A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Liberal" is a subjective term. I'm not sure any one person's definition is completely in agreement with another's.

But I do know this for certain about "liberalism" - it's dead. Right now, millions of voters are throwing Republicans out of office because they spent like Democrats. The Democratic Party has adopted huge chunks of the classic GOP platform to win. Just look at the Democrats who are poised to take over battleground states - they're all moderates.

Don't blame Bill Clinton for sentencing the liberals to death and forcing the Dems to the center. That's putting the chicken before the egg. The voters had already rejected liberalism - Bill was just being a smart politician and following public sentiment.

In many regards, Karl Rove is right - the GOP can't lose today. The funny thing is, it'll be the Old GOP - the real Republicans - that win. So some of them will be Democrats. So what? That's just a name.

So, Dr. Dangerfield, what's the prognosis on conservatism?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Liberal" is a subjective term. I'm not sure any one person's definition is completely in agreement with another's.

Great. Now, in addition to Geddy Lee singing "I will choose free trade!" in my head, I also have Phil Ochs singing "love me, love me, love me -- I'm a Rockefeller Republican." (Though that one doesn't scan as well.)

Can we have kippers for breakfast?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't believe I said differently. I said that our soldiers weren't getting shot at in Germany a couple of years after the Mission was Accomplished.

Yes, it does turn out that by the 70s our soldiers were being shot at just about everywhere. I think that had something to do with Vietnam. During the late 40s and through the 50s, the preferred targets were more often British or French, since they were still very messilly withdrawing from any number of overseas colonies.

Um, Greedy, NotBob helpfully identified the German terrorists (Baader-Meinhof gang, aka and later known once the principals were kaput as RAF - Red Army Faction or somesuch, who were a (somewhat delayed, but still angry) reaction to post-War times - communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist. They certainly targeted American military for those reasons. In 1981, for example, they bombed Ramstein Air Base, which was Headquarters of the Tactical Air Command in Europe, if I recall correctly, killing 3 American military personnel and injuring others. And IIRC, this was accomplished through a car bomb in a parking lot on the base. I do know they also shot guns in the course of their activities, though perhaps not that specific instance, the bomb being somewhat of a deterrent to standing there to watch, I suppose, but that was just one late example of their (successfully) targeting American troops. Vietnam was cited as a reason for their activity, once there was that hook to grab, but that wasn't the primary motivation by any stretch, I don't think. As I said, their justifications evolved with the times.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, Dr. Dangerfield, what's the prognosis on conservatism?

I don't know. I wasn't offering a prognosis on Liberalism - I was citing a fact. When you look at the slate of candidates and the prevailing cultural winds in this country, and the near certainty we'll have a Republican president in 2008, extending gridlock into the future indifintely, you can't reac any conclusion but that liberalism has no future.

My hope, which I will give you, is that Right Wing Conservativism dies the same death Liberalism has. I think this election is a rejection of fanaticism from both sides. Unfortunately, the GOP does not move to the center as quickly as the Dems do, largely because the GOP has too many "true believers" who support their often noxious social planks.

I think in times of economic trouble, which the coming years will provide in heaping portions, the country wisely decides to vote for reasoned moderation. Reasoned moderation means no more Liberals and no more James Dobsons. So my hope and prediction is that the two parties will spar as always to differentiate themselves, but when elected, compromise more than they have in the past. Which I think is a win for everyone.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
Um, Greedy, NotBob helpfully identified the German terrorists (Baader-Meinhof gang, aka and later known once the principals were kaput as RAF - Red Army Faction or somesuch, who were a (somewhat delayed, but still angry) reaction to post-War times - communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist. They certainly targeted American military for those reasons. In 1981, for example, they bombed Ramstein Air Base, which was Headquarters of the Tactical Air Command in Europe, if I recall correctly, killing 3 American military personnel and injuring others. And IIRC, this was accomplished through a car bomb in a parking lot on the base. I do know they also shot guns in the course of their activities, though perhaps not that specific instance, the bomb being somewhat of a deterrent to standing there to watch, I suppose, but that was just one late example of their (successfully) targeting American troops. Vietnam was cited as a reason for their activity, once there was that hook to grab, but that wasn't the primary motivation by any stretch, I don't think. As I said, their justifications evolved with the times.

Umm, remind me again, what are we disagreeing about?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Umm, remind me again, what are we disagreeing about?

