Gus and I

(Russ) Wow, great debate! I don't know how you guys find the time. My 2-cents. Mc Cain had 2 immenently (sic) qualified candidates for VP -- Liberman (sic) and Ridge. He picked Palin for 1 reason and 1 reason only no matter how they spin it, (she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it) -- anti-abortion, period! Again, lack of judgement. If Ron Paul were running, I would vote for him, hands down. McCain scares me -- hot-headed war-monger with a short fuse. Obama does not have the experience, but neither did Lincoln or Kennedy. But I do think he has the temperment (sic) and thoughtfulness to make his way to the right judgements. He thinks, McCain thinks he has all the right answers right out of the box and will not let the facts get in the way. McCain will not be my first choice in November. -- Russ

(JM) From Wikepedia:

In 1832, after he had been in New Salem less than a year, Lincoln decided to run for the State legislature. At the age of 23 he campaigned for the Illinois General Assembly as a member of the Whig Party. The centerpiece of his platform was the undertaking of navigational improvements on the Sangamon River in the hopes of attracting steamboat traffic to the river, which would allow sparsely populated, poor areas along and near the river to grow and prosper. He served as a captain in a company of the Illinois militia drawn from New Salem during the Black Hawk War, although he never saw combat. He wrote after being elected by his peers that he had not had "any such success in life which gave him so much satisfaction."

Nevertheless, his political prominence helped with him a job as postmaster, and then as deputy county surveyor, and in 1834, Lincoln was elected to the legislature on his 2nd try. During his 4 terms in the Illinois assembly, Lincoln emerged as the Whig floor leader and a skillful and hardworking party organizer. Lincoln served four successive terms in the Illinois House of Representatives, as a representative from Sangamon County, beginning in 1834. In 1837 he made his first protest against slavery in the Illinois House, stating that the institution was "founded on both injustice and bad policy." [1] In 1841 Lincoln entered law practice with William Herndon, a fellow Whig. In 1856 both men joined the fledgling Republican Party.

In 1846 he was rewarded with the Whig nomination for Congress, under the condition that he step aside after a single term to make way for other deserving party workers. In Washington, Congressman Lincoln introduced a major bill that would have abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, and gained some national attention for his spirited opposition to the "immoral and unnecessary" Mexican War. This stand cost him his popularity at home, and though he campaigned vigorously for Zachary Taylor and the Whig ticket in 1848, he was denied the political plum that he desired: appointment as commissioner of the General Land Office. Bitterly disappointed, Lincoln retired to private law practice back home in Illinois.

John Kennedy began to make speeches around Massachusetts in 1945 and the following spring ran in a primary for a vacant congressional seat in Boston, where nomination was tantamount to election. Although only twenty-nine, he had an impressive war record, his father's financial assistance and personal connections, and excellent name recognition.

In 1952, Kennedy captured the Senate seat held by Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Kennedy received only 51.5 percent of the vote, but his win was remarkable in that it came in the face of an Eisenhower landslide in the state and against a well-respected incumbent who bore a name even more famous than his own. Kennedy owed his victory to his appealing personality and intense campaigning, and to his establishment of a personal organization, independent of the Democratic party. On a similar basis, Kennedy won reelection in 1958 with 73.6 percent of the vote, defeating a relative unknown.

Kennedy did not make a great mark as a legislator. He had served too briefly in the House to acquire much influence there, and his quick move to the Senate reflected both his ambition and his impatience with the career of a junior member of the House. The Senate, which affords more of a forum for addressing major national and international issues, even for junior members, was more to his liking.

He became an expert and sponsored legislation in the area of labor-law reform, the impulse for which grew out of organized labor's unhappiness with the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and out of a Senate investigation of corruption and racketeering in certain unions that captured headlines and a television audience in the mid-1950s.

Published in early 1956, Profiles in Courage. The book's success boosted Kennedy's bid for the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 1956 after Adlai Stevenson, the presidential nominee, surprised the convention by throwing open the choice of his running mate.

He did not become a declared candidate until early 1960, but in the three and a half years before that he delivered hundreds of speeches, appeared frequently on television shows, published many articles, and was often the subject of others. He established contacts with potential Democratic delegates and nurtured them carefully.

(back to JM) Barack is a "community organizer" who has voted "present" something like 150 times during his short tenure in Congress which adds up to more than his total days on the job (143)! Going with a neophyte is a big gamble in these times. What has McCain ever said to give you the idea he is a 'war monger'? Perhaps it is the liberal media that portrays him that way. They said the same exact thing about Ronald Reagan in the early 80's talking about him having his 'finger on the button'. These are fear tactics used by the left for decades, don't buy it. Republicans are always dumb, war mongers, whose base are hillbillies from the sticks who clutch their Bible with one hand and their shotgun with the other, they've got their Confederate flag on the back of their pick up truck, and they're married to their sister. Meanwhile, Democrats are sophisticated and intelligent world travelers with so much compassion for the less fortunate. You can see them getting their frape choco latte whatever at Starbucks where they then peruse the books at Barnes and Noble while they sip ever so gently weeping at the notion that so many Americans still don't 'get it' and vote Republican. Blah, blah, blah...C'mon, don't buy these caricatures that the media shove down our throats. McCain is a man of character...a good man who loves his country and fellow countrymen. Barack spent 20 years listening to his pastor say "Goddam America!" Wait for the debates before you make up your mind.

JM

(Russ) 1. "Bomb, bomb, bomb -- bomb bomb Iran"

2. There are 2 sides to the Georgia story. I don't blame Russia. I believe McCain would esclate (sic) the situation just like Bush is doing. How would we like it if Russia started sailing their war-ships into the Carribean (sic) to provide "humanitarian assistance" to the hurricane torn countries? We missed a huge strategic opportunity when the Soviet Union broke up. We should have partnered with our Christian breatheren (sic), but nooooo, we had to follow the Neocons off the cliff again and surround mother Russia with neuclear (sic) tipped NATO puppet countries which have nothing to do with our strategic or national interests.

3. History will judge the Iraq war the biggest strategic blunder in US history. The violence is down for 2 reasons. a. the surge and b. the Iraq's are fed up with the terrorists that have infiltrated after the war started. But in either case, the point is moot because they have not used this "breathing room" to build the necessary compromises that are required to unite the country. In the end, history will show that Joe Biden was right.

Again, no real thoughtout (sic) judgement -- just more of the same knee-jerk, neo-con, world-domination fantasy that is rapidly bankrupting our nation. If it were not for Chinese lending, we would already be out of business.

