Sorry, I just had to post this one.

ROFLMAO!!!  The publicans are still in circular firing squad mode since success has many parents but failure is an orphan.  I'm loving it!

I can't wait until Pelosi's The Honest Leadership & Open Government Act passes both houses and Bush is forced to sign it.

[GG]  You'll get over it.

Though I'd wait a couple years to get excited about this.  The driving force behind this, IMHO is the politicization of religion, and I don't see that's a spent force.  In fact, if it is a reaction to the speed of technology forcing social changes, it's likely to be with us for a while.

...including the Socialist elected by Vermont.

(Man, I hate pundits)

Pelosi talked a good game last week about bipartisanship, but sure enough, she ditched Hoyer for Murtha. So much for the middle

If Republicans ever want to win again they will have to actually be conservatives, not big spender, weak on the border types. They are also going to have to be more honest and not fall in love with their offices so much they use them for personal gain.

But then again, I consider these to be middle of the road positions.

There are two real questions
1) Will the Republicans learn from their mistakes
2) Will the Democrats learn from the republican mistakes

You are right about one thing, the middle of the road is the only way to win AND KEEP the House and Senate. If the Dems can't control the leaderships far left leanings, this is going to be short term job for Speaker Pelosi

Hypothesis:

The middle is not going to last in American politics.

The Republicans will not learn from mistakes because they weren't mistakes.  Abramoff didn't make a "mistake."  He did what he did quite deliberately.  Mark Foley did not make a mistake.  They both took their actions quite deliberately.  Hassert didn't even make a mistake in sweeping it under the rug.  He knew what he was doing.  These weren't "mistakes."  

Iraq may be considered a mistake, but the only lesson to be learned is: don't mix severe strategic blunders with a bold, wreckless policy.  How hard is it going to be to not repeat that?  It takes a very special personality to have done it to begin with.

Republican positions are contradictory.  You can't elect people to government with the idea that a "good job" is that they will do less.  This Congress did less than any other.  Were you happy with it?    

Second, you can't put people who believe that they should be free to get rich, turn them loose in the government and not expect them to enrich themselves and their friends.  It's exactly what George H. W. Bush has done.  Otherwise, it's stupid for anyone with nothing but a profit motive to serve in government-- unless they are going to enrich themselves.  

I'll reiterate: the idea of electing anyone to government who doesn't believe that government can do any good does not make sense.  Either they're in there to do no good, or they're in there to do nothing, but collect their checks.  

There's nothing to learn from it that isn't commons sense already.  

I can give only one conservative motto about government that makes sense: small enough to fit in my pocket, big enough write my paycheck.    

-- Modified on 11/13/2006 8:22:53 PM

not too many people see themselves as fringers; and in fact, lots of people bracket the political spectrum with uncategorizable positions and ideas.

You can forget that Republicans will ever be tightwads - wars are about the most expensive thing you can do, you know?  And they got to have some of them to smokescreen the Abramoffs, etc etc.

IMHO - anybody that decides their position by relation to any preconceived set of ideas, instead of factual inquiry & investigation is a an ideologue and PITA.

While we're talking about the BORDER, which one are you talking about?  The one the terrorists came thru?

enough" schtick. Oddly whenever conservatives get elected, they end up doing the same thing. Sadly it is you who never learns from his mistakes.

you talk about congress doing nothing as being a "bad" thing. I on the other hand, believe the less government the better!! Obviously some form of government is necessary, but it should be as limited as possible.

BTW, if you think the DEMS aren't lining their pockets like many of the republican's did, it is time to grow up.

Electing someone to government who doesn't think government can do much good makes perfect sense!! Those are the representatives who will actually cut the bloated federal government, THAT IS WHY it make sense. It use to be that was what the (R) next to a person's name generally implied, but not with this last bunch. That is exactly why they got their seperation papers.

is the one that makes us hemmorage money paying for social services for people who are in this country illegally. Both parties unwillingness to do anything about this truly shows how weak our political system has become.

being one of the "evil rich", I did at least get a hell of a tax cut

Besides, you did not post anything that would convince me I should have voted any other way. The Dems would have been even more liberal (but at least they are honest about their intentions), but I never would have gotten that tax cut

Well, time to hop over to the other boards and spend some of my "corporate welfare" HE HE HE

Don't have much idea about Murtha's politics, huh?

