There you go: support the GOP nominee to annoy lixy. That ought to work…
More on topic, this race will not be decided on Iraq policy, at least if one believes exit polling data from Super Tuesday:
http://thepage.time.com/msnbc-national-exit-poll-results/
And of those that do think Iraq is the most important issue, they’re voting for McCain on the GOP side:
http://thepage.time.com/early-national-exit-poll-results-from-fox-news/
[quote]dk44 wrote:
You can bet your ass the prior to 911 you could have done the same fucking thing in any country in the world (hijacking airplanes and crashing them into shit), [/quote]
I wouldn’t. But then again, I value my ass.
Try crashing a plane before 9/11 into an Israeli governmental building and you’ll be pulverized before you know it. Why? Is it because they spend more money on defending themselves? Not even close by orders of magnitude. Is it because they’re better trained? No.
The reason is simple: The Israeli army isn’t scattered around the world.
Shit, I bet even the French (who spend peanuts on the military) could have managed to dispatch jetfighters in time if airliners were hovering around La Tour Montparnasse.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There you go: support the GOP nominee to annoy lixy. That ought to work…
More on topic, this race will not be decided on Iraq policy, at least if one believes exit polling data from Super Tuesday:
http://thepage.time.com/msnbc-national-exit-poll-results/
And of those that do think Iraq is the most important issue, they’re voting for McCain on the GOP side:
http://thepage.time.com/early-national-exit-poll-results-from-fox-news/ [/quote]
Yeah…defintely time to change my voter registration. Out of the GoP. I’ll always remember the good times.
“Shit, I bet even the French (who spend peanuts on the military) could have managed to dispatch jetfighters in time if airliners were hovering around La Tour Montparnasse.”
Cuz the planes were just “hovering” around Time Square.
Your logic is way off here, we have planes flying all over the country, so I guess we should have F-16’s right on each individual planes ass, just in case right.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
You can bet your ass the prior to 911 you could have done the same fucking thing in any country in the world (hijacking airplanes and crashing them into shit),
I wouldn’t. But then again, I value my ass.
Try crashing a plane before 9/11 into an Israeli governmental building and you’ll be pulverized before you know it. Why? Is it because they spend more money on defending themselves? Not even close by orders of magnitude. Is it because they’re better trained? No.
The reason is simple: The Israeli army isn’t scattered around the world.
Shit, I bet even the French (who spend peanuts on the military) could have managed to dispatch jetfighters in time if airliners were hovering around La Tour Montparnasse.[/quote]
You’re oversimplifying the matter. The following link deals with some of these issues.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There you go: support the GOP nominee to annoy lixy. That ought to work… [/quote]
Actually any of the Democrats (now that Kucinich’s gone) would annoy me just as much. But hey, that’s what progressists do: they’re hard to please!
I was almost going to say that Ben-Laden would break the (halal?) champagne if the GOP candidate wins, but then I remembered Rudy’s out.
“I wouldn’t. But then again, I value my ass.” - as does your boyfriend.
“that’s what progressists do: they’re hard to please!” - so are women, are you a woman?
“I was almost going to say that Ben-Laden would break the (halal?) champagne if the GOP candidate wins, but then I remembered Rudy’s out.” - like Ben-Laden is gonna let you get your swerve on, you may be his favorite minion but he isn’t gonna let you touch the good stuff like champagne, hope you like camel milk.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re oversimplifying the matter. The following link deals with some of these issues.
Stand down [/quote]
I don’t see what any of those “issues” have anything to do with what I am saying.
This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Did you spend billions develloping GPS so that drunken kids could find their way home? Any aircraft that gets out of its way should get intercepted. Hook up all the GPS queries to a computer, and let it figure do the sentinel for you. When it sees an anomaly, a big red siren goes off at the nearest military base and every pilot on duty gets a text message with the live coordinates of the loose plane. How hard is that? MIT kids could wrap that up in a blink.
But no-ooo. Instead of worrying about your own airspace and borders, you dilapidate resources on playing bully around the world. That is my point.
And I stand by my assertion that Ben-Laden didn’t have a chance in hell to pull off that stunt with Israel for the aforementioned reasons. With all your (hard-earned?) money going into your defense department, you should be able to expect much more. I am not saying talking about bombs in backpacks snuck into restaurants or snipers shooting people like flies. Those you can’t do anything about. But planes…c’mon!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’re oversimplifying the matter. The following link deals with some of these issues.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
I don’t see what any of those “issues” have anything to do with what I am saying.