The more I think of it, Bill Clinton was more right than wrong on the "War on Terror", (which is a misnomer in itself). Yes, he should have taken out Bin Laden when he had him in his sights -- a tactical error, but strategically, the "drain the swamp theory" has run it's course. 9-11 didn't happen because we didn't nuke every Muslim in sight, but because our intelligence system broke down. If you want to talk about errors, there were plenty made in Afganistan (sic) when we had Bin-Laden cornered and we trusted on the Taliban (again, lack of judgement), of all people, to run him down.

Pre-emptive war is not the solution.

Russ

"Go Ron Paul! Stay out of other peoples business. All empires end the same way and it has only taken ours 200 years. An imbarassing (sic) record."

p.s. why don't we "reply to all", so all can jump in?

(JM) Geez, did someone lace your coffee with hallucinogens? Who want's to bomb Iran? You do? Why? And why are you so angry?

Do you think Russia used excessive force? How come any other country can decimate people at will, but whenever America tries to take out a terrorist thug, or liberate an oppressed people, we are jerks for doing so? Why didn't Bill Clinton do anything about the things you mention? He had a Democrat controlled congress for two years.

Biggest blunder in history... I'll bet the Iraqi women and GIRLS who are no longer being raped, the men who are no longer being tortured for not falling in line, and those who would have otherwise ended up in mass graves will write books one day to the contrary. Same for the people of Kuwait, I'll bet. Oh, and if democracy takes hold in the Middle East, and human rights abuses wane as a result, I'm willing to bet there will be plenty more who will attest with gratitude that our intervention was a thankful humanitarian relief. Biden, really? Okie dokie...

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist too, but I think that's silly and selfish of us. Where would the world be today if we just let Hitler go? Our shame is that we got into that war so late! Japan hit us first you know, now I wish there was a country called Al Qeadea that we could go after, but there isn't. We need to go after these scum anywhere they are (and if you tell me they weren't in Iraq I swear I'll spew forth a vomitous mass that would make Linda Blair wince). Read The Connection by Stephen Hayes. Anyway, to think we can ignore the problem and hope it never comes here, and just wait for it to before we act is naive & suicidal.

Labeling conservatives as "knee-jerk, neo-con, world-domination fantasy that is rapidly bankrupting our nation" seems rather stereotypical and unoriginal. Again, why can the left stereotype at will, but not the right? There's a saying, "A liberal is someone who spends others people's money." The rules never apply to them. It is an elitist thing. The masses need to pay taxes, stop driving SUVs, and shouldn't have guns, etc., etc., etc. Yet, Gore, Theresa Heins Kerry, Jesse Jackson, and on and on and on, do not pay their fare share in taxes like the Bush's do. Al Gore, John Kerry, etc. can have their SUVs, Barbara Streisand can air condition her mansion and massive barn all the while telling the rest of us to use less toilet paper like Sheryl Crow did. Rosie O'Donnell can berate Tom Selleck in front of millions of people for supporting the NRA, but yet her bodyguard is packing. I have examples of this stuff out the wazoo.

The definition of liberal is "open minded" but I think we need to call Webster and have it changed to "ignoramus," or "swindler," or "hypocrite," or "too project onto to others one's own failings."

So, are we having fun yet? Hey, keep reading the Daily Kos, and let me know when they prove that the moon landing was a fake, 9/11 was an inside job, and Bush actually shot Kennedy.
:) :) :)
JM

P.S. Didn't almost all of the Dems. vote for pre-emption too? The entire world, and ALL of their intelligence agencies were convinced Saddam had WMDs (he had already used them before), and that he posed a serious threat to us. He tried to have our President assassinated for crying out loud! Oh wait, it was Bush the senior, just a Republican. Too bad it wasn't Clinton, we could have invaded with impunity. Wait, Bill Clinton did invade {correction--bomb} Iraq! Saddam's enabling of terrorists is well documented and had been for years before the war.

Headline: Iraq-al Qaeda Cooperation Documented Source: PowerLineBlog Date: March 22, 2004

Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times report on the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document on Iraq's links to al Qaeda. Their item is worth repeating in its entirety:

We have obtained a document discovered in Iraq from the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The report provides new evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages. The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators." On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden."

The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan. And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

The document was obtained by the Iraqi National Congress and first disclosed on the CBS program "60 Minutes" by INC leader Ahmed Chalabi. A U.S. official said the document appears authentic.

(Russ)
1. Your boy want's to bomb Iran -- he sang it -- didn't they cover it on Red State?

2. Oh, I am the one who is hallucinating that this country is going to hell in a hand basket, take you (sic) head out of the neocon sand box and look around. We actually had a surplus under Clinton then Bush comes in and we are running over a half a trillion a year in the hole. Then Phil Graham come (sic) in and is instrumental in deregulating the mortgage market and now we, the tax payers, are on the hook for Fannie and Freddie and in (sic) IMPLODING ECONOMY-- nice job. The last 8 years are going to imfamously (sic) go down as the Bush years that wrecked the economy.

3. Maybe you didn't notice but Georgia attacked South Osetia and was ready to roll over and ethnically cleanse them if Russia didn't step in. You might not have caught that at World Net Daily or Fox News.

4. Gratitude Ha Ha Ha!!! Saddam and his sons raped a few women and took out a village that tried to assasinate (sic) him. I'm sure the Iraqis would gladly trade that relative nuisance for the destruction of their country and the death of untold hundreds of thousands.

5. Democracy in the Middle East -- Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. You do jest. Those people have been murdering each other for thousands of years. Now who is hallucinating??? We can stay there for the next hundred years as prescribed by the old fool and when we leave it will splinter into 3 pieces unless Saddams (sic) great-great grand-son is there to strong arm it together.

6. Among other thing (sic), The U.S. stopped selling oil to Japan in July of 1941, which was part of the motivation for the attack from Japan’s perspective. We were their major oil supplier, and the shippments (sic) were stopped in protest of Japan’s invasion of French Indo-China. This embargo would’ve ground their economy to a halt in fairly short order, forcing them to find oil elsewhere. But before they could do that, they had to make sure we wouldn’t be able to interfere with their expansion. BUT THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT - WHEN ONE CAN NOT DEBATE THE CURRENT ISSUE, ON (sic) WILL BAIT AND SWITCH. HA HA HA

7. The Bush Doctrine -- drain the swamp has been discredited in my book. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DESTROY EVERY NATION THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE A TERRORIST IN IT. By that assinine policy, we would have to destroy every nation on earth, including our own!!! Which by the way, we are doing a good job of. Fools, damn fools.

8. Stereotyping... is that all you can come up with, name calling -- nice.

(JM)
I sense you're becoming quite upset. I blame myself for my sarcastic style so let me just say that your friendship means more to me than this debate, so if you want to cease fire let me know. Until then...