The guy is a VERY conservative democrat.  He makes Lieberman look quite liberal.

Of course, he's also been mostly "under-the-radar" for most of his career, so most people only know him from his call to leave Iraq.  Which, he did because his friends at the Pentagon said the "war" was a lost cause.  Not because he's some sort of pacifist.

Anyway, between Hoyer and Murtha, Murtha is very much the "middle" candidate on everything but Iraq.

is the one all my tax dollars get pissed away through. Supporting Social Programs for people in this country illegally....

the election with your delusions still intact.

I believe in less government in terms of things it won't interfere in, of rights it will refuse to abrogate.  I believe in less government in terms of staying within limits of what is fair taxation.  I believe in less government in terms of keeping efficiency within all the branches, and constantly cutting and consolidating bureaus that are no longer needed.  So there are terms upon which we could agree.  As far as I'm concerned, that's as limited as possible.

However, I do talk of Congress doing less as a bad thing.  If for no other reason, because we pay each Congressmen $162,000 plus benefits to do less.  By that principle alone, how can you be happy that they're doing less?  Best job in the world, don't work and raise your own salary.  Have them work 60 days and raise their salary to $500k, or work for 1 day and raise it to $20 mil.  Is there a time you'll get tired of that?

Another hypothesis: larger government is a function of a larger population.  Back in 1818, when our population was 5 percent of what it was now, with proportionately more space, you could have a small government.  

When you have a larger population though and a small world with fast travel and communications, you are going to need a much larger government, simply because people are going to be rubbing elbows more.  It's going to cause conflicts, the conflicts have to be regulated or worked out.  Government is a way of doing that.  

To your point about democrats lining their pockets: yes, I think that there will be democratic scandals, no I don't think they will ever reach the scale in greed of Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney.  Because that was corruption with an ideology behind it.  The ideology was that becoming rich justifies itself, and government is necessarily just a conduit to becoming rich.  In terms of lining their pockets, BTW, the Bush's have been in every way worse than the Clintons.

I think Democrats-- that is the constituency that supports the candidates, is a more sensitive to greed and signs of it.  There's at least some more discipline about that and self-restraint.  Granted there are exceptions to everything, and every faction has it's liars, cons and opportunists, just so that the party isn't turned over to them.  

There has never been a conservative who has cut the size of the government, period.  Thatcher didn't do it.  Reagan didn't do it.  Do you think you're going to fill Congress with guys better than him (better by conservative standards, that is)?  

It's possible to cut the government, but not by the formulas conservatives have ever proposed.  You could lay people off.  You could cut and consolidate bureaus.  You could have audit (law enforcement) methods that look for signs of corruption, by just closing down an office for a day or week and doing an inspection.  You can fire people.  Conservatives have never done any of this.  The only time they've ever done anything like it, they were doing it in favor of particular industries or even companies, like cutting FDA inspectors at meat packing plants.

Now, on your third paragraph, electing someone who doesn't believe in government: I try to point out the contradiction of this, but you don't get it.  You don't hire a carpenter who has no belief in the function of carpentry, who believes it's better that he do less work, and persuade the other carpenters that the wood their using should be burned in their fireplaces instead.  You don't hire a mechanic who will charge you just to tell you there's very little anyone can do to fix a car.

So, why do you treat government this thoughtlessly?  Do you really want to put people in it with a comparable attitude.  A government that can't do good also can't improve itself.  

which requires centralization and coordination, so you get agencies like FCC popping up as necessary to the technological infrastructure; and while this makes govt a larger percentage of the overhead, it's also necessary to that technology; and if that technology is a net benefit (which is a social choice) then we'll support it.

The other side is that some technologies will fail and be wasted; and we have no idea in advance which ones they will be.   And any technology will rearrange things in a way that causes garbage and waste, and if that becomes too expensive, then we may discard it for that reason alone.

