The Iraq war will end

This is a message to Democrats, such as Brian Baird, who are waning their original opposition to the war in Iraq, by support any minute positive news that will come from the surge.

The Iraq War will ultimately end.

This is not based on the presumption that people will recognize that this is an immoral and un-winnable war. It is based on the fact that troops WILL be pulled out of Iraq within the next couple years is simply because there isn't enough help. Most of the soldiers in Iraq are on their second, third, or worst case third tour.

As John Kerry had explained during the 2004 election, the only option if we choose to continue the fight in Iraq is to create a draft. Yes, a military draft. We have spread our current volunteer soldiers thin, to the point of suicide.

What our soldiers are going through is grinding. Day in and day out they are asked to patrol streets with the risked of having a suicide bomber killing them at moments notice. This isn't just over a span of a year, but over three or four years. They are tough, just not this tough; their endurance has been strained.

Those who want to plead that this is a moral cause and that there is a chance that stability can be restored have to be honest with the American people. The only way that the surge can work is if it is placed at the national level, which would require General Shinseki's original troop level at 300,000. In other words, we need a draft not only to double the current level, but to give a much needed rest to those troops who are already pushed to the breaking point.

This is a moral cause that will require more than politician's support, it would require the support of the American people. It doesn't look like they will continue to support this war. No one wants a draft, and very few want this war to continue.

This is a war that cannot sustain itself. The Iraqi leaders see this reality, but many in D.C. continue to believe that if we delay the inevitable with any glimmer of hope that we can turn things around in Iraq.

Even if there is somehow support for a draft, it doesn't give any guarantee that the Iraqi Parliament will start actually complete one benchmark.

To the point

With the whole Howard Dean "fiasco" far behind us we need to realize that the republican party is not in the position to put a presidential candidate that speaks the wishes of the masses (or as I like to say more figuratively, the hoi polloi. Their objective is not to put a great candidate up against a democrat in 2008, it is to find the democrat's weakest link and exploit it to the nth degree.

I found a good post that makes the case for Obama using this same logical fame work. Quite clearly it states,

Obama is more important than just the best Democrat. He is the best PERSON for our country.

The post isn't well written at all, but it is to the point. Quite clearly, it brings up a salon article that even in Frank Luntz poll testing, that republicans are likely to vote for Obama, while other democrats get no support whatsoever. This is incredibly important considering that the Iraq war is probably the issue that will garner the most amount of unity among voters. All the republicans are for it, while most of the public is against it.

The same overzealous, and non sequential, attacks on Dean share an eerie similarity to the repeated, and failed, attacks on Obama. The republicans want it, so they are trying their hardest to create a feud between Clinton and Obama, hoping in the process to taint the clean image of Obama.

I actually agree with Frank Luntz

I know, I know, another video! Sorry about that, but it does tie in to what I want to write in this post. Of all the times over the past couple years that I have written about his misguided "polik speak,"(see www.giantvolcano.com) I do agree with him on this one.

Democrats send way too much time bashing Bush. Its not helping. We know that our positions are shared by more Americans then he values that republicans spout. We have the advantage, yet politicians Like Darcy Burner continue to expose the connection expecting more votes next election season.

How is that going to win over moderate republicans? Simply put, it won't. It hasn't; just look at the 2006 election results. Why is it that the state of Indiana gets three districts to elect a democrat for the first time in over fifty years, yet in a liberal part of the state we still have Reichert as our house representative? They didn't attack Bush, they only stated that they were against the war in Iraq, wanted to raise the minimum wage, create affordable health care, and eliminate political corruption. All of these issues the democrats have the American public's side, yet inept politicians like Burner continue to believe that by simply attacking Bush it will win people over.

It didn't work in 2006, what makes these people think it will work in 2008?

Now I have an answer

So, in regards to my last post on Cheney, it seems that he lied to us back in 1994 in order to advance his plan to invade Iraq.

Why I am not surprised?

We need someone other than Darcy Burner

This visit does not hurt Reichert in anyway, only because the democrats still continue to use the failed strategy of making a connection of Bush and Reichert. Of course, there is a connection, Reichert does what he is told to do by Bush's cronies. But, that strategy failed in 2006 because voters are thinking at a more local perspective. It's difficult to make the argument that Reichert is the same as Bush since he can tout his "independent" voting record.

Why is Darcy Burner still using this failed strategy? She needs to attack Reichert directly on Iraq, Health care, and integrity. Just him. Do not utter Bush in any way. This puts Reichert on the defensive, rather then just allowing him to say to moderate republicans that the democrats are not addressing the issues; they are just "bush bashing."

