Under the rules of campaigning while running for president, all the shows that feature Fred Thompson would have to be pulled (even the reruns). Click on the link below to understand why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02174.html

I am the only one that finds it very telling that Republicans are so eager to find an alternative to the heavy hitters in the party?

Um, because many of them don’t see the present candidates line-up as having the same Reagan conservative values. At least there’s no worry about one being “black” enough or that one has to put on fake southern accent whenever one talk to a southern crowd. Or show any signs of pretentiousness of straightening one’s hair with a lady’s mirror.

Wow, I didn’t know that someone who grew up in Arkansas had a fake southern accent. That’s a new one for me. I mean, it isn’t as if she’s from Conneticutt and fakes an Texan accent, right?

And it’s all okay, it’s not as pretentious, as say, putting on a flight suit, and swaggering down a a flyway with the words “Mission Accomplished” displayed promiently above your head.

Right?

Um, she puts on her southern accent whenever she comes before a southern crowd such as the ones in a black church. God forbid should a Republican do that it’d be on the front page of ever msm newspapers for using a fake drawl.

Well, since Bush is a former pilot and great PR thing he did. One of the biggest myth or “misunderstanding” is that the “Mission Accomplished” wasn’t about the Iraq war but of the ship’s own mission that was accomplished. And it was the ship’s crew that put it up to celebrate their mission accomplished.

Again, the msm skews the reporting. And, hey, I thought it was cool of Bush to come on board with a flight suit and help the crew’s morale on a job well done. The crew thought it was cool, too.

*shrugs*

idiot. george w. bush speaks with a fake texan accent.

Um, have you listened to his voice? Do you know what a Texan accent sounds like? On what authority do you say he has a fake Texan accent? Yet, Bush was 2 years old when the family moved from Connecticut to Odessa, TX and grew up mostly in Midland, TX. Essentially he has lived in TX for most of his live and Texas is his home where he has an environmentally friendly ranch to boot. It isn’t a surprise that Bush acquired a Texan accent. No surprise there. Or just like what Gomer Pyle would say in his heavy southern accent, “Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!” Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise seeing that Bush IS from Texas.

So, what does that make GWB? Well, certainly a Texan. A Texan that has an Texan accent.

I know what it sounds like since my co-worker is from TX and he has a Texan accent. And Bush certainly has that.

A Texan accent is like a southern accent but with a bit of a twist to it without all the long drawlllll to it that Hillary does so well whenever she sees herself in front of southern crowd in a Church in Alabama. Like a turning the spigot on to get water.

“Perhaps the best example of a Texan who defines his identity through language is George W. Bush, whose parents and siblings do not speak with the same heavily inflected speech that he does.”
http://www.pbs.org/speak/seato.....xan/drawl/

A good read on how linguistic researchers are studying the roots of Texan accents and the dialects. Heck, at age 10 I managed to acquire a southern accent. My younger sister had picked up an even a more stronger accent that prompted panic from my Mother who didn’t want a daughter with a southern accent. LoL.

Next time, Xor, before you say “idiot,” be sure to look around first before you say it out here.

Ya’ll be good.

Um, Afghanistan we deal with corrupt warlords. What makes you think they’d be better off in terms of reconstruction effort free of corruption?

Like I said, corruption is a fact of life in those parts of the country.

I understand that. The whole point I was trying to make is that we are wasting billions on an effort that should have never occured and neglecting things in our own country..

I don’t think we have “neglected” any thing in the U.S. because of the Iraq war. Secondly, while the Iraqi regime was under economic sanctions they managed to siphoned off some several billion dollars in the Oil For Food program.

You can saw that we (internationally) shouldn’t be there but that is the price to pay when it comes to enforcement of the UN’s 17 resolutions that were broken and violated by Saddam. If you have NO intention of enforcing the resolutions in the first place, then you shouldn’t be issuing resolutions in the first place.

I don’t think we have “neglected” any thing in the U.S. because of the Iraq war.

Really? Then why don’t you go down to New Orleans 9th district, and shout that from the rooftops? I dare ya.

Secondly, while the Iraqi regime was under economic sanctions they managed to siphoned off some several billion dollars in the Oil For Food program.

