Two, ultra-left, ultra-liberal, socialist-extremist,de-constructionist, living-document-constitutionalist, wack-job, fuck-nuts that will ultimately break the cords that bind us as a nation, and send us spinning to our destruction...
"The Great Experiment" had such wonderful potential, it's a shame to see her die like this so suddenly... Future world-history books will read "America, the former super-power", IMHO...
...It's just been all this "after-shit" that we've been bogged down in trying to be fuckin' "policeman to the world" that's turned into the disaster we have...
Saddom removed, Baathists out of power, Uday and Qusay rotting in Hell where they belong... It was "game over" 1462 days ago!
Let those worthless, lazy, shiftless Iraqis reorganize into whatever kind of toilet-nation they want to! It's none of out damn business, but it WAS our responsibility to take Saadom out, since Jimmy-fuckin'-Carter in his imbecilic-wisdom PUT HIM IN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Actually, under Regan would have been a good time in history to forcibly-remove Saddom, and and a few shaw-type leaders, but we still had the USSR as a counterbalance to our power in the world, which gained great strength against us during the Carter years...
Had Jimmy Carter won a second term, we'd probably be speaking Russian today! (Or possibly Aribic! But give the Dems 2 more terms, and America will only be able to be found in history-books! But that's ok, we'll get the government we deserve!)
to stymie that very same US policy.
Not to mention, while US diplomatic ans consular personnel were still being held hostage.
But, I know, i know, that's down the deep, dark memory hole. and i'm a Guess What for reminding anyone of it.
Yep, that's why i always love Our Most Relaible Ally In The Middle East.
I'm ready for a good laugh so please explain how Jimmy Carter was responsible for putting Saddam Hussein in power.
I did not sat that Saddam "took power" in while Jimmy Carter was president, I believe Saddam gouged his way to power under a socialist/commie-reformist banner sometime in the 60's...
But Jimmy-the-peanut-head was prez in 1980 when the Iraq/Iran conflict broke out... And JIMMY CARTER was the president that made Saddam "powerful" in that conflict, NOT Regan, who was only acting to clean up the Carter-cluster-fuck...
Carter was the one who cemented the iron-regime of Saddam... The whole mid-east fucked up mess we currently have in this world all stems from out-growth of Carter-policy... Those who followed Carter have only been putting bandades on the cancer-tumors that Carter metastasized in Arab-culture almost 30 years ago, but none [including the current president] have yet to "cure" the Carter-disease....
You didn't say Saddam took power while Carter was President? That's exactly what uou said. Does this quote sound familiar
"Jimmy-fuckin'-Carter in his imbecilic-wisdom PUT HIM IN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! "
Just admit you're wrong and then on with your other hallucinations.
but don't you know that I'm NEVER wrong?? (go back and read my first post as moderator, I clearly stated that I'm never wrong and cannot be reasoned with, lol!)
If it helps your argument, then let's work from the premise that I tuely meant Jimmy pluckec Saddom from Iraq-citizenry and placed him in office in the late 70's... I don't see how that historical-drift has any effect on the dynamics of Carter/Regan policy, which is where this thread started...
(For the record, I was aware that Saddom began his assention to power around the time Israel was recognized as a nation, as well as the year I was born... '67)
in his State of the Union Address, President Jimmy Carter announced a new American foreign policy that came to be called the Carter Doctrine. Referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Mr. Carter warned that:
"An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Though Carter's policy of regional containment was the correct military posture it came only after the collapse of Iran and after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Carter Doctrine was in fact a classic acknowledgement of, too little, too late. Foreign policy scholars wonder whether, if the Carter Doctrine had been announced in 1977, if it would have prevented the fall of the Shah and Soviet aggression.
Where Carter faltered, and God Bless him, I believe he was sincere in his idealism, but he made the mistake of an inconsistent foreign policy. In a speech at Notre Dame University in May 1977, he proposed cutting conventional arms sales, In a Wilsonian moment he emphasized democracy, human rights, and détente with the Soviet Union: a détente that would produce "reciprocal stability, parity, and security." Mr. Carter continued: "we are now free of that inordinate fear of Communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in our fear."
In his administration, policies seemed to have oscillated between hard-liners and doves, between, for example, Brzezinski and Schlesinger on one side and Vance and Andrew Young on the other. This lack of clear consistent policy allowed:
1) the destruction of Somalia’s army by Ethiopia’s Soviet-advised and Cuban-braced forces in March of 1978,
2) Cuban troops to roam across Angola and the continent of Africa in June of 1978,
3) despots such as Saddam Hussein to sieze power as President i.e. Dictator of Iraq, 16 July 1979.
In 1978, as demonstrations and violence shook Teheran and weakened the Shah’s hold on power, the Carter administration oscillated back and forth between supporting him and pressing for reform. The rest they say is history, The Shah fell on 16 January 1979 and Khomeini and his Ayatollahs stormed the American Embassy and seized 52 of our brothers and sisters.
In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan causing untold misery and tradegy in that poor country. Ben Dover is right on his remark, President Reagan had to clean up President Carter's foreign policy mistakes and they were many including the Persian Gulf region and Iraq.
