...to the nomination.

Rush said today that all Barrack has to do is, publicly, dismiss Hillary's recent success, including Pennsylvania, as tainted because of all the Republicans who signed up specifically to vote for Hillary and skewed the results as they have no intentions of voting for Barack this fall.

The window for this opportunity is closing fast. Will he let it pass? If he does, is he simply too weak for the nomination? Obviously, this all plays into Limbaugh's 'operation' chaos, but, who cares? Does he want the nomination or not? There is no doubt Rush has had some influence. Just denounce her and him.

Thoughts?

...to the nomination.

Rush said today that all Barrack has to do is, publicly, dismiss Hillary's recent success, including Pennsylvania, as tainted because of all the Republicans who signed up specifically to vote for Hillary and skewed the results as they have no intentions of voting for Barack this fall.

The window for this opportunity is closing fast. Will he let it pass? If he does, is he simply too weak for the nomination? Obviously, this all plays into Limbaugh's 'operation' chaos, but, who cares? Does he want the nomination or not? There is no doubt Rush has had some influence. Just denounce her and him.

Thoughts?

Rush is a genius.

He won't do it.
He knows that Hillary has had the nomination in tha bag since she owns the super delegates. Taking the high road will allow him the nomination in 4 years and he'll be treated like Jesus returning to Jerusalem

Rush is a genius.

...really. It's like a Navy SEAL said once in response to their Superman reputation; "It's not so much that we're that good. It's just everybody else sucks."

Rush has made a career out of how much Democrats suck. They put themselves in untenable positions as a matter of course and use leverage in the media, their control of public schooling and their standing in higher learning to overcome simple reason and logical thinking in 25% of the population to get by.

If Rush was a genius he'd have been at the fore of keeping the GOP on the straight and narrow the last 7 years, the last 7 years.

He won't do it.
He knows that Hillary has had the nomination in tha bag since she owns the super delegates. Taking the high road will allow him the nomination in 4 years and he'll be treated like Jesus returning to Jerusalem

...basically said that, too. The STD's have their own interests; they don't do well if Obama wins the nomination and loses this fall. Pure self interest in a winner dictates that they are gonna lean towards who they really think is gonna bring home the bacon.

...Hillary raised $10,000,000 TODAY from 100,000 people, mostly on the web.
The 'heads' left and right (Obam and Hill, LOL) say it's so.

Can you smell what Barack ain't cookin'? How much longer can he sit by and let this drift?

You have to think like a democrat :lol:

You're smarter than the gun totin', church going unwashed union member.
You know what he needs and the best way to give it to him.
You can't allow the peasents to derail your plans for America.
That's why you came up with the idea of a "super delegate" to insure your vision of the future is preserved.
When the dems realize their party is a sham and the voting was only smoke and mirrors, they'll split int splinter parties allowing a true conserative movement to grow out of the Republican party.

You have to think like a democrat :lol:

You're smarter than the gun totin', church going unwashed union member.
You know what he needs and the best way to give it to him.
You can't allow the peasents to derail your plans for America.
That's why you came up with the idea of a "super delegate" to insure your vision of the future is preserved.
When the dems realize their party is a sham and the voting was only smoke and mirrors, they'll split int splinter parties allowing a true conserative movement to grow out of the Republican party.

...and Hillary, who has made a career with that mindset, made herself into the shot and a beer tough girl who came from not so much, one of us, who rolls up her sleeves and gets dirty.

If McCain wins, conservatism is set back a decade.

I think Obama has been playing it a bit safe, lately. Riding out the storm of "his" controversies. He's got the lead, and he's been running out the clock with the safe running game.

I think he needs to get a bit more aggressive, but not against her. If I were in charge of his campaign...I'd ignore Hillary.


I'd run the rest of my campaign against McCain. Hillary's only (slim) chance of getting the nomination is to convince the superdelgates that Obama can't take on McCain.


So, Senator Obama...take on McCain, and eliminate that argument. Make the news discuss the Obama/McCain feud, and force the Hillary vs. Obama thing to the back burner.


Let me just add this. Does anybody besides myself (and Bruzilla) see the flaw in Hillary's argument of "Obama can't win."??? If Obama can't win, how does she explain that she's losing to someone who can't win. :confused:

I think Obama has been playing it a bit safe, lately. Riding out the storm of "his" controversies. He's got the lead, and he's been running out the clock with the safe running game.

I think he needs to get a bit more aggressive, but not against her. If I were in charge of his campaign...I'd ignore Hillary.


I'd run the rest of my campaign against McCain. Hillary's only (slim) chance of getting the nomination is to convince the superdelgates is that Obama can't take on McCain.

So, Senator Obama...take on McCain, and eliminate that argument. Make the news discuss the Obama/McCain feud, and force the Hillary vs. Obama thing to the back burner.

Let me just add this. Does anybody besides myself (and Bruzilla) see the flaw in Hillary's argument of "Obama can't win."??? If Obama can't win, how does she explain that she's losing to someone who can't win. :confused:

...ignores the trend; she's winning of late and he is not, Texas, Ohio, PA; big time, big name states. If he ignores her he plays right into Limbaugh and McCain's hands. He, Mac, would love nothing more than daily free exposure. McCain doesn't matter to anyone right now. 25% of GOP voters chose someone else and he's the nominee! You really wanna hear him, Obama, lecture us as to why that is while Wright is running around sabotaging everything Obama claims to stand for, new politics? While he, Obama, has this unanswered image of the out of touch, above it all elite. You wanna reinforce that???

If you wanna talk about Hillary's flaws, you betray your own 'grand strategy' of ignoring her! Of course she's got flaws galore. He HAS to fight her. He HAS to beat her.

I am sure Bru will be here soon to post a 6 paragraph novella about how we are all wrong but this is my take.

Obama's people have probably done the numbers and discovered that Rush's "Operation Chaos" made little difference. A month ago Hillary had a 20 point lead and she squeezed out 9.

I agree with Kerad that Obama is running out the clock. He keeps touting the "leader in states, leader in popular vote" to bolster his opinion and shake a finger at the STD's, basically telling them if they go against the will of the majority of the party they will destroy it. Obama knows that he cannot get into the gutter with Clinton because that would be playing to her strength.

I do not think Rush is a genius, I think what he advocated was dirty. Politics is a dirty game but there has to be some honor. I personally feel Rush is a dick for screwing with a political process even if he didn't make much of an impact. We are not talking about a William Hung conspiracy to keep him on American Idol, we are talking about the presidency of the United States. Screwing with that process, which is legitimate and time tested is just plain wrong. Democrats have long played dirty tricks BUT that does not mean Republicans should do it too, we are supposed to be above that.

As far as Clinton's assertion that Obama can't win and how she figures she can win even though she is losing to a guy she claims can't win, it is simple. First she doesn't care, she knows she cannot win the presidency if she is not the nominee. She has to win this thing first. She believes that there are a bunch of democrats especially in the deep south who are not "progressive" and are not keen at the thought of voting for a black man. There are also a great number of independents who won't either be it race or whatever reason. He also doesn't do well in the lesser progressive blue states like Ohio, Michigan, PA, and Florida. If Hillary is not the nominee there is a chance they might sit out or go to the GOP.

I personally think Obama can and probably will beat McCain based solely on his democrat base and the youth vote unless McCain can effectively show the GOP and independents Obama is a train wreck socialist.

I am sure Bru will be here soon to post a 6 paragraph novella about how we are all wrong but this is my take.

Obama's people have probably done the numbers and discovered that Rush's "Operation Chaos" made little difference. A month ago Hillary had a 20 point lead and she squeezed out 9.