Yes, and that is absolutely why we had to add another 16 billion to fix the problem, in addition to what was already spent.

It’s like using a fire hose to blow out a fire in a wastebasket!

Um, I don’t think you realize the vastness of the destruction in and around New Orleans, and in other states and how long it take just to clean it up first.

How many homes do you think were destroyed in and around New Orleans? It’s over 200,000 along with almost 20,000 businesses.

With that fact in mind, how many destroyed homes are razed on a daily basis? Even if we can get enough contractors to help with the demolition of, oh say, 100 homes a day, 24/7. It would take 2000 days or 5.5 years to tear down all those homes, find a place to deposit all those ruined materials. Remember, we’re talking about the constant tearing down of infrastructures 24 hours a day, 7 days week for 5 years. Remember, New Orleans isn’t the only place in demand for contractors and machinery to get the job done. Even if you could do 1000 homes a day, it’d take about a full year to do it, 24/7 that is.

Before you do any deconstruction of that size and scale, there has to be planning behind it on what to do with all those materials.

I don’t think you even realize the vastness of this reconstruction effort where infrastructures, sewage, roads, utility lines and so forth.

If you think nothing is being done in the rebuilding efforts, you’re absolutely wrong. Neglected? Hardly.
You really need read up the monthly report tracking the accomplishments and what needs to be done in the “Katrina Index.”
http://www.gnocdc.org/KI/KatrinaIndex.pdf
It details the progress.

There are, in fact, issues with contractors, disbursement of funds, real estate prices, housing market issues, land value, and such. But things are moving forward despite what you readand hear in the, of course, mainstream media.

Better to put out the fire coming from a waste basket than to let the fire destroy the whole house I’d say. Of course, if you think the a house is worth burning down, well, that’d be your opinion.

Here’s an example of neglect that’s going on in New Orleans.
http://lra.louisiana.gov/

Yes, I get it. It’s all their fault. It could have nothing whatsoever to do with the management of FEMA, depleted funds, etc, etc, etc. We could argue for hours, but I know that even if there was a whole jury trial of the Bush Administration, and every top person was guilty, and there were irrevocable proof that our focus on the war affected our ability to manage this disaster, you’d still belive what you to believe.

So..

This was a complex situation involving everyone from the Federal down to the local level to Mayor Nagin’s own idiocy for not evacuating people out in time.

It’s a myth to believe that the war hampered the U.S. ability to manage this disaster. The Federal government does NOT manage this disaster alone. They *assist*. Again, it involves several layers of management levels from the Federal down to the local level. Some take the lead while others follow depending on the resources.

I have showed otherwise why the reconstruction effort isn’t neglect with proof in a link. Problems? Sure. Neglected? No. Which is why the problem of using such a word as if nobody is doing anything. That’s where you are wrong WSS. Things are being done, albeit not with perfect clockwork perfection but nonetheless help is happening.

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, Bush is great, yadda, yadda, Iraq is just fine.

Pfft. I’ll just let the news speak for itself.

Item # 1

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....s-tornado/

ROBERTS: We spoke with your (INAUDIBLE) general, Major General Bunting, a little while ago. You have illuminated a problem that you’ve got here in terms of the National Guard’s ability to be able to react to this crisis because of the Iraq war.

What’s going on?

SEBELIUS: Well, states all over the country are not only missing personnel, National Guard troops are — about 40 percent of the troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan — but we’re missing the equipment. When the troops get deployed, the equipment goes with them.

So, here in Kansas, about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We’re missing Humvees, we’re missing all kinds of equipment that can help us respond to this kind of emergency.

ROBERTS: So how is that going to hamper efforts both in the recovery and the rebuilding?

SEBELIUS: Well, as you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that the city and county trucks were destroyed. They — the storm hit them, as well as anything…

ROBERTS: Fire trucks and everything is gone.

SEBELIUS: So we’re borrowing equipment from around, but National Guard are our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in. And it will just make it that much slower.

Item # 2

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswi.....CF055.html

The War in Iraqis endangering our National Guard at home. “Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated “not ready” — largely as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars’ worth of equipment — jeopardizing their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report yesterday on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.” (Washington Post, 3/2/07)

Again, more hype and myths. In fact, it was the National Guard’s finest hour in the rescue of thousands of stranded people from their rooftops and helped save the lives of over 17,000 people in distress. Or haven’t you forgotten?

