Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I dunno if he's important or not, but NPR played Mike Huckabee's screed at his opponents for skipping the debate this morning. I think it may very well be the only thing that Mike Huckabee and I have ever agreed upon.

I don't think that's true. I think that you're a closet Huckabeeliever!!!

aV

[Spanky]

I hate to dissapoint the liberals but there is some good news coming out of Iraq. Sorry to ruin your day.

By Paul Tait
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Civilian deaths from violence across Iraq fell by 50 percent in September, according to government data published on Monday, matching a drop in U.S. military casualties attributed to a boost in troop numbers.
Information provided by the health, interior and defense ministries registered 884 civilians killed in September, the lowest monthly total this year, down from 1,773 in August.
The casualties were also the lowest since Washington began pouring an extra 30,000 troops into Iraq as part of a last-ditch security crackdown aimed at al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias across the country.
A total of 850 civilians were wounded in September, the figures indicated, also well down on the previous month's 1,559.
The crackdown, which was launched in Baghdad in mid-February and then spread into other troubled areas, was designed to buy time for Iraq's leaders to reach political benchmarks aimed at reconciling majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs.
The drop in civilian violence came despite a warning by al Qaeda at the start of Ramadan, more than two weeks ago, that it would escalate attacks during the Muslim holy month and target tribal leaders who were cooperating with security forces.
The U.S. military said on Sunday that, while violence levels were still too high, attacks so far during Ramadan were down 38 percent on last year.
This was mainly because of the "surge" of extra troops and a change in strategy to move troops out of large bases into smaller combat outposts where they live and fight alongside Iraqis, military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox said.
ONE-OFF ATTACKS
However, U.S. commanders have also voiced concerns that the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda may still be able to launch "spectacular" one-off attacks that cause mass casualties.
Coordinated suicide bombings aimed at the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq killed 411 people on August 14 -- over a quarter of all violent civilian deaths that month.
The previous lowest monthly death toll during the "surge" was in June -- the month when the U.S. troop buildup came into full effect -- when 1,227 Iraqis were killed.
The government figures showed that 78 members of the Iraqi security forces were killed, down slightly from 87 in August.
The figures also recorded the deaths of 366 militants, a drop of 106 from August, with the number of detentions also down by about a quarter despite the security crackdown.
The U.S. military death toll in September was the lowest since July 2006, with 62 killed, according to the Web site icasualties.org, which tracks military deaths in Iraq.
Washington has also focused on the success of a strategy of helping Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs in the westerly Anbar province to form local police units to drive al Qaeda from their areas.
Anbar was once the most violent province in Iraq for U.S. troops and Iraqis, but is now relatively safe. U.S. commanders have since worked on adopting similar models elsewhere in Iraq, although the strategy has yet to be tried in major urban areas.
U.S. President George W. Bush told Congress this month that successes in the unpopular war would allow for limited troop withdrawals of between 20,000-30,000 by July.

[Spanky]

These people need a hobby...

Keep the Calls Coming!
Action Alert-Call Governor Schwarzenegger!


The following bills are still on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. Please continue to call, fax and email the Governor urging him to veto the following anti-family bills.

Please take immediate action by calling and writing Governor Schwarzenegger about the following dangerous bills:

SB 777-Homosexual Indoctrination in Schools (Kuehl)

SB 777 would ban any textbooks, teaching or activities in schools that "promotes a discriminatory bias against" homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and those with gender (perceived or actual) issues. SB 777 goes much further than any other past attack on the moral and religious beliefs of Californians.

AB 43--Homosexual Marriage (Leno)
In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, which clearly stated that marriage in California is defined as between a man and a woman. Despite the people of California clearly deciding this issue, AB 43 seeks to redefine marriage as being between two people-regardless of gender. This is yet another example of the arrogance of lawmakers in their belief that they better than the citizens they supposedly represent.

AB 14--Homosexual 'Discrimination' (Laird)

This legislation would grant more special privileges to homosexuals by enacting the "Civil Rights Act of 2007." By changing over 50 areas of the law, this a sweeping piece of legislation that continues to advance the radical homosexual agenda.