1. Jesus Russ, he was joking. The video is on U Tube, as is his response to the hysterical reaction to it. C'mon...And that was a while ago, not a recent joke.

2. Bush inherited negative growth from Clinton, and you need two consecutive quarters of it to qualify for a recession, so why is the media talking recession? We haven't had one yet, have we? The hallucinogen comment was just a wisecrack. Remember when you thought the Republicans came down on our ally Turkey only to find out it was the Dems?

Countrywide Financial, the home mortgage bunch, "the largest mortgage lender at the center of the US housing crisis, regularly gave loans on favorable terms to prominent lawmakers and former cabinet members... The preferential treatment for senators including Democrat Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a recent presidential candidate, was approved by Angelo Mozilo, chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the Washington Post reported. Conde Nast Portfolio magazine first broke the story on, saying the recipients of the favorable terms were known as 'Friends of Angelo' in internal company documents and e-mails." Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) also received favorable mortgage interest rates from Countrywide. 

"Conrad said it appears that Countrywide waived 1 point on his mortgage for a Bethany Beach, Del., vacation home. He said he would donate the equivalent amount of money to Habitat for Humanity." These guys are out running around now saying that they had no clue. 

They're being called the Countrywide Six, and here are the names of politicians, with favorable mortgage rates from Countrywide.  Jim Johnson, former chief of Fannie Mae, Obama advisor, longtime Democrat Party hack. He had to quit from the Obama campaign. He was not the Jim Johnson Obama knew. Franklin Raines, former chairman, chief executive officer of Fannie Mae who served as Clinton's budget director and retired from Fannie Mae to halt a US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into accounting irregularities while he was there. Donna Shalala, the former secretary of Health and Human Services, who in 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against her over closed-door meetings related to Hillary Care, socialized health care plan, "and since leaving the administration, was embroiled in scandals at the University of Florida due to her extravagant lifestyle.”  She got a favorable loan. Richard Holbrooke, former UN ambassador, assistant secretary of state -- who, as UN ambassador, ignored whistleblower reports about the infamous oil-for-food scandals. Then there is Senator Chris Dodd, who oversees the US mortgage industry as chairman of the banking committee and Kent Conrad.  

The Countrywide Six, as dubbed by John Bender at EnterStageRight.com is interesting. The Wall Street Journal is suggesting that this be investigated. "For the sake of its shareholders and taxpayers who are ultimately on the hook, Fannie Mae should immediately launch an internal investigation into the terms offered to Countrywide..." Congress, Pelosi and these Democrats, are offering legislation to bail out the mortgage industry and some borrowers. It's a $300 billion deal to bail out these lenders, and Countrywide is one of them. With Senate banking chairman Dodd at the center of the scandal, ranking member Richard Shelby and house financial services chairman Barney Frank will have to lead the inquiry.  

But taxpayers should not have to wait for the results of an investigation. Democrats in Congress are trying to pass a bailout for mortgage borrowers and lenders like Countrywide, and they have been holding reform of Fannie Mae and its cousin Freddie Mac hostage to get President Bush to agree to it. Dodd's one of the main hostage takers. It's time that he and Barney Frank drop this political ransom taking and finally subjected Fannie and Freddie to tough oversight. Meanwhile, until it's clear how much Countrywide will benefit from Senator Dodd's proposed $300 billion mortgage rescue and exactly how Mr. Dodd came to do business with Countrywide, Congress should call a halt to legislating bailouts. Taxpayers deserve no less. Democrats who are out there just ripping these "predatory lenders" all to hell and proposing bailouts, got sweetheart loans from Countrywide! They're Democrats, every one of them. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aG8uEA1VgMVs&refer=home
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAZhwewNbVUCvcqyKgPp2HAd9_8g>


3. Russia's right, Georgia's wrong. The Ruskies are noble if nothing else.

4. Only a few, eh? Well that's not so bad. It was going on for how long? A "few?" Destruction of the entire country? Are we not spending billions to build up their infrastructure? Hundreds of thousands of deaths? Says who, Jeanine Garofalo? Actually she predicted that. So what's the source for this number b/c I am skeptical. Not moveon.org I hope.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071024/ai_n21078635

5. The same skepticism was displayed concerning Japan, and look at them now. The "old fool?" Now that's nice. I love the left's ability to be as mean spirited as they want, then you disagree and suddenly you're the name caller 'attacking' them.

6. Okay, not the whole story but what you said is true, but what's the point here...that Japan was justified at Pearl Harbor? They were at war with China at the time, right? Roosevelt saw the global picture, and wanted to help China if I'm correct. Correct any of this if it is wrong, but our foreign policy at the time was not to support belligerent countries. Japan was fighting China. Germany took over France and they gave in to Japan. We warned Japan not to go into Indo-China. They attacked it for oil and took out our fleet. China needed our help. Should we have continued to do business with Japan, and let them use our money to slaughter China? What point do you draw the line? Didn't we do the same to Italy when they invaded Ethiopa, which actually hurt the Ethiopians because our neutrality stance wouldn’t allow us to sell arms to Ethiopia. Anyway, not sure of the point here. The U.S. is an ignoble nation?

7. Look what happened in Libya after we invaded Iraq. Kaddaffi gave up his WMD program. I think it was finally time for us to reassert ourselves in the world, and let these terrorist states know we are not to be toyed with. Put yourself in the mind of Osama, and his ilk. Attack after attack and all we do is bomb an aspirin factory and kill a janitor- thanks to Clinton. After Clinton's cowardly pullout in Somalia, Osama admits he was emboldened by that! Every culture has different values, norms, mores, sense of humor, entertainment, etc., but all of the people of the earth understand a punch in the face. We cannot appear weak. It will be our demise.

8. "knee-jerk, neo-con, world-domination fantasy..." is not a stereotype? I was just describing what you said. If I called you a stereotyper, then maybe. All I can come up with? Anyway, not sure of the point here. The U.S. is an ignoble nation?
your friend,
JM

P.S. Barack said he wanted to invade Pakistan...and he was serious! http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070801140458.a3fxwbbd&show_article=1

As for preemptive war not being the answer...you know, Germany never attacked us. Was going after Hitler a bad move?

I've sent you my sources before, send me yours, please. The goal ought to be truth. I will peruse your stuff.

(Russ Responds to JM)

1. At best, the senator has a warped sense of humor. But such gaffes also betray a disturbing lack of judgment. Foreign policy is serious business, and America needs a president who carefully considers his comments rather than shoots from the hip. The world is always watching and listening, and such thoughtless remarks can do tremendous damage to America's already tattered reputation. McCain's record shows clearly that he is a verbal loose cannon, and would be a clear and present danger in the Oval Office.
 