You were suggesting that we were crazy to go into Iraq because, unlike with Germany post WWII, it was obvious that we would face years of dissident attacks during post-war occupation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Umm, remind me again, what are we disagreeing about?

you tried to distinguish WWII and Iraq by saying 3 years after the war was over we had removed all troops. I pointed out that you were wrong. then all of you guys started making distinctions of how the troops were being treated.

I ignored the distinctions, since it was post hoc. nnonono, however, pointed out that even your distinctions were bullshit.

hope this helps.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Umm, remind me again, what are we disagreeing about?

A minor point at best. I'm just bored with sugar farmers.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

.....blame Bill Clinton-.......

...........the GOP can't lose today..............

22222!!!

The time is nigh upon us, all of all y'all must decide one simple question:

do you love America and freedom or do you hate America and freedom?

For me, its easy, I will vote against the twin evils of Islamofacism and nanny-state paternalistic DNC plantation-style socialism as the same is propigated by faux-intellectual elitists,and for America. And freedom. Straight ticket Republican.

Join me. And Spanky. et. al.

God Bless my fellow citisens on this histouric day and may God have mercy on the haters!

Peace!

Penske

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you tried to distinguish WWII and Iraq by saying 3 years after the war was over we had removed all troops. I pointed out that you were wrong. then all of you guys started making distinctions of how the troops were being treated.

I ignored the distinctions, since it was post hoc. nnonono, however, pointed out that even your distinctions were bullshit.

hope this helps.

Umm, no. How were your reading comprehension scores on those standardized tests Spanky doesn't think you were required to take?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
A minor point at best. I'm just bored with sugar farmers.

which type of sugar?

eta: ooops, this was more of a FB post. Please ignore (for those who don't have me on ignore-hi Less!) :blush:

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
A minor point at best. I'm just bored with sugar farmers.

Found the post:

Of course, we did a bang-up job after beating Hitler, with the Marshall plan allowing us to ease out of physical occupation relatively quickly. Did someone have a plan for what to do after Saddam fell?

Or were we just waiting for everyone to come out, cheer us, and rebuild the country in peace?

So, anyone want to argue that we were "occupying" Germany for an extended period after the war? (FYI, formally, occupation ended in '48, with Berlin being a special case). Or that we did not have a strong plan for dealing with Germany post-war? Or, perhaps most to the point, because it's what this was really all about, that we had a good plan for dealing with Iraq?

[SlaveNoMore]

Didn't take long for the moonbat Left to start trying to steal votes:

In precincts 7, 19, 51 in Philly, PA, the crowds are going wild. Inside several voting locations, individuals have poured white out onto the polling books and the poll workers are allowing voters to go into the polls and vote without first registering. Several individuals are on hand demanding that voters vote straight Democrat.

RNC lawyers have headed to the scene of the incidents, which are occurring in mostly hispanic precinct locations. The District Attorney has also been contacted.

More from the ground: Reports of voter intimidation by son-in-law of Philadelphia City Commissioner in 19th Ward. Carlos Mantos is not allowing Republican poll watchers with valid poll-watching certificates monitor polling places.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Or that we did not have a strong plan for dealing with Germany post-war? Or, perhaps most to the point, because it's what this was really all about, that we had a good plan for dealing with Iraq?

1) The marshall plan was not developed until 2 years after the war was concluded in Europe.

2) But, more to the point, relevance? Are you saying that the majority of Iraqis would be better off, long-run, with Saddam Hussein still in power? Should we do what he did, which is round up certain ethic groups and kill them?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Found the post:



So, anyone want to argue that we were "occupying" Germany for an extended period after the war? Or that we did not have a strong plan for dealing with Germany post-war? Or, perhaps most to the point, because it's what this was really all about, that we had a good plan for dealing with Iraq?

Okay, back in the circle? There were certainly those in Germany who felt (and still feel) we are some sort of "occupying force." That's not particular to our presence somewhere post-any-war. You will find the same sentiment all over the world, by certain peole - see, eg., the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Or are you suggesting that we should have had or could have had as relatively simple a time in Iraq as in Germany? The point I'd make is that nothing is ever that simple, and even in Germany, a much easier row to hoe than Iraq for myriad reasons, there was long-term resistance that we took seriously, armed against, drilled for and suffered as a result.

When exactly did we get out of Berlin, anyway?