Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well professor, please make us a list of the brilliant ideas of John McCain. It shouldn't take you very long as his plan on every issue is to keep doing what Bush has been doing. Although it is clear the current administrations policies have been a complete failure on everything from the economy to the War on Terror to the war in Iraq, Republicans figure, "Why change now?" Let's just hope McCain stays with that line throughout the campaign.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DemocRATS! You smell them coming? You need to look past your nose! Owhampy is all mouth! So is Bill! Hillary plays both sides. One good thing, Hillary was a good Republican before she met "Goober"!

Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lets' just bomb everything and punch as many holes in the earth as we can looking for oil. All while lying to the public.

Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RepubLIEcan

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icononclast:

From Webster

Main Entry: icon·o·clast
Pronunciation: \-ˌklast\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin iconoclastes, from Middle Greek eikonoklastēs, literally, image destroyer, from Greek eikono- + klan to break — more at clast
Date: 1641
1 : a person who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
2 : a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions

What wonderful moniker you picked...seems if you are a Democrat and Democrats are trying to win over the hearts and minds of the people, that you'd be a little more sensitive to the people you're trying to win over when you picked your name.

Which topic would you like to start with? I'm not going to engage in the DemocRATS vs. RepubLIEcan thing, it's childish and counter-productive. Let's take the issues one at a time and you can pick the order.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, Sam, the latest Republican administration failed in its primary Constitutional duty by failing to protect the country from terrorist attack on 911. Further, Saudi nationals who were long time business associates of the President's family were allowed to flee the country while all other flights were grounded. This same family of Saudi nationals is the family of the terrorist leader of the attackers who were primarily of Saudi origin.

In response, the latest Republican administration attacked two other countries, neither of which was Saudi Arabia, based on false intelligence information gained from agencies under the administration's control.

The current Republican candidate vows to continue the war in these two innocent countries. Why should people vote for this candidate?

Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sam: I am well aware of the definition of iconoclast and I am not trying to "win over the hearts" of anyone. However, I'm still waiting for that list.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicons are all for trashing the Demos, but they never say anything positive about John McCorpse? Why? Why??

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As arrogant as Dick Cheney is, I fail to understand the importance behind this article? What has/ or will it accomplish, nothing? As long as we sit by, and come up with childish monikers, yet never discussing the real issues, we are all foolish. No one, in their right mind, can think that much of any good has been accomplished by the Bush-Cheney administration, except to make America an even more hated nation of good will people.

It's a great thing this is called opinion, and very far from fact! What has the current administration accomplished? What is John McCain's REAL agenda for America? If we are going to start calling to the carpet, seems we need to start there.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKer/iconoclast...just how did the current Republican administration fail on 9/11...by not being able to read the homocidal/suicidal minds of a very small group of religious fascists? No one could have done much about it, even if the warnings had been there and recognized in time, it would have been near impossible. It's like people blaming FDR for not preventing Pearl Harbor...assinine.

Saudi Arabia is, in essence, a tribal kingdom...they're all family, duh. The reason the officials who were in this country at the time were allowed to leave was because this extremist group threatened Saudi Arabia too and it was feared that they would be attacked as well...the Saudi officials were needed at home urgently to address that threat...very reasonable.

The terrorists were based out of Afghanistan and that's where the reprisals were aimed and rightly so at the terrorists and the terrorist supporting government of Afghanistan.

There were many more reasons to invade Iraq, that I won't go into here, not the least of which was that most of western intelligence reported that Al-Qaeda was also active in Iraq. They would have potentially threatened our flank in Afghanistan.

We went into WWII to depose a fascist dictator and free a subjugated Europe. We remained to reinstill democracy in Germany and war torn Europe, to help rebuild the devastation caused by the tyrant and to face another far worse threat embodied by the USSR.

Similarly, we went into Iraq to depose a fascist dictator and free a subjugated people of Iraq. We remain to reinstill democracy in Iraq and to help rebuild the devastation caused by the tyrant. We will need to stay for a time in the future to face up another far worse threat emobodied by Iran.

Sure there were errors in intelligence that were found out too late. There were errors of strategy and tactics. There were errors all over the place...that is the nature of war...there were errors in WWII. The important part is that you stick around long enough to win the war, win the peace and make the area more democratic and stable.