2. Higher than I thoiught (sic).  Thanks. http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2007/12/iraqi-casualty-monitor.html
 
3. You do jest. Do I have to source the fact that Japan is one of the most culturally homogeneous in the world while Iraq is just waiting to fracture? Iran was the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war.  Their Shia puppet are (sic) already takint (sic) over. The Sunni realized that they had to have an "awakening", ie wake up before the Shia completly (sic) ate their lunch.
 
Oh, what the hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan
"Japan's population is estimated at around 127.3 million.[83] For the most part, Japanese society is linguistically and culturally homogeneous with small populations of foreign workers,"

(JM)
1. So no joking...got it. Any response to Barack's serious statement to attack Pakistan? Oh, did you see his interview with Bill O'Reilly by the way?

2. Does the Casuality-Monitor study Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam himself? Hundreds of thousands I believe- mass graves filled with his own people from chemical weapons. Is our military evil you think, or just incompetent? I see they use the AP as a source...

It has always been my contention that we ended much of the suffering there, not started it. And consider...just like the North Vietnamese did, the dirtbags hide among civilians intentionally...for that purpose...they know our liberal mainstream media will jump at the chance to show our soldiers as murdering scum (see Dick Durbin (D), John Murtha (D), John Kerry (D), etc.). And if their bombs kill civilians they try to show it to the international media dishonestly by claiming we did it. Of course, you have to give the USA the benefit of the doubt to buy any of that. Or you can give people who strap bombs onto children and retarded people that benefit.

3. Explain to me again your point about Japan? I'd think a homogenized society would be harder to turn Western than a fractured one. Their Kamikazee pilots were a tough breed. Didn't they find a Japanese guy in his 70's hiding in a mountain years after the war who was still holding his post? He thought the war was still going on I believe. I remember something about that. Now, they're very homogenized...with us.

Don't mess with the U.S. is a lesson I feel needs to be taught to these guys who have attacked us far too long and vehemently. U.S.S. Cole, the towers in '93, our embassies overseas, Somalia, 9/11...what was next if we didn't act? Was Afghanistan really it? They were in Spain, France, Great Britain, Philippines, etc. all over...Take them out in Afghanistan and all is well? Please, please, please...you've got to read Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabriel. Her point is that what happened to her beloved Lebanon is now happening to us here. We gotta stop it before it gets too far. Excellent book...a real eye opener. (see attachment)

Didn't Democrats start all of the wars in the 20th century with the exception of Bush Senior in the first Gulf War, anyway?
WWI - under Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
WWII - under Roosevelt - Democrat
Korean War -- under Truman - Democrat
Vietnam -- Kennedy/Johnson - Democrats
Iraq 1 - Under Bush Sr. - Republican
Croatia/ Somalia - Under Clinton - Democrat

"I hate war." -- John McCain at the RNC (he would know the down side, wouldn't he?)

P.S. Today was 7 years since 9/11. What did you think today? Kim heard from someone, "Well, they should have gotten Bin Laden shouldn’t they?" Not sure what this person was thinking, but I doubt they realized it was a comment derogatory toward Clinton. About 4 years ago, I said to a liberal friend of mine (most are you know) after a plane flew overhead, that I'll never look at a commercial airliner the same way again, then I lamented about 9/11. I then got a screed about how it was our fault and we deserved it. Couldn't believe my ears.

(Russ)
1. Saw the first episode.  DVR'ed the rest but our dvr died yesterday and we had to exchange it.  Lost the interview.  But what's your point?  Did he say that he would go into Pakistan?  Did you see the news?  That's what Bush is doing now.  No joke.
 
You don't like my source on casualties?  AP to partisan?  Where is you (sic) non-partisan source?
 
2. Oh, the thousands and thousands of bombs we droped (sic) and a 500,000 man army doesn't cause any suffering?  Okaaay.....  Hiding in the population centers is their only strategy sans surrender.  What are they going to do, come out in the open desert with a couple of old tanks and get decimated in 10 minutes? 
 
Yes the media distorts the truth on both sides of the political spectrum.  So what?  The thinking man can see past the bullshit.  Based on our conversations so far, you may think that I am a liberal.  But that is not true.  Just because I don't agree with the Teddy Roosevelt, neo-con, nation building, evangelical fundamentalist, God-driven deterministic branch of the party doesn't mean that I am anti-American or (gasp) even a liberal.
 
My overriding view of the world is that empire-building always, throughout the course of history, without fail, results in the destruction of the empire-builder.  I wouldn't mind so much if we were an empire-builder in the traditional sense.  From the Roman Empire, to the Ottoman Empire to Gingas (sic) Kahn (especially) the conquered vassal States paid tribute to the conqueror thus enriching and making him more powerful, extending the empires life span into the many hundreds to thousands of years.  But our brand of empire-building is totally asinine.  We conquer nations in the so-called name of democracy (which is a crock in itself as our founding fathers never intended us to be a democracy) and then we use our own money to rebuild the country in addition to putting them under our security umbrella.  So now they have better, more efficient factories than we do and they don't have to spend money on the military.  So now, as we go broke destroying countries and rebuilding them, as our manufacturing base and infrastructure falls apart, we are reduced to borrowing money from them in order to be able to afford to buy products from them that we either can no longer make or make non-competitively in inefficient factories.  I have yet to see a defense of this strategy as there is no faster way, as far as I can tell, to go broke.
 
3. My point about Japan is that they were one people, not three (or more).  Therefore they could easily pass the first hurdle; no civil war.  Secondly, theirs is a very obedient culture by nature.  So once the leaders were persuaded to surrender and then "grudgingly" accept our money to totally rebuild their nation, the populace fell into place.  The kamikazes did their thing because they were so obedient as stated above.  The guy in the 70's; there are exceptions to every rule or he never got the memo.
 
Hey, you want to go after the terrorists, fine but we can't afford to continue to do it this way.  We will probably be in for a trillion dollars in Iraq before we are done while we are going into further hock to the Chinese, Japanese, etc. to pay for it.  How long can we continue before we are a third-world nation blindly blaming the rest of the world for our folly. 
 
I think the idea that we prevented terrorist attacks by attacking Iraq is laughable.  Maybe somebody got some medical care or there was a cell or two somewhere in the country but name me a country where that isn't the case.  Saddam hated the religious fanatics, he was a secular dictator.  He knew they could destablize (sic) the country.  All he had to do was to look next door and see what was happening in Saudi Arabia.  By the way, why don't we attack Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan for that matter, that's where the terrorists are?
 
