« Power Line Candidate Forum | Main | We Win, They Lose »

The Support Trap

Rosie O'Donnell's latest foot-in-mouth outburst got me thinking. She says she "supports" the troops, but disparages them in the same breath. This is normally considered "cognitive dissonance," but I think I see how it works -- and it gives me a bit of insight into the workings of the liberal mind.

It's because of how people define "support."

To the left, it seems, "support" is what you give to those who need it. One does not "support" the troops because we owe it to them, that we appreciate what they do, but because they are needy. They are poor, they are oppressed, they are uneducated, and they need the public's support because they have no choice but so throw themselves into the maw of the War Machine and hope to survive long enough to get some benefits for their sacrifices.

They also "support" the poor. They do this by giving them what they need, never noting that they are instilling a culture of dependence in the poor, making them rely on the handouts from the government and even setting up the system to punish those who try to better themselves. They put ceilings on how much money they can earn on their own without endangering their benefits, setting up situations where many people simply can not afford to work. They make it more economical for parents to not marry. They set up an educational system where more and more money is funneled into bureaucracy and red tape and less and less actually goes towards educating children, to the point where there is an inverse relationship between the amount of money spent on children and actual test results.

They "support" crime victims. They do this by passing more and more laws stripping them of the right to defend themselves, try to scare them into depending on the government for protection, while at the same time fight for the rights of the accused. They denounce tough laws as "draconian" (you can pretty much count on the left to oppose laws like Megan's Law and "Three Strikes" measures), and talk endlessly about "rehabilitation."

They "support" illegal aliens. They are fighting to sustain the status quo, where literally millions of illegal aliens are exploited ruthlessly and sustained as a permanent underclass, while Americans and legal residents find themselves having to compete against those who are unfettered by laws governing pay, working conditions, liability, and a host of other factors.

To the left, "support" seems synonymous with "helping those who can't help themselves, and keeping them helpless." It's a gilded cage, and far too many are willing to climb in and pull the door shut behind them.


Comments (89)

Teach a man to fish, and he... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Teach a man to fish, and he'll be able to feed himself forever.

Give a man a fish, and he'll be back the next day waiting for his handout - and you'll have control over what he eats and when.

This is a common meme for t... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

This is a common meme for the Left. They support the troops, and it's not there fault they are too stupid, poor, and ignant' to have other opportunities. It's because a) The Left does not do anything without an ulterior motive or camera crew present. Why join the military unless you had no other alternative?

b) It was really not a shot to the troops, but the normal timed rant about the War, i.e. Bush.

In truth, the military is the most intelligent and best trained corporate body on the planet. To get in the military, you have to have a college degree. And the military is so tech saavy now, you have to score pretty high on aptitude tests to even get a decent job. It's not just about runnin' and shootin'. One has to think pretty fast, because whatever the environment is, its fast paced.

Rose and Rikki Lake made the comments the military is poor and uneducated, but that is how you see the world as look out of the window of your limo as it travels from the northwest side of Manhattan. Most libs are indifferent toward the troops, and could care less if all came back victorious or in body bags. I remember when I was in the Air Force, people on the left were crying for the military to initiate gender equality (women in combat), gays in the military, and for defense spending to be cut. Zero words were spoken about actual welfare of the troops, who did not experience the benefits of the "Age of Prosperity".

As a matter of fact, I would say that before the Iraq war, the Left had not thought about troops since Vietnam, and we remember how they treated them back then too.

Correction, I meant you hav... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

Correction, I meant you have to a high school degree, and officers have to have a college degree.

Give a man a fish, and ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Give a man a fish, and he'll be back the next day waiting for his handout - and you'll have control over what he eats and when.

Very well put! I remember even as a young girl not understanding why one party would want to promote all these give aways to people all the time and I asked my Dad and he answered in one word ... "control." From then on I realized what the left was all about. Control, control, control.

P.S. As far as people like Rikki Lake and Rosie calling those who enlist "uneducated"....I'd like to see their college degrees. Or the degrees of 99% of those in Hollywood. Oh wait, they don't exist. lol.

A conservative defines how ... (Below threshold)
jim:

A conservative defines how Liberals think, in a way that just happens to define Liberals as wrong and Conservatives as right.

Imagine that.

Well, permit me as a Liberal to tell you how I, as a Liberal, think.

I support workfare instead of welfare. I support jobs training instead of handouts. I support the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - because that is logical, it's where Al Qaeda was, and it's where the Middle East was in support of us. The Iraq war has been, is, and will continue to be an increasing distraction FROM the War on Terror. This is reality.

I also support money for, training for, adequate equipment for, and adequate health services for the US military. Especially those who have served and are serving in combat. Don't you agree?

I further think it's a disgusting crime that a major hired mercenaries get paid 4 to 5 times what our volunteer soldiers are, for the same jobs. And the mercenaries also aren't required to work under the uniform code of military conduct. Don't you agree?

I assume that you do. So, why aren't we working together for this? Would you rather think that Liberals are wrong, than work together with a (gasp) Liberal to improve things for our soldiers?

And all this crap about illegal immigrants is just that. Walls and border patrols won't work. They don't even stop drugs. Why do you think they will stop people?

The conservative media doesn't want to face the facts on this, because they know the real deal - big US companies, especially agriculture concerns, make entirely too much money off of undocumented seasonal illegal immigrant labor.

And the only reason 99.999% of illegal immigrants are here, is to work for US businesses.

Therefore, it logically follows that the only way to stop illegal immigration is to shut off the JOBS.

This can be done this easily: All we need to do is pass a law, that if any company hires undocumented workers at any level, the CEO will have mandatory jailtime. No fines - jail. Years of it.

Watch those jobs disappear - and watch illegals stop coming into the country.

Also watch how NO pundits address this clear and logical solution. Why? Because conservapundits know where their money is coming from - and big businesses love that illegal labor too much.

Also, notice that neither Democrats or Republicans are discussing this. Democrats make money from big business too. I'm aware of this. I'm just telling you that what you view as Liberal support of illegal aliens against US interests, is in my view simply support of reality. Arresting illegal immigrants morning, noon and night, and building a 50-foot concrete wall across the Mexican border, WILL NOT STOP ILLEGAL IMMINGRATION.

If your family was starving and you could work to feed your children, would you let such a wall stop you? I think not. Nor would any halfway decent man. Therfore, do not ever underestimate the ingenuity of a man trying to feed his starving family.

That's all.

