Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 28, 2014, 05:33:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81309 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80
3901  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security on: May 29, 2007, 01:04:03 PM
***There are autrocities that the media does not report on.***

Why not in your opinion?
3902  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / MajorMedia distortion of facts on: May 27, 2007, 02:39:51 PM
Really is sickening how MM can and *willingly and knowingly* does distort facts:

The WSJ's information will never appear in the NYT (or if it did it would be buried somewhere deep on page 50 or so):

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070113-103432-9181r.htm
===============

Tax cuts and the rich
By Alan Reynolds
January 14, 2007


The New York Times headline -- "Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich" -- said it all. That claim was uncritically repeated by CNN, posted on Brad DeLong's blog and so on. But was it true?
    The report by Edmund Andrews was about the latest "Historical Effective Tax Rates" from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
    The CBO shows that from 2000 (the year before President Bush cut tax rates) to 2004, the after-tax income of the very richest 1 percent fell by 7.9 percent. After taking into account the Bush tax cuts, the 8.3 percent drop in after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent was even worse. From 2000 to 2004, average real incomes of the middle three-fifths rose 4.1 percent after-taxes, but only 0.5 percent before taxes. In other words, 88 percent of middle-income gains between 2000 and 2004 were due to those nefarious Bush tax cuts of 2003.
    Those who rely on the New York Times (unlike readers of The Washington Times), will never find out what the CBO report reveals unless they go to cbo.gov and read it. To have any chance of his story appearing in the New York Times, Mr. Andrews had no choice but to dissemble.
    He began by saying, "Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new congressional study." But the top 1 percent of households (not families) are those earning more than $266,800 -- not more than $1 million. The average income for everyone earning more than $266,800 exceeds $1 million, but such a mean average is bloated by a small number of very high incomes, particularly distributed earnings of Subchapter S-corporations.
    This is why we use median income to describe typical income in other cases, and should also do so when describing average income of top income groups (which differ from lower groups because income has no upper limit).
    Mr. Andrews continued, "Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."
    Unless "last several years" excludes 2000, the statement is brazenly false. It makes no sense to start with any year except 2000 because we can't possibly compare incomes and taxes before and after the Bush tax cuts unless we begin with the last year of the Clinton presidency. That is, after all, the tax regime congressional Democrats set up as their ideal when they criticize the Bush tax changes as unduly generous to the top 1 percent.
    Measured in constant 2004 dollars, average income of the top 1 percent was $1,413,000 in 2000, but only $1,259,700 in 2004 -- a drop of 7.9 percent. Tax cuts did not help a bit. After-tax income of the top 1 percent fell from $946,300 to $887,800 -- an even larger 8.3 percent decline.
    Mr. Andrews says, "Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush's tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels." You don't need to be an economist to discern that "the biggest dollar value" of any equiproportionate tax cut must go to those with the "biggest dollar value" of taxes paid. Yet the top 1 percent did not get anything remotely close to a proportionate share of the tax cuts after 2000.
    The article says "the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes," but what is remarkable is that they even paid a larger share than they did in 2000, although their before-tax incomes were 7.2 percent smaller. That explains why the top 1 percent's after-tax income fell even more than their before-tax income. The top 1 percent ended up with 14 percent of after-tax income, down from 15? percent in 2000, and that includes one-time capital gains and a seriously exaggerated share of corporate profits.
    Mr. Andrews added that "two of [the president's] signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households."


  That sentence is half irrelevant, half mistaken.
    The CBO does not attempt to assign the estate tax by income group. To do that, they would have to know who received the money, not who died. Dead people cannot receive more income, before or after taxes, just one reason death is a highly undesirable tax avoidance strategy. If Hugh Jassets dies and leaves $10 million to be split among 10 young grandchildren, those youngsters are likely to be either invisible or poor in terms of income showing up in CBO tax data.
    Second, taxes on capital gains and dividends are surprisingly hard on older retirees with low incomes. Those with incomes below $15,000 paid more than 7 percent of the federal taxes on dividends in 2002, and those with incomes below $200,000 paid 62 percent of that tax.
    Third, lower tax rates on taxable dividends and capital gains generally result in investors paying more taxes on their investment income, not less. Nobody has to hold dividend-paying stock in a taxable account, and nobody has to report capital gains by selling assets from a taxable account.
    The amount of dividend income reported to the IRS doubled from 2002 to 2004. Upper-income taxpayers are bound to be reporting relatively less income from tax-exempt bonds than they did before 2003. Moving income from nontaxable to taxable investments looks like an increase in top incomes in the CBO estimates, but it isn't.
    There has been a lot of chatter lately about raising Social Security taxes only on those with incomes above $100,000 while cutting the same group's Social Security benefits again (their benefits were deeply slashed in 1993 through an extra tax on benefits). Can anyone really pretend that sounds "fair"?
    The CBO calculates the effective tax rate for all federal taxes -- including Social Security and Medicare taxes, income taxes and excise taxes. For the bottom 80 percent as a group, that total federal tax fell from 14.1 percent in 2000 to 11.4 percent in 2004 -- a 19.1 percent tax cut.
    The tax cut was deepest among the poorest fifth (29.7 percent), largely because of the Bush administration's refundable tax credit for children. For the middle fifth, the total tax rate fell from 16.6 percent to 13.9 percent -- a 16.3 percent cut. As for the top 1 percent, their overall tax rate was merely trimmed from 33 percent to 31.1 percent -- a 5.8 percent cut
    A courageous (willing to be fired) New York Times ombudsman would insist on the following correction to Mr. Andrews' upside-down article: "Households earning more than $266,800 a year saw their federal tax rates drop less sharply than any other group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional Budget Office study."
     