I agree with Kerad that Obama is running out the clock. He keeps touting the "leader in states, leader in popular vote" to bolster his opinion and shake a finger at the STD's, basically telling them if they go against the will of the majority of the party they will destroy it. Obama knows that he cannot get into the gutter with Clinton because that would be playing to her strength.

I do not think Rush is a genius, I think what he advocated was dirty. Politics is a dirty game but there has to be some honor. I personally feel Rush is a dick for screwing with a political process even if he didn't make much of an impact. We are not talking about a William Hung conspiracy to keep him on American Idol, we are talking about the presidency of the United States. Screwing with that process, which is legitimate and time tested is just plain wrong. Democrats have long played dirty tricks BUT that does not mean Republicans should do it too, we are supposed to be above that.

As far as Clinton's assertion that Obama can't win and how she figures she can win even though she is losing to a guy she claims can't win, it is simple. First she doesn't care, she knows she cannot win the presidency if she is not the nominee. She has to win this thing first. She believes that there are a bunch of democrats especially in the deep south who are not "progressive" and are not keen at the thought of voting for a black man. There are also a great number of independents who won't either be it race or whatever reason. He also doesn't do well in the lesser progressive blue states like Ohio, Michigan, PA, and Florida. If Hillary is not the nominee there is a chance they might sit out or go to the GOP.

I personally think Obama can and probably will beat McCain based solely on his democrat base and the youth vote unless McCain can effectively show the GOP and independents Obama is a train wreck socialist.

...Bru will agree with most of that, if not all.

...really. It's like a Navy SEAL said once in response to their Superman reputation; "It's not so much that we're that good. It's just everybody else sucks."

Rush has made a career out of how much Democrats suck. They put themselves in untenable positions as a matter of course and use leverage in the media, their control of public schooling and their standing in higher learning to overcome simple reason and logical thinking in 25% of the population to get by.

If Rush was a genius he'd have been at the fore of keeping the GOP on the straight and narrow the last 7 years, the last 7 years.

It was a sarcastic realism. You could put everyone in that context in reference to genius. No one is really a genius, the rest of us are just too stupid to come up with brilliant ideas. Ever say "now why didn't I think of that"?

Rush (along with Newt) was the catalyst for the GOP take over in '94 and the Bush win in '00. Even with the fall of the GOP over the past 7 years Rush remains in the fore of political talk.

...ignores the trend; she's winning of late and he is not, Texas, Ohio, PA; big time, big name states. If he ignores her he plays right into Limbaugh and McCain's hands. He, Mac, would love nothing more than daily free exposure. McCain doesn't matter to anyone right now. 25% of GOP voters chose someone else and he's the nominee! You really wanna hear him, Obama, lecture us as to why that is while Wright is running around sabotaging everything Obama claims to stand for, new politics? While he, Obama, has this unanswered image of the out of touch, above it all elite. You wanna reinforce that???

If you wanna talk about Hillary's flaws, you betray your own 'grand strategy' of ignoring her! Of course she's got flaws galore. He HAS to fight her. He HAS to beat her.

Once again, I think you are completely wrong. SURPRISE!!! :lmao:

By dismissing her, you make her irrelevant. You make her the "Ron Paul" of what's left.

You act as if she won these "big states" all in a row. You're buying into her "the states I didn't win aren't important" strategery, which is a big success in states she didn't win, but would need in November. :lol:


You know what I think? I think you see yourself as the Rush Limbaugh of these forums. You have some big masterplan (which is so transparent it's hilarious <no pun intended>) to push for Hillary becasue you know Obama is the real threat.


Either that or you're worse off mentally than even I imagined....which isn't good.

:shrug:


But I will give you this: You ARE entertaining....in a "guy getting hit in the nuts with a baseball" sort of way. :yay:

You know what I think? I think you see yourself as the Rush Limbaugh of these forums. You have some big masterplan (which is so transparent it's hilarious <no pun intended>) to push for Hillary becasue you know Obama is the real threat.

...yourself by showing you are making comments about me absent much of what I've said.

Limbaugh has not lifted so much as a finger, especially compared to ME, in frustration and anger at the current administration. So, you're wrong there. I get ripped daily around here for taking such strong exception to the failure this administration is.

I don't want McCain to win. Limbaugh does. So, you're wrong again.

I think Obama is perfectly fitting for and representative of people like you and, again, because I'm sure you didn't read this either; I hope Obama wins the nomination and presidency, just for you. You deserve him. Strike three with your weak ass attempt to insult me. :lmao:

I'll enjoy listening your lame azz excuses the next four years when your rose colored Ogama goggles finally clear up. No, I won't. You won't address a single issue he faces, just like him, so, why would I think you'd address them once he's all warm and toasty in the Whitehouse? I wouldn't. I used to expect more out of you.

Getting boring waiting for it.

...yourself by showing you are making comments about me absent much of what I've said.

Limbaugh has not lifted so much as a finger, especially compared to ME, in frustration and anger at the current administration. So, you're wrong there. I get ripped daily around here for taking such strong exception to the failure this administration is.

I don't want McCain to win. Limbaugh does. So, you're wrong again.

I think Obama is perfectly fitting for and representative of people like you and, again, because I'm sure you didn't read this either; I hope Obama wins the nomination and presidency, just for you. You deserve him. Strike three with your weak ass attempt to insult me. :lmao:

I'll enjoy listening your lame azz excuses the next four years when your rose colored Ogama goggles finally clear up. No, I won't. You won't address a single issue he faces, just like him, so, why would I think you'd address them once he's all warm and toasty in the Whitehouse? I wouldn't. I used to expect more out of you.

Getting boring waiting for it.

:jet:

Looks like I've hit a nerve. :yay:

Good.

:jet:

Looks like I've hit a nerve. :yay:

Good.

...me know when your STD's select your nominee.

...me know when your STD's select your nominee.

Oh yes...typical Larry. Falling back to his "cleverness" when he's run out of ammo. Especially funny as you pretend that the GOP doesn't have their version of superdelegates.

That your field was so weak it's not an issue doesn't make that fact disappear. Things were so simple when it was "President Fred Thompson".

Huh.


Go on...make up some more humorous acronyms to shield yourself. :cheers:

Oh yes...typical Larry. Falling back to his "cleverness" when he's run out of ammo. Especially funny as you pretend that the GOP doesn't have their version of superdelegates.

That your field was so weak it's not an issue doesn't make that fact disappear. Things were so simple when it was "President Fred Thompson".

Huh.


Go on...make up some more humorous acronyms to shield yourself. :cheers:

...ammo?

I hand you the whole thing on a platter; I was wrong about Fred, I don't like McCain and W is a disaster and you still, STILL can't discuss a thing about your hero as though, for the good of the nation, it'll all just go away as long as no one notices or asks about his suitability. Just keep hope and change alive and we'll be fine!

Hillary, we know her story. You Dems made sure the Clinton's are still the first family of your party. So, Obama can quickly be the agent of change. Just don't get too curious? This guy is folding like a cheap suit and it's got nothing to do with me or Limbaugh or a single GOP'er. This is your mess.

Who is out of ammo? I'm sitting on a pile. You don't even seem to have pebbles. Hey! Pepples and O'Bam Bam! The Dem field!

:lmao:

...ammo?

I hand you the whole thing on a platter; I was wrong about Fred, I don't like McCain and W is a disaster and you still, STILL can't discuss a thing about your hero as though, for the good of the nation, it'll all just go away as long as no one notices or asks about his suitability. Just keep hope and change alive and we'll be fine!

Hillary, we know her story. You Dems made sure the Clinton's are still the first family of your party. So, Obama can quickly be the agent of change. Just don't get too curious? This guy is folding like a cheap suit and it's got nothing to do with me or Limbaugh or a single GOP'er. This is your mess.