-- Modified on 4/18/2007 12:00:56 AM
Jan 20, 2009 and the inaguration of a new president.
GWB slinks off back to Crawwford, Texas.
The country slowly regains its sanity.
GWB is consigned to the dustbin, and condemnation, of history.
... in your statement "The country slowly regains its sanity", you must mean more than 8 years when you use the word "slowly"... The level of political "insanity" that's possible has only just begun upon Nancy P. Cunt taking office, it'll be national clown-school when the dems take and hold all three branches!!
Every time one of you rightwing extremists posts a comment (like the one about Nancy Pelosi) that is devoid of any substance but full of rabid invective, you simply demonstrate why it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. And that's why the Democrats often find it impossible to negotiate any sort of bipartisan agreement on an issue. It's the Ann Coulter school of commentary.
A three branch TRIFECTA for the Democrats would prove a show worthy of the food fight in "Animal House" leaving the country with no choice but to put the Neidameyer Nazis back in control again. Then after again losing many more liberties to the Fascist Automaton the country will go full circle and put "Delta House" back in control again; until......
That is why the TWO parties are the only ones given any real recognition; it has been carefully 'engineered' that way.
.
-- Modified on 4/16/2007 4:56:37 AM
However, that's unimportant... The real issue here is this ass-headed notion that "bi-partisan" is something GOOD! And something worth working toward!
Any time we end up with a bi-partisan agreement or law, it's a 10,000 page,mangled-abortion, cluster-fuck of legalese language that has more loop-holes than it has directive... kind of like our CURRENT war-policy... That was a "bi-partisan effort"...
Nancy IS an elitist-cunt, why should I call her anything else?? BTW, add Barbra Boxer to that list!
You are clearly lacking a higher education. That's why you don't understand why many laws are (though you tend to exaggerate a touch) "10,000 page cluster fuck of legalese." Many laws cover very complex issues in which there can be a multitude of scenarios, mitigating factors, or circumstances. Also, the law has to be written in a way that allows for little wiggle room for different understandings or interpretation on the meaning or usage of any particlar word or phrase as written in the law.
So the law must be writen in a way to cover all possible variatons and contigencies. And we have a much more complex society now. Just look at how the internet alone has spawned very complex new laws.
It doesn't make you right on the subject!
MUCH of the complexity of MANY laws on the books is for the purpose of loop-holing the issue... I should know, I use these loop-holes every day, and have amassed a small fortune doing it, but just because I've advantaged many laws to my advantage, it doesn't make them right!
MOST of what is written into a modern-law is designed to promote an adjenda or cause social engineering, we passed the point of "protecting rights" back in the 60's, we could have closed the doors to congress back then an this would be a better nation today!
BTW, if my mother acted, spoke, and operated like Nancy and Barbra, then I guess she would be a CUNT, but since she's reserved herself to private-life, her influence on your world is zero, but those other two cunts are actually fucking with the world we live in... A very different dynamic, IMHO...
what is conservative about my views? I am for a woman's right to choose, I am for strong borders, I support minimum wage, I support stem cell research, I would place property taxes on churches, universities and other currently non-taxed charitable organizations..., I would favor one of two things in Iraq - either get out, or up the troops to an incredible level - which would mean that I would support Charlie Wrangle's draft initiative... Revamp of BOTH Social Security AND health care....
Education would be priority #1.
and other positions that are all over the board.
Even if a Dem is elected President in 2008 what is the scenario that they will control all three branches, particularly how do they get a majority on the Supreme Court -- Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas all suddenly resign?
otherwise, I suspect the dems will try to re-Bork Thomas, or some such shit... Just look at the history of Dem tactics they've used over the years to glom power... the republicans suck at such games...
That still doesn't explain how the balance of power will swing on the court. Three of the four hardcore conservative jsutices are 58 years old and the two oldest justices -- Stevens and Ginsberg -- and the most likely to retire are from the moderate/liberal wing. So in effect a Democratic President would be making appointments that would simply maintain the current balance (or inbalance) of the Court.
Two, ultra-left, ultra-liberal, socialist-extremist,de-constructionist, living-document-constitutionalist, wack-job, fuck-nuts that will ultimately break the cords that bind us as a nation, and send us spinning to our destruction...
"The Great Experiment" had such wonderful potential, it's a shame to see her die like this so suddenly... Future world-history books will read "America, the former super-power", IMHO...
BD may be referring to the Federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal. If a prez serves two full terms, s/he can expect to fill over 100 of these positions as vacancies occur due to death, retirement, and on occssion the creation of new judgeships.
Stevens probably the only real bet to retire. He's c;early disinclined to etire if iy means a Repub ominates his replacement [and Stevens ain't no spring chicken]. And i suspect the Republican-appointed justices will hold on to their judgeships with a ferocious tenacity seen only in NRA members holding on to their pistols and long guns.
I also expect "personal sabotage" from the lefties on any and all sitting conservative justices...
Dems are FAR better at playing dirty that simpleton-repubes (and far better at NOT getting caught!)