This should have read:... (Below threshold)
jim:

This should have read:

"I further think it's a disgusting crime that a hired mercenaries in Iraq get paid 4 to 5 times what our volunteer soldiers are, for the same jobs. And the mercenaries aren't even required to work under the uniform code of military conduct - which is uneven treatment AND a bad idea. Don't you agree?"

Preview is my friend....

Wizbang: the webs #1 source... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Wizbang: the webs #1 source for news and opinions related to Rosie.

You know, I wanted to menti... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

You know, I wanted to mention more on this when I wrote the comment for DJ's "All to the good" thread below, but I was afraid I would be violating the rules so I didn't. Since Jay opened that door again with the 4th paragraph of this post, I'd like to finish the thought.

What I did say in DJ's thread was: "I have very much personal experience working with both left-minded and right-minded people in this field [non-profit social assistance] and have no doubt that the right-minded will ultimately solve the problems that are the root causes of the plight of our poor and needy citizens."

My left-leaning colleagues seem to have a common attitude towards the poor and needy. They see them as helpless "children" who cannot think or do things for themselves. They don't trust them at all. The leftists barely treat the clients as human most of the time. I get the feeling that my leftist colleagues enjoy feeling like they are "providers", "parents", and "saviors" of the poor and needy. They feel they are better than the poor and needy. They tend to not look at the big picture or the consequences of their actions and attitudes. The leftist also tend to do the very minimum necessary to satisfy the requirements of whatever program they are administering for the sole purpose of getting more funding so they can keep doing what little they do-- it's all a numbers game to them.

My rightist colleagues, few that they are, think of our clients as equals- fellow human beings who for whatever reason have fallen into a bad situation. We understand they they can think and understand and make decisions. We want to help them, but also help them learn to help themselves. We want to administer our programs in such a way that real success and results are achieved. We don't care much for playing the numbers game that so many government programs seem to foster.

Of course these are all just my opinions after 15 years of observation...

I guess if that wall won't ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

I guess if that wall won't work in the US to keep out illegals, then it won't work in Iraq either.

Nice strawman, JT. You red... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Nice strawman, JT. You redefine O'Donnell's words and then condemn them.

Paul-You want to g... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Paul-

You want to got to the mattresses over Rosie?


Pahllllleeeeeassse!


Rosie is a Liberal Hero worthy of your "defense"?


wow.....


The mercenaries fighting in... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The mercenaries fighting in Iraq may get more money but their transportation isn't provided, healthcare is not provided, GI bills isn't given and meals, lodging, etc.

I agree on the jobs thing. The illegals that are hear would go home if they did not have jobs. ww

Well to be serious for a mi... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Well to be serious for a minute-

The Democrats are always looking for a new "victim class" to make decisions for-because Liberal Elitist know best.

The thing is with National Defense the Liberal Butter over Guns mindset gets the military KILLED by HUGE numbers.

Not being prepared for war-not maintaining military readiness and prioritizing that as a federal government gets the US into wars were we have to play-"catch up".

WW I and WW II were essentailly battles of attrition were we had to do exactly that and we CANNOT AFFORD those kinds of wars anymore.

The US military has to make up for it's lack of numbers by maintaining an edge or even a vast superiority in technology and even defensive technology and The Left has proven time and time again to have a Pollyannish response to that.

We'll do all the vote buying domestic programs and we'll get to military defense when we have to. That essentially is the Democratic Spending Policy.

That laissez faire attitude towards National Defense will always get more Americans killed than anything else-but the Democrats really don't care it's a risk they're willing to take in order to spend YOUR tax dollars buying votes and creating more Democratic Dependent Classes.

The wall definitely won't w... (Below threshold)
jim:

The wall definitely won't work in Iraq. That's my opinion, but I don't see how it can be otherwise.

Someone Sunni who wants to kill Shiites so bad he's willing to kill himself to do it, or vice versa, won't be willing to walk around the wall or get a ladder?

The US military has to m... (Below threshold)
jim:

The US military has to make up for it's lack of numbers by maintaining an edge or even a vast superiority in technology and even defensive technology and The Left has proven time and time again to have a Pollyannish response to that.

If this is true, the Clinton military was unprepared for military action.

Yet this same military, with NO changes by the Bush administration, was able to invade first Afghanistan and then Iraq.

How, by your reckoning, is this possible?

try to scare them into d... (Below threshold)
Brian:

try to scare them into depending on the government for protection

You mean like with "Terrorism! Bin Laden! Mushroom cloud! So let us protect you by arresting you without charges and tapping your phones without warrants!"

while at the same time fight for the rights of the accused.

Wow. It's really sad that you're opposed to one of the most important ideas on which this country was founded. If you truly believe that, you no longer should speak on behalf of any other Americans, left or right.

If this is true, the Clinto... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If this is true, the Clinton military was unprepared for military action.

Yet this same military, with NO changes by the Bush administration, was able to invade first Afghanistan and then Iraq.

How, by your reckoning, is this possible?
------------------------------------------------
Is it the Dems who are crying that our military is stretched too thin to the breaking point now? Is it because of what Clinton had done to our military? Otherwise, we should be able to handle this quite easily, right?

In WW2, we lost 3000 soldiers in one exercise. Now we lose 3000 soldiers in 4 years and the Dems are ready to surrender.

It's really sad that you're... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It's really sad that you're opposed to one of the most important ideas on which this country was founded
------------------------------------------------
Liberty and freedom for the oppressed. The beacon to the world. The Dems/liberals now would rather have the worst dictators in Iraq. Their liberal leader, Nancy Pelosi, even don a burqua to kiss up to the little dictator Assad. Harry Reid will simply want to surrender when the terrorists blow up women and children (they don't have the courage to face the US military).

Just a quick question: if the terrorists are dealt with and Iraq becomes a fully functional democracy, is it a good thing for the liberals and Democratic party? It doesn't take much brain to see what the liberals and dems want to gain political power. They want defeat in Iraq so that they can gain power. It is good for the dems if the terrorists succeed. That 's why they are doing what they are doing.

Jim is right that the liberals are waging a full frontal war. Unfortunately it is against Bush. Since if the terrorists fail, it is good for Bush (and America). So they have to ensure that the terrorists succeed.

What a legacy for these people. I cannot even look at myself in the mirror.

jim-How long did P... (Below threshold)
Rory:

jim-

How long did President Bush have to effect change before 9/11 happened?

How long did the Gore suing campaign muddy the hand over of power?

The timing is rarely perfect-you go with the army that you have...

Are you ready to blame Clinton for the draw down-and leaving Bush with little time to repair that?

I doubt that you are.