Who is out of ammo? I'm sitting on a pile. You don't even seem to have pebbles. Hey! Pepples and O'Bam Bam! The Dem field!

:lmao:

Well that was entertaining. Lots of fluff...no substance.
Isn't that what you parrot about Obama?

I'm not calling you out for not challenging Bush. I'm calling you out for having an agenda aganst Obama. You obviously want McCain to face Hillary. Why so?

You always parrot the same things. Then you are pointed to facts...after which you parrot the exact same things..ignoring what you were pointed towards. You only acknowledge that which fits your agenda. ..which is a bit ironic, seeing as how you have (admirably) taken Bush to task for the exact same thing.

Personally, I don't give a #### that you will not vote for Obama, if given the chance. I do take note of your obvious mission to trash him given every opportunity...which is ...interesting.

You also seem to conveniently forget that Obama was not my first, second, or third choice. However, I understand I can only choose from the options currently given...so I make the mental adjustments. So this nonsense of Obama being my "hero" is as ridiculous as everything else you are prone to spew, lately.

[QUOTE=Larry Gude;2894332I don't want McCain to win.[/QUOTE]

Who do you want to win then?

Keyes? Nader? McKinney? Barr?

Well that was entertaining. Lots of fluff...no substance.
Isn't that what you parrot about Obama?

I'm not calling you out for not challenging Bush. I'm calling you out for having an agenda aganst Obama. You obviously want McCain to face Hillary. Why so?

You always parrot the same things. Then you are pointed to facts...after which you parrot the exact same things..ignoring what you were pointed towards. You only acknowledge that which fits your agenda. ..which is a bit ironic, seeing as how you have (admirably) taken Bush to task for the exact same thing.

Personally, I don't give a #### that you will not vote for Obama, if given the chance. I do take note of your obvious mission to trash him given every opportunity...which is ...interesting.

You also seem to conveniently forget that Obama was not my first, second, or third choice. However, I understand I can only choose from the options currently given...so I make the mental adjustments. So this nonsense of Obama being my "hero" is as ridiculous as everything else you are prone to spew, lately.

Of course Larry has issues with Obama, he is a way left liberal Democrat and Larry is a center-right conservative. I have issues with Obama, it has nothing to do with him being black, brown, male, female, yellow or green. I disagree with his politics, his proposed solutions (The few he has bothered to explain), his level of experience and the Rev Wright issue still sticks in my craw. I have the same bias against Clinton sans the racism thing.

I don't understand how you can get indignant with Larry, an admitted conservative for not joining in the unsupported giddyness your party has for Obama and for not liking the mans policies. Especially Larry who joins you busting on Bush's ineptitude.

You obviously want McCain to face Hillary. Why so?

...I've written this numerous times! I want you people to reap what you've sown. You have a bullsh1t party that poisoned this nation for 8 years with the lies and deceit's and filth of the Clinton years, and I am NOT talking about sex, and you could have easily let those slimy bastards go, kicked him out and given the job to Gore.

So, fine. They are who you are. They stay. Now, after endlessly crying about how unfair the world is, Florida was stolen, Ohio was stolen, Bush is a NAZI, blood for oil, everything was stolen, here we are with your jerk wad party and it's STD's who will SELECT your nominee. Not elect, select.

So, the irony. All I want is for you people to take this train wreck all the way to your convention and select your nominee and, maybe rid us of the Clinton's, finally, now that they are no longer convenient, or maybe you give us them some more. Maybe we get this idealistic babe in the woods whose preacher and wife hate America and are the biggest, fattest racists we've seen in some time. Maybe he'll be a great president. I freely admit I was wrong about W. Twice. And I say that now, while it matters. Not after another GOPer wins. None of you have the dignity to say the same thing about this plague known as the Clinton's. You cleanse your sins in the waters of this savior instead.

So, I don't care WHO is selected. I just want you all to eat all your crybaby BS. Notice that moron forestal doesn't have much to say these days? Good.

So, don't criticize your own. Don't held them to any type of standard. Just take your medicine and like it. The GOP doesn't deserve to lead. Neither do you people.

At least you could quit pretending you do. Again, the ONLY reason Hillary is still around is because of Democrats.

Sorry for the anger. The Clinton's are truly a dark chapter in our history and they beget the dolt we have now as a reflex against the alleged genius and greatness of those two. I wish I could see something good about Obama as he is neither a Bush or a Clinton. Sadly, he has proven, so far, to not be up to the challenge and everything he talks about as policy, the taxes, the expansion of government, is going to make Carter look good.

I loath the Clinton's and Democrats for giving them to us.

Who do you want to win then?

Keyes? Nader? McKinney? Barr?

...Ron Paul and I'd love to get my country back. 8 years of 'You can't do that! Constitution says so!' and send all the pacs and lobbyists, on both sides, running to the Supreme court. :bawl:

...Ron Paul and I'd love to get my country back. 8 years of 'You can't do that! Constitution says so!' and send all the pacs and lobbyists, on both sides, running to the Supreme court. :bawl:

Okay... now that you've told me who you can't vote for, who are you voting for? Unless, of course, Paul goes inde.

Of course Larry has issues with Obama, he is a way left liberal Democrat and Larry is a center-right conservative. I have issues with Obama, it has nothing to do with him being black, brown, male, female, yellow or green. I disagree with his politics, his proposed solutions (The few he has bothered to explain), his level of experience and the Rev Wright issue still sticks in my craw. I have the same bias against Clinton sans the racism thing.

I don't understand how you can get indignant with Larry, an admitted conservative for not joining in the unsupported giddyness your party has for Obama and for not liking the mans policies. Especially Larry who joins you busting on Bush's ineptitude.

I'm not indignant with Larry for not supporting Obama.


I'm interested in why he has made it his personal mission to campaign against Obama with the aggressiveness of an overly-caffeinated wolverine.


I don't support Hillary...yet you don't see me going all :dork: on her, creating threads to bash her.

I don't support McCain, yet you don't see me going all :dork: on him, creating threads to bash him.



For a "non-interested party", Larry sure seems rather rabid in his distaste for Obama. My responsibility is to publicly wonder why.

I don't support Hillary...yet you don't see me going all :dork: on her, creating threads to bash her.

I don't support McCain, yet you don't see me going all :dork: on him, creating threads to bash him.



For a "non-interested party", Larry sure seems rather rabid in his distaste for Obama. My responsibility is to publicly wonder why.

Perhaps you should. Creating threads that question a candidate that has yet to be clearly defined is not indignant. I think Obama leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I’d like to know why he remained tied to Wright. He blew a bunch of smoke telling us he condemns Wright’s remarks yet remains a member of that church that still supports such hatred.

...I've written this numerous times! I want you people to reap what you've sown. You have a bullsh1t party that poisoned this nation for 8 years with the lies and deceit's and filth of the Clinton years, and I am NOT talking about sex, and you could have easily let those slimy bastards go, kicked him out and given the job to Gore.

So, fine. They are who you are. They stay. Now, after endlessly crying about how unfair the world is, Florida was stolen, Ohio was stolen, Bush is a NAZI, blood for oil, everything was stolen, here we are with your jerk wad party and it's STD's who will SELECT your nominee. Not elect, select.

So, the irony. All I want is for you people to take this train wreck all the way to your convention and select your nominee and, maybe rid us of the Clinton's, finally, now that they are no longer convenient, or maybe you give us them some more. Maybe we get this idealistic babe in the woods whose preacher and wife hate America and are the biggest, fattest racists we've seen in some time. Maybe he'll be a great president. I freely admit I was wrong about W. Twice. And I say that now, while it matters. Not after another GOPer wins. None of you have the dignity to say the same thing about this plague known as the Clinton's. You cleanse your sins in the waters of this savior instead.

