Wolf! Wolf! Meh!

[Hoss]

Do you find that acceptable?  I sure don't.

My question though now is why is it all of a sudden a big deal when it wasn't 10 years prior to this.  I know you're pretty neutral when it comes to making common ground for the good of the people as opposed to special interests (yes, I know likely a pipe dream, but one can hope) but I see more and more moderate Republicans these days calling for this, but their voice is essentially being drowned out by the pols on the special interest take and those worried about pissing off the extreme right hand side of their base by stepping outside of that ideology.

[bokworker]

What I would gather from the conversation on this board is that, in principal, most of us on this board are relatively close on what we think needs to be done. The differences seem to arise when we consider whether the leadership of this country is helping to achieve these common goals or is not.

There are tough decisions that need to be made. Decisions that require specifics and leadership. Decisions that are going to require citizens to shoulder more on a personal level and receive less from a governmental level. Decisions that will result in additional hardships and pain and yet are necassary to avoid even more pain for more people in the future. It isn't an environment where partisanship can provide solutions. Math knows no politics.

The theater we are witnessing in Washington is growing old. I cannot stand to watch representatives of either side discuss their stance as  it seems both sides are playing to a fringe that I cannot support.  

[Townsend]

I cannot stand to watch representatives of either side discuss their stance as  it seems both sides are playing to a fringe that I cannot support.  

"fringe" is a nice way of putting that.  I agree.

[Conan71]

My question though now is why is it all of a sudden a big deal when it wasn't 10 years prior to this.  I know you're pretty neutral when it comes to making common ground for the good of the people as opposed to special interests (yes, I know likely a pipe dream, but one can hope) but I see more and more moderate Republicans these days calling for this, but their voice is essentially being drowned out by the pols on the special interest take and those worried about pissing off the extreme right hand side of their base by stepping outside of that ideology.

If you are referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, I can speak to that.  If it's something else, please clarify.

10 years ago, well coming up on anyhow, we witnessed something we'd never seen before on American soil.  Did President Bush react appropriately at the time?  I think he did as good a job as anyone could given the set of circumstances.  As far as the need to invade Iraq, that's an old debate, but we know the cause was, in fact, bolstered by a belief that there were still WMD in Iraq which could be funneled to Al Qaeda.  We had no less than former President Clinton wagging his finger on Larry King Live assuring people there was no doubt there were un-accounted for WMD in Iraq the day he left office.  This was a man who was privy to the same level of intel that President Bush was.  There was a lot of unknown about what was or was not fomenting in the terrorist world in the Middle East at the time.

In hindsight, what has the wisdom been in wasting so much money in Iraq when we could have kept Saddam on a short leash until he finally died?  Obviously we could have saved billions.  You can call it a war for oil, but to this day, I don't believe we've been compensated with one barrel of oil for our efforts.  I don't think this was an appropriate time to take out all our Middle Eastern vendettas.  Did Bush over-state the threat emanating out of Iraq?  I suspect he did, but I don't believe he overstated the danger in a mysterious and far-flung terrorist organization which didn't seem to have a problem getting new recruits.  Keep in mind "Bush lied, thousands died" didn't become expedient until the 2004 election.

Did we really need to create another huge bureaucracy in the DHS and TSA?  I mean what a clusterfark that has turned into.

[Conan71]

The theater we are witnessing in Washington is growing old. I cannot stand to watch representatives of either side discuss their stance as  it seems both sides are playing to a fringe that I cannot support.  

Agreed 100%.

Hopefully, it's a miscalculation which will result in an even bigger shellacking of incumbents of both parties in 2012.  When 60% of the country is really pretty moderate, they need to be thinking of moderate solutions considering this is a representative republic and they are supposed to be representing the will of the people.

I'm so pissed off at Boehner, McConnell, and those hugging the no new taxes at all costs crowd, I really am ready to re-register as an independent but I'm not quite ready to waive my right to vote in the primaries.

If I had to say one thing I admire about the Democrat party over the last 30-40 years as it's remained really stable and standing on it's principles though I have to say the social agenda has gradually drifted little more liberal, but that seems to be in line with society in general. 

The GOP for some reason seems easily hi-jacked when it's come to the moral majority in the 1980's and the Tea Party today.

[nathanm]

I'd love to have a sane Republican Party. Choice is good. Right now, my choices are shut up about all I don't like about the Democrats and try to keep the lunatics out or stay home. There's plenty to hate in both parties. It would be nice if our electoral system didn't make true competitive third parties effectively impossible.

[bokworker]

Conan, I stated in a thread sometime ago about making the war in Iraq about oil. The repubs took so much grief about it that now they won't dare try to get our money back by taking some off the top. I say screw that, make it about oil! How about getting some additional revenues for our government from a source other than our own population. $5/barrell for as long as it takes to get our money back sounds fair to me...or how about a $5 discount from the spot price on every barrell of oil we buy from Iraq which will help hold down our domestic energy costs. Just something that keeps us from having a sunk cost in dollars, and lives, over there....

[nathanm]

A $5 a barrel discount would be about $5 billion a year if we were the only consumer of Iraqi oil. Still think it's worth spending the money on an occupation force that has cost over $125 billion a year so far? Even if we somehow got the oil for free it would still be a money losing venture.

[Conan71]

Even if we somehow got the oil for free it would still be a money losing venture.

That still wouldn't take into account what that would do for oil prices on the world markets due to slackening in demand as well as other intangible benefits like having somewhat of a friendly ally right next to Iran.  It's not always about a dollar for dollar ROI.

Let's face it, our occupation forces have never left Germany, Japan, Korea, or other theaters of war completely, and likely never will.  Some sort of financial remuneration for what we've spent wouldn't hurt.

[bokworker]

Believe me Nathan, I wasn't making a statement on the "value" of the war.... but $5 billion is $5 billion..and it isnt coming from us. And hey, if we spread that out over 10 years then we are talking $50 billion.

There is no single answer to solve it all but this would be additive..no?

[Teatownclown]

"Winners NEVER compromise...."  Rush Limbaugh (the drug crazed leading voice in the war against Obama)


Explaining the Tea Party in terms so simple that even a Tea Partier could understand - it's The Muppets!

This might be a bit long, but it's still entertaining. And still very true, too!