On January 7th, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Bruce Byrd (not verified) said:
News reports are out that 5 small Iranian naval craft were messing with three of our craft , looks like Mr. Bush may get his own Gulf of Tonkin style excuse to start a conflict with Iran,,,if he wants one.
On January 7th, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
So if Bush doesn't use the situation to go into Iran, it shows how restrained he is, right?
Actually, I want to bring up something I noticed from the debate of Democrats the other night. Their proposed foreign policies seem extremely aggressive and arrogant, to use words that are leveled against Bush. For example, Hillary (I believe it was Hillary, maybe Richardson) would ask Musharraf to step down. Richardson wants to pressure Pakistan into allowing the US and/or the UK to have some amount of control over its nukes. They all commented that Musharraf needs to do more to fight against the radicals in his country, yet they also are calling for more democracy. Do they not realize that fighting radical Islam in Pakistan is not an electable platform? At least Bush seems to understand the delicate situation in Pakistan and isn't doing anything that will drastically destabilize the country.
I can understand that other countries do not appreciate it when the US pressures them to be a certain way. In some respects the Democrats say as much when they talk about our military presence acting as a recruiting tool. But if that's what they really believe, do they think that pressuring the only Muslim country with nukes to hand over some control of it's nukes to the US or UK will go over well? Or forcing Musharraf to fight against extremists more will be welcome to those radical extremists? As far as I can see, the Democrats' plans are even more aggressive/offensive than what Bush has been doing.
On January 7th, 2008 at 11:34 AM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
Bruce,
That's not really news. The Iranians and our navy have been going tit for tat for many many years in the Persian Gulf.
I would question the motivation of the news outlet that is attempting to make a story out of it.
On January 7th, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Bruce Byrd (not verified) said:
Prarie you are right,,,,,,,but it was presented in a way that somehow made it seem more confrontational than in the past....maybe because the President is starting an extended middle east trip tommorrow,,,the news needs to try and spice it up or something. I dont think we need to get into any conflict with them,,,,unless of course we decide to do it right this time :)
On January 7th, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
Maybe Iran likes McCain
On January 7th, 2008 at 01:03 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
OK, open thread. My take on why it is wrong to back Huckabee.
People complain and complain about foreign nations having religious governments, instead of secular governments. Whether Iran, a government that accedes to the relgious government, or Saudi Arabia which is secular but controlled by Muslims and Islamic Law, people here think that it is wrong, and governments should be strictly secular. When we hear that a government has effected some act based on the religion of the people, we cringe.
Why, then, is Huckabee acceptable? Is it because he is one of ours, or because he wouldn't allow his religion to guide his administration, or is it just because we are mainly Christian, so that is ok?
Ministers in political power scare me, whether Muslim, Christian, or any other religion where the religion itself is the guiding light of the administration.
Romney scares me, too. Although not overtly Mormon, imho anyone who believes, as a basic belief of his religion, that Jesus physically came to North America after the Ascension, or who believes as a matter of religious conviction that the Garden of Eden was near present day Kansas City Missouri is a little too much of a whack-job.
On January 7th, 2008 at 01:19 PM, Glock21 said:
The religions of the candidates don't really disturb me unless they are dead set on legislating their religious morality on others. Huckabee seems like the type, not because he's a minister, but because of the way he justifies some of his policies and the extent he wants to take them, such as Constitutional amendments. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but if I have better options (like in a primary) I'll vote for someone else.
With Romney, people have plenty of things to complain about without having to get into where he thinks humanity started prior to recorded history. Perhaps the Mormonism thing doesn't seem so outrageous because all religions seem to make outlandish claims coming from the atheist perspective.
On January 7th, 2008 at 02:21 PM, ThoughtPolice said:
Although not overtly Mormon, imho anyone who believes, as a basic belief of his religion, that Jesus physically came to North America after the Ascension, or who believes as a matter of religious conviction that the Garden of Eden was near present day Kansas City Missouri is a little too much of a whack-job.
The same can be said for any religious myth.
If you're going to believe in a place where a dude was created from dirt and his rib created a woman, then they ate some fruit because a snake told them to, why are you suddenly a "whack-job" if you believe it happened near KC?
On January 7th, 2008 at 02:42 PM, History Guy said:
On January 7th, 2008 at 01:21 PM, ThoughtPolice said: "If you're going to believe in a place where a dude was created from dirt and his rib created a woman, then they ate some fruit because a snake told them to, why are you suddenly a "whack-job" if you believe it happened near KC?"