So, I don't care WHO is selected. I just want you all to eat all your crybaby BS. Notice that moron forestal doesn't have much to say these days? Good.

So, don't criticize your own. Don't held them to any type of standard. Just take your medicine and like it. The GOP doesn't deserve to lead. Neither do you people.

At least you could quit pretending you do. Again, the ONLY reason Hillary is still around is because of Democrats.

Sorry for the anger. The Clinton's are truly a dark chapter in our history and they beget the dolt we have now as a reflex against the alleged genius and greatness of those two. I wish I could see something good about Obama as he is neither a Bush or a Clinton. Sadly, he has proven, so far, to not be up to the challenge and everything he talks about as policy, the taxes, the expansion of government, is going to make Carter look good.

I loath the Clinton's and Democrats for giving them to us.


Yet...for all your whining about the Clintons being the bane of your existence...here you are...stumping for Hillary


And before you accuse me of not criticizing my own, you can either enclose your brain with the spin you're embracing...or you can research my posts.


At one time, before the 2006 elections, I viewed you as one of the valid ones. One of the ones that I paid attention to, and looked forward to discussion and debate.

Since then, it's almost as if you've been spiraling into (relative) madness. And now...ESPECIALLY now...you seem to be the crazy guy on the street corner. Shouting how the end is nigh.


Just an observation.

Okay... now that you've told me who you can't vote for, who are you voting for? Unless, of course, Paul goes inde.

...write him in. This is a center/right country and every time we tend towards more conservative policies we ALL do better. I am NOT going to support the GOP working against that. I'm just not. It took 2 years of Clinton for the whole country to say "Whoa!" and since then, 1994, the GOP has enjoyed the spoils of power and drifted away from what GOT them in office.

If it takes Barry Obama making us all nostalgic for the Carter years, so be it. It beget Reagan. If we go to hell in a hand basket, it's not going to be with my support. If someone is not an America first conservative or center right America first pol, I'm not supporting that crap any more. W can't take his globalist/anti American dreams back to Crawford fast enough. He's not a king. We don't have one.

So, Paul more accurately represents my views. That's who I support.

McCain can renounce McCain/Feingold and renounce this global warming non sense and promise to focus on America and Americans, including getting the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan and, maybe, I'll listen.

Yet...for all your whining about the Clintons being the bane of your existence...here you are...stumping for Hillary


...stumping for you people to face your demon.

And I don't give a damn about what you criticized two years ago. What about NOW?

At one time, before the 2006 elections, I viewed you as one of the valid ones. One of the ones that I paid attention to, and looked forward to discussion and debate.

Since then, it's almost as if you've been spiraling into (relative) madness. And now...ESPECIALLY now...you seem to be the crazy guy on the street corner. Shouting how the end is nigh.


Just an observation.


...angry and profoundly frustrated since 2006. Defending the administration became impossible WITHOUT acting like some nut on a street corner.

Perhaps you should. Creating threads that question a candidate that has yet to be clearly defined is not indignant. I think Obama leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I’d like to know why he remained tied to Wright. He blew a bunch of smoke telling us he condemns Wright’s remarks yet remains a member of that church that still supports such hatred.

The speech Obama gave concerning Wright (and race) clearly explained why he did not abandon him.

Didn't you watch it?

...Hillary raised $10,000,000 TODAY from 100,000 people, mostly on the web.
The 'heads' left and right (Obam and Hill, LOL) say it's so.

Can you smell what Barack ain't cookin'? How much longer can he sit by and let this drift?

Larry, you make a great example of how the Clinton echo chamber works! Yesterday morning, after the PA primary, her campaign announced that "In the hours after winning Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary, Clinton has raised $3 million. This is her best overnight performance ever." They also announced "She is on track to raise $10,000,000 in the 24 hours following the election."

Note that at no time do they say she actually raised $10 million, only that she was "on track" to raise $10 million. Since this initial report early yesterday morning, her campaign has been 100% mute on how much money actually came in, which tells me she didn't get anywhere close to $10 million. Her best overnight to date was after the NH surprise win, when she raised $1 million, so a $3 million dollar night would be super for her, but a $10 million night would be so off the charts probability wise that it stretches believeability. I can see her winning the $3 million, although even that amount I have to wonder about, and I can see her campaign saying "well, we raised three million overnight, we should be able to double that when people are awake!" and then saying they are "on track" to hit ten million.

So here we are, with you announcing she actually hit this most unlikely of targets, and I also heard numerous pundits today proclaiming, with all die authority, "well, you know she did raise $10 million in the first 24 hours after the election!" She did? Why haven't her people announced that "fact"? All they announced was she "was on track to raise $10 million".

...write him in. This is a center/right country and every time we tend towards more conservative policies we ALL do better. I am NOT going to support the GOP working against that. I'm just not. It took 2 years of Clinton for the whole country to say "Whoa!" and since then, 1994, the GOP has enjoyed the spoils of power and drifted away from what GOT them in office.

If it takes Barry Obama making us all nostalgic for the Carter years, so be it. It beget Reagan. If we go to hell in a hand basket, it's not going to be with my support. If someone is not an America first conservative or center right America first pol, I'm not supporting that crap any more. W can't take his globalist/anti American dreams back to Crawford fast enough. He's not a king. We don't have one.

So, Paul more accurately represents my views. That's who I support.

McCain can renounce McCain/Feingold and renounce this global warming non sense and promise to focus on America and Americans, including getting the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan and, maybe, I'll listen.

I'm with Paul all the way up to getting out of Iraq. Heck Paul thought Lincoln was wrong for getting us into the Civil War. I'm not happy with Iraq or Afghanistan but pulling out is like sewing up the chest before you've finished the bypass. I think it's too important. Our constitution isn't worth a d@mn without security. I'm not confident Paul has what it takes to protect this country. Defending our shores, at our shores is too close for me.

The speech Obama gave concerning Wright (and race) clearly explained why he did not abandon him.

Didn't you watch it?

...is not the point; Whether it is acceptable is the issue. Modern liberalism brought on the tortured forces of political correctness. Barry doesn't get a pass.

Larry, you make a great example of how the Clinton echo chamber works! Yesterday morning, after the PA primary, her campaign announced that "In the hours after winning Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary, Clinton has raised $3 million. This is her best overnight performance ever." They also announced "She is on track to raise $10,000,000 in the 24 hours following the election."

Note that at no time do they say she actually raised $10 million, only that she was "on track" to raise $10 million. Since this initial report early yesterday morning, her campaign has been 100% mute on how much money actually came in, which tells me she didn't get anywhere close to $10 million. Her best overnight to date was after the NH surprise win, when she raised $1 million, so a $3 million dollar night would be super for her, but a $10 million night would be so off the charts probability wise that it stretches believeability. I can see her winning the $3 million, although even that amount I have to wonder about, and I can see her campaign saying "well, we raised three million overnight, we should be able to double that when people are awake!" and then saying they are "on track" to hit ten million.

So here we are, with you announcing he actually hit this most unlikely of targets, and I also heard numerous pundits today proclaiming, with all die authority, "well, you know she did raise $10 million in the first 24 hours after the election!" She did? Why haven't her people announced that "fact"? All they announced was she "was on track to raise $10 million".

...MSNBC with Mathews, no fan of the Clinton's, Scarborough and Buchanan all acknowledged that, as they understood it, they did raise that much.

I suppose they are all Clinton echo chamber members, yes?