==============
Myth No. 2: The active-duty Army saved the day, restoring law and order after the wholesale failure of state and local authorities.

The reality: Active-duty soldiers on the ground numbered a few thousand at best, and most did not show up until days alter the first Guard elements arrived. By Sept. 10, the Guard presence in affected states had swelled to 50,000. Nearly 30,000 were deployed to Louisiana alone (and 3,000 remain on duty there now).

Camped in downtown New Orleans, national media iocused much of their attention on the relatively small number of active-duty troops posted nearby.

Meanwhile, far from the cameras, across an area twice the size of Pennsylvania, Guard soldiers and airmen delivered humanitarian aid, assisted with law enforcement (a military role unique to the Guard) and helped save the lives of 17,000 citizens in distress.

Combining modesty with a sense of purpose, Guard commanders adopted a simple catchphrase to describe their mission: “Neighbors helping neighbors.”

The chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, rightly observed, “This was one of the Guard’s finest hours.”

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita energized the largest peacetime response in the Guard’s 369-year history.

Moreover, this was driven not by federal orders from the Pentagon, but by voluntary deployments from each of the 54 states and territories, facilitated by time-tested, state-tostate emergency assistance agreements.

As the framers of the Constitution intended, this huge military force was firmly under civilian control, working for the governors and, ultimately, the people of Louisiana and Mississippi.

As always, the diversity of National Guard talents contributed immeasurably to the suecess of the operation.

Chemical-biological teams from Alaska, experienced in pipeline protection, brought their skills to bear in surveying damage to critical oil and gas infrastructure.

The Guam National Guard-experts in rendering posttyphoon support-signed up for a full three months of duty, 7,000 miles from home.

A Washington state legislator volunteered to serve as a civil affairs NCO, helping local officials formulate requests for Guard intervention.

Alabama soldiers established a “continuity of government” team, assisting in the restoration of basic administrative functions for battered Cameron Parish, ground zero for Hurricane Rita.

Some political trial balloons launched toward Washington, D.C., advocate an active-duty military takeover of future catastrophic events. Most governors and members of Congress do not buy this ill-acMsed proposal. As the National Response Plan itself dictates, any military involvement in domestic emergencies must be strictly subordinate to civil authority.

Given those circumstances, the National Guard is clearly America’s force of choice.

By Col. John Maietta

The author is a public affairs officer for the Pennsylvania National Guard.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti....._n17170826

Okay, now on to Iraq War reconstruction projects.
http://www.sigir.mil/reports/Q.....mplete.pdf

This is the report of the Special Inspector General. Ths is not a news site, this is a governmental agency, detailing what they have discovered. If you want the original source, this is where you go. If you don’t have time to wade through it, you can go ahead to the next article -

This is from another article which summarizes it aptly -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/.....-duts.html

”
A report by the federal office overseeing US reconstruction in Iraq says that of eight rebuilding projects, costing some $150 million and previously declared successes, seven are now in disrepair or have been abandoned.

The New York Times writes that the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), which released its quarterly report to Congress Monday, found that the “seven projects were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting, and expensive equipment that lay idle.”

” The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

The inspections ranged geographically from northern to southern Iraq and covered projects as varied as a maternity hospital, barracks for an Iraqi special forces unit and a power station for Baghdad International Airport.”

And there’s more on explain exactly what those myths are about Katrina. It’s not so simple as a single conspiracy theory here because there isn’t one.

MYTH: “The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history.”–Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005
REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest–and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day–some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, “guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways,” says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs’ departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California’s Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.
While the press focused on FEMA’s shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success–especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.
http://www.popularmechanics.co.....=2&c=y

Neglected, I’m sure.

See, JT, I proved my point. I could quote stats all day, but it wouldn’t budge McConnell a bit.

I stand corrected :)

Still, I think I speak for the majority of readers in here when I say that I prefer reading debates based on fact, not character. I’d love to see you guys co-author a split “opposing viewpoint” column and then let the audience respond with their comments. Still, I have learned that deaf voters seem likely to vote one certain way over another, so it might be moot anyway.