Are you ready to blame the Gore Campaign for making the hand over of power contentious, for making America look vulnerable, to make the schism between the two parties so tempting to foreign actors to want to make it divided even further?

There was no better time in recent American history for Bin Laden to strike.

You want to got to the m... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You want to got to the mattresses over Rosie?... Rosie is a Liberal Hero worthy of your "defense"?

As far as I know, no liberals pay one bit of attention to what Rosie has to say. In fact, the only people in the country who seem to care about Rosie are the Wizbang authors. Personal obsessions are fine, but at least they could have picked someone who anyone else gave a damn about.

Rory,Is it the Dems ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Rory,
Is it the Dems who are crying that our military is stretched too thin to the breaking point now? Is it because of what Clinton had done to our military? Otherwise, we should be able to handle this quite easily, right?

Our military was designed to fight 2 major regional wars at the same time. It is the dems who are claiming that our military is stretched too thin now. So Bush was barely 8 months in office when 9/11 occured. So Clinton must have degraded our military to the point that the dems don't think we can handle the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as I know, no libera... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

As far as I know, no liberals pay one bit of attention to what Rosie has to say
------------------------------------------------
Probably they are too busy waiting for the terrorists to blow up more women/children so that they claim that the Iraq war is lost. Otherwise, they would have demanded Harry Reid to step down.

Jay Tea,Way to spe... (Below threshold)
ryan the filthy centrist:

Jay Tea,

Way to speak for millions of people as if you know exactly what they think and believe.

Consider this: "the left" entails a large group of people who have different beliefs, ideas, and political stances on numerous issues. This is no different than people on "the right," who are just as varied.

Do all people on "the right" act and think the same ways? Do they all march lock-step and behave in politically predetermined ways? Of course not. And the same goes for "the left."

Denying internal difference and diversity, and pretending that there is some collective "left" which acts in a stereotypical fashion (as you see fit), is not only irresponsible but also completely inaccurate.

One of the worst aspects of our the current politial rhetoric is this kind of adherence to stereotypical thinking.

My advice: if you want to know what "the left" thinks about these issues, why not ask? I believe that one commenter above is already filling you in on his ACTUAL political and social beliefs.

Or, we can all just keep playing this whole Liberal vs Conservative game for another 10 years or so...

RyanDo all people on... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ryan
Do all people on "the right" act and think the same ways? Do they all march lock-step and behave in politically predetermined ways? Of course not. And the same goes for "the left."
-------------------------------------------------
No group is monolithic for sure. But you can tell the difference between the groups. For example, 99% of Dems in Congress will vote to surrender and 99% of Rep will vote to fight on.

So you can tell by the percentage. Obviously we won't have 100% for sure.

The Dems/liberals now wo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The Dems/liberals now would rather

Wow, way to cite my post and then go on a wholly unrelated rant!

But since you mention it...

Their liberal leader, Nancy Pelosi, even don a burqua

Hey, who's that all burqa'd up? (Hint: it's the president's wife!)

Brian, Thanks for il... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Thanks for illustrating a typical cheap liberal tactics. Your dishonesty is beyond parody. Did Mrs. Bush fly to Syria against the advise of her gov?
You are too dishonest to be here.

Otherwise, they would ha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Otherwise, they would have demanded Harry Reid to step down.

Maybe they have, but you are too busy feeding pizza sauce to your pet alligator's uncle to notice.

See? I can make nonsensical and off-topic rants too!

Did Mrs. Bush fly to Syr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Did Mrs. Bush fly to Syria against the advise of her gov?

Probably not. But the Republicans who accompanied Pelosi did. Do you have a sunny word for them too?

Brian, You dishones... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
You dishonesty is too obvious. You fit perfectly into Jay 's description of a troll (and a dishonest one at that). You are just here to make dishonest arg to distract from the point that can't argue with.
Other liberals on this forum should dissociate themselves from you since you make it too easy for laughing at liberals.

No group is monolithic f... (Below threshold)
ryan the filthy centrist:

No group is monolithic for sure. But you can tell the difference between the groups. For example, 99% of Dems in Congress will vote to surrender and 99% of Rep will vote to fight on.

Well, in Congress there is a great deal of partisanship, where people continually band together and vote based upon political affiliation.

This doesn't necessarily mean that all of the Republicans, for instance, think or believe the same things. This means that they are pressured, through the political process, to go along with the majority. Both sides do this all the time.

My point is that we need to attempt to gain an understanding of the different sides of the political spectrum that isn't based upon preconceptions.

Many people are arguing with one another, here and elsewhere, based upon some idealized conception of what the OTHER SIDE thinks. Instead, maybe more people should actually discuss what they think, instead of letting Ann Coulter and Michael Moore do it for them.

Ryan, Most liberals... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ryan,
Most liberals support abortion. Most conservative are against abortion. Most liberals are anti-war in general. Most conservatives are for strong national defense. Most liberals are not shy about disparaging America. Most conservatives think America is a great country. The list goes on, but you get the point.

The liberals supported Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And these two are beyond parody. If the liberals are serious, they should get rid of them first. David Broder just made some criticism of Harry Reid and he was intimidated back into the fold already.

Probably not. But the Repub... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Probably not. But the Republicans who accompanied Pelosi did. Do you have a sunny word for them too?
-------------------------------------------------
These Reps are cowards and despicable. Has any Rep speaker of the house done what Pelosi did? Is she despicable to you?

How long did President B... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

How long did President Bush have to effect change before 9/11 happened?
How long did the Gore suing campaign muddy the hand over of power?

If you'll recall even after the election was decided, the Democrats in Congress stalled approval of Bush's appointees further delaying the change over.

Seriously, why does this si... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

Seriously, why does this site seem infatuated with Rosie and think she is the mouthpiece for the left? How many times is she mentioned a week here? She's an idiot and makes idiodic comments. You don't gain much ripping on a person who EVERYONE thinks is an moron.

suhnami, My guess i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

suhnami,
My guess is that Rosie is simply a known celebrity that shows a cavalier attitude about "supporting the troops". Please feel free to pick it with Jay about your take on "supporting the troops" from other well known liberal representatives.

I don't get it. I'm a liber... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I don't get it. I'm a liberal but nothing Rosie O'Donnell said has ever gotten me thinking...

I think you might be off if you think she's some kind of political influence among liberals or anyone else.

Publicus, Jay can s... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
Jay can speak for himself. My guess when reading his post is that Rosie said she supported the troops. So Jay just use it as an example about what he thinks liberals mean when they say that they support the troops. So feel free to tell Jay what liberals mean wrt "supporting the troops".

