Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
When I hear this insipid old saw harped on in the leftist media I am reminded of 2 Corinthians 5:17:

"Therefor if any man be in Christ, he is as a NEW creature: old things are passed away; and behold, ALL things are become NEW."

Bottom line, neither I nor a majority of the American electorate care what Bush did back way back when, if anything, because God doesn't care. W has made his piece with the Lord, as have I and as you had better unless you want to spend your eternity with the prophet Mohammed and his child bride.

I'm going to bet this sock is either GGG, or maybe SAM.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i understand the born-again v. coked-out angle, but does anyone under 50 really get bugged by an admission someone took drugs? I think the litmus test of no pot for Supreme's ensures weird-o nerds only. And makes otherwise honest candidates lie about not inhaling starting themselves down a slippery slope of half-truths.

I think at this point is more of a retribution thing: Republicans gave Clinton so much shit for a) "drug use" and b) draft-dodging that the Democrats can't help but point out when the Republicans put up someone with a similar history (worse on the drug use, maybe better on the draft-dodging, but only barely) up for President.

On a slightly more civil level, the judicial nomination problem is the same thing: the Democrats started it by refusing to confirm Reagan's (wingnut) appointee Bork, then the Republicans had to exact revenge when Clinton started appointing judges, and now Democrats have to respond in kind with Bush.

It's all pretty childish, but it avoids real issues.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Exit Strategy
How to leave Iraq in three simple steps.
By George Saunders
Posted Monday, May 24, 2004, at 8:29 AM PT


It is clear we are at a crossroads in Iraq. Naysayers are claiming the situation there is chaotic and confusing. Nonsense. It is not confusing. It is quite simple.

Allow me to explain.

There are, at present, two major constituencies in Iraq: those who want to kill us, and those who do not. Success will require minimizing membership in the former group. Complications along this path may include the following:

• [1] In the process of killing the ones who want to kill us, we sometimes kill some who are not trying to kill us. This has been observed to cause a sudden increase in the number who want to kill us, which means a longer stay for us, since we then must kill, not only the ones who originally wanted to kill us, but also the ones who just started wanting to kill us.
  
  [2] In order to identify the ones who want to kill us, it is necessary, once we have caught someone who wants to kill us, to encourage him/her to help us identify others who want to kill us. Sometimes we mistake ones who don't want to kill us for ones who do, and catch them, and encourage them. Upon their release, there occurs a sudden increase in the number of those who want to kill us.
  
  [3] Given the large number of us over there, it should come as no surprise that some of us are bad. Certain abuses have occurred. However, it is only fair to note that many more abuses were occurring before we arrived. Plus, if our abusers are abusing over there, they are not abusing over here. So really, it is a win/win: The Iraqis have fewer abuses than they were having, and we have fewer abuses than we would have had had our abusers stayed at home. Everyone is happy, except, it has been observed, those who were abused and those who hear of the abuse and suddenly join the group of those wanting to kill us.

Since it is clear that we cannot leave until they stop killing us, and equally clear that they will not stop killing us until we leave, I propose the following exit strategy:

• [1] Kill all the ones who are trying to kill us, in such a way that none of those who presently do not want to kill us suddenly start wanting to kill us.
  
  [2] At the moment of the death of the last person who wanted to kill us, race quickly out of the country before some additional person suddenly decides he/she wants to kill us, thus necessitating our continued presence in Iraq, in order to kill him/her.
  
  [3] Having left Iraq quickly, do not look back, so as not to witness individuals claiming they would have liked to kill us, which would then necessitate a return to Iraq, in order to etc., etc. (See No. 2, above.)

To implement this exit strategy, we will have to practice running quickly. It is further recommended that, while running, the eyes be cast down, to avoid witnessing any last-minute people trying to kill us. We will have to establish excellent communications so that the moment that final person begins dying, we can all begin running quickly at the same time, eyes cast down, quickly, to our vehicles, to get to the airport and get out of the country.

This exit strategy will demand a high level of coordination, dedication, and planning.

But our leaders have already shown the way by showing that, if one has a vision, and refuses to betray that vision by modifying it, or becoming distracted by small details, such as, for example, the confusing data emanating from the non-theoretical world, filled with actual people, pets, clothes on clotheslines, nuanced loyalties, etc., mountains can be moved, nations can be changed, great things can be accomplished.

It is clear that the fate of Iraq now rests in the hands of Iraqis.

People of Iraq, I say to you:

Stop trying to kill us, so we can leave. But also, do not fear. We are in it for the long haul, although we cannot stay with you indefinitely. No, as soon as you stop trying to kill us, believe us, you will never see us again. Therefore, trust us, people of Iraq, have faith, we assure you: As long as you continue trying to kill us, we will never abandon you.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm going to bet this sock is either GGG, or maybe SAM.

I probably should not indulge this stupidity, but listen Hankie, I am not a sock for any current or recent poster. A few years back I posted on Infirm’s board, first as finder of fact and then as master sergeant scrappy macdougal after I lost the log-in for the first. Haven’t been on the Infirm boards in a while and fully new here. I've been called a lot of names in my day, but sock would be a new one.

Don't let yourself become more anti-intellectual fodder for the left wing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think at this point is more of a retribution thing: Republicans gave Clinton so much shit for a) "drug use" and b) draft-dodging that the Democrats can't help but point out when the Republicans put up someone with a similar history (worse on the drug use, maybe better on the draft-dodging, but only barely) up for President.