But I digress.  Before I begin, lets (sic) establish that terrorism is a tactic not a war.  You can't have a war against a tactic, that's just plain silly.  Furthermore, terrorizing civilian populations is a tactic that has been used in war since the beginning of civilization (usually by the inferior military force) and will continue until the end of civilization.  I am sure that you can list more examples than I can. 
 
That being said, the problem with this issue is that it is a post-nation state problem.  I don't pretend to have all the answers but the strategy of unilaterally destroying nations-states that we decide has too many terrorists in it is counter-productive.  It is like playing whack-a-mole, where in the process of destroying countries, killing some (or may I boldly say many) innocent people, and making more enemies, we destroy ourselves in the process.  I would rather have (at least) a two-pronged approach.  First, strengthen and develop strategies with like-minded countries to track and eliminate "militant-radical-islamists intent on using terrorism as a tactic of warfare."  Secondly, use military technology, special forces and infiltration of groups to target individuals and groups in non-cooperative countries.  Why use the wrecking ball when you have the laser knife?  And yes, these countries might protest and might even claim it an act of war (which it is), but fuckem'!  Let them declare war on us, nation-state to nation-state, then we'll just destroy their military infrastructure from the air, (no American casualties), and if that doesn't shut em' up, then we will bomb their civilian infrastructure back to the stone-age. 
 
You are right about who started wars. So what's your point?  Lest you forget, I am not a Democrat.  I just think Bush is a complete fool and is being blindly led by the neo-cons, who are either greater fools thinking that we can transform the entire planet into democracies before destroying ourselves in the process or that is actually their covert intent.
 
Again, to be non-partisan.  Yes, Clinton should have gotten Bin-Laden but so should have Bush.  They both fucked-up.  So what's your point?
 
In general, I am so tired of the lazy debating tactic of instead of confronting and defending an attack head-on, one needs to deflect the issue by pointing out a flaw (related or not, doesn't really matter) from the other side of the isle.  I am so, not into partisan sniper fire. I am into solutions.

(JMs Response)
(Russ) Saw the first episode.

(JM) Just seems like when a Dem. acts like a hawk it's okay b/c he’s a liberator, but when a Repub. does it, he's a war monger. Hence my reminder of who started almost all of the wars in the 20th cent. Then a Repub. president usually comes in and cleans up the mess. Dems really ought not be trusted with the position of Commander in Chief.

(Russ) You don't like my source on casualties? AP to partisan? Where is you (sic) non-partisan source?

(JM) The AP, USA Today, LA Times, Ny Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, BBC, etc. are all biased to the left and have all been caught lying or doctoring photos. Half have admitted it. Read Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Conservatives are more honest which is why I prefer them. When has Fox News had to retract a story due to inaccuracy? When have they ever been busted photoshopping a pic like the LA and NY Times have? When has Rush or O'Reilly ever been proven lying about anything? Right is right, and left is wrong...that’s my motto. :)

(Russ) Oh, the thousands and thousands of bombs we droped (sic) and a 500,000 man army doesn't cause any suffering? Okaaay.....

(JM) Our military precision is unparalleled in history. Sure civilian casualties are inevitable in any war, but we certainly aren't carpet bombing civilians over there. Correct me please if I am misinterpreting, but it almost sounds like your excusing the the enemy's tactic of hiding among civilians. You’re not...right?

(Russ) Yes the media distorts the truth on both sides of the political spectrum.

(JM) I don't agree with the equivalence here vis-a-vis both sides lying. I hear people on the left say all of the time that, “All politicians are corrupt!” It’s silly to say that they are all equally corrupt on both sides of the political spectrum. One side is surely worse than the other. Yeah, some Repubs. are scum, but scandals on the left far outnumber them, as do their dirty political tactics. Read Unhinged by Michelle Malkin. Where is she wrong?

Define "neo-con."

How would you separate yourself from a liberal? What are the differences in your mind?

(Russ) My overriding view of the world is that empire-building always, throughout the course of history, without fail, results in the destruction of the empire-builder...I have yet to see a defense of this strategy as there is no faster way, as far as I can tell, to go broke.

(JM) So, again, America is imperialistic? Where is our empire? What are the names of the colonies we possess? What wars of conquest did we fight to gain this territory? The major wars we have fought have been to prevent empires, actually-
Nazi & Japanese imperialism, Communist imperialism, Iraq’s attempt at an oil empire, etc. After ALL of these wars, guess what, we’re still just the 50 states...

True, we are a Democratic Republic, not a straight up democracy.

(Russ) My point about Japan is that they were one people, not three (or more).

(JM) Agree.

(Russ) How long can we continue before we are a third-world nation blindly blaming the rest of the world for our folly.

(JM) We're the United States of America. Where is your confidence? Why so much fatalism?

(Russ) By the way, why don't we attack Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan for that matter, that's where the terrorists are?

(JM) And if Bush had attacked Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Iran, or Syria, the libs wouldn't have raised a fuss just the same? I often hear, “We should have gone to North Korea!” I love the left, they’re always for war after the moment has passed, and they’re engaged in Monday night quarterbacking. Hell, a lot of lefty protestors didn’t even want us going to Afghanistan after 9/11!

(Russ) But I digress. Before I begin, lets establish that terrorism is a tactic not a war. You can't have a war against a tactic, that's just plain silly.

(JM) Agree.

(Russ) That being said, the problem with this issue is that it is a post-nation state problem... and if that doesn't shut em' up, then we will bomb their civilian infrastructure back to the stone-age.

(JM) I agree with one exception...they're already in the stone age.

(Russ) You are right about who started wars. So what's your point?

(JM) See above

(Russ) I just think Bush is a complete fool and is being blindly led by the neo-cons, who are either greater fools thinking that we can transform the entire planet into democracies before destroying ourselves in the process or that is actually their covert intent.

(JM) The terrorists are rooting for Barack to win the election. Why do you think that is?

(Russ) Again, to be non-partisan. Yes, Clinton should have gotten Bin-Laden but so should have Bush. They both fucked-up. So what's your point?

(JM) No 9/11 if Clinton had done it. Difference...big difference...

(Russ) In general, I am so tired of the lazy debating tactic of instead of confronting and defending an attack head-on, one needs to deflect the issue by pointing out a flaw (related or not, doesn't really matter) from the other side of the isle. I am so, not into partisan sniper fire. I am into solutions.

(JM) Solutions sound good...kill the bad guys.

Listen, if I have failed to address any of your queries, then please tell me what they are. I want to answer them. Here are the ones that I have for you. If you have addressed them, and I missed it, then I apologize. Let me know.