Well, you're obviously a whack-job for not eating BBQ while near KC, that's for sure :-)
HG
On January 7th, 2008 at 03:19 PM, Gregg said:
"that Jesus physically came to North America after the Ascension"
He could smell the BBQ smoke and went to KC to scarf some down!!! I would recommend, Arthur Bryant's, Gates BBQ or Jack Stacks, It's a religion in KC!!!!
On January 7th, 2008 at 03:28 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Some people believe that something can come from nothing; that's pretty crazy too.
On January 7th, 2008 at 04:42 PM, D. Boon said:
William Kristol, most famous perhaps for being the son of Irving Kristol who is one of the founding fathers of the neo-conservative movement, has started writing for the New York Times. I am sure the Times is attempting to court conservative readership, and Kristol is about as conservative as they come (or so I would guess, though who knows, right?).
Anyway, his article is fairly ridiculous. Here's a quote:
Some of us would much prefer a non-liberal and non-Democratic administration. We don’t want to increase the scope of the nanny state, we don’t want to undo the good done by the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and we really don’t want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.
Pretty standard stuff, but did he really just saying "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq". Wow, I want what he is smoking.
On January 7th, 2008 at 04:51 PM, redstatewannabe said:
D Boon, do you still think, like Mrs. Clinton apparently, that the US should begin the evacuation of Iraq as soon as logistically possible? because we are loosing to the terrorists there and we can't possibly defeat them?
On January 7th, 2008 at 04:53 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Some people believe that something can come from nothing; that's pretty crazy too.
A common misconception and smokescreen argument for all those trying to get everyone to believe in cloud-beings and bebe jeebus.
On January 7th, 2008 at 05:04 PM, Galileo (not verified) said:
I guess I'm one of those creepy ATHEISTS who believes that something comes from nothing...or, to be precise, that human beings do not yet enjoy the scientific capacity to observe and therefore understand the principles of physics which explain the universe. Although in this regard we remain ignorant for the time being, some of us have the good sense not to make up fairy tales about angels sitting on clouds just to comfort our doubts about that which we cannot yet explain, but someday will -- with observed facts, not make believe.
On January 7th, 2008 at 05:06 PM, Oil Man said:
"A common misconception and smokescreen argument for all those trying to get everyone to believe in cloud-beings and bebe jeebus."
...and WMD in Iraq---the list goes on and on and........
On January 7th, 2008 at 06:04 PM, the real Galileo (not verified) said:
I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
On January 7th, 2008 at 06:07 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Huckabee isn't someone that is interested in gaining power to try and make you drink. Huckabee spoke about freedom as one of the key principles of our Constitution and of his core principles and was the only one that did until he brought it up in the Fox debate. You can of course look for any reason you want to not vote for him but just remember he has been Gov. of Arkansas for 8 years and LT Gov. before that. Elected by a state that is over 80% Democrat if he had tried to create a State Church I don't think that would have happened.
On January 7th, 2008 at 06:33 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Arkansas is 80% "Democrat"? Who knew? Well, I guess compared to Camargo, Royal, and some of the other one-horse-towns around here, Little Rock is practically a bastion of enlightenment and liberalism. You conservatives should be proud to have a real savant like Run4cvrlib on your team!!
On January 7th, 2008 at 06:39 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"Elected by a state that is over 80% Democrat..."
Uh. No.
On January 7th, 2008 at 06:39 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
Thats what some talking head said last night on tv and a I beleive everything I hear on tv. Just like I listen to anonymous posters.
On January 7th, 2008 at 06:42 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
That one makes more sense IP but I guess I could say the same for Rudy, except New York is a heck of lot more liberal then Hope.
On January 7th, 2008 at 08:23 PM, Glock21 said:
The Party breakdown from the 2004 election for Arkansas was 41% Democrats, 31% Republican, and 29% Independent. But the ideological breakdown was 13% Liberal, 45% Moderate, and 42% Conservative. This may have changed some since, but this sounds about right for the deep south and their tendancy of conservative and moderate democrats.
On January 7th, 2008 at 08:30 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Well, I guess compared to Camargo, Royal, and some of the other one-horse-towns around here, Little Rock is practically a bastion of enlightenment and liberalism."
Step lightly around Royal, friend. The future first female POTUS has already started organizing her fifth grade class out here. And yes, she's a "union made" lib'rul dem...
