Politics As Usual

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040606/D831KL2O0.html

Political motives aside, this is a classy move.

Oh puhleeze! JFKerry is the world’s greatest flipflopping phoney. Of course he came out and did the politically expedient thing because he had no choice but to or look like a total piece of hamsterpoop. Even the peanut farmer was able to break himself away from his pattern of treasonous statements to get some nice words from a speechwriter so he could regurgitate them to the leftist media.

What I would have liked to see is for JFKerry to actually stand up and explicate what it is he has learned from Reagan about leading God’s shining city on the hill and how he would expand on Reagan’s legacy and efforts. Of course, in reality, he learned nothing and will only seek to urinate on Reagan’s policies and legacy if elected.

I beseech this nation to put aside their grief and channel their remembrances of this great man into a reflection on the stark lessons of his legacy and the coincidental 60th anniversary of D-Day and what it all means to us today. We face a dramatic choice in several months that probably will decide if America survives or instead the reign of Satan on earth comes to pass.

Vote for JFKerry and move us toward a period of pessismistic malaise that plays out as our surrender to the enemy.

Vote for W and vote for life, freedom, liberty and honor Reagan’s leadership and legacy. Its our choice but let me note, for the record, that if JFKerry is elected, the liberals ought not to complain when their Islamofacist overlords decree that Arabic is the national language of these United States. Unless of course the Red Chinese beat them to us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Kevin Drum with an update on the so-called oil-for-food scandal (or "scandal"):

[W]e also learn that the Chalabi friend who has been investigating the UN oil-for-food scandal (based, you might recall, on documents Chalabi collected from burned out ministry buildings and has not allowed anyone to see) has suffered a setback:

• Last night, it emerged that on the same day as the raid, computer files belonging to the British consultant investigating the oil-for-food scandal were destroyed by hackers and a back-up databank in his Baghdad office wiped out.
  
  Claude Hankes Drielsma, a British businessman and long-time acquaintance of Mr Chalabi, accused America and Britain of mounting a "dirty tricks" campaign to obstruct his inquiry.

Wow. They got both his computer and his backup database! Those are some pretty sharp hackers!

It's been known for years that Saddam Hussein managed to skim off money from the oil-for-food program, and I'm perfectly willing to believe that the the corruption also includes the UN and runs deeper than previously imagined. But it certainly is peculiar that it was Chalabi of all people who managed to sweep up all the relevant documents after the war, that he's been unwilling to show them to any outside investigators, and that his own investigation has suddenly been delayed several months. Peculiar indeed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Now if we could only find some agreement on what is morally right . . .

Allowing a mass murderer to continue after killing five to seven million of his powerless subjects can never be right. I'll agree that the bulk of daily governmental decisions aren't so simple - affirmative action? taxation? flag burning? - all subject to much more complex and subjective parsing. But to allow SH to continue? To ignore a Rwanda as it happens? No. These are simple. For these, we all know the moral response. If we have disagreements, they are more towards the "but can we afford to, or do we want to, be moral in this instance?" That's a very different debate than the moral one.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Allowing a mass murderer to continue after killing five to seven million of his powerless subjects can never be right. I'll agree that the bulk of daily governmental decisions aren't so simple - affirmative action? taxation? flag burning? - all subject to much more complex and subjective parsing. But to allow SH to continue? To ignore a Rwanda as it happens? No. These are simple. For these, we all know the moral response. If we have disagreements, they are more towards the "but can we afford to, or do we want to, be moral in this instance?" That's a very different debate than the moral one.

Another different debate is what should be done. Reagan thought boycotting South Africa was the wrong thing to do and that we would have more leverage if we continued to do business with South Africa. I think the economic sanctions worked in the case of South Africa.

With a dictatorship like China, I think we are better off continuing to do business with them and as they become increasingly capitalistic, political change will come, too, especially if we use our leverage on human rights issues. If it doesn't, though, we will have a real problem on our hands if China grows economically stronger and continues to be a military dictatorship.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Now if we could only find some agreement on what is morally right . . .

I suggest we start with the distinction between what is legal and illegal for a President to do. I am uncomfortable with electing or honoring an executive who regards "moral right" as somehow distinct and elevated from what Congress and the Constitution instruct or authorize.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I suggest we start with the distinction between what is legal and illegal for a President to do. I am uncomfortable with electing or honoring an executive who regards "moral right" as somehow distinct and elevated from what Congress and the Constitution instruct or authorize.

I would be uncomfortable voting for a President who didn't have some conception of morality distinct from what the Constitution or the U.S. Code specifies.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I would be uncomfortable voting for a President who didn't have some conception of morality distinct from what the Constitution or the U.S. Code specifies.