Blind faith in any principle is a prejudgment that is likely to cause trouble.

The larger issue is finding the right balances for our purposes, and different people's purposes are different.  I may share a lot of common purposes with many people; others, like Chuck Manson and OBL, I would just as soon compost.

are the Indians bothering you again?

Can you cite any law authorizing any illegal person to draw any social program?  If you can't, I have to assume you're blowing smoke.  Again.

who don't need no steenkin facts.

Like the fact that Murtha is generally very hawkish, but not completely mindless or partisan.

economic fluctuations - like paying off a war that does us no good whatever - will tax you just as much as any other type of tax.  The bill will be automatically deducted, without notice.

That's where responsibility has to come in.  The Republicans gave up on arithmetic and logic when they elected Reagan.

if they are willing to break the law to come into the contry, don't you think they would be willing to break the law to get social services...

This is a pretty simple concept that I would think anyone could understand, but looks like I over-estimated you...

There are TERRORISTS trying to kill us all, and you're worried about SOCIAL PROGRAMS?  

Join the Army, there's a social program for you.

of always being wrong????

The one thing I will say is I think Iraq should pay for the war with oil money, NOT the US tax payer. This is a winning position for EITHER party, if they were smart enough to take it.  

BTW, it was the Dem controlled congress during the Reagen Era that spent money like drunken sailors. Granted, so did the Repubs over these last years, but then again, that is why they are out on their ass...

You got it all wrong buddy, Murtha is first and foremost a Marine. What he sees are expenditures not allocated properly. Where do you get this lost cause, crap?

I was not a big of fan President Reagan's fiscal policy however he was a great Commander-in-Chief. I don't know when you were in the USMC. Thank you for your service by the way. But what ol' soldiers told me, the ARMY morale was pretty bad after "NAM.

The bad morale was manifested in the little things, boots not shined, brass not polished and of course, discipline was lacking. Drugs were a problem. Reagan instituted a no tolerance policy for drugs. Pride came back. I remember my first day at Fort Ord, I saw a CSM personally escort out with the help of MPs, a soldier caught for selling drugs.

In Desert Storm, we kicked Iraqi ass and I have to thank Reagan and DoD Casper Weinberger, for putting many of the programs in place for our success.

-- Modified on 11/15/2006 10:09:26 PM

how often do you break the law, snowjob?

but, because none of them had ever actually BEEN to war, or had a lick of common sense, they had no concept that war pretty much fucks everything up; and if you can't get oil out of the ground, and move it around to a gas station, it's pretty hard to sell it.

You see, govts don't actually do anything useful.  God put all the roads there, and Jesus maintains them.  Right?

You know, invade France and make them run all the tour buses to pay for the war.  Invade Japan and make them pay in Toyotas.  

What I get tired of, is trying to teach you any common sense.

-- Modified on 11/16/2006 1:00:31 AM

must mean you are out of arguments....

BTW, Snowman represents natural snow from the sky and is tied to a funny story regarding the first time I saw a provider.

Based on what seems to be your train of thought, I have to wonder about the type of company you may be keeping

by your line of reasoning, security guards should not get paid because they are basically doing nothing. I would say congress should be diligent but rarely act unless truly needed.

BTW, they ARE over paid. They will make plenty of money on K-street when they leave office, so why do we have to pay them so much now.

While I see your arguments around the level of corruption Republicans will stand, my counter to that is I have seen the Democrats try to throw out military ballots in order to gain power. In all my years of following politics, THAT is the scummiest thing I have ever witnessed. I have seen NO ACT by the Republicans that even comes close to what a scummy move that was.

As big as a whore as the Repubs are for money as you think (and I think this is true for BOTH parties), it pales in comparison to what whores the DEMS are for power. Their ballott tossing exercise in Florida proved that....

So we will spell it out.   So these people enter the country illegally.  That's one misdemeanor.

How often do you violate the law, snowball?  Do you drive?  How many reviews do you have?  Etc etc.

I'm telling you it's not smart to throw stones when you're living in a fucking glass house.