This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Did you spend billions develloping GPS so that drunken kids could find their way home? Any aircraft that gets out of its way should get intercepted. Hook up all the GPS queries to a computer, and let it figure do the sentinel for you. When it sees an anomaly, a big red siren goes off at the nearest military base and every pilot on duty gets a text message with the live coordinates of the loose plane. How hard is that? MIT kids could wrap that up in a blink.
But no-ooo. Instead of worrying about your own airspace and borders, you dilapidate resources on playing bully around the world. That is my point.
And I stand by my assertion that Ben-Laden didn’t have a chance in hell to pull off that stunt with Israel for the aforementioned reasons. With all your (hard-earned?) money going into your defense department, you should be able to expect much more. I am not saying talking about bombs in backpacks snuck into restaurants or snipers shooting people like flies. Those you can’t do anything about. But planes…c’mon![/quote]
Well, it does deal with what you’re talking about. Talks about intercepts, and the problems with trying to track those planes. The terrorists knew how to lose those planes.
You could have done this same shit anywhere pre 9-11 dumbass. If you get on a plane and wait until right before you want to fly it into something and then hijack it, there is little that can be done. While our technology is remarkable, this isn’t the fuckin “Jetsons.”
But I forgot that your a hardass and would have texted Muhammed and he could have sent a email to Jesus and Jesus could have sent a download link for a Metalica song onto your ipod while you battled the hijackers single handed with nothing but a bag of peanuts to the death. You have officially made it onto my “too stupid to live” list.
America has gone too far Left to elect a Republican. We might elect a pseudo-Republican like McCain.
America is getting ready for Socialism. Countries on the wane in terms of economy often turn inward and attempt to achieve stability through totalitarianism, to halt the downward spiral. It doesn’t do much good.
Lixy’s buddies didn’t like the kind and gentle America. I think they will soon see a somewhat different militaristic America, one that ENJOYS bombing mosques and entire neighborhoods. You guys didn’t want the good version — here comes the other.
Hope you like it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
You can bet your ass the prior to 911 you could have done the same fucking thing in any country in the world (hijacking airplanes and crashing them into shit),
I wouldn’t. But then again, I value my ass.
Try crashing a plane before 9/11 into an Israeli governmental building and you’ll be pulverized before you know it. Why? Is it because they spend more money on defending themselves? Not even close by orders of magnitude. Is it because they’re better trained? No.
The reason is simple: The Israeli army isn’t scattered around the world.
Shit, I bet even the French (who spend peanuts on the military) could have managed to dispatch jetfighters in time if airliners were hovering around La Tour Montparnasse.
You’re oversimplifying the matter. The following link deals with some of these issues.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
[/quote]
Sloth, I just have to butt in here. I can’t let every chunk of crap stand unanswered. Lixy is not oversimplifying; he is incapable of understanding, which makes him an ignoramus, and he is motivated by misinforming, which makes him a liar.
To whit:
First, The Defense Department, before 9/11, has no business in defending the skies against domestic aircraft. (Sloth’s link above, respected.) The DoD budget and the distribution of its forces around the world are irrelevant to the defense against this tragedy.
(And no, I will not answer the repugnant conspiracy nuts who insist the SAC stood down to allow Cheney to bomb the WTC.)
Second. It is ironic, and heart-rending, that the failure of intelligence which culminated in WTC was in large part due to civil liberty concerns–not Defense blunders–among apparatchiks at FBI and CIA. An these rules, which shackled FBI and CIA in the pre-9/11 investigations were promulgated by the Clinton administration.
"The Justice Department promulgated a new policy in 1995 designed to regulate the exchange of information between agents and criminal prosecutors, but not among the agents themselves. FBI headquarters misinterpreted the policy, turning it into a straitjacket for its own investigators…Bureaucratic confusion and inertia allowed the policy to gradually choke off the flow of essential information to the I-49 counterterrorism squad.
“The CIA eagerly institutionalized the barrier that separated it from the Bureau…”
(Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, p. 343)
The division between CIA and FBI, and within the FBI between investigators and prosecutors, stopped the flow of info that would have tied together the terrorists of Florida, Minnesota and San Diego, with those of Manilla, Indonesia and Pakistan.
I have said it before: the real story, vetted and cross-checked, is far more convincing, and depressing than any crackpot conspiracy theory.
To the doubters: read Wright’s book.
To the liars and conspiracy theorists: piss off.
[quote]lixy wrote:
But no-ooo. Instead of worrying about your own airspace and borders, you dilapidate resources on playing bully around the world. That is my point.[/quote]
This is absolute trash.
There was no “shortage” of air resources on 9-11 because they were all being employed elsewhere in the world. Absolute fiction.