Either she get rid of her incompetent advisers, or the democratic party needs to endorse someone better.

Materialism

I just finished a book called "the media monopoly." While I knew and/or assumed most of what it discussed, there is one important fact that I discovered; our materialism costs us as a nation $30 billion a year. Take an item like bleach. When you go the supermarket you will see that there are various different brands at vastly different prices. The simple fact is that bleach is bleach; there is little difference between each brand. Then why would someone buy a more expensive brand? The answer is that the type of color, or image conveyed in the ad tells us that we will be safe, or cleaner. New and/or lower priced companies will have to spend more money in research and commercials to compete with the big boys, which forces them to raise their price to cover the extra costs.

Please, stop being lame and buying more expensive products only for the sole reason that you have some sort of identification with the color blue. You're fucking it up for the rest of us.

Ron Paul is CRAZY!!!!

Who is this guy? I want to buy him a beer.

Reponse to Anonymous Ron Paul Fanatic

Post #1

Anonymous said...

Wow. You've done zero research. Paul has said many times that he will reverse Bush's executive orders, abolish the patriot act, etc.

August 22, 2007 10:02 PM

I agree, I wrote something stupid, which I do most of the time, and posted totally incorrect facts. Thanks for pointing it out. I am a wee bit less stupid than I was yesterday thanks to you.

What I do find troubling is his interpretation of state rights, and the role that the constitution plays in it.

Post #2

Anonymous said...

And speaking of Darfur. Are you in the military? If not, then why? You could go to Darfur.

August 22, 2007 10:04 PM

Please, don't use any vague and moronic threats to me (Or to anyone for that matter!).

Also, if I were in the military (how did you know?), I don't think that I would have any option of fight injustice ever I saw fit. I would be the voiceless tool of the government, stuck with the hope that what orders I took from my superior officers was the correct action. Just tell that to Pat Tillman's family.

Now, if I was Rambo, then I would be kicking ass and taking names in Africa.

Post #3

Anonymous said...

Interesting, the only thing you got correct is Darfur, but I guess a stopped clock can be right twice a day. http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/7f91f675-08d4-4aa5-a7e6-197d4483953e This is a link to Ron Paul on Executive Orders he would repeal. It would be appreciated that you actually admit you were wrong, but I won't hold my breath. Tell ya what I am

going to do. www.ronpaullibrary.com. This is where you can get any information about Rep. Ron Paul you chose. Try this with any other candidate. BTW, pretending to be a guy is amusing. Grow an Adams Apple.

August 23, 2007 12:43 AM

Hey, I worked hard to afford enough money to pay for my degree at St. Regis. I graduated in the same class that consists of 150 federal employees!

And, look at this picture! My Adam's apple isn't robust as those tough and intimating wrinkled old men, but it's there. This truly proves that I am not only a man, but a macho man at that!

Post #4

Anonymous said...

"The same party that didn't want to fight in WWII."

Umm... FDR won on the platform "He kept us out the war" when he was relected. It wasnt just the Republicans.

August 23, 2007 1:43 AM

This just makes me laugh. First you criticize me for being totally off-base with my comment on Ron Paul; I got the scorn I deserved. Well, you could've looked smart on this little debate, but you wrote that! FDR didn't say that! It was Woodrow Wilson during WWI. And, that same man said those words before his second term in order to hold off Ron Paul's main man's (Taft) criticism of the democrats rushing to war. Wilson then sent troops over to Europe to fight in WWI after he was elected to a second term.

FDR was fighting against the republicans, so much so, that he sidestepped constitutional law in an attempt to stop genocide. The responsibility of the failure to respond quickly was NOT shared by both parties.

I hate the phrase.

"slippery slope."

Anyone who uses this in an argument is giving a surefire sign that they are standing on weak ground. Its the last sentence out of an idiot's mouth before they are at the last result of using the example of the Nazis.

There should be a rule in casual debate that when the Nazi's are brought up, without historical context, that their whole argument is moot.

He got a degree in history from Yale?

History is only interpreted to our convenience. Or, in bush's case, scrabbling to preserve what little creditability that is already has left.

Ron Paul is a fraud

I think he is full of shit.

Why you may ask? Well, first of all he says he strictly interprets the constitution, yet he doesn't feel that it is necessary to repeal the enormous presidential powers that Bush has created. The three pillars of governance that the Federalist papers spells out in number 48. As James Madison wrote, "the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations."