I can't think of any more noble reasons and I support McCain for the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes instead of retreating and losing all that our brave men and women have bled for, died for and won so far.

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WHO ARE WE, to "free" a people in their own nation? See, this is what I never have gotten. Do people understand that a lot of the fight that is over in the Middle East is Biblical, and who is above that? These folk have been fighting since the days of Cain and Abel, also, I have to disagee on the Sadam and Iraq issue. Our issue is with Afghanistan and the FACT that Bin Laden is still in a cave somewhere, making a tape every other couple of months. Also, Sadam was an SOB, pardon me, but I guess it wasn't until he stopped "playing" ball, that we had to find a reason to go in, after all, "we" had been contemplating ways to invade that country, I guess "we" just needed justification, which turned up NOTHING. Now, you got a race of people, who don't care about dying, will kill at the drop of a hat, and say they did it for Allah. I say protect American soil, but I feel it should be up to a country's people, to create a coup, and over throw their own government, when they get tired. This mess we embarked upon in 2003, is going to be a lasting, poisonous snake, that will continuously bite us. Where is the money going to come from to continously fight this war? When will the gas prices bottom out? Will the cost living become so high, until it is more affordable to stay home, than to gas up and go to work? When will this debacle end?

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Teach4Peace...you're sounding like EnKiKur...you are a wrong on so many different levels I haven't got time tonite to get into it, but I will try to respond to your post tomorrow...have a good nite.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can lead a horse to H2O, but you can't make it drink?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 2:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Republican Administration failed by leaving the entire east coast unprotected by the fighters normally based there for that reason, who were off conducting exercises..one of which addressed the very threat that occured. These drills just coincidentally happened to have been conducted on the day the terrorists chose for their attack. A day six months after the intercept and shootdown protocol was changed from what it had been for years. A day when airtraffic controllers who called NORAD for intercept were asked "is this real world or drill?" because of the simlar drill being run, which included the computer generated addition of radar targets that made it impossible to distinguish the real world threat from the virtual threat. Just what in the hell are the chances of that happening Sam?

You say this attack could not have been predicted. Yet a book and a movie had been done on it. school children a week before reported to their teachers they'd been told the Towers would come down, and the scenario was a drill scenario, and the Towers had been previously attacked. It seems the only ones who could not imagine this happening were the leaders of the Republican Party.

Not to mention that many members of this administration were also signers of the PNAC document that said in order to establish hegemony in the middle east a new Pearl Harbor type incident was needed. How convenient for their aims.

Rebuilding America's Defenses, A Report of the PNAC
"Today, the United States
has an unprecedented strategic opportunity.
It faces no immediate great-power
challenge; it is blessed with wealthy,
powerful and democratic allies in every part
of the world; it is in the midst of the longest
economic expansion in its history; and its
political and economic principles are almost
universally embraced. At no time in history
has the international security order been as
conducive to American interests and ideals."

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 2:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Coming into this century the Bush Administration was not content America's already pre-eminent place in world affairs, not content that we faced no global power challenge, not content America was "in the midst of hte longest economic expansion its history", these "defenders" of "our liberties" decided to take advantage of the "unprecedented strategic opportunity" to make war on the world. Do they want to start another world war? Here are more of their aims, from their website:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

This people, and we should have paid more attention, are talking about a global revolution paid for primarily by US taxpayers and blood. As part of this revolution they have suspended habeus corpus and attempted to create an atmosphere of a "new normal" that involves domestic militarization of police, destruction of privacy for American citizens.

Sam, these are not Republicans or conservatives. These people are revolutionaries, neo-Trotskyites who have taken over the Republican party. They are not defending the US, they are undertaking an imperial expansion that will leave them in control of the world's important resources, and on whose behalf are they doing this?

From PNAC Statement of Principles 1997:
"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy."

They do not identify themselves with the conservatives of the Republican Party. Who signed off on this document?:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 3:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 50-51:

"A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions."

If you read 'Rebuidling America's Defenses', and I cannot imagine any knowledgeable Republican who hasn't read it since it lays out the whole of Republican domestic and foreign policy, you will see that the revolutionary transformations called for hinge on the catalyst of this new Pearl Harbor like event. Less than eighteen months after gaining office this event occured.

In the matter of global transformation the blood of thousands, even millions, has never been an obstacle to the aims of the would be transformers, Sam. The blood of three thousand is just a whetting of the appetite to those who see themselves as having some right to global dominance.