LoveAmericaImmigrant, my qu... (Below threshold)
jim:

LoveAmericaImmigrant, my question was:

If this is true, the Clinton military was unprepared for military action.

Yet this same military, with NO changes by the Bush administration, was able to invade first Afghanistan and then Iraq.

How, by your reckoning, is this possible?

Your answer:
Is it the Dems who are crying that our military is stretched too thin to the breaking point now? Is it because of what Clinton had done to our military? Otherwise, we should be able to handle this quite easily, right?


So,

a) You didn't answer my question

b) You are seriously attempting to equate the status of a military in peacetime under Clinton, with the status of the SAME military in a two-front war!!!

There is no contradiction in the Democratic position. The military was not being stretched thin under Clinton - and it is being stretched thin under Bush.

Do you get that there's a difference between the strain on a military in peacetime, and the strain on the same military in fighting a two-front war?

And now for the tired WW2 comparison:

In WW2, we lost 3000 soldiers in one exercise. Now we lose 3000 soldiers in 4 years and the Dems are ready to surrender.

Let's say Islamofascism = Nazism, for the sake of this exercise.

Invading Iraq when we've got the leader of Al Qaeda trapped in Afghanistan, would be like invading and occupying Finland when we've got Hitler trapped in Berlin.

What we want to do is, stop occupying a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US, and put our soldiers where they can actually fight the people who DID attack us. Instead of staying in a nation where we CAUSE MORE TERRORISM by our very presence.

Do you understand that troops have to be used strategically?

Do you understand that putting troops where the enemy is NOT, and getting us stuck in a civil war, and having our presence INCREASE the number of terrorists, does not help us win against terrorism?

If not, what part of that does not make sense to you?

jim-How lon... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim-

How long did President Bush have to effect change before 9/11 happened?

Long enough to do any one single thing that Clarke, Tenet and others were pushing him to do.

He didn't do any of it, and took a month-long vacation on his magical play-time ranch in August of 2001, while the alarm bells were ringing.

Had he tried and failed, you might have an argument. However there is no reason and excuse for his total lack of action.

Please prove me wrong, and show me one concrete action he took before 9/11, in answer to the constant warnings Clarke, Tenet and others were presenting to him.

How long did the Gore suing campaign muddy the hand over of power?

Exactly as long as the Bush administration muddied the same waters.

The logic works both ways. If the Bush administration really cared about not muddying the waters, they could have just given the election to Gore and walked away. Instead, they cared more about being in power. How are they innocent, but the Gore campaign are guilty, when they both did exactly the same thing - struggled to be in power?

Are you ready to blame Clinton for the draw down-and leaving Bush with little time to repair that?

Please explain
a) exactly what draw-down you're referring to
b) exactly what affect that had
c) how that effect proves Clinton had been bad for the military, when the exact same military went on to shine in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

All I ask for are facts.

jim, I don't say that Rosie... (Below threshold)

jim, I don't say that Rosie O'Donnell speaks for all liberals. She was the catalyst. But that's why I cited examples of each. Care to refute the examples I used?

J.

There is no contradiction i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

There is no contradiction in the Democratic position. The military was not being stretched thin under Clinton - and it is being stretched thin under Bush.
-------------------------------------------------
That means the Dems don't understand about national defense. Clinton didn't know how to defend the country. You need to prepare the country for emergencies. We had the WTC bombing in 1993. We had Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He signed Iraqui Liberation Act. He went to war against Serbia, A COUNTRY THAT DIDN'T ATTACK us with the full support of dems and liberals. So he should at least prepare the country in case there is a war in Iraq for exmample.

Invading Iraq when we've got the leader of Al Qaeda trapped in Afghanistan, would be like invading and occupying Finland when we've got Hitler trapped in Berlin.

What we want to do is, stop occupying a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US, and put our soldiers where they can actually fight the people who DID attack us. Instead of staying in a nation where we CAUSE MORE TERRORISM by our very presence.
------------------------------------------------
This is simply spin. THe terrorists think Iraq is stategically important to them because if Iraq becomes a functional democracy then their ideology will not have an easy path in the ME. The terrorists want the US to cut and run from Iraq exactly because of that. The Iraq front IS STRATEGIC according to the terrorists (or the enemies of America). Again, this simply shows that the dems either beyond their heads in terms of defending the country or the dems consider more politically advantageous for them to have the terrorists succeed in Iraq.


In both cases, the Dems can't be trusted with national defense since they don't understand it or simply try to spin it.

LoveAmericaImmigrant,... (Below threshold)
jim:

LoveAmericaImmigrant,

accusing other people of dishonesty does not cover up your own lack of facts.

a) The White House knew well ahead of time that Pelosi was going to Syria, and said not one word against it.

"Pelosi personally informed President Bush on Thursday of her travel plans, and he did not raise any objections, a person with knowledge of that conversation said."

b) Several Republican congressfolk went to Syria before, during, and after the Democratic congressfolk's trip - and the White House had nothing bad to say about them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002010.html

So, you're wrong. That's all there is to it. Don't be mad at me, blame reality.

a) The White House knew wel... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

a) The White House knew well ahead of time that Pelosi was going to Syria, and said not one word against it.

"Pelosi personally informed President Bush on Thursday of her travel plans, and he did not raise any objections, a person with knowledge of that conversation said."

b) Several Republican congressfolk went to Syria before, during, and after the Democratic congressfolk's trip - and the White House had nothing bad to say about them
-------------------------------------------------
Jim,
I thought you are better than this. The WH strongly discouraged her not to go. The Reps who went with deserved scorn. Yet they are not the speaker of the house. She is.

I thought you knew better. A little disappointed that you stooped down to Brian 's league.

(It means that Pelosi didn't know or respect the constitutional separation of powers. And this is despicable in a time of war for a speaker of the house to do what she did)

You responded:T... (Below threshold)
jim:

You responded:

That means the Dems don't understand about national defense. Clinton didn't know how to defend the country. You need to prepare the country for emergencies. We had the WTC bombing in 1993. We had Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He signed Iraqui Liberation Act.

These answers have nothing to do with my question whatsoever.

My question remains: how could the military have been so bad under Clinton, yet the same military shine so well in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Since you refuse to answer teh question, here's the only possible answer:

The military WASN'T that bad under Clinton. He actually did a good job, did NOT ruin the US military, and hysterical right-wingers accused him falsely of this in the 1990's because they absolutely hated Clinton for ideological reasons.