    Alan Reynolds is a nationally syndicated columnist and a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
   





3903  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: North Korea on: May 18, 2007, 01:26:00 PM
 bit outdated but Gertz On NK - still producing nukes - gee - what a surprise.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070424-104648-6053r.htm

I have trouble of thinking of any Presidential candidate with the strength and clear track record to prove that he can stand up to these foreign threats - except for Gingrich.  Let's hope he runs IMO.

McCain maybe, but enough leadership skills.  Romeny maybe - but not proven.

I can't think of a single Dem who I feel would not sell the US out for expediency.
3904  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anatomy of a hit job: The Wolfowitz Affair (formerly Paul's Girl) on: May 16, 2007, 01:19:20 PM
Thanks Crafty.  Your posts show anothyer story totally ignored in the MM.   If this was a Clinton appointee and Billary were President we would see the talk shows flooded with the likes of Lanny Davis repeating over and over their side of the story.   With the Bush Presidency we hear very little.  He seems to have thrown Wolfowitz to the wolves.  Perhaps he feels he cannot defend him since he was a prime architect of the Iraq invasion and/or he risk pissing off the Europeans who appear to like their influence at the WB for whatever reasons some probably corrupt.  In any case W. appears to feel the political fallout is not worth the risk of defending Paul.  I agree it would be a terrible personal tragedy for Wolfowitz if his reputation is tarnished as a result of the very same corruption he was trying to clean up.

I have not seen this side of the story on CNN.  It's amazing.  Every time I turn on CNN it has a story that has a negative slant towards Bush.  It is never partial or objective but always the Left's point of view.  Always.  To think my nephew dated Wolf Blitzer's daughter.  He has since moved on and married.  (Actually I hear she is a nice girl and he is probably a very good father.)  But he is clearly politically left - not partial.

George Will's piece:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051007.php3
3905  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Blankley September crunch time for Repubs on: May 12, 2007, 12:33:31 PM
Blankley points out the Cans prospects look bleak for 2008.  All the Cans are slipping in the polls including Guliani and McCain.  Depending on how things look in September many Cans may break ranks with W.  Of course our enemies know this as well,and will work diligently towards that goal.  Can any serious thinker believe that radical Muslims, nad Iranians would not rather deal with the dovish Crats than Can hawks?

I couldn't agree more with Tony's (and Cheney's) hardline stance.  But I am now apparantly in the minority.   For fun:  my predictive guess.   We will get Hillary.  The slight majority will adore her gifts *stolen* (IMO- according to George Will we pay more in gasoline tax than the oil companies make in profits- you won't hear that from the Hill)  from those who make more and this will continue till we get another exogenous threat.  Maybe then Newt will have a shot in 2012 or even 2016?  As always time will tell.   Two cents for other thoughts:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm
3906  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Newt for Prez! on: May 07, 2007, 09:00:15 PM
CD,

I don't know if I am alone but I wish Newt would run.

He is the only one who when I hear him speak I hear a visionary.

He is the only one with ideas and the leadership qualities to carry them out.

I can see why he made it to Speaker of the House.  If only he can keep his ego in check...

3907  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / TSA Hard drive disappears on: May 05, 2007, 12:16:16 PM
Most likely stolen.  Most likely inside job.  Most likely bribery.  Don't believe the excuses.  Don't believe that anyone can know if a hard drive is copied.  They can be copied with no trace.   It just goes to show the incompetence and potential corruption of information that is supposed to be secure.  Did anyone see the Fox report on Sandy Berger repeatedly going to ther National Archives and stealing documents?  Outrageous.  And he gets off with a slap on the wrist!  Why did a Bush Justice Department allow this to get swept under the rug?

While I can't *prove* it, I know bribery happens at the US Copyright Office.  Things have disappeared.  It seems to be less known that it happens there.  The Patent Office was notorious for documents getting "lost".

***TSA Loses Hard Drive With Personal Info
 Email this Story

May 4, 10:03 PM (ET)

By MATT APUZZO

(AP) Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley is shown in this 2006 file photo. The TSA...
Full Image

Google sponsored links
Homeland Security Career - Degree: Criminal Justice System, Border Patrol, Crime Scene, more
www.lincolntech-usa.com
 
Security X-Ray Systems - Fixed-Mobile & Desk Top Sale, Rent, Lease full warranty
www.dnjsecurity.com
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Transportation Security Administration has lost a computer hard drive containing Social Security numbers, bank data and payroll information for about 100,000 employees.

Authorities realized Thursday the hard drive was missing from a controlled area at TSA headquarters. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley sent a letter to employees Friday apologizing for the lost data and promising to pay for one year of credit monitoring services.

"TSA has no evidence that an unauthorized individual is using your personal information, but we bring this incident to your attention so that you can be alert to signs of any possible misuse of your identity," Hawley wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "We profoundly apologize for any inconvenience and concern that this incident has caused you."