The whole net roots campaign that the media tells us is complete bullshit. He has raised little money; all that has resulted is a group of probably a dozen people innadating You-Tube with a tons of comments. Most of which are, I might add, annoying.

The only reason that people will listen to him is that he understands,and willing to admit, to the blatant social/economic consequences of the Iraq war.

The main problem with his stance in Iraq is that it is the same of the Republican party eighty years ago. The same party that didn't want to fight in WWII.

He is nothing more than an isolationist, which is just as bad as these pro-war chicken hawks. On the Issue of Darfur, he doesn't feel that we should help them. So, an issue like genocide isn't important enough cause to stop!?!

Once his actual views gain light, a lot of sane people will recognize that he is nothing more than a free-market zealot, who wants to isolate our country and its responsibility to the rest of the world.

Is anyone paying attention?

Who are these fools?

Don't waste your time reading the article; just look at the picture at the top left corner. Apparently, President Bush has decided that Andy Griffith deserved the Presidental Medal of Freedom. Standing next to him was Jack Nicklous, and Atretha Franklin. Clearly these three people should recieve the same level of praise as Cesar Chavez, Arthur Ashe, Rosa Parks, Aung San Suu Kyi (Bermese human rights activist), and Simon Wiesenthal. I guess if you can play golf really well, have a great singing voice, and play a likeable fictional character on television then you should be considered distingushed in the eyes of the President.

Check out the difference between who Clinton awarded and who Bush awarded:

Now, this award is just not for starting an illegal war, as in the case with Powell, Rice, and Tenant recieving it a few years ago. It is also given to citizens who sacrafice fame to strive towards common goodwill. I mean, wasn't Dr. Huxtable one of the many phsyicans who helped out Jonas Salk create the polo vaccine?

I hate Youtube!

Why is it when I use the embedded code for a video that I get 2-3 of the same video? Youtube, you are great, but get your shit together! seriously!

Let me explain

Killing people, particularly innocent, is BAD! Not killing people is good. Why hasn't this administration figured this out?

Of course, none of us want Cuba to be a socialist state. However, killing innocent people seems to defeat the intention of having a just cause. Yet, our government wants to reward these people for their heinous crimes.

Why can't people follow the example of Gandhi and/or Martin Luther King Jr of peaceful resistance? It has worked!

John Stossel you amuse me

I just read an article by John Stossel, yes THAT guy. It seems unlikely that I would read anything from him, but I do. Its not that I ever agree with him, its just the same compulsion that Keith Olbermann has with "Bill-O" (watch his show, and you will know what I mean). I find him kind of humorous in a maddening sort of way. His logic is unfounded and foolish to the being insane.

On a few occasions he has written that the reason everyone has Microsoft installed on their computers is because it is "popular." In other words, people bought it since it is "such a good product."

Oh really? Why is it that it always crashes? Why is it that when I buy a computer it is already installed for me. I don't have an option in the matter. There are no other choices. I can't just tell the salesperson that I would rather have them put Linux on my computer, since it is branded illegal for being a better product.

And yes, because people like their software so much that they are sued by the EU $1 million a day for forcing us to use windows media player. I agree with Stossel that people should have choices in what they consume, but a totally free-market, or a more fashionably stated as Lassiez-fare, will lead to an autocracy of the market. This is a period in which innovation, creativity, and individuality are neutralized. No one can compete since they don't have the market control.

What the difference between a faceless government and a faceless corporation? This isn't a punchline to joke; its a serious question. My answer to Mr. Stossel is "nothing, there isn't any difference. Neither has the desire to have competition at all, and they will do whatever they can to eliminate it."

He needs a good slap across the forehead. Its too unrealistic to live with a mindset that one side is better then the other. His views on the free market are like those of a religious fundamentalist. If you are poor and starving you don't aimlessly believe that "God will provide," and do nothing to rectify the situation. But Stossel thinks the same way. If you allow a company to break all the rules and limit our choices, then well the free market will provide. And, if someone questions that logic, then well they don't have any faith and deserve to be in their destitute situation.

Microsoft is not a superior product, because everyone has it on their computers. Much like AOL, people are forced to use it, then when they want to get rid of it they are meet with incredible resistance by the company.

Where should the line be drawn on government regulation? I think it is foolish to believe that we should do away with all of the regulations. Just as foolish to impose a socialist government. Where is the balance? Quite frankly, I don't know.

What I do know is that we have to quit allowing the argument to be dictated by the extremes; most of those are as ill informed as they are irrational in their thinking.

