned because that's when the NFA registry was closed and then there's the Brady Bill. The "compromise" signed into law by a Republican. We don't trust them further than we can throw them when it comes to Anti-Gun legislation. That's why we try to kill the stuff in Committed when we can. We don't trust the Democrats an inch, because they've gone as far as to propose seizures (4th amendment, never heard of it) or 1000% taxes on ammo as a means of implementing their total disarmament of the US public agenda. Usually those bills don't make it out of committee. John Kerry's name was on a number of those kinds of bills so when he said he was a sportsman and supported hunting and gun ownership, the guffaws could be heard down the street.
I stick to first principles. Both sides of the Aisle are attacking free speech. CDA, COPA, McCain Feingold, etc. Only the Democrats are attacking the 2nd Amendment with any strength (save North Eastern Republicans like those from NJ, NY or MA). Katrina showed that we MUST have an ability to defend ourselves. Democrats want to take that away. That's why I dig in and help the republicans first. I can fight back if they knock down the 1st amendment or violate election rights and I have no recourse. I can't fight back easily if I'm not armed.
Part II
Part of the problem with the Bush Administration is how they couched the war from the start, ie about and only about WMD. It's wider than that. Iraq signed a peace treaty, we stop invading and they abide by a number of terms, one of which was unfettered access to their WMD (I hate that term, I prefer NBC as in Nuclear Biological and Chemical) production, research and storage facilities and they hand over ALL data pertaining to their capabilities. Part of that was that we oversee the destruction of the capabilities and verify such.
Over the next 5 years, they provided 3 different versions of their total program, each full final disclosure having more capabilities listed after we'd essentially uncovered those capabilities. A good example is their VX capability. They kept that hidden and it was only discovered after they'd destroyed the weapons secretly in the hopes that we'd not find it. This violated the terms of disclosing the capability, handing the locations over to us for verified destruction and allowing the verification of the destruction of the production sites/materials. This alone was casus belli in my mind. Read through the Chronology at NTI to get a better idea of what I speak of.
Then you add in the repeated shots at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones which was part of the treaty as well. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is.
My complaint with the Clinton Administration was 8 years of allowing the same shell game to go on by the Baathists. Bush Senior bears part of the blame because of the status, but bear in mind that we weren't ready to invade with their partial capability that they had at the end of Gulf War I. They did have weaponized G-Agents and VX that would have caused serious issues. Their Biological capability was also quite real. VX and their Anthrax and Botulinin weapons would have caused some serious casualties on our side as well as among many civilians. OF course we'd have nuked a few troop concentrations in response so it would have been a pointless method of getting back at the US.
Its not that we thought they had NBC capability, it's that they didn't disarm the way they agreed to and continued to act as if they did have an NBC capability of some sort, not to mention continuing to fight. There's more to it, but the treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs after Gulf war I is also a prime reason for going back in and finishing the job.
no subject
I think you'll find a lot of people in conservative circles quite unhappy that Bush has not curtailed federal spending. I was practically beside myself about the Prescription Drug Program. Great, more federal funding for programs not legal under the Constitution....
Limit Spending has been tossed out the window. Why I don't know. But it's left a lot of us very unhappy about things.
no subject
Anyone that ACTUALLY wants to be in power, really isn't anyone you want there; and no matter who you vote for, you always get the Government.
Bush has used the US taxpayer to settle family scores; his attempts to secure oil haven't paid off and oil prices increase the cost of living for everyone - USA or not.
no subject
hence my not-entirely-ironic support of the monarchy.
no subject
no subject
Yes, WE know it's a mix. But goddamn! I have to deal with people on a daily basis who truly have the mindset I stated above.
no subject
Then GWB decided to cave on Iran.
*shrugs*
Definitely a mixed bag. I had more issues with Clinton, but in the last couple of years GWB has caught up with most of those mistakes and the ones he has not made, Congress has made for him.
no subject
Back to Iran, if I were Iran, and were playing Risk, I'd be shitting bricks. The big bad guy of the board with more X's and V's and piles of I's than anyone else on the board and he'd move to both sides of my country with a whole handfull of those X's V's and Is. ;-)
There's the aspect of Turkey's continued movement away from the west. Stronger ties even with just a Kurdish North Iraq is a strategic move that has long term thinking behind it. And honestly, our dealings in Afghanistan are looking pretty good all things considered. We've not gone in with heavy assets which is exactly the way history says you should NOT do with Afghanistan. If you get too bogged down there or too heavy, you end up with lots of problems. Light forces seem to be the way.
no subject
That's entirely possible.
no subject
Unless you were a major ally like the UK, one could find one administration willing to really help your nation with a problem and then after an election and a new president your efforts to deal with a local problem to your nation would leave you out in the cold as that next president left you high and dry and cut off aid, funding or some form of assistance. This Fickle nature has left things tricky when dealing with ally's and has given enemies hope that maybe the next president will be concerned with other issues and will stop bothering you.
The propensity for foreign governments to attempt to influence US elections leaves me quite worried at times. ANY funding of a US politician before or after an election should be what McCain and Feingold should be most concerned with.
The overall strategic thinking and goals as regards Iran are interesting and I'm certain quite deep, which is why in part I saw Syriana and had a response of, ok, nice story, where's the problem? You just portrayed reality and the way we deal with it is bad? It's realistic and it has to happen.
Iran is potentially a great ally in the region. The schism between Sunni and Shia is wide. If we can turn Iraq into a democratic nation ala Japan/Germany then we can shift focus to Iran, get them on the same path and once that's accomplished, we can finally knock the house of Saud out of power as sole controllers of the nation and move them towards a constitutional democracy (trappings of monarchy can be beneficial from a tradition standpoint, but only if there's a legislative body as well).
no subject
no subject
GWB makes me happy at least in the aspect that we're dealing with Islamist in terms that they understand (force). We've been dancing around them since I was a kid and they blew up the Beruit Embassy Barracks. We had to more or less sideline the issues during the Cold war but Clinton let the problems continue to fester for some reason. Islamists don't understand negotiations except as a means of getting additional time to maneuver behind you and stab you again. Hell, their own dogma emphasizes this.
GWB is not at all afraid to use Big Stick Diplomacy in the sense of Teddy Roosevelt. He however misses the boat on a number of major domestic issues that were the Democrats to have put someone forwards that had two clues to rub together that I'd vote for them.
The problem is that the likes of Dean are in control of the Democrats. If I could go back in time, I'd grab Ike up out of retirement and bring him forwards for the Democrats. Except, I expect he'd gravitate to the Republicans in this day and age. There's too many self professed socialist types in the DNC today for them to accurately represent me. Which pisses me off.
Day By Day's cartoon from yesterday spells it out for me. Anything outside of those items are red herrings. The Gay Marriage Bill is dead in the Senate as it should be. Why they spent political capitol on it I have no bloody idea. It was probably another political foot ball like it was last go around. Something to rally 'that' segment of the fans in the bleachers. *sigh*
no subject
Independent of their unique and likely totally unqualified or critically assessed views, you might as well be arguing with someone who doesn't speak English at all.