The agency said it did not know whether the device is still within headquarters or was stolen.

TSA said it has asked the FBI and Secret Service to investigate and said it would fire anyone discovered to have violated the agency's data-protection policies.

In a statement released Friday night, the agency said the external - or portable - hard drive contained information on employees who worked for the Homeland Security agency from January 2002 until August 2005.

TSA, a division of the Homeland Security Department, employs about 50,000 people and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems, including airports and train stations.

"It's seems like there's a problem with security inside Homeland Security and that makes no sense," said James Slade, a TSA screener and the executive vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union chapter at John F. Kennedy International Airport. "That's scary. That's my identity. And now who has a hold of it? So many things go on in your mind."

The agency added a section to its Web site Friday night addressing the data security breach and directing people to information about identity theft.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, whose Homeland Security subcommittee oversees the TSA, promised to hold hearings on the security breach. She said Homeland Security buildings are part of the critical infrastructure the agency is charged with protecting.

"We should expect it to be secure," she said.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., called the security breach "a terrible and unfortunate blow" for an agency he said already suffered from low morale.

It's the latest mishap for the government involving computer data. Last year, a laptop with information for more than 26.5 million military personnel, was stolen from a Veterans Affairs Department employee's home. Law enforcement officials recovered the laptop, and the FBI said Social Security numbers and other personal data had not been copied.***

***TSA has no evidence that an unauthorized individual is using your personal information***

This is the line we always hear.  Yet it has also been stated that approximately 40% Of illegal aliens are using phoney social security numbers.  What a joke.  The laugh is on the honest tax paying law abiding citizens.  Although sadly most of them would glady take a bribe too.

---
3908  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Tony Snow on: April 29, 2007, 04:37:27 PM
Not too long ago having colon cancer metasize to the liver usually meant one had less than six months to live.  Now however treatments have improved so a person can live a few years or so with this condition.  From what I have seen Tony has done a good job for the White House.  Let's hope there will be even more and better treatments that come out the next few years for the treatment of metastatic colon cancer. Hang in there Tony:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/tony_snow_cancer
3909  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Geo Political matters on: April 29, 2007, 04:29:28 PM
Well, I recall George Will pointing out around 1990 or so how George Herbert Bush's seeking the World's approval before forcing Hussain out of Kuait was a dangerous precendent that would forever leave the US impotent to act without the tacit approval of the"World". 

So now the US is not supposed to act without the UN's approval.  We can thank Bush senior for that precedent which was gloriously promoted for the next eight years by the greatest con artist of our generation.  Even our enemies welcomed this. Gee, I wonder why that would be. rolleyes

As for SB's second question I have not read about any alternative posed by anyone that is satisfactory. 

This all said I am not sure WW3 is going to be West vs radical Islam anyway, and not West vs. China.

     
3910  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Blankley: Well, is radical Islam a big threat or just a nuisance? on: April 29, 2007, 03:07:33 PM
That is the question.   TB: 

Everyone seems to have their own answer and their opinions cannot be changed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm
3911  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin on: April 26, 2007, 06:19:00 PM
Stringer is reported to be writing a book.

Imus should get a big cut for all the attention he brought her and her team.

I wonder where he got that phrase from anyway. wink
3912  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / massive black holes on: April 21, 2007, 09:01:57 PM
I was watching the
"Science" channel on cable the other night.  They had a show on supermassive black holes.  I didn't realize that present theory holds that there is a black hole in every galaxy and is in some way related to the clustering of the stars in that galaxy.  It is also theorized that quasars are also related to supermassive black holes.

I remember in my astronomy classes in the 70's (ugh!) that quasars were the farthests objects in the universe and there was absolutely no explanation as to what they were.  A lot of discovery has happened since then.  A lot of theories formulated.

Yet every time I read about space I am left with this empty feeling.   I feel like we will never be able to understand "where it all began".   It seems unanswerable.  It seems incomprehensible.  Should this thread be headed under religion or God?   But to me the concept of God doesn't really answer the great questions since the beginning of man.   But it is more comforting.

This link is not to the particular show but to another space site which came up today on a news link:

http://www.space.com/bestimg/index.php?guid=4499b3474b769&cat=strangest

 huh
3913  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 01:19:33 AM
Over twenty five years ago I took a class in forensic psychiatry.  We took a tour of St Elizabeth hospital for the crimnally insane.

I still remember many of the stories the psychiatrist told us.  I also remember him distinctly saying that most of the patients *appeared* dangerous, but were not.   Most of them, if released, would cause no harm.  The problem was being able to predict or figure out which ones would go out and harm others.   He said this was often impossible.   Thus, many of the inmates/patients would spend their lives there - because the psychiatrists coud not predict the harmless from the dangerous.   It is always easier in retrospect.  In my experience  in evaluating patients for mental hosptial commitment the psychiatrist simply interviews the patient to determine potential harm to him/herself and if they don't find clear evidence of delusions or hallucinations, and if the patient simply denies suicidal or homicidal intent then the patient is released.   