A good starting point would probably be centered on questioned the meaning of individualism.

Should an individual have responsibility for any adverse efforts of their actions, or should we live in a Ayn Rand novel and be devoid of any responsibility?

If we can approach this discussion with a serious tone, then maybe we can create a market in which people can be truly empowered.

Who are these people?

Dr. Deus P. McFry: What is he? A mad scientist that work on the production of stunts of the movie "Back to the Future?"

Labian Justice: Is he supposed to be a comic book superhero. Probably he was judged too inadequate to be included in the Justice League, so he is venting his anger out on the world. Ha ha, Aqua Man probably kicked your ass!

Jack Spiv: Sounds like he is the combination of a wannabe journalist, and a pornstar.

There is something wrong with me

Why is it that I find Cheerios smells like urine and that Coors tastes like apple juice?

There must be something wrong with me. There is probably one possible explanation to this personal phenomenon. That this is the work of the products themselves, with the added chemicals that affect its taste and smell.

Much like what is pertained in the book "Fast Food Nation," I believe that there are chemists who try to evoke emotional responses in what we eat/drink. Like in the case of a recent study in which young children preferred vegetables if they are wrapped in McDonald's containers.

This theory applied to the Coors beer makes sense, yet I don't think it would be anyone's intention to make cold cereal smell like pee. It's kind of a turn off.

Always retort with at simple question

Why are we letting people who are against hate crime legislation say foolish statements like, "a crime is a crime?"

The question needs to be posed of would you say that a terrorist attack/plot shouldn't be classified in a different circumstance? That if the government catches a terrorist in the attempt to use a fire bomb that they be only convicted with arson? Of course, not!

The reason that there is hate crime laws is that physical/verbal threats to another person based on their race/culture/ethnicity isn't just an attack on the individual. It's sole purpose is to create fear with the targeted group at large, which coincides with the goals that terrorism strives.

Racism is terrorism lite; there is very little difference in their means and ultimate end, to leave the victim confused, fearful and withdrawn.

Mr. Cheney, you have become a Dick!

This reminded me of when I read about a study in which the psychological consciousness of a child's developing mind; the rest of the world does not exist outside their own perspective (see Ken Wilbur).

At the age of four children would have a ball with two colors on it. On one side it would be all blue, the other side all red. When the red side was turned toward them then they would remark that the ball was red, if the blue side then it was blue. In no way did they declare that the ball was BOTH blue and red. The most amazing part is that that after a few years the video tape that documented their answers was shown to them. The children didn't acknowledge it was them! They couldn't phantom that they wouldn't be able to see that a ball had two equal colors!

In other words, they had a strong ego- without the ego :).

I swear, if Cheney saw this video he would come up with at typical excuse like, "the world changed after 9-11." That's nothing but bull. A year before this video was aired the World Trade Tower was bombed, by the same type of people. The terrorists wanted to blow it up for over a decade, and then they were successful in their pursuit with the help of the current administration's chosen ignorance.

The world did not change, you Mr. Cheney only woke up the harsh realities of Kissinger's "Real Politik" policies.

Face reality Dick. The invasion of Iraq was the worst policy possible, and the old you would strongly agree.

Biggest Douche in Congress

There is nothing to investigate here. Dave Reichert is nothing more than a conman.

The sad part is that he is supposed to fool us into trusting him through lies and manipulation. Only the dumbest of the dumb of criminals would tell their victims of their intentions before they stole them blind.

Yet, here is El Douché telling us of his intentions and we still vote him a couple months later.

Hell, I don't hate him that much, I really, really, really hate those who voted him in office. Personally, I don't know who you all are (damn voting rights!), but if you live in his district and have a fucking yellow ribbon on your car, then I will assume that you are responsible.

One man stands in my way!

His name is Emilio Estavez
I don't hate the man, its just that I would like him to stop being so proud of his heritage, and instead be a corporate sellout like his father and older brother.

My intentions are pretty obvious, he has a similar sounding name as I do. Yes, he is more famous. But, none of these points a good enough to convince me. I deserve the freedom to make a name for myself. No longer does one hear my name and think of him. I deserve more of the public eye, after all I do have a P.I. Who do you know has one?

Emilio, don't be afraid, keeping this name is probably more of a hindrance to your career. Prince changed his name several times, and he is more popular than ever. You can do it! You just need a like encouragement and guidance.

Actually, I have already thought of a new name for you. What about Kareem McQueen Sheen?