On January 7th, 2008 at 09:05 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Do you not consider yourself anonymous? Is your legal name actually Run4cvrlib? Thought not.
On January 7th, 2008 at 09:08 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
Actually I think they said 80% of the leaders sorry I will be more careful.
Kevin I like the POTUS your talking about much better then the other one, but don't you give the other a chance?
On January 7th, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Kevin I like the POTUS your talking about much better then the other one, but don't you give the other a chance?"
Nope. Toast. Stick a fork in her. (Insert favorite "end of road" simile here...)
On January 7th, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Dan Fielding said:
"Huckabee spoke about freedom as one of the key principles of our Constitution and of his core principles and was the only one that did until he brought it up in the Fox debate."
If I decide to vote on the basis of lip service, I promise to vote for Mike Huckabee.
News reports are out that 5 small Iranian naval craft were messing with three of our craft , looks like Mr. Bush may get his own Gulf of Tonkin style excuse to start a conflict with Iran,,,if he wants one.
So if Bush doesn't use the situation to go into Iran, it shows how restrained he is, right?
Actually, I want to bring up something I noticed from the debate of Democrats the other night. Their proposed foreign policies seem extremely aggressive and arrogant, to use words that are leveled against Bush. For example, Hillary (I believe it was Hillary, maybe Richardson) would ask Musharraf to step down. Richardson wants to pressure Pakistan into allowing the US and/or the UK to have some amount of control over its nukes. They all commented that Musharraf needs to do more to fight against the radicals in his country, yet they also are calling for more democracy. Do they not realize that fighting radical Islam in Pakistan is not an electable platform? At least Bush seems to understand the delicate situation in Pakistan and isn't doing anything that will drastically destabilize the country.
I can understand that other countries do not appreciate it when the US pressures them to be a certain way. In some respects the Democrats say as much when they talk about our military presence acting as a recruiting tool. But if that's what they really believe, do they think that pressuring the only Muslim country with nukes to hand over some control of it's nukes to the US or UK will go over well? Or forcing Musharraf to fight against extremists more will be welcome to those radical extremists? As far as I can see, the Democrats' plans are even more aggressive/offensive than what Bush has been doing.
Bruce,
That's not really news. The Iranians and our navy have been going tit for tat for many many years in the Persian Gulf.
I would question the motivation of the news outlet that is attempting to make a story out of it.
Prarie you are right,,,,,,,but it was presented in a way that somehow made it seem more confrontational than in the past....maybe because the President is starting an extended middle east trip tommorrow,,,the news needs to try and spice it up or something. I dont think we need to get into any conflict with them,,,,unless of course we decide to do it right this time :)
Maybe Iran likes McCain
OK, open thread. My take on why it is wrong to back Huckabee.
People complain and complain about foreign nations having religious governments, instead of secular governments. Whether Iran, a government that accedes to the relgious government, or Saudi Arabia which is secular but controlled by Muslims and Islamic Law, people here think that it is wrong, and governments should be strictly secular. When we hear that a government has effected some act based on the religion of the people, we cringe.
Why, then, is Huckabee acceptable? Is it because he is one of ours, or because he wouldn't allow his religion to guide his administration, or is it just because we are mainly Christian, so that is ok?
Ministers in political power scare me, whether Muslim, Christian, or any other religion where the religion itself is the guiding light of the administration.
Romney scares me, too. Although not overtly Mormon, imho anyone who believes, as a basic belief of his religion, that Jesus physically came to North America after the Ascension, or who believes as a matter of religious conviction that the Garden of Eden was near present day Kansas City Missouri is a little too much of a whack-job.
The religions of the candidates don't really disturb me unless they are dead set on legislating their religious morality on others. Huckabee seems like the type, not because he's a minister, but because of the way he justifies some of his policies and the extent he wants to take them, such as Constitutional amendments. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but if I have better options (like in a primary) I'll vote for someone else.
With Romney, people have plenty of things to complain about without having to get into where he thinks humanity started prior to recorded history. Perhaps the Mormonism thing doesn't seem so outrageous because all religions seem to make outlandish claims coming from the atheist perspective.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Although not overtly Mormon, imho anyone who believes, as a basic belief of his religion, that Jesus physically came to North America after the Ascension, or who believes as a matter of religious conviction that the Garden of Eden was near present day Kansas City Missouri is a little too much of a whack-job.
The same can be said for any religious myth.