- What has McCain ever said to give you the idea he is a 'war monger'? The Bomb-Bomb song? I hope you’re not serious. Please tell me there’s more…

- Do you think Russia used excessive force? How come any other country can decimate people at will, but whenever America tries to take out a terrorist thug, or liberate an oppressed people, we are jerks for doing so? Why didn't Bill Clinton do anything about the things you mention? He had a Democrat controlled congress for two years.

- Where would the world be today if we just let Hitler go? Our shame is that we got into that war so late!

- Again, why can the left stereotype at will, but not the right?

- Bush inherited negative growth from Clinton, and you need two consecutive quarters of it to qualify for a recession, so why is the media talking recession? We haven't had one yet, have we?

- Gave you an extensive indictment of the Dem party vis-à-vis the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle…not a peep.

- Should we have continued to do business with Japan, and let them use our money to slaughter China? What point do you draw the line? The U.S. is an ignoble nation?

- Any response to Barack's serious statement to attack Pakistan?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070801140458.a3fxwbbd&show_article=1

- Does the Casuality-Monitor study Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam himself?

- Don't mess with the U.S. is a lesson I feel needs to be taught to these guys who have attacked us far too long and vehemently. U.S.S. Cole, the towers in '93, our embassies overseas, Somalia, 9/11...what was next if we didn't act? Was Afghanistan really it? They were in Spain, France, Great Britain, Philippines, etc. all over...Take them out in Afghanistan and all is well?

- Today was 7 years since 9/11. What did you think today?

Now, maybe you’re just reading too fast, and are too quick to respond. It is the typing equivalent of having spittle shoot out when talking while angry. Maybe you feel I am changing the subject or evading…again, I do not mean to do so, so let me know if I am. This is to be a free exchange of ideas where, true to form, we challenge one another and have fun taking shots (I’ve tried to tone down the sarcasm), but I fear it may morph into a bitter dispute where we’re trying to win the debate rather than take the time to digest the points and sources. Sorry, if you’re not enjoying your vacation. Is everything all right? How is your eye doing?

"That you and I differ in our ideas of political and civil issues is known to us both. The different conclusions that we all draw from our political reading are not permitted to lessen mutual esteem, each party being conscious they are the result of an honest conviction in the other. If any opinion you may express should be different from mine, I shall receive them with the liberality and indulgence which I ask for my own, and still cherish with warmth the sentiments of affectionate respect of which I can with so much truth tender you the assurance."

TJ

(Russ) OK, only 90,000 deaths. In a country of 27 million. That's like 1 million deaths in the U.S. So say we had a bad dictator here that wiped out a city of say 50,000 from which the residents hated him and tried to asasinate him and he and his sons raped 1,000 women. Now lets say it's 100 years from now and China is the world hedgmon. They want to do a good deed and take out the gay Dictator Dick Cheney IV. So they come over here and kill a million of us, wounding probably 10 times that, and ethnically cleansed, displaced, refugees maybe 5 times that. That's probably 50 million affected directly, at least. That's not counting systemic economic breakdown, infrastructure destruction -- electricity, water, sewer, heat, transportation, etc. I'm sure we would lay roses at their feet as they "liberated" our country, don't you think?

Lets face facts. Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction except some WWI gas and they are not going to take us out with that. They never harbored "terrorists" that justified this level of response. Look, I was originally for the war but I don't let ideology cloud my judgment. I was wrong. It would be nice to see the ideologues submit to the facts. It must be tough being an ideologue, having to twist and stretch the facts until they become laughable.

(JM) What was that a while back about ‘name calling?” I called out a stereotype for what it was. Show me one personal comment indicative of name calling. Liberal, maybe. They do tend to engage in blatant double standards, and are way, way too sure of their guesswork. Here’s a reminder of some of your words.

Called McCain a “hot-headed war-monger”
“knee-jerk, neo-con, world-domination fantasy...”
“take you head out of the neocon sand box and look around”
“the old fool” - McCain again
“Fools, damn fools.”
“assinine policy”
“Teddy Roosevelt, neo-con, nation building, evangelical fundamentalist, God-driven deterministic branch of the party...”
‘fuckem'!
 “I just think Bush is a complete fool and is being blindly led by the neo-cons, who are either greater fools...”
“McCain is just an Empire building fool extraordinaire”
“class dunce”
“We are an infantile nation, incapable of hard choices and wise decisions.”
“...gay Dictator Dick Cheney IV.”
“It must be tough being an ideologue, having to twist and stretch the facts until they become laughable.”


“Stereotyping... is that all you can come up with, name calling -- nice.”

Do you hear yourself? I thought I was the ‘neocon’ curmudgeon ‘fool’.

Only an “ideologue” can hear Saddam’s own general admit that even he thought he had WMDs, and still give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam, but not the leaders of his own country.

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

Three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.

Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.

Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."

Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."

The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things. "This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.

The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."

John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 2002.

(Russ) A stereotype (from Greek: stereo + týpos = "solid impression") is a generalized perception of first impresions: beliefs, and behaviors presumed by a group of people judging with the eyes/criticizing ones outer appearance(or a population in general) to be associated with another specific group. Stereotypes, therefore, can instigate prejudice and false assumptions about entire groups of people, including the members of different ethnic groups, social classes, religious orders, the opposite sex, etc. A stereotype can be a conventional and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image, based on the assumption that there are attributes that members of the "other group" have in common. Stereotypes are sometimes formed by a previous illusory correlation, a false association between two variables that are loosely correlated if correlated at all. Though generally viewed as negative perceptions, stereotypes may be either positive or negative in tone.

As you can see from the definition of stereotype, it is projecting a perceived trait on a group without exploring the details of the assertion. Therfore, my descriptions of John McCain cannot be a stereotype. They are succinct terms to describe how I think J.M. thinks. We can debate whether he thinks like those descriptors or not but it is hard to refute history and direct statements from the candidate.

For example, my claim that JM is an empire builder and neo-con, imperialistic, war-monger in the Teddy Roosevelt mold following asinine policy can be fleshed out. In addition, TR was no conservative. To spell it out we must first link McCain to TR. and the interview linked here should remove all doubt.

NY Times interview where McCain volunteers that his role-model is T.R. This is not a stereotype, these are his words.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?hp#

Next we need to explore TR's world view and actions. "Roosevelt warned of "the menace of peace," and was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! "His many targets [for war] over the years included Cuba, Hawaii, Venezuela, China, the Philippines, Panama, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Canada." He always masked his imperialistic impulses with humanitarian rhetoric, says Powell, in the dishonorable tradition of the Party of Lincoln. The U.S. couldn’t admit that it was seizing territory simply because it wanted it, for example, so "he asserted that the United States must intervene . . . when a nation failed to behave." This was a philosophy of unlimited foreign policy interventionism, not unlike the Bush administration’s claim to be busy eradicating evil from the planet."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo106.html
This is why I am afraid of JM.

p.s.
Now here is a good example of stereotyping, a generalization of a group that can only be believed by the nieve or blind partisan shills. "Yeah, some Repubs. are scum, but scandals on the left far outnumber them, as do their dirty political tactics." Michelle Malkin, like all partisans, tells the truth but not the whole truth. For every Michelle Malkin there is a liberal source exposing Republican warts.