He went to war against Serbia, A COUNTRY THAT DIDN'T ATTACK us with the full support of dems and liberals.

And the invitation of Europe. And also, NOT ONE US soldier was killed in combat. Oh, and also we hadn't invaded another country previously, so this didn't put us into a two-front war.

So, your mention of Serbia is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

The rest of your post does not dispute any of the facts and reports by EXPERTS that our presence in Iraq is creating more terrorists than we're killing, quicker than we're killing them. I posted them in other articles here, and I'm sure you've read them; but I'll post them again so you have no excuse.

2007 - http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html

2006 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

2005 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702096.html


These are the facts, and this is reality. Please read them and understand what they are saying, because they SHOW YOU ARE WRONG.

Jim,I thought you... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim,
I thought you are better than this. The WH strongly discouraged her not to go. The Reps who went with deserved scorn. Yet they are not the speaker of the house. She is.

Really. They strongly discouraged her the day before she went - but not when she checking with them ahead of time, several weeks before?

And the Bush admin just happened to do so in front of the cameras, and not in private? Oh, and they just happened to mention only her, and not the other Republicans, who they could actually influence into not going?

And they didn't at all have any problem with the GOP delegation that visited just days earlier?

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

Gee - it almost seems like they were trying to score PR points on her, rather than actually worried about what would happen with Syria. NAh, the WHite House would never do that.

(It means that Pelosi didn't know or respect the constitutional separation of powers. And this is despicable in a time of war for a speaker of the house to do what she did)

Really?

Then it's despicable for all the Republicans involved too, right?

Really. They strongly disco... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Really. They strongly discouraged her the day before she went - but not when she checking with them ahead of time, several weeks before?
-------------------------------------------------
Oh, Pelosi didn't even know that she shouldn't do that as a speaker of the house. She didn't know that Congress shouldn't interfere with the the executive function especially foreign policy (she didn't even tell the story straight from the Israeli side). And this is the woman that liberals want for the speakership of the house?

The Reps who went with her are despicable. And you are stooping to Brian 's league to avoid facing the despicable behavior of Pelosi. It is hard to find an honest liberal these days.

Respectfully, i think this ... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

Respectfully, i think this argument is getting off topic.

Oh, Pelosi didn't even k... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, Pelosi didn't even know that she shouldn't do that as a speaker of the house. She didn't know that Congress shouldn't interfere with the the executive function especially foreign policy (she didn't even tell the story straight from the Israeli side).

a) Please show where in the Constitution it says that members of Congress shouldn't go overseas.

b) Please show how she interfered with US policy.

c) I'm sure we'll get into this, but show your link that she told the story wrong, just so I can refute it. Might as well, while we're here.

And this is the woman that liberals want for the speakership of the house?

No, she's who the voters want. There was an election and she won; and she is also in step with mainstream US voters.

The Reps who went with her are despicable.

Good. Then why do you think the Bush administration said NOTHING - zero, zippo, zilch - about them?

It is hard to find an honest liberal these days.

If you define "honest liberal" as "one that agrees with you", then perhaps so.

My question remains: how co... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

My question remains: how could the military have been so bad under Clinton, yet the same military shine so well in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
-------------------------------------------------
THe answer is simple. The military is probably the best public institution in America. So it did perform quite well even after the degration by Clinton. But the degration now shows up because we cannot fight two wars at once as the Dems are claiming now. It meant that Clinton didn't have the foresight to prepare the military for a long fight. And the mentality of the Dems show exactly that: they will cut and run at the first sight of difficulty as predicted by Bin Laden.


He went to war against Serbia, A COUNTRY THAT DIDN'T ATTACK us with the full support of dems and liberals.

And the invitation of Europe. And also, NOT ONE US soldier was killed in combat. Oh, and also we hadn't invaded another country previously, so this didn't put us into a two-front war.
--------------------------------------------------
Why can't Europe take care its own backyard? So the dems only wage war from the air. Clinton gave Bin Laden the thought that America doesn't have a stomach for a real and protracted war. Your arg reenforce Bin Laden's point.

The rest of your post does not dispute any of the facts and reports by EXPERTS that our presence in Iraq is creating more terrorists than we're killing, quicker than we're killing them. I posted them in other articles here, and I'm sure you've read them; but I'll post them again so you have no excuse.
--------------------------------------------------
No wonder that you cannot think for yourself. You get spoon-fed by these pretended experts. It doesn't take much brain to know why the terrorists think IRAQ IS STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT (Simple thought experiments: good things or bad things will happen to the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran if Iraq becomes a full function dem in the midst of the Arab world?)

IT doesn't take much brain to know that. Even Clinton and Biden could see it. You can read it here. That 's why I said it is hard to find an honest liberal these days.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

OK, it may be off-topic. He... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, it may be off-topic. Here's my stance:

a) I'm a liberal.

b) Rosie O' Donnell doesn't speak to me, any more than Mel Gibson at his crazy racist worse speaks for conservatives. Personally, I'd rather be spoken for by Ozzy Ozbourne, for God's sake.

c) I support jobs training and not handouts; I support the US military getting what they need and they deserve; and I support something ACTUALLY being done about Illegal immigration, and not some fantasy wall that's basically a smokescreen for actually doing something about the real problem.

In addition, it would be nice to stop overseas outsourcing, have fiscal responsibility and fix Medicare, wouldn't it?

I am as far as I can tell a far more typical liberal than Rosie.

Jim, You are truly ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You are truly a member of Brian 's league and only wants to spin. Such a disappointment. Is Pelosi despicable in your eyes now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Even from the very liberal CNN source
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/30/pelosi.trip/index.html

"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.

THe answer is simple. Th... (Below threshold)
jim:

THe answer is simple. The military is probably the best public institution in America. So it did perform quite well even after the degration by Clinton. But the degration now shows up because we cannot fight two wars at once as the Dems are claiming now.

Fighting a two-front war is something that you never want to do if you can possibly help it.

Doing this in WWII meant a lot of sacrifices, including on businesses; and a draft besides. That's what it takes.

That the US military is having trouble accomplishing this doesn't mean Clinton weakened it. But whatever. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

And this is the woman that ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And this is the woman that liberals want for the speakership of the house?

No, she's who the voters want.
-----------------------------------------------
Jim,
You cannot even make a straight arg now. She was elected by her district to be a representative. She was elected SPEAKER of the house by liberal democratic members. They can vote another one to be the speaker of the house, right? Will you demand that as a liberal or you simply want to spin for her?

