The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
huh?

Your fight was wheter Ann Coultour's hate-speech was worse than Mikey's "documentaries." I can't defend her explitives. But that is one ignorant person making one ignorant statement that everyone knows is opinion. Racism will always be there Wonk- ain't going away.

But you were defending her expletives. Arguing that it isn't as bad as Michael Moore's creative use of partial truths (read: lies) is defending Ann Coulter's racism.

It reminds me of when I catch one of my kids with their hand in the cookie jar and they respond by saying "he/she had some too." That may or may not be true, but it still doesn't make it alright that the one I caught was doing something wrong.

Congratulations. You've achieved the reasoning power of my 9 year old.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Pass the law; it'll be as enforceable as a Canadian speeding ticket. You'll see every newspaper in the civilized world publish a cartoon of the Prophet the next day.

You could do that. Or you could have the General Assembly tell the Fundamentalists that the world doesn't work that way, and like it or not, they have to adapt to it.

Neither approach will be very effective in the short term, but one is less belligerent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You could do that. Or you could have the General Assembly tell the Fundamentalists that the world doesn't work that way, and like it or not, they have to adapt to it.

Neither approach will be very effective in the short term, but one is less belligerent.

Both tell the Fundies to go rub their knuckles in shit, so I'm fine with either.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It reminds me of when I catch one of my kids with their hand in the cookie jar and they respond by saying "he/she had some too." That may or may not be true, but it still doesn't make it alright that the one I caught was doing something wrong.

Actually, your catching your child doing something wrong is alright. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. How else will they learn?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, your catching your child doing something wrong is alright. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. How else will they learn?

You make an excellent point. I wouldn't worry about a thing, Sebby. If you can get that handicap under 30 you'll make an excellent father.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Not to quibble, but Congress could cut the funding. Similar to what happened after Watergate, when Ford -- even if he wanted to -- couldn't send in the B-52s to stop the North Vietnamese tanks rolling south down Highway 1 in the Spring of 1975 because Congress had eliminated money for military operations in Southeast Asia.

They won't, of course, but it is possible, if enough of the members suddenly decided that it was in their political interest to do so. Although Bush has no more elections to worry about, they do. Not that it will probably get that bad, but you never know.

2. At least hold hearings on the supplemental budget request. This year and again in 2007/08 (before elections). Congress knows the budget is a mess, and they're going to ask everyone to justify their budget, including Bush's war machine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, no shit. That's because you cut off the rest of his sentence, which ended, "at least not at current levels."

That's just Spanky being Spanky.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Until Muslims - everywhere - recognize that govt is secular and religion a private matter, we're going to have this shit going on.

I'm not convinced secular government is going to put an end to the belief among Muslims that suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism are acceptable. Turkey is a secular government yet you still read polls showing almost 20% of residents supporting terrorist bombings. To the extent a secular government improved a country's economy and education level, you'd probaby see less support of terrorism. But I think the acceptance of violence is more a cultural thing (no, I didn't say biological). Speaking of cultural acceptance of violence, I've spoken to quite a few people from places like Sierra Leone and Liberia and am told at this point, the notion of violence and death is so completely different there than our Western views. Whatever.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, no shit. That's because you cut off the rest of his sentence, which ended, "at least not at current levels."

When you ad that qualifier it still is flat wrong. Bush does not need to be reelected, so he will keep the troop strength at whatever he wants. The Odds of the Dems taking over the Senate and the House are beyond remote, and even if they did, the chance that they could get the votes to cut off funding, with Bush threatening to Veto everything they hold dear, are deminimus.

Bush sees Iraq as the main issue his presidency will be remembered and judged by posterity, he will do whatever he thinks necessary to defend his legacy.

Until there is a new President, Bush has Carte Blanche to keep the troop levels at whatever he wants regardless of public opinion.

Any statement to the contrary flies in the face of political realities.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. At least hold hearings on the supplemental budget request. This year and again in 2007/08 (before elections). Congress knows the budget is a mess, and they're going to ask everyone to justify their budget, including Bush's war machine.

The Republicans in Congress may complain and perform for the cameras, but they will never cut the funding the adminstration requests for Iraq. To do so would incure the full wrath of the Whitehouse.

When Bush is out it is whole new ball game. But as long as he is in he will determine the policy of Iraq.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I'm not convinced secular government is going to put an end to the belief among Muslims that suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism are acceptable. Turkey is a secular government yet you still read polls showing almost 20% of residents supporting terrorist bombings. To the extent a secular government improved a country's economy and education level, you'd probaby see less support of terrorism. But I think the acceptance of violence is more a cultural thing (no, I didn't say biological). Speaking of cultural acceptance of violence, I've spoken to quite a few people from places like Sierra Leone and Liberia and am told at this point, the notion of violence and death is so completely different there than our Western views. Whatever.

An Arab friend told me they understand nothing but a boot. I think that's true of the nuts, but I'm reluctant to believe any nation or religious group is entirely unredeemable.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I'm not convinced secular government is going to put an end to the belief among Muslims that suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism are acceptable. Turkey is a secular government yet you still read polls showing almost 20% of residents supporting terrorist bombings. To the extent a secular government improved a country's economy and education level, you'd probaby see less support of terrorism. But I think the acceptance of violence is more a cultural thing (no, I didn't say biological). Speaking of cultural acceptance of violence, I've spoken to quite a few people from places like Sierra Leone and Liberia and am told at this point, the notion of violence and death is so completely different there than our Western views. Whatever.

20%? Twenty percent is pretty much politically insignificant. I bet twenty percent of the people in this country would have no problem nuking the entire middle east.

I am surprized that 80% of Turkey does not support the suicide bombing in Israel. I don't understand Al Queda, but I can understand the Palestinian suicide bombers. I don't support or condone what they do, but if someone else was occupying the land my forfathers had lived on for twenty generations, and they were occupying the reservation they had put my family on, and in addition, there were no jobs and no prospect for a future, I might strap on some bombs and head for the border.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky
20%? Twenty percent is pretty much politically insignificant. I bet twenty percent of the people in this country would have no problem nuking the entire middle east.

One out of every 5 people supporting terrorism. Insignificant? No way. And if by "politically" insignificant you mean the chances of a terrorist supporter being elected to government....that's not the only harm. 20% means terrorist groups can be formed, funded and function more brazenly.

And no way would 20% of Americans have "no problem" nuking the entire middle east. There's no evidence to suggest this, unless you're using Less as the Nielsen rating for that view.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Republicans in Congress may complain and perform for the cameras, but they will never cut the funding the adminstration requests for Iraq. To do so would incure the full wrath of the Whitehouse.

When Bush is out it is whole new ball game. But as long as he is in he will determine the policy of Iraq.

That assumes the full wrath of the White House matters. I'm not sure, and the midterm elections will tell us a fair amount, whether that wrath is in fact to be feared.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
with Bush threatening to Veto everything they hold dear,

Huh. I wonder what that would be like.