They can't do it without help though, especially the help of those who would reject outright any aid to the carnage they are asked to partake in; such people must be tricked into participating through appeals to values those people hold sacred through the illusion that those values are under some threat when they are not.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people must have nothing to do other than look up "stuff'?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This stuff, rushingjr, is the agenda of the party you say you are a member of but know so little about. Your degree of knowledge of the activities of your party makes you little more than a cheerleader for the Party speakers at the media pep rallies where they pump up the team to take the land, cattle, and virgins of the enemy. You are like the little blonde girl on the end who knows the cheers but doesn't know the plays and guess what she is going to get after the game?

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

En-Your head is in the toilet, but yet you do not realize it!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Teach4Peace...I promised I'd come back and try to answer your questions, I hope that you're not like EnKiKur and will listen to some reason...we may not agree in the end, but hopefully there won't be a flood of bogus liberal propaganda such has he has regurgitated.

"WHO ARE WE to 'free' a people in their own nation?"...We are the United States of America the bastion of freedom and democracy...we saw a people who were not free, and because they weren't it wasn't their own country...it was Saddam's. We freed them, unfortunately, to resume their centuries old squabbles and we weren't prepared for it any more than we were prepared to deal with Germany after WWII, but we figured it out and we'll figure this out. It is getting better all the time.

Nobody wanted to invade Iraq any more than we wanted to fight Germany, Italy or Japan in WWII, or China and North Korea in the Korean "Conflict" or Russia and North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, or Serbia in the Bosnia episode, or Iraq again in the first Gulf War...it was thrust upon us by the REAL bad guys who were trying to do bad things to good innocent people...some worked out well, some didn't, but the causes were all noble.

I agree that Bin Laden and the Taliban were and still should be the first priority, but with Saddam on our flank in trying to do so with the world's fourth largest military, with the preponderance of evidence gathered by intelligence agencies all over the world regarding his possesion of WMD's (don't forget he represented to everyone that he still had them), with the fact he was committing genocide, with the suspicion that he was aiding Al Qaeda...in addition, knowing the lessons of appeasement during WWII, there was every reason to strike pre-emptively.

I hope you and others in the world will realize that there are REAL bad guys in the world and the US is not the bad guy, but on the contrary is the greatest force for good on the planet.

Regarding you last few questions about gas, cost of living, etc...they have almost nothing to do with Iraq...it's a market driven economy for energy and the demand is higher than the supply. Liberals/environmentalists have crippled our supply by limiting drilling, halting nuclear power, and preventing new refineries, etc...now there is a bottleneck...crude isn't difficult to get, but refining it has our 25 year old refineries at capacities that are insufficient.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, Sam, are you claiming that the Project for a New American Century is publishing liberal propaganda?

What I meant about polarized politics Sam was that the left/right paradigm split in this country renders otherwise intelligent people like you incapable of consideration there may be other possibilties. I am a lifetime member of the Repbulican Party yet you call me a leftist because I represent the old ideals of the party and not the new; your viewpoint is so restricted by talking points I am seriously beginning to suspect you really are a member of the Rio Linda Chapter of the Party.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Ellerbe...what part of the Republican Party do you claim to represent?...I've heard almost nothing at all from you except liberal and libertarian views, which are amazingly at odds with each other...damn, I asked you a question, I guess that means another page and a half of lecture...really with friends like you the Republicans don't need enemies.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I represent that part of the party that made sizable donations in the fight against parital birth abortion Sam. And that part of the party that made generous donations for some time after that, until I was forced to tell the party that I had no more donations for a party that went into office claiming to honor small government, fiscal responsibility, and compassion, and then drastically increased the size, cost, and brutality of government.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are some people that would vote for a tax cut no matter what, and there are some people that would vote for a handout no matter what. These folks represent the dregs or each politcal party.

As far as the rest of us, Democrats do tend to be smarter than Republicans mostly because Republicans are shamelessly out for #1 and Democrats like to smell the roses. So Republicans spend their lives figuring out what is best for THEM and Democrats try to figure what's best overall. Stupid Democrats!

It is our national problem that smart people, academic professionals and educated people tend to vote Democratic more often. They control the media -- you can tell because the media talks about other people and other peoples' needs, deeds and misfortunes.