LoveAmericaImmigrant, yuo'r... (Below threshold)
jim:

LoveAmericaImmigrant, yuo're accusing me again of spin, so I'm responding. After this I'll only speak on the main page topic.

Your links only repeat the Bush admin's public statements, made the day before Pelosi's trip. These are not in dispute, and posting them does not answer any of my arguments. They do not explain why the Bush admin said nothing to or about the Republicans' involved in the trip.

Logically, if the Bush admin really thought the trip was a bad idea, they would have

a) told Pelosi ahead of time, when she was meeting with the State Dep't.

b) at least tried to influence the GOP members not to go,

c) spoken out when the GOP delegation went earlier

d) spoken out about the GOP members also.

They did none of these things.

Therefore the only real reason they logically did this, was to attempt to embarass Pelosi alone and in public.

It is not spin to produce facts. It is spin to attempt to ignore them. You are attempting to ignore these facts.

Fighting a two-front war is... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Fighting a two-front war is something that you never want to do if you can possibly help it.

Doing this in WWII meant a lot of sacrifices, including on businesses; and a draft besides. That's what it takes.

That the US military is having trouble accomplishing this doesn't mean Clinton weakened it. But whatever. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
-------------------------------------------------
Noone wants to fight ANY WAR at all. But the reality is that we always have bad people in the world. So as the president you have to prepare for the worst at any given time. Clinton didn't do his job and it shows now. Even the dems acknowledge it without knowing it.

Looks like you don't seem to deal much with reality.

Jim, It doesn't tak... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
It doesn't take much brain to see what Pelosi did as a speaker of the house is UNPRECEDENTED and despicable. Can you acknowledge that she is despicable for what she did? I gave you and Brian a straight answer already. Can you stop spinning and give me a straight answer on this one?

Fine. My arguments make tha... (Below threshold)
jim:

Fine. My arguments make that point, but I'll make it even clearer for you. No, Pelosi is NOT despicable for "what she did" which was visit a foreign country, after consulting with the State Department.

Now you answer:
If it was wrong for her to do this, why did the Bush administration not condemn Republicans for doing the same exact thing, before during and after her visit?

Pelosi is NOT despicable fo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Pelosi is NOT despicable for "what she did" which was visit a foreign country, after consulting with the State Department.
--------------------------------------------------
This is perfect example of the low standards by liberals these days. She is a speaker of the house. No speaker of the house has done what she did. The adm spokeman said that they discouraged all members of the congress to take the trip to Syria. She didn't even have the basic knowledge about the constitution and the decency (not even to think about going to a terrorist-sponsoring country that is funding the terrorists who try to kill American troops in Iraq)

If it was wrong for her to do this, why did the Bush administration not condemn Republicans for doing the same exact thing, before during and after her visit?
-------------------------------------------------
The adm discouraged all members to go (dems and reps alike). Kerry and a lot of other Dem members went to Syria. Did you Bush adm talk much about them. Do you know the difference? PELOSI is the speaker of the house (the third in line to become presiden). What she did is DESPICABLE. And it is sad that the liberals are not honest enough to admit that.

Finally, LoveAmericaImmigra... (Below threshold)
jim:

Finally, LoveAmericaImmigrant , please go read these links about the Iraq occupation -

2007 - http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html

2006 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

2005 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702096.html

And this result of the 1999 War Games, that it took a Freedom of Information Act request to get the results of:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-05-iraq-games_x.htm

Once you've read those, then let's talk about reality.

The adm discouraged all ... (Below threshold)
jim:

The adm discouraged all members to go (dems and reps alike).

Oh really? Please show exactly when the Bush administration discouraged GOP members to go to Syria, and publicly admonished them for doing it.

PELOSI is the speaker of the house (the third in line to become presiden).

And she also has brown hair. What's that go to do with anything?

Jim, These are libe... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
These are liberal sources of information who tried to spin.

Two simple questions:
If the terrorists are dealt with in Iraq, good things or bad things will happen to

a) the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran

b) the Dem party

You don't need an expert to answer these questions, do you?

The adm discouraged all mem... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The adm discouraged all members to go (dems and reps alike).

Oh really? Please show exactly when the Bush administration discouraged GOP members to go to Syria, and publicly admonished them for doing it.
--------------------------------------------------
They criticized them out. Did they single out other dems for public criticism? There are a lot of Dems on the trip as well. Pelosi is the leader of Congress. The buck stops with her wrt to the House right. Or the buck only stops with Bush? So Dems don't want responsibility.


PELOSI is the speaker of the house (the third in line to become presiden).

And she also has brown hair. What's that go to do with anything?
-------------------------------------------------
You really don't know the difference between a speaker of the house and a representative warming the bench? So it doesn't make a difference between a presidential visit and a low ranking state dept visit?


You dishonesty is too ob... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You dishonesty is too obvious. You fit perfectly into Jay 's description of a troll (and a dishonest one at that).

You have not once shown that anything specific I said was dishonest or untrue. I shall sleep soundly tonight.

jim:I'll take a crack at ex... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

jim:I'll take a crack at explaining what is different about Pelosi's visit.First, the Speaker of the House is (obviously) leader of House of Representatives and third in line for the Presidency.Everyone is aware of this including Assad.Hence what she said has much greater weight than an assortment of random Republican congressmen.Second, it is reasonable to assume that those GOP congressman did not make their little field trip to undermine the stated policy of the President.I'd guess what they said privately was pretty much a rehash of what Bush said has said publicly -we support democracy blah blah blah ,etc.I say this because I don't see how they would benefit from undermining the Bush policy.Pelosi is a different story.Hence-and third-I'd like to know just what she said privately to the dictator of Syria because I just don't trust her.As everyone knows Democrats have benefited politically from the perceived failure in Iraq.What would happen to them if the Bush policy and Iraq war grew into success? I expect nothing good and I'm sure the Democrats themselves believe that.Therefore I believe she went to Syria to undermine the Bush policy and in an attempt to ensure its failure.Leftists never tire of making every accusation of treason,incompetence,cowardice ("fighting keyboardists"), etc about conservatives but I'll only make one against them:Treason.This is why I believe Nancy Pelosi is despicable.