McConnell & WSS,

Can you acknowledge that there are multiple standpoints and you’re willing to discuss opposing point of view?

Um, WSS and WAD, note the last three posts I made and the time.

mcconnell - 2007-05-07 18:30:42
wss - 2007-05-07 18:32:32
mcconnell - 2007-05-07 18:33:50
mcconnell - 2007-05-07 18:34:38
wss’ complaint - 2007-05-07 18:48:19

I never saw WSS post at 18:33:50 since I have been having problems with Haloscan rejecting my postings.

I am willing to discuss opposing views, but not with McConnell. He is always right, and I am always wrong. It gets really boring with him.

Can we ban him? Seriously, I’d love to have a real debate without him jumping in with his page-long posts and being really obstinate and annoying.

WSS,
Thanks for the reply.

McConnell,
You are in defensive mode as of now. You haven’t answered my question.

WAD, of course. There are always multiple standpoints and opposing point of views. That’s why DeafDC was created so that people can express their opposing viewpoints. I’ve said this repeatedly.

Because my perspectives may be different from yours, and I may disagree with varying degrees, I provide my point of view that expresses my opinions on the subject.

I discuss opposing views all the time. Doesn’t mean I agree with them. I’ll say “I disagree” and offer my reasons why. Then again if I do agree, I may offer my reasons why, too.

No big mystery there.

Heh. Why do you think nobody else would join this debate, WSS? ;)

Kinda reminds me of the phrase…

“Never wrestle with a pig - you’ll both get dirty, and only the pig enjoys it.”

I wish someone else would, so I could debate with THEM. Come on guys, you know I’m pretty good for it. I may be passionate and stubborn, but I’ll concede all the good points. Join us. Ignore the pig.

It is what makes you Democratic-like :-) Welcome aboard, WSS, and take the high road!

Well, I think the Iraq war is illegal. A preemptive strike is not a just war in my opinion, and Bush, Cheney and Rove should not only be impeached but be tried by a war crimes tribunal.

The Republican party’s conduct is mind-boggling to me. They are nothing but criminals, in my eyes. They have decimated the constitution, and have abridged our rights in the name of security.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, in the Penn. Assembly - Reply To Governor”

heh you actually think the Democrats are any different?

I’m not going to get too far into this discussion, it’s way too closed minded. It’s all too Black and White.

Sure, it’s a given fact that Republican’s tend to be more conservative, while the Democrats tend to be very liberal. But both ideals are far too generalized. McCain, case in point is a very Liberal Republican, meanwhile Barrack Obama is a rather conservative democrat.

And Keep in mind, the presidency (not Bush) itself is responsible for the decision for starting the war in Iraq, albeit a ridiculous war, but the war was started on our part (which i think we shouldn’t have done in the first place)it’s up to us to clean up and follow through.

People do not want to get along….. Power is way too attractive, egos have too many “nerve endings” to stroke. If the human race does not have the capability to get along in this point of time. If it were possible, then there wouldn’t necessary be a need for “us vs. them” “the ass vs. the elephant” “sunni’s vs. shi’ites” and in our world deaf vs. hard of hearing. That’s the way it is going to be.

“Careful that you do not ignore reality, for you make it easy for others to deceive you.”

Punkyb..

Actually, I believe Barack Hussein Obamam is a liberal Democrat rather than a conservative one. If you want a less liberal person, albeit slightly, look no further than Kucinich.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/.....935220.htm

As for the “pig” comments, this is what happens when people try and use a veiled ad hominem attack whenever one flustered and/or angry. I suppose people may find value in using ad hominem attacks in a debate but certainly not me. Please resist the temptation and actually debate using facts and figures.

And for people calling this an “illegal war,” it isn’t. The Iraq war was an on-going war from the Gulf War by which Iraq iniated it by invading Kuwait starting on Aug 2, 1990.

Kuwait requested the help from the U.N. and thus put together a coalition, including the U.S. to repel Saddam’s advances in Kuwait back into Iraq. The repel was successful. Saddam surrendered and agreed to the terms outlined in the surrender agreement.

It’s funny how people blame everybody else but not Saddam for initiating the war against Kuwait that started the Iraq war that continues to this day but in a different fashion now.