Of course now we'll hear how the "system" failed, the college president should be fired, the teachers should have been more proactive, it's bush's fault, it's the NRA's fault, it is our decadant culture, and on and on and on for weeks or months,  Time and Newsweek will come out with their version of the *real* truth behind the headlines, Geraldo, O'Reilly will have more to blab about ad nauseam on Fox, CNN will interview the Dems candidates side of the story giving them a platform describing how we need them to protect "our children" - all this and more - until we get new headlines.

Of course I can just turn off the news for a while or come here and chat and read up on other topics  smiley
3914  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Buchanan op on Wolfowitz and World Bank on: April 19, 2007, 12:52:27 AM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20290
3915  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Paul's girl-woops try this on: April 19, 2007, 12:34:22 AM
http://www.ibtimes.com/photonews_new2.htm?image=72474
3916  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / World Bank Anatomy of a hit job: The Wolfowitz Affair (formerly Paul's Girl) on: April 19, 2007, 12:33:11 AM
ttp://www.ibtimes.com/photonews_new2.htm?image=72474
3917  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Jewish Genius on: April 14, 2007, 12:10:51 AM
I was recently wondering when Abraham lived.  Looking online the best estimates suggested he lived sometime between 1600 to 2100 BC.   Of course who really knows if he even really existed.   I mean he is supposed to have lived to 175 years old.

Here is one site:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html

I perused through Bell Curve some years back.  With regard to intelligence the Asians were thought to have the curve at the highest end followed by whites than blacks.   The authors pointed out that there is mostly overlap though.

I wonder how much of Jewish "success" is cultural rather than some innate superior intellect.  I mean hasn't it been standard for hundreds of years for Jewish parents to push their kids to get educated.   You didn't see other groups doing this to the same degree as far as I know.   

I notice a lot of Asians who come here encourage their kids into educational endeavors.   But both Jews and now others seem to know education is one path to financial success, and not necessarily the means to solving the mysteries of the universe.

Just thinking "out loud".
3918  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Contrast on: April 09, 2007, 10:26:59 AM
While Iran teaches children to be warriors willing to die and go to heaven for their God our children sell their stories for a quick buck.  Remember the descriptions of Iran sending 100,000 teenage boys accross no-man's land in their war with Iraq.  The boys' mission was to clear the mine fields for the older soldiers.  Even the Iraqis were aghast at seeing this.

I do not want to disparage our brave men and women who serve for us or those of our closest ally Britain, but I feel the contrast serves to underscore what in my opinion is the misjudgement of some our leaders/pols who think they can chat their way out of this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391981-details/Outrage+as+Iran+captives+cash+in/article.do

I couldn't agree more with Sen Leiberman or Bolton on this issue.
3919  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: April 08, 2007, 01:07:50 PM
SB_Mig,

It sounds like we are mostly on the same page.   You take issue with a minor point on my part and ignore the main point of my post that is that Pelosi's trip plays right into the hands of our enemies.

I think you know full well the Demorcrats lead en mass (except for a few like Lieberman) in conveying to our enemies our weaknesses.
So a few cans went there as well.  Why you harp on this beats me.  Does this make you feel superior?  Wise guy.
3920  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: April 06, 2007, 01:06:15 PM
Nice try

No I didn't miss part of the article.
3921  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: April 05, 2007, 11:33:20 PM
***Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria "is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S."***

This says it all.  It verifies exactly what W. says, and that is that Pelosi and the crats undermine us all.  You won't see this statement on the clinton news network!  Maybe on Fox.  But you will hear them quote W. as though he is an idiot.

I know. Our freedom of speech and diversity makes us strong.

While we talk - they build nuclear bombs.
3922  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics on: March 29, 2007, 09:55:19 PM
Crafty

Remember the days when some argued "it is different this time" when the tech market peaked and the graph looked eerily like October 1929?

I made a killing.  Then gave it back.   I sold Terayon about a year ago.  Remember when he touted this $200+ stock as being over the rainbow?  Now it is about $2.
3923  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: March 27, 2007, 12:40:49 PM
Well I guess learning how to salute is going to win over the military and erase decades of disdain for the people in uniform.  It would be like Jane Fonda saluting for the cameras.  Hypocracy for the ages.  Yet she may win the election with promises of gifts to every group of constuents that she needs to win.

 The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 27, 2007
Mindful of Past, Clinton Cultivates the Military
By PATRICK HEALY

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

A Time magazine poll in July asked adults to assess whether Mrs. Clinton would keep the military strong. Asked how much that description fit Mrs. Clinton, 33 percent said a lot, 25 percent said a little, 15 percent said not much, 18 percent said not at all and 10 percent had no answer.

Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a ’60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton’s appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern.

Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton’s intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.

General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.

“If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect,” General Kerrick said. “Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them.”

In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has supported expanding medical benefits for National Guard members and reservists and providing aid to those with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. She has also defied liberals in her own party at times, endorsing the expansion of the Army, supporting financing for missile defense, and refusing to support a total ban on land mines.

But just as she has encountered some hostility from the left for not being a critic of the Iraq war earlier and for not renouncing her vote in 2002 to authorize it, Mrs. Clinton could also risk coming off as too hawkish to some Democratic voters for her vociferous support of military initiatives.

