Title: SAY GOODBYE TO RUMMY - WITHIN WEEKS HE WILL RESIGN Source:
THE GIFT TO SEE THE TRUTH URL Source:[None] Published:Jun 4, 2006 Author:TLBSHOW Post Date:2006-06-04 10:40:35 by TLBSHOW Keywords:None Views:19299 Comments:91
Nothing in the record would lead me to agree. Unless looking the other way on torture and losing what should have been an easily-winnable war are considered great accomplishments... :)
I think when progress in Iraq is at a standstill and shows zero sign of improving (and no, civilian massacres is not a sign of improvement), it's time to redeploy and admit that we lost. :)
I didn't want to turn this into a pissing match...but it's clear we lost the war when we became the torturers we claimed we flew 3,000 miles to destroy. :(
Yes. We got it back after Vietnam and Watergate, after all. We need to usher in an era of thoughtfulness and global reconciliation. We need a real leader, like Reagan.
I'm not joking, Mr. Stone...sure, the SCOTUS has bastardized the meaning of the Commerce Clause to give the Federal Leviathan authority over EVERYTHING that happens in America, but that can be overturned if we get the Right majority in the Supreme Court. I think Alito is a good addition, although the jury's still out on Roberts, imho.
If me and my "ilk" were in power, we wouldn't have lost the war -- because we wouldn't have started it in the first place. Cutting our losses is something we're going to have to do one of these days. If it's "French," so be it. :)
"I would hope that the Supreme Court stays as impartial and non-partisan as possible."
It's not partisan to recognize that the U.S. Constitution expressly limited the size and scope of the Federal Leviathan and courts have bastardized the meaning of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to stick their noses into every nook and cranny of our society.
Federal Leviathan and courts have bastardized the meaning of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to stick their noses into every nook and cranny of our society.
So you would agree that Congress should not be passing federal legislation to allow gay marriage? :)
"...we wouldn't have lost the war -- because we wouldn't have started it in the first place."
Fair enuff, you are welcome to your opinion. However, I believe Iraq was the next logical place to go in the WarOnTerror, Congress overwhelmingly supported it, and now that we're there, we cannot afford to cut and run.
And make no mistake, we are winning in Iraq...the Islamofascists are desperate becuz they are not rallying Iraqi support to their cause.
Our soldiers are kickin' butt and takin' names...MUD
"Congress should not be passing federal legislation to allow gay marriage?"
At present, the debate is about a Constitutional Amendment, which is the way change is supposed to occur, as compared to overriding the Constitution with an activist Judiciary.
And how is that not invading every nook and cranny of our society?
This is why the judiciary -- and Congress -- should remain as balanced and impartial as possible, so these encroachments on the minority's freedoms can be avoided.
"...if 72% of the troops wanted out within 9 months"
The troops don't make these decisions, my friend...in any event, the drawdown of troops from Iraq will continue to proceed this fall and winter. Rumor is that troops strengths will be reduced from its present 140K to under 100K by the first of the year.
"...the judiciary -- and Congress -- should remain as balanced and impartial as possible"
Balanced? What's that mean? In any event, the judiciary should maintain a steadfast non-partisan bias, but the Congress is by definition "partial" to given ideologies, as they should be.
"...these encroachments on the minority's freedoms can be avoided."
Last I checked (ten seconds ago, on C-SPAN2), the rights of a certain minority in this country are being encroached upon...and by a non-balanced, thoughtless cross-section of the Republican party. It's sad.
"...the rights of a certain minority in this country are being encroached upon"
Puh-LEEEZE!! Marriage is the holy matrimony between one man and one woman for the furtherance of creating a family unit to bear the next generation. That's just what "marriage" is, and the gays oughtta just git over it. If they want to pledge their undying love for their partner and exercise certain legal provisions similar to those that married folks have, more power to them, but it ain't a "marriage"...call it a "coupling" or whatever, but it ain't marriage...MUD
No, they are asking for special rights...if a man--any man--wants to get married, all they need to do is find a willing lass. But two men or two women cannot be married, by definition.
Do you believe brothers should be allowed to marry their sisters? How about fathers marrying their daughters?
You just can't go changing the definition of, arguably, the most successful institution out there without beginning down a very slippery slope.
Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, said the military should swiftly "get to the bottom of what happened and how it was investigated" and suggested that Rumsfeld, himself, should answer questions such as when he learned of the allegations and what actions he took thereafter.
I never said I want brothers to marry sisters, or fathers to marry daughters. I said I want no American's right to life, liberty and happiness to be encroached upon by the government, whether that be the Congress or the Courts.
I would be equally upset if it were the activist Courts trying to remove gay men's and gay women's rights. Today it just happens to be Congress acting like thoughtless fools.
I am heartened in the fact that nothing will come of this.
Politically, the alleged murders in Haditha — as well as unsubstantiated claims of unprovoked civilian deaths by U.S. troops elsewhere in Iraq — threaten to further drag down support for the Iraq war and could turn into a political problem for President Bush and Republicans five months before congressional elections. Polls show voters increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of the war as well as more inclined to see Democrats leading Congress.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [a] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
That appears to be the Conventional Wisdom, but I'm not so sure...if it was gonna be so easily-defeated, why are the RATS so exercised about debating it on the Senate floor?