On a slightly more civil level, the judicial nomination problem is the same thing: the Democrats started it by refusing to confirm Reagan's (wingnut) appointee Bork, then the Republicans had to exact revenge when Clinton started appointing judges, and now Democrats have to respond in kind with Bush.

It's all pretty childish, but it avoids real issues.

Was it Ginsburg who got dinked because he admitted smoking dope, once? then we ended up with souter basically because he hadn't gone outside for 20 years. No comment on Souter or Ginsburg, but I'd rather have an occasional pot smoker on the bench than someone who avoids life.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i understand the born-again v. coked-out angle, but does anyone under 50 really get bugged by an admission someone took drugs? I think the litmus test of no pot for Supreme's ensures weird-o nerds only. And makes otherwise honest candidates lie about not inhaling starting themselves down a slippery slope of half-truths.

I'm not sure if I'm a weird-o nerd etc., but I get bugged out by anything related to hard-drugs from an adult. Basically, once you are 17 or 18, you should be expected to follow the laws. Particularly those that would otherwise make you a felon.

I look forward to the day when I can rejoin the side of justice, truth, Hank and Bilmore again. Til them, I am independently Not_You(rs),

Hello

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i understand the born-again v. coked-out angle, but does anyone under 50 really get bugged by an admission someone took drugs? I think the litmus test of no pot for Supreme's ensures weird-o nerds only. And makes otherwise honest candidates lie about not inhaling starting themselves down a slippery slope of half-truths.

I agree with you. I'm of a mind that, as long as you're not using now, I don't care what you did before.

I thought it was amusing that the coked out thing escaped revision, when it has proven easier for draft dodgers to win election than it has been for those who are avowed former drug users. Or maybe I just don't know enough about who's a former drug user. I hear Leo McGarry was in rehab for pills once, but he's not an elected official...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Was it Ginsburg who got dinked because he admitted smoking dope, once?

If that's all he admitted to, he was lying. I understand he is, or at least was for some time, a regular partaker.

We ended up with souter because he was really good buddies with John Sununu.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not sure if I'm a weird-o nerd etc., but I get bugged out by anything related to hard-drugs from an adult. Basically, once you are 17 or 18, you should be expected to follow the laws. Particularly those that would otherwise make you a felon.

It comes down to your views of the merits of criminalizing drug use, I think. And obviously you are a weird-o nerd for thinking that smoking weed should be felonious, let alone criminal in any manner.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not sure if I'm a weird-o nerd etc., but I get bugged out by anything related to hard-drugs from an adult. Basically, once you are 17 or 18, you should be expected to follow the laws. Particularly those that would otherwise make you a felon.

Hello

Why, just because society has deemed them illegal, or do you think this is evidence of something deeper that we should be concered about?

While I don't do drugs now, I think 17 or 18 is a rather early cut-off.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
, when it has proven easier for draft dodgers to win election than it has been for those who are avowed former drug users.

I think it's easier to prove who was a draft dodger than to prove who actually used illegal drugs 20-30 years ago. I mean, who could really be sure it was actually Bill and Hillary across the room through that massive cloud of pot smoke in the law school dorm room?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
I probably should not indulge this stupidity, but listen Hankie, I am not a sock for any current or recent poster. A few years back I posted on Infirm’s board, first as finder of fact and then as master sergeant scrappy macdougal after I lost the log-in for the first. Haven’t been on the Infirm boards in a while and fully new here. I've been called a lot of names in my day, but sock would be a new one.

Don't let yourself become more anti-intellectual fodder for the left wing.

sorry Sarge, i remember you. hope you understand we can't be too careful these days. just to prove your infirm roots, who was it got spun out by the "white type?"

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Was it Ginsburg who got dinked because he admitted smoking dope, once? then we ended up with souter basically because he hadn't gone outside for 20 years. No comment on Souter or Ginsburg, but I'd rather have an occasional pot smoker on the bench than someone who avoids life.

Yeah, I think that's right. I was pretty wasted back then*, though, so I'm a little fuzzy. Except Souter was appointed by Bush. Wasn't Kennedy the ultimate nominee taking the Bork seat?

*No I wasn't.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Exit Strategy
How to leave Iraq in three simple steps.
By George Saunders
Posted Monday, May 24, 2004, at 8:29 AM PT

If W was to follow your inanely absurd suggestions in your post, I’m sure we all would be saying President Kerry faster than Clinton was able to impeachment. But our CinC understands that staying the course of stability and freedom is the most important goal we share as a human race for our ignorant godless brothers in Iraq. To quit now or ever would mean not only throwing those losers to the wolves but also that we have surrendered in the war on terror. I am glad that the liberals here are not in W’s shoes today.

Case in point, history buff(oon)s, following the defeat of Hannibal after the Second Pubic War, Rome realized it had two choices with regards to Hannibal’s allies in Macedonia, (1) prepare to defend itself from an inevitable attack or (2) take the battle to these cowardly Greek fucks. Rome choose to set the terms of the fight, in Macedonia. Thus marked the rise of the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

America, likewise has a choice, let the terrorists bring the battle to us, again, or take it to them. Either way, it's not as if they are about to let us be in peace. They started this with the Iran thing in ’79 and their illegimate religion mandates them to finish it or die. For me, I'm with W on the latter. I will put you down as being with "them".

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus was saying they encouraged the photos, then he realized he was on shaky ground and backtracked to "the photos show the soldiers were encouraged because they weren't trying to hide anything."

I don't recall making the first point, but as a moral relativist I suppose I'm required to allow you to believe I did.