A lack of preparation and substandard communications slowed things down - but the idea that we had “missing resources” to deal with the threat because all our jets are overseas oppressing other countries is part of your painfully stupid imperialist narrative you keep projecting on us as reality.
Of all the things you embarrass yourself on, Lixy - military affairs is the worst. But then, why would an Islamist-Progressist know anything about American national security?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’re oversimplifying the matter. The following link deals with some of these issues.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
I don’t see what any of those “issues” have anything to do with what I am saying.
This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Did you spend billions develloping GPS so that drunken kids could find their way home? Any aircraft that gets out of its way should get intercepted. Hook up all the GPS queries to a computer, and let it figure do the sentinel for you. When it sees an anomaly, a big red siren goes off at the nearest military base and every pilot on duty gets a text message with the live coordinates of the loose plane. How hard is that? MIT kids could wrap that up in a blink.
But no-ooo. Instead of worrying about your own airspace and borders, you dilapidate resources on playing bully around the world. That is my point.
And I stand by my assertion that Ben-Laden didn’t have a chance in hell to pull off that stunt with Israel for the aforementioned reasons. With all your (hard-earned?) money going into your defense department, you should be able to expect much more. I am not saying talking about bombs in backpacks snuck into restaurants or snipers shooting people like flies. Those you can’t do anything about. But planes…c’mon![/quote]
You are an idiot.
Hugh Hewitt, who has been a large Romney supporter and harsh critic of McCain, today offered up some reasons why all conservatives should support the GOP nominee, even if it’s McCain:
[Scroll up if you follow the link]
[i] Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Seven Reasons To Support The GOP’s Nominee
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:10 AM
As of this morning, McCain has earned 615 delegates and 4,220,296 votes; Romney 268 delegates and 3,497,341 votes, and Huckabee 169 delegates and 2,232,530 votes.
(If we were using West Virginia rules, we’d get the Huck folks to revote right now and get one of the GOP candidates to 50%.)
Senator McCain has a clear path to the nomination, Romney a very uphill battle, and Huck is fighting for 2012 at this point and for a win in a major vote outside of the south. Certainly they should all stay in through the primaries ahead because it isn’t over and because our side needs the excitement of a campaign in such key falls states as Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania to keep the MSM from turning 100% of its attention on to growing the Obama phenomenon. They ought to be scheduling three man debates in every state, making their points and taking every opportunity to look ahead to the fall.
At the same time, Romney and Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain’s lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party’s eventual nominee. Senator McCain would do well to make a similar statement though his lead is significant and his collapse unlikely. Putting Humpty Dumpty together again cannot wait for St. Paul. Each of the three need to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is.
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.
Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for “fairness.”
“It is undeniable that political sophisticates understand such fairness and how to go about destroying it,” Justice Souter announced in his dissent in Veith v. Jubilerer, the Pennsylvania redistricting case in which the Court declined by a vote of 5 to 4 to immerse itself in the details of the partisan redistricting of Pennsylvania ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1580 ).
If Democrats control the White House and gain even one of the five seats held by the center-right majority of current justices, this and many other crucial issues are up for legal grabs. When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed “for the good of the party.” Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs.
They can go on indefinitely when enforced by courts.
The GOP as well is the party committed to victory in Iraq and the wider war. A four year time-out would be a disaster, a period of time in which al Qaeda and its jihadist off-shoots would regroup in some places and continue to spread in others. Iran, even if punished in the months before November, would certainly continue and accelerate its plans under the soft pleadings of a President Obama or Clinton 2.0.
These aren’t the years to wish a pox on your primary opponents’ heads beyond June.
I don’t expect the principals to let up on each other in the two months ahead, and I am especially looking forward to the Ohio and Texas votes.
But it is very possible to play full contact politics without the threat of going home if your team loses. The stakes in the fall are far too high for that.[/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68. [/quote]
Here is the money quote.
“Talk radio” needs to get it through its head that should a Hillary or Obama get elected, even if the GOP can regather itself and refocus and win in 2012, a Supreme Court justice added to the Court by either Democrat will likely sit on that bench for 20-30 years.
As someone noted today, the “lose now, win later” strategy is, in reality “lose now, lose later”.