Remember. There is a reason to have surrender agreements. But should a surrender agreement gets broken then that means the war continues and gives the green light to resume fighting. Instead of sending troops back, the U.N. came up with 17 resolutions to try and get Saddam to comply with the original surrender agreement (as well as numerous UN resolutions afterwards) he agreed to back in 1991 after Kuwait was liberated.

I am continually surprised to see that people continue to say this is an illegal war when it is not.

The U.N. authorized the U.S. on the use of force:

“Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949″

This was done after 16 UN Resolutions were made from 1991 to 1999 to get Saddam to comply with the surrender agreement. The 17th was on the use of force that Saddam even ignored it, too.

Now, if the U.N. cannot enforce their own U.N. Security Council Resolutions then what good are these resolutions in the first place? The U.N. shouldn’t be in the business of making resolutions in the first place!

Again, Saddam broke the surrender agreement repeatedly thus allowing the war to resume. It was never an illegal war in the first place. It was ongoing war that continued from 1990. Now, it is not so much as a war against Iraq but against terrorists right now since the coalition troops disarmed the Baathist party and disposed Saddam. Iraq is in the reconstruction phase

I commend McConnell for going the extra length to back up his arguments with facts. I would like to see others defend their opposing positions (which may or may not be just as valid) using similar approaches instead of just criticizing McConnell’s righteous approach.

Facts are to be commended, but facts have never budged McConnell on his positions. I could list several sources and several reasons why the rationale for the Iraq war was ill-founded. He would only find thousands of sources from right-wing thinktanks to back up his positions.

I understand what you are saying, JT, and you are correct, that we should back up our positions with facts. But the thing is, facts can be represented any way you’d like them to be.

The real question, here, JT is do you want to sit around and let McConnell prove his so-called facts or take a stand? here, this is what the war is costing us.

http://www.boston.com/news/wor.....ek/?page=2

he Congressional Research Service report estimates that after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion. Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up security at US military bases around the world.

At this point, I don’t particulary care if this war was legal. I don’t care if Saddam himself took a private plane down to JFK Nat’l airport, got off board, dropped his trousers and mooned us. This is insane. Period.

Since McConnell never did respond to my comment about Fox news being biased, let me clue you in with some information about where he gets his “facts” from.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/27/fox-parody/

“On Tuesday, Fox News morning show “Fox & Friends” aired at least eight segments on a purported “news” story that was actually a parody article written by a publication similar to The Onion.”

On Tuesday, Fox & Friends reported these parody quotes and details as actual news. Poking fun at the students, hosts asked whether ham was “a hate crime…or lunch?” and showed screen shots of ham sandwiches, starving Somalians, belching, animal noises, and mock “reenactments” of the incident. Ironically, the hosts assured viewers several times, “We’re not making this up!”

THIS is the network that McConnell thinks that the Democrat candicates are afraid to debate on. Heck, if they can’t tell apart real news from fake news…

“Facts are to be commended, but facts have never budged McConnell on his positions. I could list several sources and several reasons why the rationale for the Iraq war was ill-founded. He would only find thousands of sources from right-wing think tanks to back up his positions.”

Funny. I’m not here to “budge” your position. I’m here to present MY opinion based on the facts and the history of the subject I do my research on from various sources and not just only from “right wing think tanks.” Should I accuse you of the same thing on the left?

And as a result of my research efforts, I present my facts and opinions here. Are you actually complaining because you can’t “budge” me?

I don’t know whether to laugh or just shake my head in all this. This is about presenting differing views based on facts, opinions or a bit of both. Not about attacking a person repeatedly.

Let me show you some facts about the monies spent.

$509 billion spent on the war since 2001. That’s 5 years so far. Or about, on average about $102 billion dollars a year. Now, let’s compare that to the annual budget the United States gets to spend each year. In 2006, it was $2.6 trillion dollars. In 2006 the monies spent on Iraq was $102 billion (using the above average amount from the 5 years). Looking at the surface sounds like lots and lots of monies but compared to $2.6 trillion dollars it’s really a drop in the bucket.

$102 billion divided by $2.6 trillion gives you 3.9% of the total monies spent for that year on the Iraq war/reconstruction effort. Not much. It’s like for every dollar you spend in the United States, less than 4 cents is spent on the war effort.