I'm with Paul all the way up to getting out of Iraq. Heck Paul thought Lincoln was wrong for getting us into the Civil War. I'm not happy with Iraq or Afghanistan but pulling out is like sewing up the chest before you've finished the bypass. I think it's too important. Our constitution isn't worth a d@mn without security. I'm not confident Paul has what it takes to protect this country. Defending our shores, at our shores is too close for me.

...have been. Was 600,000 dead and millions maimed the best and only way?

I'm with Paul all the way up to getting out of Iraq. Heck Paul thought Lincoln was wrong for getting us into the Civil War. I'm not happy with Iraq or Afghanistan but pulling out is like sewing up the chest before you've finished the bypass. I think it's too important. Our constitution isn't worth a d@mn without security. I'm not confident Paul has what it takes to protect this country. Defending our shores, at our shores is too close for me.

...constitutes a successful bypass? 5 years? 10? 100? 1,000? At some point, it either worked or it didn't.

Larry, you make a great example of how the Clinton echo chamber works! Yesterday morning, after the PA primary, her campaign announced that "In the hours after winning Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary, Clinton has raised $3 million. This is her best overnight performance ever." They also announced "She is on track to raise $10,000,000 in the 24 hours following the election."

Note that at no time do they say she actually raised $10 million, only that she was "on track" to raise $10 million. Since this initial report early yesterday morning, her campaign has been 100% mute on how much money actually came in, which tells me she didn't get anywhere close to $10 million. Her best overnight to date was after the NH surprise win, when she raised $1 million, so a $3 million dollar night would be super for her, but a $10 million night would be so off the charts probability wise that it stretches believeability. I can see her winning the $3 million, although even that amount I have to wonder about, and I can see her campaign saying "well, we raised three million overnight, we should be able to double that when people are awake!" and then saying they are "on track" to hit ten million.

So here we are, with you announcing he actually hit this most unlikely of targets, and I also heard numerous pundits today proclaiming, with all die authority, "well, you know she did raise $10 million in the first 24 hours after the election!" She did? Why haven't her people announced that "fact"? All they announced was she "was on track to raise $10 million".

...quibbling. 100,000 people at $100 a pop on the net is nothing. How many votes she get the other day, 1.2 mil? So less than 10% pony up? Big deal. Maybe 1,000,000 around the country gave her $10.

...MSNBC with Mathews, no fan of the Clinton's, Scarborough and Buchanan all acknowledged that, as they understood it, they did raise that much.

I suppose they are all Clinton echo chamber members, yes?


They sure are! There is no press release from the Clinton campaign that reports she actually raised $10 million. As of 11:54PM on Thursday night, they are mum on the subject and still only posting that she is on track to raise $10 million.

...quibbling. 100,000 people at $100 a pop on the net is nothing. How many votes she get the other day, 1.2 mil? So less than 10% pony up? Big deal. Maybe 1,000,000 around the country gave her $10.

That's certainly possible, but you need to ask yourself how likely something is? Like I said before, prior to this her best night after a campaign victory was after the NH primary. She was expected to lose, and the CW was she would be out if she did. She defied some expectations and was rewarded with what was then a record fund raising night of $1 million. After PA the CW was she's just prolonging things and has little chance of winning, so what are the odds that all these people said "you know what... I've been holding onto my money for all this time and now I'll give it to her!"? I can see, although with doubt, her getting the $3 million, but I guarantee you if she had actually gotten that $10 million her campaign would be bragging about it and the number would be slightly higher than $10 million.

Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

...is not the point; Whether it is acceptable is the issue. Modern liberalism brought on the tortured forces of political correctness. Barry doesn't get a pass.

I have no problem with you disputing anything Obama says. You have never had any intention of accepting what he says...ever.

You're just another nutcase babbling on the corner. A big plunge for you....sad, really. :ohwell:

They sure are! There is no press release from the Clinton campaign that reports she actually raised $10 million. As of 11:54PM on Thursday night, they are mum on the subject and still only posting that she is on track to raise $10 million.

I'm on track to raise $10 Million, too. :yay:

:getdown:

Me too... just not over a 24-hour period.

Hey Larry! Just because I like and respect you so much, I'm going to give you an exclusive "Bruzilla's Tommorow's Headlines Today" prediction. Please feel to use this info to amaze family and friends. There's only one time that Hillary has come up with this much money this fast... it was when she wrote herself a check. So, here's what I predict we'll be hearing about in the future. Most of the supposed $10 million in 48 hours came from another loan she gave herself.

That's certainly possible, but you need to ask yourself how likely something is? Like I said before, prior to this her best night after a campaign victory was after the NH primary. She was expected to lose, and the CW was she would be out if she did. She defied some expectations and was rewarded with what was then a record fund raising night of $1 million. After PA the CW was she's just prolonging things and has little chance of winning, so what are the odds that all these people said "you know what... I've been holding onto my money for all this time and now I'll give it to her!"? I can see, although with doubt, her getting the $3 million, but I guarantee you if she had actually gotten that $10 million her campaign would be bragging about it and the number would be slightly higher than $10 million.

Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

...accept that, but that's not something my handlers at the Clinton campaign told me to say. When a fairly diverse group like Mathews, who has been a Obama cheerleader, and Buchanan and Scarborough and Gregory and Rachel Maddow, another Obama partisan, all nod in basic agreement with the point, then we have a fairly accurate claim.

So, are they part of the echo chamber?

Hey Larry! Just because I like and respect you so much, I'm going to give you an exclusive "Bruzilla's Tommorow's Headlines Today" prediction. Please feel to use this info to amaze family and friends. There's only one time that Hillary has come up with this much money this fast... it was when she wrote herself a check. So, here's what I predict we'll be hearing about in the future. Most of the supposed $10 million in 48 hours came from another loan she gave herself.

...surprise me a bit. I'll make sure you get the credit though.

...surprise me a bit. I'll make sure you get the credit though.



"Hillary loans campaign millions more today"

Bru



:lol:

I have no problem with you disputing anything Obama says. You have never had any intention of accepting what he says...ever.

You're just another nutcase babbling on the corner. A big plunge for you....sad, really. :ohwell:

Some accept nothing Obama says and other's suck it all in like a sponge.
Which is really the Babbler??

Only time will tell.

I have no problem with you disputing anything Obama says. You have never had any intention of accepting what he says...ever.

You're just another nutcase babbling on the corner. A big plunge for you....sad, really. :ohwell:

...well, when you start proving you actually red for comprehension, we'll start using you as a barometer of my sanity. How'd that be?

He may have been. Was 600,000 dead and millions maimed the best and only way?

You don't know, going in, the full brunt of the consequences. We are the USA because 600,000 individuals realized how important it was. And I would never, in my humble and blessed life today, propose it was in vane.

I'm not sure war can be considered the best and only way unless you are defending yourself. It appears history has proven that talk is sometimes ineffective. But think about Reagan and his approach to the Cold War. He talked well about his intention and backed it up with an arsenal. He was taken seriously. When asked, “what if the Russians launch their missiles at us, will you strike back?” Reagan replied yes, it will be nuclear Armageddon.

Reagan did not appease the Soviets. He confronted them with words and actions with the intent of following through to nuclear war. Lincoln, and the thousands behind him knew the importance of defending this country's union. Harper’s Weekly wrote in 1864:

"War is sorrowful, but there is one thing infinitely more horrible than the worst horrors of war, and that is the feeling that nothing is worth fighting for..."

I get the impression Paul and so many liberals feel there is nothing worth fighting for. I’m optimistic that 10 years from now Iraqis (and Americans perhaps) will see what we have done was worth fighting for. Perhaps a little rosy, but I’d rather have rosy optimism than dark defeatism.

The speech Obama gave concerning Wright (and race) clearly explained why he did not abandon him.