If Republicans controlled the media we would always have to hear about how good we are, how bad everyone else is, and how Democrats are bad, stupid people that want to take our money. Judging from the article above, that's about as creative as Republicans get.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and we independents watch the Ds and Rs from over here and laugh at the silly sheep.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur...on this I think we may agree, the Republican party has lost it's way regarding smaller government, fiscal, personal and social responsibility, but I must disagree with your comment about a more brutal government.

I think John McCain is trying to bring the Republican party back to the ideals it says it stands for.

Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This letter is a great example of ignorant, partisan tripe. I guess the ND published it for a laugh. It worked. I did.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I laughed when Hillary said what she said. Since when has any lawsuit made any prices go down? On the contrary, frivilous lawsuits and their zany plaintants and attorneys have driven most things up and many perfectly good products and businesses go out of existence. She's a trial lawyer and she'll act like one if she gains office.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just don't understand what jurisdiction she would do it under, and for what cause.

I don't know if any of you have thought about this, but the more profits go up for the oil companies in America the more taxes they pay. Exxon paid 30 billion in corporate taxes last year. Of course it was really Exxon's customers that paid the tax. That sort of gives who ever is in power an incentive to let the prices go. It's a sneaky way to get a tax increase without calling it one. And that is not counting the federal taxes already on gasoline.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur...I don't think anyone, including Hillary, knows how it could be done. There isn't a jurisdiction I'm aware of, except maybe the World Court at the Hague, but that's primarily for crimes against humanity isn't it?

Even if it was taken before a world tribunal or court, does anyone really think it would have legs...it's laughable...and that's exactly what the "big oil Moslems", "terrorists" and Republicans will be doing when she tries. Ironic, eh?

Posted by bema (anonymous) on May 20, 2008 at 2:50 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 20, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bema...it was nice to have the information, but your first sentence was neither civil nor appropriate...shame on you.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 20, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The legislation passed today is a smoke screen...it will accomplish nothing or may even make the situation worse.

It is a way for politicians to say, "See I'm doing something to ease the pain at the pump for the common man" in an election year. They know full well that it is much ado about nothing much they can do about gas prices and that this was a cheap easy way to gain political points without any real responsibility attached.

It is a way for Democrats to blame someone else when they are the ones who have stopped development of Anwar and exploration off of Florida and California. They have stopped the building of new and more effiecient refineries. They have brought nuclear power development to a standstill. They have stymied coal fired power plants. They have foisted the false notion that man is causing global warming when it is just a natural cycle that has been happening for millions of years.

This is a market driven supply vs. demand problem. The supply has been outstripped due to the increased global demand and the severely limited refining capacity that we now have in the US. You want prices to go down? Build refineries, open up Anwar, Florida and California. Reinvigorate the nuclear power industry. Invest in alternative fuels including hydrogen fuel cell, bio-diesel, clean coal and synthetics,etc.

Independence from OPEC must come from us exploiting ALL of OUR potential energy sources and not excluding some because certain special interest groups and a bunch of tree huggers have a very tenuous beef...oops, vegetable...sorry didn't mean to insult any vegans.

Posted by bema (anonymous) on May 20, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Doug's whole aura of smugness and literary "cutsiness" is totally unprofessional and deserves proper scruteny. Shame on him...

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on May 20, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's Doug's PhD? Since he used it in his composition.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 20, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bema...that's scrutiny...now you've been scrutinized...LOL

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on May 22, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just so everyone will know, th House voted to sue OPEC before Hillary started this up.

The vote was 324 to 84 to proceed to allow the Justice Department to sue.

100 Republicans voted yes -- more Republican voted yes than voted no.

These are the same folks that make the laws that put people in jail in this country.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 22, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether it was before or after...it's probably not a good idea to pick a fight with a guy that's got you by the short hairs, shall we say...they all know it's not going anywhere...it's political theatre.

Posted by loneconservative (anonymous) on May 23, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo-Trotskyites? Seriously? Throwing conspiracy theories doesn't help your arguement. It just shows desperation to justify your bitterness toward the kind of conservatism on which or country was founded.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 24, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where would we be without the oil companies? Hillary is a liberal "yo-yo"! Owhampy is a person from no where and knows where he is not going! Stay Conservative and Vote Granning! We know where he has been and where he is going!