Some on the left ask if she is engaging again in the Clinton strategy of political triangulation: reaching out to military leaders while also trying to appease the left with her criticism of the war in Iraq. During her Senate re-election race last year, some liberals criticized her as currying favor with pro-military conservatives and independents by fiercely supporting Israel and taking a tough line against Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives in Iraq, similar to what her husband did during his presidency on social issues like welfare.

“Some days she sounds like a total hawk, and other days she’s saying, ‘I’m against the war and it’s been mismanaged,’ ” said Jonathan Tasini, who ran against Mrs. Clinton for the Senate Democratic nomination last year on an antiwar platform.

“But I don’t see how this helps her in the primaries,” Mr. Tasini continued. “So many people have turned against the war.”

Of the other main Democratic presidential candidates, only Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has served in the military, as an Army reservist. Like Mrs. Clinton, most of the candidates rely on their service on Senate committees for their foreign policy credentials. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois serves on the Foreign Relations and Veterans Affairs Committees; former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina served on the intelligence committee; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Mr. Dodd is a member of that committee.

Essential to Mrs. Clinton’s courtship of the military was winning a seat in 2002 on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which she had vigorously sought. In that role, she regularly meets with military officers, has traveled three times to Iraq and has attended hearings on global conflicts and the needs of the armed services.

Privately, two current military leaders who have testified before the Armed Services committee, and who by custom do not comment publicly on political figures, said they both found Mrs. Clinton conversant about the military and thoughtful in her questions.

Active-duty generals have sought her out, and she has reached out to them. Among those with whom she has built relationships are Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the new head of Central Command. Recently, too, James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marines, invited her to be his guest of honor at the “Sunset Parade” at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington, a high-profile tradition. (She has accepted.)

Some military analysts said that building ties with generals was only part of building a leadership image on military issues. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian research group, said Mrs. Clinton’s political shift to opposing the war in Iraq — combined with some voters’ skepticism about the Clintons and the military — posed a challenge for her, especially when she needs to prove that a woman is tough enough to be commander in chief.

“By surrounding herself with military brass, it reinforces an image of her as strong and hawkish,” Mr. Carpenter said. “But is that an authentic image? Would she really give dollars to the Pentagon instead of to cherished domestic programs?”

The Republican National Committee’s research staff members have already compiled a series of examples that they say show Mrs. Clinton at odds with military interests, including her Iraq war positioning and her opposition to sending additional troops there.

General Keane — whose support for sending more troops to Iraq is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s view — and other admirers of hers see these skeptical or critical portrayals of her as playing into false stereotypes. He recalled how his own initial impression of her changed after their first meeting: It was supposed to last 15 minutes, but continued for a half hour longer as they talked about West Point and moved onto global hot spots.

John Batiste, a retired major general and former commander of the First Infantry Division, who also consults with Mrs. Clinton, said, “Very, very few politicians have any military experience, and they’re naïve — they don’t understand what it takes to develop a big picture, unified strategy to take a country to war.

“She’s the kind of person who would listen to sound military advice,” General Batiste said, “and not dismiss it or discard it. And I’m a lifelong Republican.“

Home

    * World
    * U.S.
    * N.Y. / Region
    * Business
    * Technology
    * Science
    * Health
    * Sports
    * Opinion
    * Arts
    * Style
    * Travel
    * Jobs
    * Real Estate
    * Automobiles
    * Back to Top

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * RSS
    * First Look
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map

3924  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 24, 2007, 10:12:28 AM
The article makes sense.  Iran has now taken the Brits as hostages.  The Brits mistake was allowing this vessel to be taken to start with.

Perhaps Iran has calculated that the timid US will spend the rest of Bush's and Blair's tenures negotiating the hostages release.  AFter '08 they know the Dems will do nothing while they continue on with their nuclear goals.  As far as I can tell only W. has the guts to stand up to them.  But he doesn't have the political support.  And with an election coming up he won't get it.
3925  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Messiah complex on: March 19, 2007, 08:55:57 PM
***Messiah Complex***

I always thought Bill Clinton had this notion that he was going to save humanity from itself.  The great man who would fix everything.

Gore more pompous.  Clinton more narcissistic.  Hillary is both.
3926  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it. on: March 08, 2007, 10:06:15 PM
***Now your argument becomes that we need censorship in order that there be action even when the country is evenly divided???***

No my argument has become that this country is in trouble because it is evenly divided.   The theory is majority rule.  But there is no consistent majority.  I don't know how to resolve this.  We can celebrate our freedom of speech all we want but that won't make the problems I point out go away.

Because the task is difficult doesn't mean I don't believe the premise of what I said - that free speech has paralized us.  I disagree that the lack of dialogue has done more harm.   It has led to lack of resolve.  Indecision.

Endless arguing and debating just leads us down the road to defining what is is.



3927  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it. on: March 07, 2007, 08:39:42 PM
To Rogt,

No your not being nitpicky. But...  I don't think Hannity or Limbaugh have called for Jihad against the resident citizens, immigrants, and  illegals of the United States or other Western countries.

I am also under the impression, as I suggested, that the ACLU would stop law enforcement's investigation of those enemies of the US who choose to out themselves. Yes I do think they can lawyer us to powerlessness, to inaction, to not defending ourselves.  IMO posting calls for Jihad *is more* than just words.  It *is* a call to arms.  It *is* communicating with potential armies of combatants.  It *is* a plan.  It *is* a conspiracy to commit crimes.