(JM) stereotype |ˈsterēəˌtīp; ˈsti(ə)r-|noun -- a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing : the stereotype of the woman as the carer | sexual and racial stereotypes.
example: neo-cons are war mongering fools

generalization |ˌjenərəliˈzā sh ən|noun -- a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases
examle: most terrorist attacks are cause by radical islamofascists

So, you weren't stereotyping John McCain, you were just making a mean-spirited, unfair criticism...fair enough.

Again, where is our empire? Where are our colonies?

What is it you don't like about TR? Please take the time to read these.

Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. Theodore Roosevelt

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage. Theodore Roosevelt

Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft. Theodore Roosevelt

Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country. Theodore Roosevelt

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing. Theodore Roosevelt

Germany has reduced savagery to a science, and this great war for the victorious peace of justice must go on until the German cancer is cut clean out of the world body. Theodore Roosevelt

I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character! Theodore Roosevelt

It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws. Theodore Roosevelt

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize. Theodore Roosevelt

No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Theodore Roosevelt

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience. Theodore Roosevelt

The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight. Theodore Roosevelt

Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife. Theodore Roosevelt

The most important single ingredient in the formula of success is knowing how to get along with people. Theodore Roosevelt

The most practical kind of politics is the politics of decency. Theodore Roosevelt

The one thing I want to leave my children is an honorable name. Theodore Roosevelt

The only man who makes no mistakes is the man who never does anything. Theodore Roosevelt

Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. Theodore Roosevelt

Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big. Theodore Roosevelt

It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life we get nothing save by effort. Theodore Roosevelt

It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer. Theodore Roosevelt

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt

There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else. Theodore Roosevelt

There has never yet been a man in our history who led a life of ease whose name is worth remembering. Theodore Roosevelt

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt

To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. Theodore Roosevelt

Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace. Theodore Roosevelt

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. Theodore Roosevelt

I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head. Theodore Roosevelt

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. Theodore Roosevelt

(Russ) - What has McCain ever said to give you the idea he is a 'war monger'? The Bomb-Bomb song? I hope you’re not serious. Please tell me there’s more…
Answered in another email but additional information http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=73068

(JM) Do you think Russia used excessive force?

(Russ) No, Russia did not use excessive force. Those who start wars do not get to choose how to finish them, short of surrender.

(JM) How come any other country can decimate people at will, but whenever America tries to take out a terrorist thug, or liberate an oppressed people, we are jerks for doing so?

(Russ) Other countries can not decimate people at will and not be denounced by the world community. Other countries or groups within countries may or may not attack each other at will. Most of it should be none of our business. We can not afford to be the policemen of the world.

(JM) Why didn't Bill Clinton do anything about the things you mention? He had a Democrat controlled congress for two years.

(Russ)Please be more specific.

(JM) Where would the world be today if we just let Hitler go? Our shame is that we got into that war so late!

(Russ) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=66983

(JM) Again, why can the left stereotype at will, but not the right?

(Russ) Please explain.

(JM) Bush inherited negative growth from Clinton,

(Russ) Remember this statement next year no matter who is in the White House.

(JM) ...and you need two consecutive quarters of it to qualify for a recession, so why is the media talking recession?

(Russ) It is negative growth. Inflation is being understated so the apparent growth in GDP is not really growth, it is inflated numbers. We will have to be patient and wait until a few quarters from now to determine which way the adjustments go.

(JM) We haven't had one yet, have we?

(Russ) This economy is so doomed, we are not going to recognize this country this time next year. Unless of course you believe McCain. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" John McCain 9/15/08

(JM) Gave you an extensive indictment of the Dem party vis-à-vis the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle…not a peep.

(Russ) Send me that again, I can't find it.

(JM) Should we have continued to do business with Japan, and let them use our money to slaughter China? What point do you draw the line? The U.S. is an ignoble nation?

(Russ) Cutting off ones energy supply is an act of war. We started it regardless of the reasons. A war between China and Japan is none of our business. Actually we are not an ignoble nation and I wish we stopped pretending that we were. Sure we feed people who are starving but that doesn't give us the right to start wars. It's like saying Hamas is an ignoble organization because they feed and cloth the poor, then fit the children with suicide suits. Be real, we wield carrots and sticks for commercal reasons, period. Furthermore, ignoble is too expensive.

(JM) Any response to Barack's serious statement to attack Pakistan?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070801140458.a3fxwbbd&show_article=1

(Russ) I agree. That's where the terrorists are. Furthermore, in general, I favor the Libya vs the Iraq strategy.

(JM) Does the Casuality-Monitor study Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam himself?

(Russ) I don't know.

(JM) Don't mess with the U.S. is a lesson I feel needs to be taught to these guys who have attacked us far too long and vehemently. Take them out in Afghanistan and all is well?

(Russ) Yes Afghanistan was really it. We had Bin-Laden cornered. If we had gotten him after what he did on 9/11 that would have sent a powerful message. He got away -- that sent a powerful message. No, all wouldn't have been well but it would have been a heck of a lot better.

(JM) Today was 7 years since 9/11. What did you think today?

(Russ) I think this country is doomed if we don't wake up.

My eye is feeling better, thank you.

(JM) stereotype example: neo-cons are war mongering fools

(Russ) Sure, call it a stereotype if you wish. I call it true. Show me one that doesn't want to attack Iran as soon as possible.

(JM) generalization examle (sic): most terrorist attacks are cause by radical islamofascists

(Russ) At this point in history, it is not a sterotype, it is true. So, what's the point?

(JM) So, you weren't stereotyping John McCain, you were just making a mean-spirited, unfair criticism...fair enough.

(Russ) Correct, I was not stereotyping, but no, I was making fair criticism.

(JM) Again, where is our empire? Where are our colonies?

(Russ) Did you take the time to read my previous post? We are an empire without colonies -- the first in world history which I think is going to end badly, only sooner than an empire with colonies would have. I will post it again here for your viewing pleasure.

