Maybe. I kinda doubt it.

I remeber Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. (I actually *remeber* Eisenhower but I wasn't hooked into politics at that age. )
No, but the liberals have.
"Gathering a consensus"....delightful. Maybe he'd try to "conduct a dialog" or "raise conciousness", too. Clearly not CinC material...and to my shame I was willing to overlook that. Never again.

I seem to recall Gore was on the payroll when the script-writing was going on in the 90's.

Of Carter, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I wouldn't want to have seen any of that lot at the helm on 9/11. For all his flaws Kennedy might have been able to handle it... he did OK with nukes in Cuba. But it's a highly subjunctive stretch... 2001 is not 1963.


And to get back on topic:

The Sub2K is a hell of a lot of fun in an inexpensive gun package. Make sure that you get the grip config that matches your carry piece and you are good to go. I had one fairly soon after they hit the market and caused quite a stir at the range I took it to ... nobody had seen one before. KelTec's customer service is awesome, btw.

No, the script was written by the PNAC.

looks like it's easier to meander off-topic than answer my point. You threw out a spurious remark, I replied in kind, quelle horreur!

You didn't make one.

I meant the episode where you deceide to let Bin Laden go because he's vacationing with friends. I don't see any reason to have expected anything different from Gore.

Yeah, well...my P-11 takes S&W mags. I'm seriously thinking about the Glock 17 version though because I wouldn't mind at all a pistol-caliber carbine with 33-round magazines.

That's why I have the Glock 22 Mag grip ... I have the stick for the .40, and I like the better one-shot stop percentages.

We got an "I like Ike" bumper sticker in the mail so I stuck it on the family car. What I didn't know was Pop was refused endorsement by the Republicans for reelection two nights before, so he was pissed. He ran as an independent and won handily. That's a pretty broad brush. Yes "gathering a consensus", isn't that what the Congress is for......advice and consent? Not of The New American Century. Because they wouldn't have driven the bad guys out of Afghanistan, back to Pakistan....temporarily?
Because they wouldn't have gotten us into this Iraq fiasco?
Because they wouldn't have pissed off half the world?
Because they wouldn't have swiss cheesed the Constitution?
Because they wouldn't have secured our borders?

At least Bill doing Monica was consentual, W doing me, is not.
Nixon and Bush piss me off the most, because I voted for both (once) and I feel personally betrayed. :mad:

I meant the bit where you decide to let Bin Laden go because you really wanted to attack Saddam all along.

Hardly comparable...Clinton/Gone didn't even take the shot when it was stone easy. Bush at least tried when it was much harder. His mistake was trying to appease the gang who was criticizing him for "acting unilaterally" and "being a cowboy" by letting the locals take Bin Laden on in the mountains.

Not the same thing at all as a clean shot in open desert in 1999.

Read II.2 as to what "Advice and Consent" applies to.

No kidding...what office?

To what are you referring?

C'mon, Clinton was playing Battleship. Try to figure out where he is and shoot that coordinate......long shot at best.

Bush blew it, when the whole world understood Afghanistan was expected, by sending in a small force to take Kabul, instead of doing it right and committing enough resources to seal the borders.
Probably, not to ofend the Pakis
He did the same thing in Iraq.:(

Small town politics.:D

Well, when Clinton *did* shoot (post Monica) he hit (mostly) empty tents and a baby food factory. Perhaps an incremental improvement over Desert One, in that at least there were zero US casualties.

They knew where the hunting party was; had it on satellite...until somebody decided to talk to the Emirs about it. Didn't want to queer the F-16 sale. Next satellite pass everybody was gone...big surprise there.

Funny how that story didn't get any legs until there was a spin on it to criticise Bush over the port management deal. "Lap dogs" indeed...

None of which has anything to do with illegal aliens, of course.

Elspode, I gotta break this to you: it isn't arrogance. Are we faced by a sea of troubles? I think so; how about you? Has any Administration in living memory, besides the Reagan Administration, done much of anything about draining that sea? I don't see any reason to breathe a word of complaint about the current Administration taking "arms against a sea of troubles/And by opposing, end them."

It's not arrogance to take out the totalitarian-propelled, religiously-bigoted creep with a bomb and a grudge, regardless of how many "brothers" he claims. It strikes me as mere good sense. When the fascistoids are all dead and decayed, they can't oppose the one legitimate form of governance: by, for, and of the people. All the other forms of governance do naught but oppress.