To_Mig,

I am not sure I could come up with a Supreme Court Justice's level of clarity and specificity in formulating a definition of what should be considered treason using legally acceptedl parameters.  To ask me to come up with a broader definition skirts my point that calling for jihad on the internet is clearly a conspiracy to incite violent acts against us. On the other hand, I do admit that I broadened the argument myself by attacking unlimited free speech. Perhaps I took on too difficult a task but my overall hunch on this stands (in my mind).  Also (and frankly), I am not a legal genius  cry.  So who should dictate who gets censored - perhaps the nine the Supreme Court Justices.

And are you actually telling me the cacaphony of views in this country has *not* resulted in inaction on numerous issues?  How can anything get accomplished with so much hot air out there?   This country is more or less evenly divided.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  (A. Lincoln: circa ~1856)  Are you also suggesting Iran is not hell bent on becoming a military power?   And China as well?

BTW, I got a kick at your pointing out Hillary is running for "re-election".  smiley

To Crafty and all,

I will try to read more on the legal doctrine as suggested.  Many thanks.   

3928  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it. on: March 06, 2007, 09:43:41 PM
Wow.

Some very thoughtful replies.  Let me think about this a bit.

If someone is calling for Jihad at an airport I would think he would be carted off to be questioned.

I don't know if such speech would warrant an arrest by itself.  I remember a Guatemalan tourist who boarded an airplane in Orlando to fly home for Christmas with his family.  He made a joke to the stewardess that his carry-on had a bomb in it.  Well, to make a long story short he spent his Christmas in jail for his poor sense of humor.

If someone calls for Jihad on the internet we speak of ostracism. 

Now someone gets on the internet and essentially calls for Jihad which as I understand it means a calling to arms against the infidels in the country he lives in.  Is this not what we could define as terrorism?   Should we defend our country against such verbal threats by simply having the student Republican club at the school where he teaches roundly ostrasize him?  Should the student Democrat club all come charging to his defense by pointing out that his right to free speech trumps all else while of course prefacing said defense with the fact that they of course all find the content of his internet posts as reprehensible?

To me it is common sense.  If someone starts advocating others to rise up and kill us it is time to put a stop to this. 

With regards to Rogt's post Crafty would be right that I was referring more about the professor's call for Jihad.  About his statements concerning the treatment of woman I do agree his points have some merit.  No doubt sex sells and this is not necesarily with good results.  I would disagree only in that we could find examples of maltreatment of women (almost?) anywhere.   While he argues that the use of drugs in the US is immoral I could argue that the agricultural industry in Central America, South America, and Asia that exports many of these drugs to the West for profit is just as immoral.  Does not drug addiction and prostitution exist in these places as well?

 
As Crafty points out the freedom to express allows those so inclined to come out of the closet.
From a strategic point of view this professor just outed himself.  I would only hope that law enforcement is now, if not already, watching him closely.  Unless of course we now want to have another debate about his right to privacy.  It seems to me if the ACLU had their way we could simply chat and bicker our way to powerlessness.   The evil forces in China, Iran, and elsewhere are chuckling at our cachophony of different points of view while they bide their time and get stronger.

 

3929  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it. on: March 04, 2007, 11:36:36 AM
 "Lawyers" don't bring someone up on charges, district attorneys do.

2) Do you know what the legal definition of "assault" is?

3)  "Inciting a riot" requires the imminent possibility of a riot.  Is that present here?

4) Please explain what you mean by this:  "Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!"

5) "Let me here (sic) how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great.  IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart."

Hey Crafty,

Thanks for the input - I expected some disagreement and that is what I am looking for.

Well, are there no laws that protect our citizens from those in this country who are calling for war against us?  Perhaps treason?

If so then why should not a DA bring this guy up on charges.  If this guy made threats against the President he would be investigated by Secret Service.  If he makes statements that are essentially asking his radical muslim buddies to bring arms against us and kill Americans the threat may not mean iminent danger but the threat is still a threat of harm.  I see no difference.

As to number four it was a typo.   It makes no sense to me that our brave men and women should risk their life and limb let alone place their and their families lives on hold for someone to be able to exercise free speech which includes the right to call for enemies to kill the same people they are fighting for.

Please correct me if I am wrong but you've posted you are a Libertarian.   Is/are there any limits to free speech in your view?

Our enemies seem to be doing a fine job exploiting our free speech and endless dissenting views.  I just don't see how limitless free speech makes us stronger.


 

3930  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it. on: March 03, 2007, 11:06:33 AM
The Kent State professor who advocates Jihad:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/education/16808652.htm

I got to love the part of his rants about the West's treatment of woman as sexual commodities.   How can any objective person believe the position of women in the Muslim world as better than in the Wests?

If I was a lawyer I would find some way to bring him up on criminal charges.  What about assault?  What about inciting a riot?

This guy advocates murder and the nuts on the left protect him with the mantra *free speech*.   Give me a goddamn break.   Right. Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!

What the h... is wrong with this country?   Why can't we stand up as a unified block and defend ourselves?  This guy belongs in jail for inciting terrorism.   I believe it really is all about politics.   The demcrats vs. the recans.  How we are going to distribute wealth?   Who is paying the taxes, the health care, retirement, etc.?   If a crat led us into Iraq the two sides would still be fighting like mad but just have the opposite positions.  If a crat are in power the cans neutriliize 'em so they can't fight for the defense of our country.  If the cans are in power the crats do the same.