Didn't you watch it?

Oh, it was a great speech. The best ever. Just ask the mouths on MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the MSM. I was even captivated, all the way up until Obama said he intends to remain a member of this church. Wright may be gone from this church but the congregation remains beholden to these ideologies of hate. For anyone that desires the highest office while being associated with this kind of thinking should be disturbing to everyone. When you add this to his association with William Ayers, his “bitter” comments, and his wife’s apparent disdain for America many of us have deep concerns about this man’s (who no one really knows) intentions. His words may make you feel good, but they mean nothing when his actions are in stark conflict to his words. Many of us are asking what sort of change he really stands for. Michelle Obama said this:

“Iowa will make the difference,” Mrs. Obama said. “If Barack doesn’t win Iowa, it is just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be.”

“As it should be”? Consider everyting else, Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, etc... What exactly does she mean?

You don't know, going in, the full brunt of the consequences. We are the USA because 600,000 individuals realized how important it was. And I would never, in my humble and blessed life today, propose it was in vane.

...may I humbly submit that, if you think 600,000 dead and millions maimed was, somehow, a reasonable solution to a political problem, you are crazy.

Slavery was DYING. We were already a nation that banned the trade in slaves and mechanization was well on it's way to making slavery completely economically unviable.

So, a bunch of people who ran around screaming about armageddon met a bunch of people who ran around with no greater desire than to tell other people what to do and both sides agreed it was worth sending young men off to die for.

And, 4 years later, a nation was transformed. It was established that the federal government was in charge. Consent was no longer part of the equation and 600,000 were dead and millions were maimed for something that was in the process of happening.

It is pure non sense to suggest 600,000 'knew' how important war was. I would suggest those 600,000 had as a last thought 'what a stupid freaking way to settle an argument'. Especially when over 1/2 of them died of disease in some God forsaken military camp far from everything they had ever known.

The nobility, the true honoring of the fallen is to do your damnedest to see that war is only the very last resort and that it be treated and seen as the grave choice that it is.

If you're going to invoke the name and legacy of Reagan then you must ask yourself why current leadership wasn't taken seriously or why was war his choice or why peaceful ends that were in the national interest were not attained. That is the test.

Lincoln may have had no choice nor, perhaps did Davis, but it is for damn sure their motivations were much more in keeping with what we are supposed to be that this non sense we're engaging in today.

I get the impression Paul and so many liberals feel there is nothing worth fighting for. I’m optimistic that 10 years from now Iraqis (and Americans perhaps) will see what we have done was worth fighting for. Perhaps a little rosy, but I’d rather have rosy optimism than dark defeatism.

...that Paul thinks there is something very much worth fighting for; the national interest of the United States of America. They will not, they can not be found in the sands of the Middle East.

But think about Reagan and his approach to the Cold War. He talked well about his intention and backed it up with an arsenal. He was taken seriously. When asked, “what if the Russians launch their missiles at us, will you strike back?” Reagan replied yes, it will be nuclear Armageddon.

Reagan did not appease the Soviets. He confronted them with words and actions with the intent of following through to nuclear war.

I served under President Reagan during all of his term in office, and I was one of those guys he used to back up his determination. I really liked the guy, but here's the real deal with Reagan and the Soviets. Both sides have known since the 1950s that neither could ever dominate and hold the other. Our countries are too large and on opposite sides of the planet. The problem was the classic Mexican standoff... two guys had guns pointed at each other and the question was not what would make them pull the triggers but what would get them to lower the guns. Reagan knew that the Soviets would never attack, and his actions were based on how to get them to lower their guns first.

Many of us look back in warmness at how Reagan played the Soviets, who he knew would never attack, and how he dealed with terrorists who displayed a willingness to. He saw Quadaffi for what he was... an egotist with a big mouth, so he pounded him personally and got his point across. But when the Iranians sponsored the attacks in Beirut, and Reagan was confronted with an enemy who would fight back, he did nothing. When he was confronted with the choice between leveling Tehran and dealing with the fallout from dozens of those new CNN cameras beaming back pictures of dead kids and women, or adopting the horrid notion of "proportional response", he wimped out and took the later. Bush I followed him on this, as did Clinton, and the result was 9/11.

...that Paul thinks there is something very much worth fighting for; the national interest of the United States of America. They will not, they can not be found in the sands of the Middle East.

I just read that we import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia. Is there a country in the world that we could roll over easier than Canada? Let's pull the troops out of the Middle East, smash through the Canadian border, and take them out while they are blitzed on Molsons. Then, we take most of the Ontario area and give it to the Jews as their new homeland. Once Israel II is off and running, we pull out of the Middle East.

Then, with the new combined North American/Israel II alliance, we can go down and bag Mexico, giving us a secure border to the South, possession of Mexico's oil, AND free and open access to real tacos!!!

Damn... if only I could get elected!

I just read that we import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia. Is there a country in the world that we could roll over easier than Canada? Let's pull the troops out of the Middle East, smash through the Canadian border, and take them out while they are blitzed on Molsons. Then, we take most of the Ontario area and give it to the Jews as their new homeland. Once Israel II is off and running, we pull out of the Middle East.

Then, with the new combined North American/Israel II alliance, we can go down and bag Mexico, giving us a secure border to the South, possession of Mexico's oil, AND free and open access to real tacos!!!

Damn... if only I could get elected!

...the spunk if not the thought process. Have you given much consideration to the implications of just how far we've come with horizontal drilling
techniques?

Then may I humbly submit that, if you think 600,000 dead and millions maimed was, somehow, a reasonable solution to a political problem, you are crazy.

I don’t think that at all. Find one democracy that wasn’t established through violent means though. WAR! That’s just how thing are. We are not a peaceful species as much as your rosy glasses (and mine) would like us to be. What I will say is their lives were not lost in vain. The result was the establishment of a great country.

Slavery was DYING. We were already a nation that banned the trade in slaves and mechanization was well on it's way to making slavery completely economically unviable.

Makes not difference, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shots in an effort to change the course of the building of this nation. Lincoln and the Union wouldn’t have it. Reasonable or not, those are the facts; those are the results. It wasn’t reasonable that they started it, but it was reasonable that the Union defended itself.

So, a bunch of people who ran around screaming about armageddon met a bunch of people who ran around with no greater desire than to tell other people what to do and both sides agreed it was worth sending young men off to die for.

And, 4 years later, a nation was transformed. It was established that the federal government was in charge. Consent was no longer part of the equation and 600,000 were dead and millions were maimed for something that was in the process of happening.

The Confederates didn’t see it that way. They had no intention of ending slavery and they had no intention of joining the union. And they were going to take as many states with them as they could. At what point does talk end and defending ourselves begin? You can scream about 600,000 all you want. That has more to do with the lack of efficiency wars were fought. Most died from starvation, foot rot and hypothermia than bullets.

It is pure non sense to suggest 600,000 'knew' how important war was. I would suggest those 600,000 had as a last thought 'what a stupid freaking way to settle an argument'. Especially when over 1/2 of them died of disease in some God forsaken military camp far from everything they had ever known.

I think it’s pretty presumptive to assume those taking up arms in the Civil War didn’t know what they were doing. I will agree that everyone should believe war is a stupid way to settle our differences, but history has proven that this seems to be the endgame to such escalated threats. You’re assuming I am a warmonger and that no matter what the cause… go to war. That’s absurd. But I at least recognize that even God knew war was a necessary thing.

The nobility, the true honoring of the fallen is to do your damnedest to see that war is only the very last resort and that it be treated and seen as the grave choice that it is.

Human society hasn't learned a thing; this much I'll agree. So much for the theory of evolution.