In fewer words, all of our foes are all fucking wrong. Defeat them. Don't allow us to be the defeated.

Marichiko: Cui bono, if you please.

How do we lose our own soul by ruining anti-democrats and anti-libertarians????? Jee-zus, Griff!

This tells us we also have created other problems - such as one in every 1000 Americans are in jail - majority for drug offenses. We imprison for marijuana - and then have no place to put captured illegals. Therefore many illegals were given a court date and left to their own recognizance. Being too strict or not strict enough is again missing the problem. We have too many people in jail for nonsense. Marijuana possession is a more violent crime than illegal immigration. Look what being more strict (rather than first learn the problem) has done.

No one is saying American economics policies are the only reason for illegal immigration. Americans laws take years to apply for immigration (totaly that only a strict extremist could love), numerous forms each written to require $500 lawyers, and immigration quotas, based in politics rather than in reality, are additional contributing factors.

So instead we cure the symptom with big walls and big guns.

Jose Mexicana would more prefer to get a job or create a job in his own country. Agriculture being the easiest and could be most productive in all countries south of the Rio Grande. And yet America even puts up a 54% tariff on methanol - so that foreigners cannot make jobs and businesses growing sugar et al to make ethanol. This is but one of hundreds of examples of what America does to need more immigrants - and to stifle overseas 'competitive' businesses. 54% tariff on methanol? Tell me why that exists? For the same reasons that big walls and big guns will also solve a problem.

Reminds me of the computer repairman who fixes computer hardware by reloading Windows. No idea what is a problem, but he will fix what is not working.

Ultimately, illegal immigration problem is a problem that WE Americans have created. Unfortunately if we lower barriers to illegals (make it reasonable to immigrate legally), then those same immigrants will demand tax refunds and social security benefits they have always been paying for but not getting. Money not spent on illegals today makes America richer. We created those jobs. They are coming to fill those jobs whether we like it or not - despite big walls and big guns.

If the process we use is anti-libertarian, we have ruined ourselves.

Griff, destroying ultra-statists isn't an anti-libertarian act, but one of the strongest possible pro-libertarian actions: dead oligarchs can neither rule nor oppress, nor act to impede libertarianism. This means a good chance for us, no?

All this is the plainest of horse sense. Is it not so that if you want libertarianism to succeed, you shouldn't shrink from implementing it just because the opposition gets violent beyond a certain threshold? I should think the contrary is the case: be prepared to neutralize enemy goon squads. Goon squads without survivors would seem pretty well neutralized. If they're antilibertarian anyway, shouldn't we see to it that they experience either a libertarian epiphany or a sudden death?

The problem you and I have is that our perceptions of our current governmental system are so opposed. You see a system, significantly better than others, seeking to spread our freedoms across the planet. I see a statist system generally growing stronger with each administration, seeking to control lives and economies. The machinery of government is fullfilling the prime directive of any bureacracy, sustaining itself and growing. We get a nominal rollback, like Bush easing off on the gun grab, but it is always paired with the pet enslavement project, which for this administration is subsidizing the oil economy. I know you were part of the system so are comfortable with it but the idea that the American System would become an increasingly centralized controlled economy, while attractive to the Federalist/Whig/Republican, is repugnant to those of us who see the American Revolution of a triumph for individual freedom.

I think that you compare us to the Islamists and rightly see a people more free. I think we should compare ourselves to Jefferson's hopes for us. The flaw in the neo-conservative dream of a democratic domino effect is in thinking that we represent freedom to the folks on the Arab street, when our own freedoms are just a ghost of what they should be, in large part because of our world-wide military activities.

Now we're thinking. I'll mull this over a bit.

That Griff is one damn smart fellow. :notworthy

ok, its been almost 4 years ...

LOL okay so I started reading this thread, and then it said something about W, and I was like WTF- this isn't "current events" HAHAHA! Way to go dumpster diving for old threads ;)

It's more current than it seems.
With the exception of MaggieL, all posters on this page (post 136 on) are all still active, all still have the same style, all still have the same opinions, and are all still arguing the same shit over and over again. :corn: .... :zzz:

C'mon zen - you really didn't find the humor in that?