AB 102--Marriage Licenses for Domestic Partners (Ma)

AB 102 would require the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form to contain spaces for either party or both parties to indicate a change in surname (last name). CRI opposes this back-door attempt to grant special privileges to domestic partners. By granting domestic partners this element of traditional marriage, lawmakers are blurring the line between traditional marriage and the "faux marriage" of domestic partnership.

AB 394--Enforcing Homosexual "Rights" in Schools (Levine)

AB 394 would require the State Department of Education to "monitor adherence" to the requirements of AB 537, passed in 2000. AB 537 added sexual orientation (including actual or perceived) to all discrimination prohibitions applying to public schools. In other words, lawmakers are passing a law to ensure the law is enforced. AB 394 will further coerce schools into complying with a radical social agenda.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I hate to dissapoint the liberals but there is some good news coming out of Iraq. Sorry to ruin your day.

By Paul Tait
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Civilian deaths from violence across Iraq fell by 50 percent in September, according to government data published on Monday, matching a drop in U.S. military casualties attributed to a boost in troop numbers.
Information provided by the health, interior and defense ministries registered 884 civilians killed in September, the lowest monthly total this year, down from 1,773 in August.
The casualties were also the lowest since Washington began pouring an extra 30,000 troops into Iraq as part of a last-ditch security crackdown aimed at al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias across the country.
A total of 850 civilians were wounded in September, the figures indicated, also well down on the previous month's 1,559.
The crackdown, which was launched in Baghdad in mid-February and then spread into other troubled areas, was designed to buy time for Iraq's leaders to reach political benchmarks aimed at reconciling majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs.
The drop in civilian violence came despite a warning by al Qaeda at the start of Ramadan, more than two weeks ago, that it would escalate attacks during the Muslim holy month and target tribal leaders who were cooperating with security forces.
The U.S. military said on Sunday that, while violence levels were still too high, attacks so far during Ramadan were down 38 percent on last year.
This was mainly because of the "surge" of extra troops and a change in strategy to move troops out of large bases into smaller combat outposts where they live and fight alongside Iraqis, military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox said.
ONE-OFF ATTACKS
However, U.S. commanders have also voiced concerns that the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda may still be able to launch "spectacular" one-off attacks that cause mass casualties.
Coordinated suicide bombings aimed at the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq killed 411 people on August 14 -- over a quarter of all violent civilian deaths that month.
The previous lowest monthly death toll during the "surge" was in June -- the month when the U.S. troop buildup came into full effect -- when 1,227 Iraqis were killed.
The government figures showed that 78 members of the Iraqi security forces were killed, down slightly from 87 in August.
The figures also recorded the deaths of 366 militants, a drop of 106 from August, with the number of detentions also down by about a quarter despite the security crackdown.
The U.S. military death toll in September was the lowest since July 2006, with 62 killed, according to the Web site icasualties.org, which tracks military deaths in Iraq.
Washington has also focused on the success of a strategy of helping Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs in the westerly Anbar province to form local police units to drive al Qaeda from their areas.
Anbar was once the most violent province in Iraq for U.S. troops and Iraqis, but is now relatively safe. U.S. commanders have since worked on adopting similar models elsewhere in Iraq, although the strategy has yet to be tried in major urban areas.
U.S. President George W. Bush told Congress this month that successes in the unpopular war would allow for limited troop withdrawals of between 20,000-30,000 by July.

Great News! Mission Accomplished!

It's always good to see less death and destruction, but we're all still waiting for a plausible and compelling reason to be there. Why do you think having 884 people die last month for no discernable reason is something to be happy about?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
These people need a hobby...

Keep the Calls Coming!
Action Alert-Call Governor Schwarzenegger!


The following bills are still on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. Please continue to call, fax and email the Governor urging him to veto the following anti-family bills.

Please take immediate action by calling and writing Governor Schwarzenegger about the following dangerous bills:

SB 777-Homosexual Indoctrination in Schools (Kuehl)

SB 777 would ban any textbooks, teaching or activities in schools that "promotes a discriminatory bias against" homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and those with gender (perceived or actual) issues. SB 777 goes much further than any other past attack on the moral and religious beliefs of Californians.

AB 43--Homosexual Marriage (Leno)
In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, which clearly stated that marriage in California is defined as between a man and a woman. Despite the people of California clearly deciding this issue, AB 43 seeks to redefine marriage as being between two people-regardless of gender. This is yet another example of the arrogance of lawmakers in their belief that they better than the citizens they supposedly represent.