I'm fed up with these stories.  Does this crap from a professor at a (State funded no less) school outrage anyone else?   Anyone here going to argue the ACLU position?  Comin let me have it.  Let me here how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great.  IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart.

3931  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Know Thy Enemy on: February 27, 2007, 10:39:54 PM
***Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims between the ages of 16-24 would rather live under Shari'a law than under British Common Law; 36 percent think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion; 13 percent admire al-Qaida and similar terror groups; and a whopping 74 percent of young British Muslims believe women should wear veils***

Astounding isn't it?

Yet these same people have no problem living in Britain and taking advantage of a better life than they could ever hopefor in their own Muslim countries.

I wonder if any such polls were done here.   Everytime I meet a Muslin I wonder if he/she would be happy to see me dead because I am an American... and a Jew.  I guess I get the wrong end of a double barrel shotgun on that question.
3932  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israel had fewer friends than Iran on: February 24, 2007, 02:40:43 PM
It is interesting how every move the Israel military makes is now being telegraphed by segments of people from it's supposed allies who fear any military action whatsoever.  They would rather see Iran develop nuclear weapons.   Like John Edwards who claims Israel not Iran is the biggest nearterm threat to world peace.  Now the some Brits are helping Iran.   It is not their rear ends whose existence is on the line:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml
3933  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bolton is also skeptical of the N.Korea sellout on: February 22, 2007, 09:31:26 PM
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070214-120013-3871r.htm
3934  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / another opinion on: February 19, 2007, 10:59:08 AM
My wife disagrees with me.  She states the media has not given Spears a pass.

First of all KFed had already separated (reportedly) from the mother of his child before he hooked up with Spears.

Second, look at how the press publicized pictures of Spears driving with her baby in her lap and questioning if she is a good mother.
She feels that the media will cover these people good or bad as long as it's a story.

Maybe I have to rethink my theory.
3935  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Britney is one of their darlings -> $$$$$$$$ on: February 18, 2007, 12:53:08 PM
***this woman gets a pass***

Look at Ann Smith, Paris Hilton.

The "press" is making a fortune off them all so they will not go after them with criticism.

I guess it is also a function of what the liberal press sees as wrong.  Sex, affairs, extramarital, drugs, drunkeness is never a problem.  But make a politically incorrect statement and lookout - for example, Hardaway's anti-gay comments. 

With regards to Hilton we have "heard" nothing but silence since her anti-black comments:  "we're like a couple of n......"  The press won't go after her.  They make too much money off her.

My conclusion is it is a function of:

1)  If the behavior is politically(liberally) incorrect vs. conservatively incorrect.  If it offends conservatives who cares; if it offends liberals - a different story althogether.

2)  There are financial interests in being critical or simply ignoring.

Hardaway is free to speak - unless he offends - the liberal media - plus they do not make money following his every move so they are happy to go after him.

With Spears they ove the gossip because it sells.  So they just report it and leave the criticism out.

Hilton's racist comments probably offend them but they love how she makes them all money so they just ignore what she said.



3936  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / *no* global warming opinion;lets move the polar bears on: February 12, 2007, 11:27:51 AM
Another opinion that there is no proof of gobal warming:

We may want to evacuate some polar bears from up north and repopulate them in Antarctica.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
3937  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / world lottery on: February 10, 2007, 12:02:12 PM
Now that the idea is out we will probably start seeing a lot of this.  Hey prizes could include a dictatorship on your own island, or a nuclear bomb.  Maybe the US gov could sponser one with prizes like immigration visas or citizenships to whole families.  The politicians always love another source of income.  It kind of almost makes me want to consider socialism or communism.  Oh well, I guess I'll get used to it - like anything else. shocked

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SYOPXYVBEKUHNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nlotto10.xml
3938  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Particular Stocks on: February 04, 2007, 02:32:52 PM
Crafty,

When did David first rec intuitive surgical?

I remember reading something about them sometime back.

A ten bagger!   Ah those were the days.
3939  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: What is "Democracy"? on: January 31, 2007, 09:42:16 PM
***I would not consider Lebanon or Iran representative democracies, so I'm not sure if they can be considered democratic failures***

I thought the Hamas and Hezbollah have members who were elected to representative government?  I thought Ahmadinajad was elected?

No?

I was just trying to make the point that when W. talks of spreading "Democracy" it sounds warm and fuzzy and has political and sound bite buzz but I am not clear it makes a lot of sense.   Perhaps he should be talking more in terms of "free" elections.   Perhaps he needs to define to us actually what it is he is exporting?

I think your point about the electoral college is consistent with what I am trying to say - that "democracy" or majority rule can be turned into many different versions of government.  Another example is that some could say that capatilism actually encourages the authority of the a wealthy minority over the less majority - which also is intermingled in our system of government (money talks).

I guess I should have paid more attention in political science class in college.  What a complicated task trying to get this to work in Iraq.   How could it not take decades?   

3940  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What is "Democracy"? on: January 31, 2007, 04:45:21 PM
I am not sure this simple question has not been discussed here before. 