It was before your time.  That's what conservatives were telling me after the last election.  That's why I was "sorry" to have to stoop to that level and give the losers some of their own condensending advice.

Cynical, I know, but the faster you realize that, the better for you.  

Some are more committed to using the power for good than others, but essentially, the power is the real payoff.  Extra money is just part of the power.  The question is how hard do you want them to work for that power, and how much you'll hold them to staying within the rules.  People have to be vigilante that they are kept restrained.  Politicians will try to grab more power.  Even the best: Thomas Jefferson wanted power, and people opposed to him were shocked about it.  FDR wanted power. Richard Nixon wanted power.  

One reason why I never liked George H. W. Bush was that he wanted just the power but had absolutely no thought on how he was going to use it.  None.  He just wanted it.  When the Berlin Wall came down, he missed a golden opportunity to be a real statesmen.  He let Yugoslavia dissolve, and encouraged it.  His carelessness about Iraq's ambitions to take Kuwait was an exercise in inaction.  Only in reaction, did he decide it was important.  

His son was more vacuous and wanted power that much more.  He turned his foreign agenda over to the neocons.  The only time he gave the illusion of leadership, which everyone hoped was real, was when he said, "I can hear you!"    

They can be somewhat restrained by legacy: the things people will remember them for when they had power, but really power is the payoff.    

Security guard: this job is by definition   defensive and reactionary.  However, on the higher levels of security, like, say Secret Service or Casino security, you definitely don't want guards to be inactive.  You want them always looking and being a step ahead.  Congressman is pretty high in the politics industry.

I had stupidly forgotten that maneuver of throwing out military ballots.  There's not really a return I have to it, except to say I think it was a reaction to the aggressiveness to which Republicans have threw people off the voting rolls in Florida.  In 2000, during election night, when Jeb Bush realized Florida was close, he got his cellphone and laptop computer and got to work for his brother's election.  Now, what was he doing?  He wasn't just watching the election.  Purportedly, a Governor cannot and should not do anything to effect the election.  Yet, Jeb, it seemed, had some power to effect it.  Then there was Katherine Harris.  The Republicans in Florida were in a conspiracy to throw Democrats off the voting rolls, before, during and after the election.  There is no doubt about this.  

Yes, an overtly cynical move by Democrats-- I'd also call it desperate against the conspiracy they were seeing.        

-- Modified on 11/16/2006 12:36:02 PM

are you really trying to say that sneaking into a country and illegally claiming social services is equivalent to speeding!!!

Are you one of these guys who thinks rape is simply an aggresive dating technique??

apologizing AND explaining.

You DO have to learn something from Republicans, and that is, mercy does not pay bills.  The way you pay bills is, kill your neighbor and steal his goods.  Well, maybe that's learning TOO much from them.

You're right about this.  I was also in the military during the transition.

No way. He takes a liberal position on everything. and he is a crook who belongs in jail

snow, power and money are interchangeable.  The rate of exchange is just unpredictable.

Politicians, businessmen, clergy, everybody is in the business of collecting perogatives - power, money, whatever else.  If you run too low, you're fucked.   If you're flush, you can get away with all sorts of shit.

The FL ballot tossing exercise was a dead heat.

What's interesting is that everybody agrees that the actual margins were substantially less than the probable error, ie, mathematically, a dead heat.

Then it went to the Supremes, who came up with really novel uses for injunctive relief, ie, eliminating evidence.  Since when does any political candidate have a stronger interest in his reputation than the voters have in an accurate count?

The Marines have in many ways always managed to maintain their own little world, and their sense of being different helps insulate them from transient issues like that.  I can remember any number of times I was working with Army and Marines alongside each other, and while the soldiers were often equal or even better technically, there was never the aggressive teamwork and pride there was among the Marines.  

You could argue it was self-delusion, but it works.  

Of course, technically Marines are permanently assault configured, and if you want to get sociological about it, the attitudes logically derive from that.  The same sort of independence and aggressiveness that is needed in an assault organization is - well, delusional in some respects.  But again, it gets the job done where other things would not.