Stanley Kurtz covers a different point: whatever conservatives decide regarding the President, they should NOT stay home on election day:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmViZmM2NDVkOTFiZjBhN2VmYjMzNDI0NDhjNDRiMmU=
[i]Staying Home is Not an Option [Stanley Kurtz]
If John McCain becomes the nominee of the Republican Party, it would be flat-out madness for conservatives to stay home on election day. No, I am not demanding that McCain’s conservative opponents vote for him in the general election. Personally, I would vote for McCain over either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - with pride and enthusiasm. Whether or not others do so is up to them. No doubt, we’ll be debating that issue for some time. My point is different. The notion of staying home - as opposed to going out and voting for a Republican congress is sheer madness. Given the ongoing wrangle over McCain, the race for congress has got to start coming to the fore as an issue.
There is no margin for error in 2008. Precisely because the left controls key levers of the culture, politics is the only real route to balance. America is not that far from sliding into the culture and politics of Europe, and so conservatives simply can’t afford a sweeping political loss right now. I never bought into the idea that it made sense to punish the GOP in 2006, presumably to build momentum for a great Republican victory in 2008. That strategy doesn’t seem to have gotten us very far. In any case, there is simply no place for it now. If a Democrat wins the presidency and carries a substantial majority of congress to boot, there will be sweeping changes that conservatives may never be able to turn back. For one thing, several Supreme Court justices will quickly retire, to receive the most liberal replacements conceivable.
If, on the other hand, McCain wins the presidency, conservatives have every reason to want as large a GOP presence as possible in Congress - to help McCain confirm conservative justices (and encourage him to nominate them), and to constrain McCain on issues like immigration. (There’s a slogan for you: “Constrain McCain: GOP Congress in 2008”) It seems to me that it’s in the interests of McCain’s die-hard opponents to call just an enthusiastically for conservatives to vote for a GOP congress as they are calling for opposition to McCain. If conservatives react to the anti-McCain message by staying home, rather than voting for a GOP congress, then we truly will have shot ourselves in the foot.
Ordinarily the presidential race sucks up nearly all the air in political campaigns. That’s because the nominee usually serves as standard-bearer for the party as a whole. This year should be different. Maybe we need to start thinking of the last immigration battle as a positive model for the future, rather than an intolerable strain on the party. Maybe we need to get used to the idea that the GOP congress is there to give a President McCain help when he’s right and keep him in check when he’s wrong. If we could actually turn the anger at McCain into positive enthusiasm for a GOP congressional campaign, conservatism might just be able to save itself from the deluge we face. Again, personally, I would happily vote for McCain over Hillary or Barack. I think we need a GOP president and congress working together (and in tension, when necessary).
But if some folks absolutely refuse to consider voting for McCain, they have all the more reason to put major efforts into calling for a GOP congress. So find out who the GOP candidate is in your district. Find out their positions on immigration, campaign finance, Guantanamo, court appointments, etc. If you think they’d help a President McCain when he’s right and check him when he’s wrong, put some effort and enthusiasm into that campaign.
I understand that the GOP congressional races look bad. Many Republican incumbents are retiring, and the country wants change. Yet this situation is clearly salvageable. The Democratic congress has pathetically low public ratings. Renewed attention to the GOP congress by the disgruntled conservative base could kick-start our stalled campaign. If the big conservative voices criticizing McCain made a point of turning this dissatisfaction into agitation for a GOP congress, it could save conservatism from what might otherwise be disaster. Even if Republicans can’t get an outright majority in the next congress, just staying about even with where they are now would make a huge difference. But a Democratic blowout in congress along with a Democratic president would mean the end of conservatism for the foreseeable future (maybe longer). We can prevent that, just by not staying home.
In short, if the anti-McCain base won’t go to the polls even to vote for a Republican congress, all is lost. But if we direct our disappointment over McCain into positive enthusiasm for a GOP congress, to help him when he’s right and block him when he’s wrong, we can turn this crisis around. Staying home is not an option.
(OK, while I was writing this I see that Mark Levin was putting up a post making a similar point. I’d add to what Mark said that the Senate is every bit as important as the House - or more so, given the battle for the courts.)[/i]
Good posts. If you cannot vote for McCain make sure we get a republican congress. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
By all means vote for whomever you want in the primaries but be sure you vote for the nominee in November.
I’m not a single issue voter, but there are stances I won’t compromise on.
I’ll vote for a candidate running on such a platform. Unless, of course, he’s obviously pandering on those issues. No flip-floppers.
The incrementalist arguement doesn’t cut it for me anymore, because it seems to mean moving the party incrementally towards the left. Nor, does the GoP’s “You gotta vote for us, think of the Justices!” I know the GoP is bankrupt when it has to resort to fostering a sense of dependancy on them. Like an abused house wife, actually. Geeze.
I’ll wait and see who the Constitution Party runs, but I can tell you right now, McCain will not get my vote. I’ve already made my peace, however difficult it was, over the Dems winning big.