My overriding view of the world is that empire-building always, throughout the course of history, without fail, results in the destruction of the empire-builder. I wouldn't mind so much if we were an empire-builder in the traditional sense (ie. WITH COLONIES). From the Roman Empire, to the Ottoman Empire to Gingas Kahn (especially) the conquered vassal States paid tribute to the conqueror thus enriching and making him more powerful, extending the empires life span into the many hundreds to thousands of years. But our brand of empire-building is totally asinine. We conquer nations in the so-called name of democracy (which is a crock in itself as our founding fathers never intended us to be a democracy) and then we use our own money to rebuild the country in addition to putting them under our security umbrella. So now they have better, more efficient factories than we do and they don't have to spend money on the military. So now, as we go broke destroying countries and rebuilding them, as our manufacturing base and infrastructure falls apart, we are reduced to borrowing money from them in order to be able to afford to buy products from them that we either can no longer make or make non-competitively in inefficient factories. I have yet to see a defense of this strategy as there is no faster way, as far as I can tell, to go broke.

(JM) What is it you don't like about TR? Please take the time to read these.

(Russ) Fine, nice quotes. Again, this is what I don't like about TR. It's what he DID, not what he SAID. Emphasis bolded.
"Roosevelt warned of "the menace of peace," and was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! "His many targets [for war] over the years included Cuba, Hawaii, Venezuela, China, the Philippines, Panama, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Canada." He always masked his imperialistic impulses with humanitarian rhetoric, says Powell, in the dishonorable tradition of the Party of Lincoln. The U.S. couldn’t admit that it was seizing territory simply because it wanted it, for example, so "he asserted that the United States must intervene . . . when a nation failed to behave." This was a philosophy of unlimited foreign policy interventionism, not unlike the Bush administration’s claim to be busy eradicating evil from the planet."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo106.html

(JM)
(Russ) Sure, call it a stereotype if you wish. I call it true. Show me one that doesn't want to attack Iran as soon as possible.

(JM) Neo-con is a new term for me. I always assumed it was derogatory, but never had it defined until you did for me. Since you're more familiar with it, then tell me which 'neocons' said they want to go to war with Iran. That may be easier.

(Russ) At this point in history, it is not a sterotype, it is true. So, what's the point?

(JM) Just demarcating between the two. I generalize, but try not to stereotype. I feel my generalizations are well supported, hence the definition's reference to 'inference from specific cases.'

(Russ) Correct, I was not stereotyping, but no, I was making fair criticism.

(JM) Fair? If you say so. Would it be fair to say that Barack Obama is the least experienced/qualified candidate ever to run for President of the United States?

(Russ) Did you take the time to read my previous post? We are an empire without colonies --

(JM) Sorry, didn't realize we were re-defining terms here. So now there is a new categorization of colonization...to create an empire without colonies. Fine.
.
(Russ) Fine, nice quotes. Again, this is what I don't like about TR. It's what he DID, not what he SAID.

(JM) Would you agree that George Carlin was a pretty radical liberal guy? Even he said, shortly after 9/11, that, "Peace can get you killed." Even Rosie O'Donnell was shook up by 9/11, if only for a short time, and had a moment of clarity in her interview with Bill O'Reilly where she, and Carlin as well, realize that appeasement can lead to catastrophe. Hence the place in history reserved for Chamberlain vs. Churchill.

(Russ' Response to the Carlin Question) Afganistan (sic)

(Russ' response to what is a neocon)
I am coming to the belief that I am the conservative here and that many people in the Republican party have succumbed to the hijacking of the party by the neo-conservative wing. In this instance I will not stereotype, but instead let noted Repulicans speak for themselves.

So, what is a 'neocon'?
By Bill Steigerwald TRIBUNE-REVIEW Saturday, May 29, 2004

(JM) Well, if they're former liberals, then I agree it is a derogatory term.

(JM sent) Barack Obama's Top Ten Campaign Gaffes by John Hawkins Friday, September 19, 2008

(Russ) http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

(JM) MSNBC???? Is there a more biased network? Keith Olberman??? Who believes anything he says? The guy is a wack! You're sources are disreputable.

Example: (paraphrasing) "McCain opposed tax cuts for the rich, and now supports them."

Well, what is that? First you have to believe that the Bush tax cuts were aimed solely at the "rich." Well, that's liberal tripe. No stats, no numbers, just false accusations. I'm beginning to understand where you derive your world view from. You gotta discard this claptrap, and listen to more "Fair and Balanced" news sources.

(Russ) I am saddened to conclude that your position on sources is illogical and threatens the continuation of our conversations, which, up to now, I have enjoyed and assumed were an honest exchange of ideas and points of view. But now, unfortunately, I realize your thinking is stereotyping with a dangerous blind spot at best and slanderous at worst. If a tree falls in the woods and Fox News did not report it, did it not still fall? This truly threatens the foundation of our correspondence. I am willing (and happy) to entertain the veracity of a story and let it stand or fall based on the evidence. But I am not willing to have an honest exchange of ideas held hostage to the whims of one man's supposed list of sources beyond reproach, while dismissing any information not coming from "thy blessed list" as untrue by definition.

So, unless we can traverse this impasse please consider this correspondence terminated and please take me off your political mailing list as I am capable of seeking real truth without the need to digest pre-censored information.

Your friend,
Russ

(JM) Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are nowhere close to the textbook definition of detached, “straight news” anchors. MSNBC has regularly come in dead last among the commercial cable-news and broadcast-news networks for I don't know how long. NBC News is ruining whatever credibility they had. During Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech in St. Paul, the delegates started chanting “NBC! NBC!” - a prime example of partisan excess from an “objective” source. Even Tom Brokaw is decrying how these men have “gone too far.” This coming from an anchorman who gave a Reagan-trashing interview to Mother Jones magazine in his prime.

Tucker Carlson's show was cancelled. Olbermann spazzed when the Republicans showed a video in remembrance of September 11. Matthews and Olbermann supported the Kerry-endorsing “Jersey Girls” in 2004 and their crusade to charge President Bush with the crime of 9/11. The day after the Republican convention ended, Olbermann named John McCain the “Worst Person in the World.” After Barack gave his speech in Denver, Olbermann and Matthews were absolutely giddy. In fact, Mathews said Barack gave him a chill up his leg, or something like that. Does that sound objective? Olbermann claimed that Obama was both Mandela and Gorbachev.

MSNBC finally pulled Matthews and Olbermann from the anchor desk recently, and added hard-left Air America radio host Rachel Maddow. Talk about hubris, MSNBC's Bill Wolff declared his network was a brand for “high-powered intellects...I'm not saying we're NPR, but there is an appetite for really smart discussion of the news.”

Sorry, but facts are stubborn things, and I'm just trying to help the swimming fish see the bowl.

P.S. What was that about being overly 'sensitive?'