AB 14--Homosexual 'Discrimination' (Laird)

This legislation would grant more special privileges to homosexuals by enacting the "Civil Rights Act of 2007." By changing over 50 areas of the law, this a sweeping piece of legislation that continues to advance the radical homosexual agenda.

AB 102--Marriage Licenses for Domestic Partners (Ma)

AB 102 would require the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form to contain spaces for either party or both parties to indicate a change in surname (last name). CRI opposes this back-door attempt to grant special privileges to domestic partners. By granting domestic partners this element of traditional marriage, lawmakers are blurring the line between traditional marriage and the "faux marriage" of domestic partnership.

AB 394--Enforcing Homosexual "Rights" in Schools (Levine)

AB 394 would require the State Department of Education to "monitor adherence" to the requirements of AB 537, passed in 2000. AB 537 added sexual orientation (including actual or perceived) to all discrimination prohibitions applying to public schools. In other words, lawmakers are passing a law to ensure the law is enforced. AB 394 will further coerce schools into complying with a radical social agenda.

Can't you convince these people to enlist?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Can't you convince these people to enlist?

From you mouth to God's ears.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's always good to see less death and destruction, but we're all still waiting for a plausible and compelling reason to be there.

Well they have had a couple of free elections with very high participation and have a democratically elected government. Wouldn't it be nice to leave the country in a situation where those elections can continue?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well they have had a couple of free elections with very high participation and have a democratically elected government. Wouldn't it be nice to leave the country in a situation where those elections can continue?

And ponies! Wouldn't it be nice to leave everyone in Iraq a pony?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This sums up the debate pretty well:

• On each side, the plans are basically united. The Republican plans make you pay more for your healthcare so you'll buy less. They do this by weakening the protection that insurance offers from health expenses. The Democratic plans bring everyone into the system, then use that leverage to reform the insurers and extract savings through efficiencies of scale.

link

I know which I prefer.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This sums up the debate pretty well:

• On each side, the plans are basically united. The Republican plans make you pay more for your healthcare so you'll buy less. They do this by weakening the protection that insurance offers from health expenses. The Democratic plans bring everyone into the system, then use that leverage to reform the insurers and extract savings through efficiencies of scale.

link

I know which I prefer.

And ponies! Wouldn't it be nice to give everyone in America a pony?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And ponies! Wouldn't it be nice to give everyone in America a pony?

Yes! [eta: Not as nice as affordable health care, but still pretty sweet.] But if we only have so much money to spend on ponies, I would buy them for Americans first. And legal permanent residents. Why do you conservatives hate America?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
By Paul Tait
BAGHDAD (Reuters)
. . . Washington has also focused on the success of a strategy of helping Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs in the westerly Anbar province to form local police units to drive al Qaeda from their areas.
Anbar was once the most violent province in Iraq for U.S. troops and Iraqis, but is now relatively safe. U.S. commanders have since worked on adopting similar models elsewhere in Iraq, although the strategy has yet to be tried in major urban areas.

Marc Lynch:

• After years of failed warfare against the Sunni insurgency, the US decided to talk with and then cooperate with "former" insurgents with a lot of American blood on their hands. They discovered that it worked (at least for the short term). It's ironic that the same people who currently most vigorously defend the "Anbar Model" of working with these "former insurgents" usually strongly oppose any serious dialogue with Syria or Iran. If there's one good thing which could come out of the current American Sunni strategy in Iraq, perhaps it will be the recognition that talking to one's enemies can sometimes have positive results.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Thousands dead in Burma?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thousands dead in Burma?

You'd think Bush would give this more than lip service - maybe send an aircraft carrier or something, or a few of his Blackwater mercenaries. After all, Burma has natural gas.


But the biggest WTF for me: why do people suggest we should be pushing China to do something about Burma? China? Has anyone looked at their government lately? Not a lot of strong democratic values there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You'd think Bush would give this more than lip service - maybe send an aircraft carrier or something, or a few of his Blackwater mercenaries. After all, Burma has natural gas.

But the biggest WTF for me: why do people suggest we should be pushing China to do something about Burma? China? Has anyone looked at their government lately? Not a lot of strong democratic values there.

Send an aircraft carrier to do what? What is to be done? The Chinese at least might have some leverage.