If you're going to believe in a place where a dude was created from dirt and his rib created a woman, then they ate some fruit because a snake told them to, why are you suddenly a "whack-job" if you believe it happened near KC?
On January 7th, 2008 at 01:21 PM, ThoughtPolice said: "If you're going to believe in a place where a dude was created from dirt and his rib created a woman, then they ate some fruit because a snake told them to, why are you suddenly a "whack-job" if you believe it happened near KC?"
Well, you're obviously a whack-job for not eating BBQ while near KC, that's for sure :-)
HG
"that Jesus physically came to North America after the Ascension"
He could smell the BBQ smoke and went to KC to scarf some down!!! I would recommend, Arthur Bryant's, Gates BBQ or Jack Stacks, It's a religion in KC!!!!
Some people believe that something can come from nothing; that's pretty crazy too.
William Kristol, most famous perhaps for being the son of Irving Kristol who is one of the founding fathers of the neo-conservative movement, has started writing for the New York Times. I am sure the Times is attempting to court conservative readership, and Kristol is about as conservative as they come (or so I would guess, though who knows, right?).
Anyway, his article is fairly ridiculous. Here's a quote:
Pretty standard stuff, but did he really just saying "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq". Wow, I want what he is smoking.
D Boon, do you still think, like Mrs. Clinton apparently, that the US should begin the evacuation of Iraq as soon as logistically possible? because we are loosing to the terrorists there and we can't possibly defeat them?
Some people believe that something can come from nothing; that's pretty crazy too.
A common misconception and smokescreen argument for all those trying to get everyone to believe in cloud-beings and bebe jeebus.
I guess I'm one of those creepy ATHEISTS who believes that something comes from nothing...or, to be precise, that human beings do not yet enjoy the scientific capacity to observe and therefore understand the principles of physics which explain the universe. Although in this regard we remain ignorant for the time being, some of us have the good sense not to make up fairy tales about angels sitting on clouds just to comfort our doubts about that which we cannot yet explain, but someday will -- with observed facts, not make believe.
"A common misconception and smokescreen argument for all those trying to get everyone to believe in cloud-beings and bebe jeebus."
...and WMD in Iraq---the list goes on and on and........
I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Huckabee isn't someone that is interested in gaining power to try and make you drink. Huckabee spoke about freedom as one of the key principles of our Constitution and of his core principles and was the only one that did until he brought it up in the Fox debate. You can of course look for any reason you want to not vote for him but just remember he has been Gov. of Arkansas for 8 years and LT Gov. before that. Elected by a state that is over 80% Democrat if he had tried to create a State Church I don't think that would have happened.
Arkansas is 80% "Democrat"? Who knew? Well, I guess compared to Camargo, Royal, and some of the other one-horse-towns around here, Little Rock is practically a bastion of enlightenment and liberalism. You conservatives should be proud to have a real savant like Run4cvrlib on your team!!
"Elected by a state that is over 80% Democrat..."
Uh. No.
Thats what some talking head said last night on tv and a I beleive everything I hear on tv. Just like I listen to anonymous posters.
That one makes more sense IP but I guess I could say the same for Rudy, except New York is a heck of lot more liberal then Hope.
The Party breakdown from the 2004 election for Arkansas was 41% Democrats, 31% Republican, and 29% Independent. But the ideological breakdown was 13% Liberal, 45% Moderate, and 42% Conservative. This may have changed some since, but this sounds about right for the deep south and their tendancy of conservative and moderate democrats.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Well, I guess compared to Camargo, Royal, and some of the other one-horse-towns around here, Little Rock is practically a bastion of enlightenment and liberalism."
Step lightly around Royal, friend. The future first female POTUS has already started organizing her fifth grade class out here. And yes, she's a "union made" lib'rul dem...
Do you not consider yourself anonymous? Is your legal name actually Run4cvrlib? Thought not.
Actually I think they said 80% of the leaders sorry I will be more careful.
Kevin I like the POTUS your talking about much better then the other one, but don't you give the other a chance?
"Kevin I like the POTUS your talking about much better then the other one, but don't you give the other a chance?"
Nope. Toast. Stick a fork in her. (Insert favorite "end of road" simile here...)
"Huckabee spoke about freedom as one of the key principles of our Constitution and of his core principles and was the only one that did until he brought it up in the Fox debate."
If I decide to vote on the basis of lip service, I promise to vote for Mike Huckabee.