We here from some that the mission of the USA is to spread "Democracy".   But exactly what is it we are spreading?  It may not be an *American brand* of democracy with separation of Church and State or rights that also protect the minority, freedom of speech, free capatilist markets, and more.

To see how this can backfire just look at places where Hamas, Hezballah, Ahmadinijan (sp.?) have won elections.

I like the two contrasting maps of nations declaring themselves democracies and the *defacto* map of countries that are more truly democratic.   It is comical to look at some of the countries on the map that claim they are democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
3941  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ElBaradei on: January 30, 2007, 05:56:37 PM
About ElBaradei co-winner of a Nobel Peace prize and head of the IAEA whose officials suggest Iran's goal may not be to develop the nuclear weapons just have all the components and the capability to be able to do so in weeks or months -  what the heck is that logic?  Sounds a lot like they are denying the obvious for reasons of which I cannot be clear from this armchair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei

***picture the pressures within Iran in the absence of oil money-- and how the absence of money might bring the nuke program to a halt***

It seems like one short term option - but has not worked till now.

The head of US intelligence thinks Iran is 4 to ten yrs away.   Others say less.  And who knows how much is speculation, how much is political, etc.  So far it seems Iran will continue to have alternate sources of money like China and Russia who seem quite happy to keep  the US bogged down with this.   Some (at least) in the military consider China, not Al Qaeda, no longer Russia  our biggest military threat.  While Clinton was cruising the world stage with handshakes, photo ops, exporting peace and love we were (probably still are) having military/space secrets stolen by Chinese, allowing Muslim radicals groups to grow, and expecting that if we just chat nice with the world they will love us.

Only time will tell.

 

3942  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Owning commodity stocks vs the commodities themselves on: January 30, 2007, 05:26:39 PM
An interview with Jim Rogers.  Better to own gold, oil, copper, natural gas, etc., or gold, oil, copper, natural gas *stocks*:

http://www.investment-u.com/ppc/splash_rogers.cfm?kw=XVVIU329
3943  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Continuation Iran thread on: January 30, 2007, 04:18:28 PM
Sorry, I don't know why the body of my post refused to get posted on the Iran thread below:

Hi Doug,

***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***

The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons.  They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.

I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy.  the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.

I still see absolutely no option other than the military one.  Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion.   Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?

Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel.   I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush.  Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it.  It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of.   I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.

They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims.   I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets.   I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
3944  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: January 30, 2007, 04:16:53 PM
Hi Doug,

***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***

The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons.  They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.

I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy.  the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.

I still see absolutely no option other than the military one.  Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion.   Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?

Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel.   I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush.  Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it.  It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of.   I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.

They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims.   I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets.   I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
3945  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I don't know why body of my post didn't get posted but here are my thoughts on: January 30, 2007, 04:14:46 PM
Hi Doug,

***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***

The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons.  They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.

I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy.  the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.

I still see absolutely no option other than the military one.  Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion.   Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?

Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel.   I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush.  Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it.  It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of.   I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.

They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims.   I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets.   I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
3946  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What do other forum members think? About Iran on: January 30, 2007, 04:07:07 PM
Hi Doug,

***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***

The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons.  They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.

I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy.  the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.

I still see absolutely no option other than the military one.  Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion.   Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?

Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel.   I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush.  Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it.  It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of.   I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.

They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims.   I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets.   I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.

 
3947  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: January 28, 2007, 10:30:24 AM
Well Hillary, do you think America "is ready for a woman president."  This was the first question asked at a "town hall" extravaganza for the Hill.  Oh I get it, lets get that out of the way.  and surely most people are supposed to sit there blindly and think, "well I could vote for a woman".   We know the media is drooling all over this.

BTW, weren't most Presidents fathers? huh

This is such a rehearsed planned question.  Please, anybody but another Clinton.  As one who generally votes Republican I'll take Biden, Obama who I don't know, Richardson, etc.  But Clintons I know (despite the never ending *we really don't know Hillary*).   I'm not even sure I wouldn't rather have Jimmy Carter come back then *them* again.  And I'm old enough to remember Carter.  Can't we just get rid of both the Bushes and the Clintons?    Come on Dems lets make a bargain.   Remember, we could always bring in Jeb just to piss ya off. cool

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16566417.htm
3948  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant on: January 27, 2007, 12:18:08 PM
Hi Doug,

Glad to "see" you.  ~ ))

I like the exchanges too.  I like the opinions and thoughts of the posters a lot.  A few opinions from Muslims on the board which we never had on OP gives us a new view IMHO.

I will try "most recent posts" - thanks ~ ))





3949  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant on: January 26, 2007, 08:15:09 PM
I like this board having come from Ourpiazza.  I am disappointed I don't (appear) to see others from there as well.

One difference is that the posts on this board are very long.  Many are posts of long pieces or lectures. They are extremely informative but take a long time to read.  I wonder if some of the old posters from ourpiazza miss the more succinct posts there.

Nonetheless, I find it educational to read many of the posts here and appreciate the opportunity.
3950  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: January 26, 2007, 08:10:05 PM
Newt Gingrich is the only one saying, "we have to ask ourselves can we live with a nuclear Iran or not?" If we agree that we can't we have no option other than military.   

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_3
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!