After Vietnam, the Army brass went back to work rebuilding the Army with an emphasis on fighting a European war - and it was very likely at some points.  We found in the 90s that the east germans had gone so far as to strike a victory medal.

The Army brass did an excellent job of rebuilding, as shown in the 2 persian gulf and afghan campaigns.   Personally, I expected several times the casualties we suffered (and I would have bet schwarzkopf would pull the end run that he did) because I simply did not appreciate the changes that PGMs had made since I left.

But the problem is that manuever wars assume that you are going to knock out the the military and let the civilians twist in the wind, which is pretty much what the military has done in those sorts of wars.  It does not make any allowances for a social role for the military, which is what many of our actions have been (Somalia, Iraq, Vietnam).  The Yugo invasion was an action against the Serbs, and more in the nature of the usual manuever war.  Had we followed up in Afghanistan, rooted out OBL and left them to grow their poppies, that's a manuever campiagn with a limited objective.

But as soon as you start expecting to do civil projects and social roles, you have a BIG BIG problem.  There will always be locals who love you, and those who say they love you.  But even they have families and are related to people who don't like the round-eyed infidel, or people who were hit by stray rounds.   It's a losing battle to try to win the hearts and minds of foreigners by occupying them.  That's the job of Madison Avenue.

It's simple - soldiers aren't social workers.  You can pretend they are for a while, but it wears thin.  The fact is, even social workers couldn't solve this problem.  You can't save a nation from itself.

The military did an outstanding job in Iraq.  Well, OK, their opposition wasn't all that wonderful.  If they were to go into a place like Russia or China, they would destroy units, then find themselves facing partisan warfare forever.

The failure from the beginning was the GOP failure to calculate whether the cure was worse than the disease; and they failed to read the label about side effects - may cause Vietnam syndromes.  

But these fellows are not all fools.  Sure, some of them are.  There is no doubt in my mind that GW and Cheney alike have not put 10 minutes' thought into the predictable problems of the rifle squad patrol.  But some of them did, and they went ahead because it was never about Iraq, it was always about Washington DC.

No officer has any excuse for being unfamiliar with Mao's "Protracted War".   The problem is, these fellows all have the attitude of "find a way or make one" when Powell should have been telling Bush to find another patsy, because I would have no part of it.  It's walking people into a kill zone with a snowball's chance in hell of any benefit.

My opinion now is the same as it was in 2002:  we would have been better leaving Saddam there to fuck with his head, and focus on transportation security.

(1) Show me one case - ONE CASE, ONE NAME - of an illegal claim to social services.  I will bet you that citizens make TEN (10) TIMES the false claims that any illegal does.

(2) What is more dangerous to other people, pal, speeding, or crossing a border without papers??!!

I think we can forget about the possibility that you might begin to know what the FUCK you are talking about.

That's deep. You are nothing but a cheap shot artist

That's the best idea you have had yet!! Paving France would be a better idea

and Rumsfeld pitched that idea.   It's reasonable if you assume you can get the oil to the ports, without any liens on it.

That obviously assumes minimal security problems and political-legal disputes.  And that's a very big assumption, which as it turned out, turned out to be wrong.

So I know what I'm talking about, from study and experience, and that's the GOP's idea of a cheapshot artist.

Well, you're my idea of a dumbass moron who wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit his ass.

It is scary....

Since you obviously have no idea what the FUCK you are talking about let me explain.

Sneaking into the country is more dangerous. Hell, the border crossing alone is far more dangerous that going 10 mph over the speed.
Walk to your local ER and see how many illegals get treated each year and get services and never pay the bill. Who the hell do you think pays for that. I am suprised you even know how to breathe you are so out of touch with reality

Congratulations, you may now proceed to the 1st grade...

some people can walk without getting hurt, pal.  I realize you're a Republican who needs people to take care of him, but here's the clue - some people can function independently.

Walk to your local ER and tell me who's illegal.

When you figure it out, we'll let you into kindergarten.

there is only a finite amount of money to go around. The more we spend supporting non-citizens, the less we have to defend the country.

Pretty simple concept, which is why you probably didn't get it...

insteada joining Teddy's Travelling Buttfuck Show.