If you're going to invoke the name and legacy of Reagan then you must ask yourself why current leadership wasn't taken seriously or why was war his choice or why peaceful ends that were in the national interest were not attained. That is the test.

Reagan was the standard-bearer for “talk softly but carry a big nuke and be ready to use it”. His wasn’t just a bunch of talk. He was ready to go to war if necessary. He was set in this path long before he got in the WH. And he initiated it. There was very little room for talk/negotiations for him. It was stand down or face our wrath. Bush is of the same lot, albeit he handled things pretty poorly. This is why liberals are not cut out for making the tough decisions. They’d rather cower under a table and appease those that want to kill us.

Lincoln may have had no choice nor, perhaps did Davis, but it is for damn sure their motivations were much more in keeping with what we are supposed to be that this non sense we're engaging in today.

I don’t find it as nonsense to recognize who it is that wants to kill us and who are the countries that support those people that want to kill us. We can play mamsy-pamsy with these butchers, as we did in the 90s, and wait for the next hit on this country or we can keep it off our soil. I see no nonsense in that.

I don’t think that at all. Find one democracy that wasn’t established through violent means though. WAR! That’s just how thing are. We are not a peaceful species as much as your rosy glasses (and mine) would like us to be. What I will say is their lives were not lost in vain. The result was the establishment of a great country.

...out. We spend far, FAR more time at peace than at war. That's not rosy glasses, that's just fact.

Makes not difference, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shots in an effort to change the course of the building of this nation. Lincoln and the Union wouldn’t have it. Reasonable or not, those are the facts; those are the results. It wasn’t reasonable that they started it, but it was reasonable that the Union defended itself.

...fired the first shots, yes. From there, it was up to Lincoln what the Federal response would be. Fact is, he and Davis played chicken to see who would flinch first and Lincoln won. But, he was not looking for a peaceful solution; he was looking for a way to blame it on them. And the Union wasn't attacked. Federal facilities in what were sovereign states were attacked.

A great many great men, North and South, tried for all they were worth to avoid bloodshed even for several weeks after Sumter.

The Confederates didn’t see it that way. They had no intention of ending slavery and they had no intention of joining the union. And they were going to take as many states with them as they could. At what point does talk end and defending ourselves begin? You can scream about 600,000 all you want. That has more to do with the lack of efficiency wars were fought. Most died from starvation, foot rot and hypothermia than bullets.


...matter how they saw it. Confederate soldiers were no more fighting FOR slavery than Northern ones were fighting against it. All that came later, much later, well after the killing started. And don't even go there with this defense crap. The South didn't invade the North first. The North invaded the South first.

I think it’s pretty presumptive to assume those taking up arms in the Civil War didn’t know what they were doing. I will agree that everyone should believe war is a stupid way to settle our differences, but history has proven that this seems to be the endgame to such escalated threats. You’re assuming I am a warmonger and that no matter what the cause… go to war. That’s absurd. But I at least recognize that even God knew war was a necessary thing.

...it's simple reading comprehension. I haven't read everything about the war, but, I read an awful lot, much of it several times. Weren't no Southern boys fighting for slavery. Weren't no Northern boys fighting to end it. Hell, took Lincoln forever to find GENERALS that would fight to kill it let alone farm and city boys.

I don’t find it as nonsense to recognize who it is that wants to kill us and who are the countries that support those people that want to kill us. We can play mamsy-pamsy with these butchers, as we did in the 90s, and wait for the next hit on this country or we can keep it off our soil. I see no nonsense in that.

....crying out loud. If George Bush thought for one second that OBL is this big, evil bogeyman that wants to kill us all, shouldn't he be impeached for neglecting his primary duty and letting the bastard go?

I served under President Reagan during all of his term in office, and I was one of those guys he used to back up his determination. I really liked the guy, but here's the real deal with Reagan and the Soviets. Both sides have known since the 1950s that neither could ever dominate and hold the other. Our countries are too large and on opposite sides of the planet. The problem was the classic Mexican standoff... two guys had guns pointed at each other and the question was not what would make them pull the triggers but what would get them to lower the guns. Reagan knew that the Soviets would never attack, and his actions were based on how to get them to lower their guns first.

Many of us look back in warmness at how Reagan played the Soviets, who he knew would never attack, and how he dealed with terrorists who displayed a willingness to. He saw Quadaffi for what he was... an egotist with a big mouth, so he pounded him personally and got his point across. But when the Iranians sponsored the attacks in Beirut, and Reagan was confronted with an enemy who would fight back, he did nothing. When he was confronted with the choice between leveling Tehran and dealing with the fallout from dozens of those new CNN cameras beaming back pictures of dead kids and women, or adopting the horrid notion of "proportional response", he wimped out and took the later. Bush I followed him on this, as did Clinton, and the result was 9/11.

I also served under Reagan. It was an awesome feeling seeing the wall up (when I went to Berlin) then seeing the wall down several years later. But I think you’re wrong in your “… neither could ever dominate and hold the other” assessment. They lost. The USSR crumbled. Reagan’s tactic worked. 20/20 hindsight allows us to say “neither side was willing to pull the trigger”, but at the time folks were predicting nuclear war. No one knew. Thankfully that was not the case. We face an entirely different enemy now though; one that would have no problem pushing that button and incinerating a few 100 thousand Americans. Are we going to have a Reagan at the helm when that happens or a Clinton?

But when the Iranians sponsored the attacks in Beirut, and Reagan was confronted with an enemy who would fight back, he did nothing. When he was confronted with the choice between leveling Tehran and dealing with the fallout from dozens of those new CNN cameras beaming back pictures of dead kids and women, or adopting the horrid notion of "proportional response", he wimped out and took the later.

...I was angry at Reagan for the insult to the US and the murder of all those Marines. My mindset was don't EVER send US troops into harms way unless they are going to be allowed to do their job; fight.

Over time, I grew to understand that that was the bravest, wisest thing Reagan could do. We made a mistake being there; he did not compound it.

As for 9/11, you can make the connection and there is some truth in it, but that's a lot of miles between 1983 and 2001.

Doesn't matter how they saw it. Confederate soldiers were no more fighting FOR slavery than Northern ones were fighting against it. All that came later, much later, well after the killing started. And don't even go there with this defense crap. The South didn't invade the North first. The North invaded the South first.

Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens said in 1861 that slavery was "the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution." He said the United States had been founded on the false belief that all men are created equal. The Confederacy, in contrast, had been "founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural moral condition."

But wait a minute you wrote:

Slavery was DYING. We were already a nation that banned the trade in slaves and mechanization was well on it's way to making slavery completely economically unviable.

How could the issue of slavery been way later in the war when it was already dying?

Here's the deal, slavery was the ruse to roust up support for the war in the south. It may not have been a real reason in the minds of the politicians but they knew asking the Confederacy to take up arms against an oppressive Lincoln leadership; on taxes, and tariff and Constitutional matter wouldn't have sparked any fire in the southerners to fight. But take their slavery away... now that's something worth fighting for.

....crying out loud. If George Bush thought for one second that OBL is this big, evil bogeyman that wants to kill us all, shouldn't he be impeached for neglecting his primary duty and letting the bastard go?

Yes, in a perfect world... absolutely.

I also served under Reagan. It was an awesome feeling seeing the wall up (when I went to Berlin) then seeing the wall down several years later. But I think you’re wrong in your “… neither could ever dominate and hold the other” assessment. They lost. The USSR crumbled. Reagan’s tactic worked. 20/20 hindsight allows us to say “neither side was willing to pull the trigger”, but at the time folks were predicting nuclear war. No one knew. Thankfully that was not the case. We face an entirely different enemy now though; one that would have no problem pushing that button and incinerating a few 100 thousand Americans. Are we going to have a Reagan at the helm when that happens or a Clinton?