If you REALLY want to get into large expenditures on monies spent then compare the monies spent annually on the Iraq war/reconstruction effort to that of Medicare, Social Security and Welfare. Combined expenditure amounts to more than $1.5 trillion dollars a year! It is not that the spending is not justified, it is. Just to let you know. Just the fact that Social Security, welfare/unemployment, medicare and Medicaid takes up 57% of the annual budget alone. Compared to Iraq? Pennies in a bucket if you get my drift.

$544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security

$359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare
$345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
$268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related

The spending argument is weak.

http://www.answers.com/topic/u.....udget-2006

The thing about money is that it sounds alot until you take consideration on the total amount of money the U.S. spends in a year and compare that amount to that of the monies spent annual on the war/reconstruction efforts.

Please, WSS, don’t attempt to be the mind reader here. I rarely use Foxnews as a source of information. Did I at all used any links to Foxnews as a source in my discussion here in DeafDC?

Did I?

No.

It is though a FACT that Democrats basically ran away from Fox citing numerous excuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03.....mp;emc=rss

Yet Republican candidates didn’t run away from MSNBC. Or had it been CBS, NBC, or PBS they would still be up to the challenge as a reputable news media. And, yet they are just as biased as any other news media. To say otherwise would beg the question of the person’s thinking.

Either discuss and debate without the inferred mud slinging against me personally. Focus on your arguments and opinions using your source of informaton and links and not about me and how you cannot “budge” me to change. And while I’m at it, I haven’t even gone off on a bend complaining about how you use your sources and how I cannot “budge” you to change your mind (which isn’t my goal here). Why is that? Do I find it highly ironic that you’re basically the only person here complaining on what I find and report here, and how present my arguments and opinions?

Hmmm…?

How do we know he isn’t colorblind, then? Maybe it was really green? Just an example.

I know, I know, I promised. I’m going now.

I don’t think the Democrats are saints. I think they’re almost as bad as the Republicans. If you really want to peg me on my political leanings, I’m pretty much 85% consequentialist Libertarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

Deaf Pundit, I actually agree with you.

Seriously. I haven’t been too proud of the Democratic party lately, but I am feeling more positive today, as we are seeing Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid taking a stand on important issues.

http://www.democrats.org/legislation.html

I have to applaud them on their efforts to restore sanity in Washington. There still is a long way to go, though. I was completely dismayed by their stand on the Iraq War back in 2003ish and left the party to become an Independent. I thought about joining the Greens..

If I could belong to a third party, I would definitely throw my weight behind the Green Party - their views are most congruent with mine. They want to focus on alternative energy, minimize the negative effects of globalization and believe in civil rights equality for men and women (which extends to marriage equality). If you want to learn more - check it out. Don’t fall for the same old “dirty hippie” meme - they have some well-thought out positions.

http://www.gp.org/

However, this is the USA, and our system is bicameral one, and I recognize that by throwing my weight behind the Democratic party, it is more likely that my views will be represented in Washington.

By the way, I never liked Nader. I didn’t vote for him. I liked Gore, now, more than ever, I like him. I’d vote for him in a second if he ran for President.

Oh, I forgot to add - I’m basically a progressive. While I am extremely socially liberal, I am somewhat more moderately conservative in financial matters, although I do believe that workers need more leverage against corporations, and that corporations, for instance, do not qualify for personhood status (and thus, should be under regulations and oversight by an external agency). I believe that we should encourage small businesses to expand, and while I support globalization, I believe that we need to even the playing field - everywhere - so corporations cannot abuse their workers or blackmail their way into advantageous circumstances.

Oh, and the number one issue - the environment. The pillaging of the rainforests and willful ignorance of our impact on the earth’s resources must be combated. We should be seeking alternative energy sources which will enable us to become independent from despotic states such as Iraq, since we would no longer be dependent on their oil output.

Anyway that’s just the basics there.

Yep, and even Henry Kissinger doesn’t agree that military victory is possible.

““If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11.....mp;emc=rss

On the othe rhand, he doesn’t believe that a rapid withdraw from Iraq would be a good idea. I disagree. I don’t think anything could make it worse than it is now.. but hey, that’s what differences in opinion is for. :)