I guess all of the radical ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I guess all of the radical left, communist, democrats, missed the FOX (cable/satelite) news at 6PM. They re-ran part of the dhimmi's stating without a doubt Saddam had WMD in his grimy little hands and was seeking more WMD. The list included Slick Willie, Shrillary 'the weasel', Hanoi John Kerry and many more. They only had a short list of the many democrats that made statements in the 90's far stronger than President Bush ever made including the fact that AQ was being funded, supported and harbored by Saddam.
It was an interesting 5 or so minutes. Now if someone Tivo's the broadcast and will post it so everyone can download it we'll send it to all of our friends that are suffering from BDS. Watching the facts might just stop them from progressing on to total insanity. If the lefties on here had watched just a minute or two of it they wouldn't be on here making fools of themselves.
Lets see now, President Bush beat them in 2000, in 2006 and like a drum again today. Will they ever learn that they are being led by the nose to destruction by the anti-American crowd who's only aim is destruction of America. They could care less who is in charge in D.C. as long as they can get fools (and the dumbest MSM in history) to follow them.

These are liberal source... (Below threshold)
jim:

These are liberal sources of information who tried to spin.

Uh, no, LoveAMericaImmigrant.

1) the 1999 War Games were conducted by the US military. They are not liberal media, last time I checked.

2) The US State Department is not liberal media either, last I heard.

3) The 2006 NIE is definitely not liberal media - because they are the US military and intelligence agencies, themselves.

Now please go and read those reports.

Jim, If the terrori... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
If the terrorists are dealt with and Iraq becomes a full functional democracy, good things or bad things will happen to

a) the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran

b) the Dem party

You don't need an expert to answer these questions, do you?

(1) Where is the link to th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

(1) Where is the link to the orig NIE report?

(2) So in 1999, Clinton didn't prepare the military for an Iraq war? So did he screw up?

Two simple questions:<br... (Below threshold)
jim:

Two simple questions:
If the terrorists are dealt with in Iraq, good things or bad things will happen to

a) the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran

b) the Dem party

You ask, "IF the terrorists are dealt with in Iraq?" You might as well ask "What if fairy gold is discovered in Iraq?" Because both questions are divorced from REALITY.

Terrorists ARE NOT being dealt with in IRAQ.

Got it???

TERRORISTS ARE BEING CREATED BY OUR VERY PRESENCE IN IRAQ.

Can you understand that?? It is in those reports I've cited, PLEASE GO AND READ THEM. You're not reading them is why you are WRONG.

We are creating more terrorists than we kill by being in Iraq. Period. That's reality.

You don't need an expert to answer these questions, do you?

Yes we do need experts - which is clear, from the results of the Bush administration's REFUSAL to listen to experts.

As the 1999 War Games reports shows, everything the experts predicted happened.

Thank you xennady, for ente... (Below threshold)
jim:

Thank you xennady, for entering into a substantive discussion.

First, the Speaker of the House is (obviously) leader of House of Representatives and third in line for the Presidency.Everyone is aware of this including Assad.Hence what she said has much greater weight than an assortment of random Republican congressmen.

Ok. Why does that make her very visit despicable?

Second, it is reasonable to assume that those GOP congressman did not make their little field trip to undermine the stated policy of the President.

Sure, it is reasonable to assume that.

But if your assumption is that Pelosi made this trip TO undermine the stated policy of the President - that is an unwarranted assumption with no evidence.

According to all known public facts, Pelosi did not undermine the President's policy with the US. She even checked in with the State Dep't ahead of time, to be utterly clear on the President's policies.

In short, she did not contradict the Bush Admin's policy towards Syria in ANY WAY.

I'd like to know just what she said privately to the dictator of Syria because I just don't trust her.

That's your prerogative. But suspicion is not proof. Therefore you can't reasonably refer to her trip as despicable, unless you can point to something she did that actually is despicable.

Let alone accusing her of treason, with no proof except that you suspect she may have said something to someone in private.

Here's the declassified por... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's the declassified portions of the NIE report -

www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

I appreciate jim's original... (Below threshold)

I appreciate jim's original comment post -- he's a liberal I can have a beer with. Without having read all 70 comments, I want to suggest this to him:

On your suggestion for halting illegal immigration, to wit

"All we need to do is pass a law, that if any company hires undocumented workers at any level, the CEO will have mandatory jailtime. No fines - jail. Years of it."

Accepting that you are serious, I agree that it would do the trick -- but unfortunately, it would be an unconcstitutional criminal statute, for you cannot convict a person of committing a crime unless he has knowledge that the crime took place. And you cannot put the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland in jail because some foreman in a bean field in Bakersfield brings in a crew from Tijuana on occasion (unless it's a routine that he can be tagged with knowledge of).

That said, you can say simply that all persons employed by the company who are responsible for hiring illegal aliens will be imprisoned and that no company may hire a person who has been convicted of the offense for a period of time following his conviction.

That focuses the liability on the culpable party.

Experts huh Jim? Yes-top me... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Experts huh Jim? Yes-top men.Top Men! Clinton listened to experts and did essentially nothing about Al-Qaeda.No thanks.The war in Iraq isn't a good option-it's just the least bad option.If you think leaving Iraq will stop the "creation" of terrorists you're living in a fantasy world.Let me turn the scathing capital letters upon you-LEAVING IRAQ WILL RESULT IN FAR MORE TERRORISTS BEING CREATED BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE A MASSIVE SUCCESS TO INSPIRE POTENTIAL RECRUITS! Our only route to peace is to kill terrorists until terrorism is universally seen as a failed dead end by all and terrorists are mocked and despised by the societies that presently provide recruits.That's reality.It bites.Sorry.Have a nice night.

Jay --I understand... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Jay --

I understand! Just didn't want Rosie to be the emphasis; but the subject is an interesting one. Of course, I have a different opinion, but I appreciate your post!

Well, Xennady, taht's a ter... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Xennady, taht's a terrible situation we're in then, isn't it?

Either
a) Continue to occupy Iraq: lose soldiers and money, and continue to be distracted from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda both, while terrorism WILL increase.

b) split the country in 3 sections, invite the UN in, and leave: save soldiers and money, be able to make Afghanistan work - and terrorism MIGHT increase.

Seems pretty clear to me.

It's a bad situation we're in, that we have to choose between these two.

But we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Well, wavemaker, I can agre... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, wavemaker, I can agree to that. I'm just thinking of how companies like Walmart will have flocks of illegals working via "outside contractors". Walmart knows for damn sure that the contract employees must be making under minimum wage, and therefore must logically be illegal aliens - but they pretend they have no idea.

Walmart: "Me? I have no idea what's going on in this company. I'm just the boss."

However, jail time for the contractors doing the direct-contact hiring would solve that, I suppose.