There's no doubt that we won, and that the Soviets cracked. Where most get it wrong is they see Reagan as having pushed the issue of making the war unwinnable, which he didn't. That was the case from the start. The issue he pushed was making the war untennable to keep fighting.

The only people who were predicting nuclear war were alarmists and extremists, on both sides. Anyone with any sense of geopolitical structures knew there would never be a nuclear war, or any other direct war, between us as whoever won would ultimately lose due to the sheer size and scope of trying to control the other country.

...I was angry at Reagan for the insult to the US and the murder of all those Marines. My mindset was don't EVER send US troops into harms way unless they are going to be allowed to do their job; fight.

Over time, I grew to understand that that was the bravest, wisest thing Reagan could do. We made a mistake being there; he did not compound it.

As for 9/11, you can make the connection and there is some truth in it, but that's a lot of miles between 1983 and 2001.

It's actually a very short drive between the two. Reagan bested Quadaffi because he took the actions necessary to convey the message that if you mess with the US, you're going to pay a lot for it. Quadaffi got that message when F-117s leveled his palace and killed his daughter. You reall need to understand that element. Reagan had a take no prisioners attitude, and if that meant killing innocent women and children so be it. But at that time there was no CNN or other media outlets covering things 24-7. Leveling part of Tripoli meant nothing to most Americans.

Then along comes CNN and Beirut, and there's the video of every cililian casulaty being beamed direct to American homes. This is the start of surgical strikes and proportional responses as now every thing that the US military does is going to get scrutinized not just abroad but at home too. We can no longer blow up part of a capital city in response to a small bomb going off at a disco because now CNN rushes in with their cameras and videotapes the aftermath, broadcasts it back at home, and now instead of being seen as defending ourselves we're portrayed as bullies and relying too much on overkill.

So when the Marine barracks bombing goes down, what can Reagan do? He could launch massive airstrikes into Iran and elsewhere, but then he has to deal with the PR issue, so instead he backs down and starts looking at those dreaded "measured responses". So here's the real problem. We have a massive military that for decades has been seen as an overwhelming threat by most of the planet. "You set off a bomb, we level a city... get it!" Now, we start saying you blow up a building, we blow up a building, which makes us look more reasonable to some, but for our enemies it makes them the military equivalent of the US. Guys like Bin Ladin are able to say "Look! I attack those devils and they are afraid of me! They have massive armies and all they can do to me is blow up one of my buildings! They are afraid!" And the more he says that, the more he convinces people that he has all this power and they support him more and more. And the more support he gets, the more arrogant and cocksure he gets, which leads us to 9/11.

It's actually a very short drive between the two.


...is more a function of how fast you drive than of actual distance. When we go too fast, we miss the scenery. Such as;

Sending Moammar a message is one thing. He's a business man; not a religious fanatic. You go from a limited strike against Libya to saying Reagan couldn't launch a mass strike against Iran as though a mass strike were the only option. The issue with Iran was/is simply the potential for massive entanglement. I won't argue the TV image problem, but I will argue that Reagan would still not have sent in a B52 strike absent CNN. It was not appropriate.

Libya is one thing. Lebanon was another. I think Reagan simply swallowed his pride and backed out of a stupid situation. In any event, Bush 41 in Gulf War I didn't seem all too reserved when wiping out Saddam's command and control infrastructure nor were we particularly gentle in wiping nearly his entire conventional force, the 4th largest army in the world, at the time, off the map AND kept us out of a quagmire.

Both Clinton and Bush 43, pre 9/11, had everything they needed to take OBL out of play. They chose otherwise. It seems to me that the politics between us and Saudi is an integral part of the equation. Absent 9/11, people like OBL served Saudi as a nice pressure relief valve for their internal fundamentalist problems. It's easier to deflect attention if the good 'ol Great Satan is readily available to take most of the heat for the way things were/are inside Saudi.

I have read a few pieces about how effectively Saudi has come down on their internal fundamentalists. OBL gave them the pretext to crack down.

I hate to break it to you Larry, but religious fanatics leading all these causes are a myth. The foot soldiers are largely fanatics, but the guys at the top are anything but. If they were the fanatics they claim to be, they wouldn't be going to such extreme measures to save their own asses. They would be sure that they would be going to paradise and getting their virgins, so the concept of death would be as meaningless to them as it was to the Imperial Japanese. Instead we see guys who are making millions of dollars and sending the fools out to do the dirty work while they hide. Guys like Bin Ladin and al Zawahiri are no more religious zealots than Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts are, or were. I've been to the lion's den in Saudi Arabia, and seen the fiction of hundreds of prayer rugs laid out for prayer by the faithful throngs, and the reality of only about ten guys using them. Anytime that you hear about Saudi fundamentalism, you can bet your ass that at the end of that situation is a bank account that someone is trying to stuff and not someone trying to appease Allah.

As for Bush 41 and Clinton, they did have the ability to take OBL out, but they were more worried about the reaction to civilian casualties than they were the threat to our country. They knew he was a growing threat, but they were more worried about having to respond to reporters showing scenes of dead kids who were killed in the attack. If Reagan, Bush, and Clinton had followed the path of massive retaliation, guys like OBL would have gotten no support and would be footnotes by now.

I hate to break it to you Larry, but religious fanatics leading all these causes are a myth. The foot soldiers are largely fanatics, but the guys at the top are anything but. If they were the fanatics they claim to be, they wouldn't be going to such extreme measures to save their own asses. They would be sure that they would be going to paradise and getting their virgins, so the concept of death would be as meaningless to them as it was to the Imperial Japanese. Instead we see guys who are making millions of dollars and sending the fools out to do the dirty work while they hide. Guys like Bin Ladin and al Zawahiri are no more religious zealots than Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts are, or were. I've been to the lion's den in Saudi Arabia, and seen the fiction of hundreds of prayer rugs laid out for prayer by the faithful throngs, and the reality of only about ten guys using them. Anytime that you hear about Saudi fundamentalism, you can bet your ass that at the end of that situation is a bank account that someone is trying to stuff and not someone trying to appease Allah.

As for Bush 41 and Clinton, they did have the ability to take OBL out, but they were more worried about the reaction to civilian casualties than they were the threat to our country. They knew he was a growing threat, but they were more worried about having to respond to reporters showing scenes of dead kids who were killed in the attack. If Reagan, Bush, and Clinton had followed the path of massive retaliation, guys like OBL would have gotten no support and would be footnotes by now.

...no you don't.

Second, if I can put the Clancy books away, then good. You just killed your own argument; they're not crazy, so, we can deal with them same as we did the USSR. Or, as you said earlier, they are crazy and we can't deal with them like we did the USSR.

As long as the leaderships knows THEY suffer if their loons go off the reservation, we're gtg. Right?

...no you don't.

Second, if I can put the Clancy books away, then good. You just killed your own argument; they're not crazy, so, we can deal with them same as we did the USSR. Or, as you said earlier, they are crazy and we can't deal with them like we did the USSR.

As long as the leaderships knows THEY suffer if their loons go off the reservation, we're gtg. Right?

Maybe it's just late, but I can't figure out what the heck point this post is trying to make.

By the way... please put the Clancy books away. I am pleased to announce that I have just completed my first political-military thriller novel that runs along the lines of a Clancy/Cussler novel, and the manuscript just went out to my agent last Friday. With any luck, you'll be forgetting all about Tom Clancy when you go into the bookstores and you'll be looking for the latest Bruzilla novel on those HomeSOC guys (HomeSOC being the Dept. of Homeland Security Special Operations Command, based out of NAS Pax River.)