So you voted for Bob Dole in '96? Or did you just hold your nose when you pulled the lever?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I am uncomfortable with electing or honoring an executive who regards "moral right" as somehow distinct and elevated from what Congress and the Constitution instruct or authorize.

You misapprehend "morality". You would stay out of Rwanda, watch the slaughter, and, as long as you had the votes, call yourself "moral"?

I'm hoping I've just read your post wrong.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
...some conception of morality...

speaking of morality, first we hear of the noble members of ANSWER actually applauding the death of President Reagan during one of their monthly traffic-disruptions in your hometown of SF.

Now, I've been fortunate to read this lovely link of the on-line posting of the Democratic Underground. Proving once again there are more Communists and Fascists in the far left of this country than there are in the former CCCP.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
speaking of morality, first we hear of the noble members of ANSWER actually applauding the death of President Reagan during one of their monthly traffic-disruptions in your hometown of SF.

Now, I've been fortunate to read this lovely link of the on-line posting of the Democratic Underground. Proving once again there are more Communists and Fascists in the far left of this country than there are in the former CCCP.

I'll tell you this much, he fucked the unions one last time by dying on a Saturday. I know a lot of guys who were looking forward to a day off. Hopefully Thatcher will croak on a weekday.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'll tell you this much, he fucked the unions one last time by dying on a Saturday.

Even on his last day he gives us such a gift. Gotta love him.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
You misapprehend "morality". You would stay out of Rwanda, watch the slaughter, and, as long as you had the votes, call yourself "moral"?

I'm hoping I've just read your post wrong.

I do not relish the loss of Reagan; he was in many ways a great leader, and is most admirable for having stuck by his convictions.

Nonetheless, he is not someone to hold up as an example of action in the face of moral reprehension (as no one in the position of President can).

He did not act in Tibet, while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in Angola, while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in Afganistan (at least overtly), while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in North Korea, while millions were slaughtered.

And that's just the Communists that I can think of off the top of my head. Other examples might include Iran, Iraq and Honduras. And I suppose it would be rude to bring up pandering to the apartheid government of South Africa in the name of regional stability. Or was that morally correct?

I'm not sure that he should have acted in any of the cases above. But if one is to take an absolutist stance that we as America are obligated to protect the people of other countries from their leaders (a stance that, if the US had the resources to undertake, I would support), then it is difficult to argue the other way.

May he rest in peace.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy

I beseech this nation to put aside their grief and channel their remembrances of this great man into a reflection on the stark lessons of his legacy and the coincidental 60th anniversary of D-Day and what it all means to us today. We face a dramatic choice in several months that probably will decide if America survives or instead the reign of Satan on earth comes to pass.

Vote for JFKerry and move us toward a period of pessismistic malaise that plays out as our surrender to the enemy.

Vote for W and vote for life, freedom, liberty and honor Reagan’s leadership and legacy. Its our choice but let me note, for the record, that if JFKerry is elected, the liberals ought not to complain when their Islamofacist overlords decree that Arabic is the national language of these United States. Unless of course the Red Chinese beat them to us.

Who's sock is this idiot?*

* Not because of the viewpoint, but because, well, its self explanatory...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'll tell you this much, he fucked the unions one last time by dying on a Saturday. I know a lot of guys who were looking forward to a day off. Hopefully Thatcher will croak on a weekday.

The federal workers will get a day off, at least:

WaPo

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
speaking of morality, first we hear of the noble members of ANSWER actually applauding the death of President Reagan during one of their monthly traffic-disruptions in your hometown of SF.

Now, I've been fortunate to read this lovely link of the on-line posting of the Democratic Underground. Proving once again there are more Communists and Fascists in the far left of this country than there are in the former CCCP.

Oh, you gotta laugh at this sort of shit...

These poor college kids and hopeless idealists are a great comedy skit. They're like Susan Sontag's ridiculous piece in the Times magazine a few weeks back. She blathered for five pages about the atrocities of the pictures from Abu Grhaib without once mentioning the pictures of Berg or Pearl being beheaded.

So lemme get this straight, Susan, you perpetually disenfranchised pain-in-the-ass... We are a deeply flawed society because we like to photograph sexual degradation, but extreme radical Islam's penchant for execution (by butcher knife) on videotape doesn't warrant comment? Gotcha.

Why does the Times insist on giving space to people like Sontag? You can't give the main stage to people who come from such a polluted perspective. Her lousy one sided apologist rant should have been countered in the same article with a piece by some rtight winger to give some balance. I'm still confused about why she's revered in the first place. I found nothing illuminating about anything she wrote. Same claptrap moralizing I heard in Feminist Lit 101.