Well, jim, I guess I'll mak... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Well, jim, I guess I'll make one more post since you politely responded to my first comment."According to all known public facts Pelosi did not undermine the presidents policy".Of course not.How about privately? We don't know.Just why should I give her the benefit of the doubt? Her party has enormous incentive for the Bush policy to fail.Why should I assume they won't act upon this incentive? Actually, I believe they have-and her trip was an example.To me these actions are treason, and that's why I said her actions were despicable.I freely admit these are just my suspicions-but they are based on my observations and evaluations of the conduct of Democratic politicians since I was old enough to notice.Obviously, others disagree.Furthermore- since you responded politely (rare!) to what I first wrote-I regret the snide tone of my second post.However, I stand by the substance.Leaving Iraq would be a long run disaster even if in the short term it reduced American casualties.And you'll get the last word here if you want it, because I'm going to bed.Good night!

Re: dealing the the problem... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Re: dealing the the problems of illegal aliens.

I personally thought that Neal Boortz proposed what appears to be a viable solution.

The first line:


Step One: You enact harsh -- draconian -- penalties for any employer, no matter how large or small, who knowingly or carelessly hires someone who is in this country illegally. [snip]

The rest of what Boortz proposed can be found here:

boortz.com/nuze/200705/05012007.html#illegals

<a href="http://www.wired.... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death

Anyone who supports the troops, should oppose this.

Support = Pity (in the libe... (Below threshold)
Regret:

Support = Pity (in the liberal mind).

You know what drives me nut... (Below threshold)

You know what drives me nuts about Liberals, they all "support the troops and have them HOME..." Nary a one, with the sole exception of Joe Lieberman, understands the threat before us. Obama wants our troops to "win the hearts and minds" of the people. Harry Reid, supports the troops, but in the same breath says that they have "lost the War"...boy, there's a rousing morale speech I am sure evry Drill Sergant is going to incorporate...

I just want to say that I "... (Below threshold)

I just want to say that I "support" jim and LAI's perversion of this thread into yet another rehash of Nancy Pelosi's soi-disant Secretary Of State Mideast Tour in a totally liberal way.

Sigh...

J.

I'm curious Jim,Do... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I'm curious Jim,

Do you realize that:

"In short, she did not contradict the Bush Admin's policy towards Syria in ANY WAY."

Is no more a fact than:

"Therefore I believe she went to Syria to undermine the Bush policy and in an attempt to ensure its failure."

?

They're both unsubstanciated opinions.

Of course a big difference is that Xennady stated it clearly as an opinion whereas you stated it as a fact (from the gospel according to Katie, maybe?)

You can determine which kin... (Below threshold)
soldier's mom:

You can determine which kind of supporter of the military you are by answering this question: Do you see the men and women of the US military was warriors or do you see them as "kids"?

My son is a warrior.

Jim, (1) See some o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
(1) See some of the key points from the NIE (your own source now) below. These are the reasons we should stay in Iraq and why the terrorists consider Iraq is STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT to them. Either the dems are too dumb to understand or simply want the terrorists to win for their own political power (and this is truly despicable in my opinion).

(2) I consider the liberal sources you cited (CNN, BBC) dishonest or spinning by pick and choose what they want. They DISHONESTLY used the NIE to support the arg that we should withdraw from Iraq while the NIE is saying exactly the opposite

(3) You illustrate the INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL CORRUPTION of the liberas/democrats. It doesn't take much brain to know that the terrorists will simply lay down and go away if we attack them. So what do they do? They will get killed by the US military and get handled by the Iraq troops and even armed militias for their evils. So what do they do, they turn to attack the defenseless women and children. They are getting killed in Iraq. So what do they do, they tried to blow up people in other parts of the world where they don't face the American military? Do you expect them simply to seek other useful activities? The DESPICABLE thing about THE DEMOCRATS and their liberal allies in the media is that they are willingly giving the propaganda to these despicable/evil attacks.

So now the terrorists only need to blow up more women and children and attack other places around the world, and the liberals would advocate surrender? You are truly proving Bin Laden 's point.

I am running of my patience. In one thread I see dishonest and dumb args. And the excuse to cut-and-run is so despicable (looks like you guys are wishing for the terrorists to do more so that you can find excuse to surrender). Using your arg, Britain should have surrendered to Hitler (as France did) since they had no chance against the German army. This is beyond parody. If you have any honor left, you should run away from the despicable dem party asap.

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years,
political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and
groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives

Jim, As the 1999 War... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
As the 1999 War Games reports shows, everything the experts predicted happened.
-----------------------------------------------
Look in the mirror and see what you are saying. Clinton inherited a superb military built up by Reagan and Bush to fight 2 major wars with the Soviet Union and possibly China. 7 years later, the US military cannot even handle Iraq? Can we agree that Clinton did gut the US military significantly that the dems simply to surrender when the terrorists simply increase their acitivties? What a courageous party. That 's why liberals love FRANCE, a country that surrendered to Hitler after one week of fighting!

Using the liberal arg, Britain should have surrendered to Hitler because the British army didn't even have a chance against the German army (you don't even need an expert to know that and probably honest experts would know that in any case)

You guys are truly beyond parody!


I just want to say that ... (Below threshold)
jim:

I just want to say that I "support" jim and LAI's perversion of this thread into yet another rehash of Nancy Pelosi's soi-disant Secretary Of State Mideast Tour in a totally liberal way.

Jay Tea, for what it's worth I apologize. I tried to get off the train a few posts ago, but I didn't, so there you have it. I'll pause my own posting, and leave my arguments as they are.

To JT's original post. </p... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

To JT's original post.

It's about the elevation and celebration of the Victim.

It started heavily with the Clintons and the transformation of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to the Tomb of the Unknowns. Attempting to elevate victims (people in the wrong place at the wrong time) with heroes (people who have deliberately put themselves at risk or sacrificed for a good cause).

Now if you aren't successful in our society, ie poor, its certainly because you're a victim. Or if you are opressed like illegal aliens, you're a victim. "So you shouldn't feel ashamed if you're lazy or waste you money on drugs or if you're a criminal. You're not doing anything wrong. Heck, you're a hero. Even better than a hero. And you need our help to get what you deserve."

People who a self-sufficient. Mostly those of us who pay our own way are considered dogs. "You've probably cheated the system. Now pay your taxes, dog!"

Jay, Sorry let me g... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jay,
Sorry let me go back to the topic of the thread here. An example of supporting the troops from dems
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/02/video-murtha-says-petraeus-is-a-political-hack/
Murtha says Petraeus is a political hack

Hi Jim,
Would you and other liberals listen to this expert (he is quoted on CNN, your favorite source)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html
Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy