This was about Bill O'Reilly? wtf happened



P.S. Obama all the way!

I wasn't suggesting that we invade them. Right now we don't have to worry about that – but Obama's plan would put us at risk of having to worry about doing so. Missile defense systems, hair trigger alerts, and nuclear weapons, as scary as the sound, prevent war. But a lot of Democrats think the world would be so much more warm and fuzzy if they didn't exist. But they are wrong.
Obama is basically saying he would take away everything our country needs to prevent catastophic attacks while at the same time cut what we would need to defend ourselves if were were attacked.

An analogy using a city perspective compared to a world perspective...

Think of a violent inner city street that you are familiar with. (I was thinking of South Street in Chas). Imagine that Joe R - mayor of Chas (Obama)said he was going to get rid of all guns (nuclear weapons) in the city - that would make it much more peaceful. And if he wants all the drug
dealers/thugs (Iran, North Korea) to get rid of their guns, the police (military) have to get rid of their guns too. It isn't fair to ask the thugs to get rid of theirs and us not get rid of "ours." A lot of thugs
think the police are bullies and Joe R. doesn't want that. Joe's plan is to make the police start getting rid of their guns. He is also getting rid of their bullet proof vests (military shields - ICBMs) - they won't need them if he is going to ask the thugs not to use guns anymore so why spend money on them. Joe is confident that if he meets with the drug dealers and thugs and talks to them that they will do what he wants them to do.

The point is that Joe R's idea (that I made up) sounds great. But is it realistic? It is human nature to want power. Bad people want it. Good people want it. Someone is always going to have the power. Do you want the power to be in the hands of the good people or the bad people?

As I mentioned before, We have sworn enemies that want to destroy us. Obama's plan of a world without nuclear weapons requires the rest of the world to have rational, benevolent leaders. Do you trust leaders such as Kim Il Jong (sp?) and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad to be rational and benevolent?


I know…that is a first grade-ish example…but it works.

-------------------------------------------------------
Obama says in the video that he would:

-cut missle defense systems
-not weaponize space
-slow development of future combat systems
-build a world without nuclear weapons
-not develop nuclear weapons
-acheive deeper cuts in our nuclear arsenal
-take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert
(ICBMs are inter continental ballistic missles. Hair trigger alert means
we cold respond quickly. Some people interpret that as being a true "hair
trigger" that could result in a mistaken war, but there are obvious
systems in place to prevent that.




No attempt to smush facts, it's from this video…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

And the missile defense systems are not there as a weapon against terrorism. They prevent future wars with rising powers – and yes- it is a great preventative measure. And I agree – the Republicans have done so much to work with China – you don't read a lot about that in the media either. In fact, I'm going this week to hear about our mayor's trip to China.



I'm okay with slowing the development of nuclear weapons – but what I am absolutely not okay with is having a non-nuclear world. Obama says very clearly that this is his goal. Watch the video. If you, like me, are not a proponent of a non-nuclear world - then you should have serious issues with Obama.



Sorry, but I believe he is naïve. Taking away our defense system and building a world without nuclear weapons absolutely requires all leaders to be rational and benevolent.

Troy, I know the argument you are making feels solid and it feels as though this approach would bear fruit by standing up to a hostile force, it isn't supported by the facts nor does it take into account the incredible power that appearing crazy has offered Iran. Make no mistake that Ahmedinijad is playing an incredibly canny version of chicken with the U.S. and our military threat is only one tool we can use to undermine his authority within his country and his effectiveness in the region. Within the Bush administration there has been this theory that we are in a Cold War of sorts against these nations, but even during the Cold War, we met with leaders and maintained a constant dialogue as to minimize misunderstanding and reduce the necessity for war. Diplomacy is just as powerful as any nuclear arsenal and in conunction leaves the option for peaceful coexistence on the table.

Iran is fighting a "proxy war" against Israel and perceived foreign invaders through Hezbollah as well as providing material support for those resisting foreign occupation in Iraq. Let's be incredibly clear that we are viewed by most in the Middle East as an occupying power, benevolent or otherwise. Regardless of your political stripes, you must see that the threat of occupation and lack of ability by many of these countries to chart their own destiny drives their actions.

This nonsense about the 12th immam is not what most Iranians, mullahs or otherwise, is trying to bring about. In the absence of a strong enough military, economic or diplomatic power to create self-destiny, most cultures fall back on nationalism bolstered by the most aggressive facet of their religion.



I know this may be a slap in the face, but true or not MANY (if not most) people outside of the U.S., specifically in Islamic nations, feel that the above description is of George W. Bush. I know it makes people angry, but we really do need to start thinking about how best to decrease the pool of candidates for the most extreme groups who have marshalled against the U.S. and her allies. My pointing the finger at Iran and saying, "See? Crazy!!!!" we play into their hands. They get to pretty much do whatever they want because we've set the bar so low and in the meanwhile, the majority of our combat forces are wrapped up in a war against us that they don't even have to fight for themselves. We are not going to make any progress or be able to effect any change within Iran until we choose to engage the country....which is the strategy which Obama will likely employ.

Of course, this will be backed up by the most powerful army on the face of the planet and will be gladly welcomed by our allies who have been wavering in the face of Bush's machismo. And you'll again note that "engagement" doesn't equal "negotiation". It's initially a political move on our part to open up another front on the war of terror which means being able to speak to the people inside Iran and bolster our support worldwide. Politics is war by other means.



This assertion has not been proven. A few of the hostages say he was there though most say they are sure he wasn't. Let's stick to what we know for sure here, otherwise we get lost in a mill of rumors and unnendo and can't really control the conversation as it is constantly spending time batting away half-truths.

We do know that the U.S. installed the Shah as a regional governer and he abused the Iranian people with impugnity. Death Squads and all that stuff. People were pissed. They took hostages because they felt powerless. I think it was a foolish thing to do and am angry that it endangered and imprisoned Americans but claiming some sort of moral superiority won't get you very far in understanding and crushing the reale enemy of fear, greed and despair that leads to things like this.



You think it's foolish to bolster the experience of the CEO of our country with advisors who bolster their areas of lesser experience? I think it was brilliant of Bush to choose Cheney as his running mate. Who is Obama supposed to choose and based on what criteria? Your argument makes no sense.



Jeremiah Wright is a lunatic and Obama has a problem there. His recent behavior has been an embarrassment, but I think most independents have seen enough and, in the absence of other major impediments to his nomination, simply don't care. The only major harm this will likely do to his candidacy in a general election is as fodder for right wing pundits. He has weathered the controversy with grace and applomb as suits a president. By the way Troy, do you have any crazy friends who you would be embarrassed by if they were connected to you on a national stage? Do you abandon them simply as inconvenient? Obama stuck by him until Wright made it clear that he was going to actively undermine Obama's candidacy. Then he cut him loose. This appears as much as an act of resentment as political opportunism.



I think this has less to do with Bush and the mess that has been created by his administration in the the last 8 years. People are desperate for change and desperate people tend to shout a little louder, run a little faster, gather in larger numbers and stampede opposition. Can you blame them?



Really? It comes down to that?

Yep... my bretheren in the liberal media are idiots to continue to try to save the world by spreading liberalism and criticizing conservatism.

I still remember the look Peter Jennings had on his face back in 94 when the Republicans swept the house and senate races -- I think his words were something like:

The voters had a temper tantrum last week....


BTW: thanks for letting us know that the Iranian president is not crazy. Silly me, using his own words to make a judgement about his sanity.

Seriously Ryan, I've been swerving far right to get reactions. But we are now in the dangerous part of this discussion. Ignoring a very possible terror connection with Iranian President, as well as equating the actions of the 9/11 hijackers and planners (and their buddies who send out children with bombs strapped to themselves) with the patriots who formed our country -- don't lend credance to your arguments.

I'm afraid that we'll have to disagree about the intellectual pursuits of how to handle a nuclear powderkeg situation in the Middle East, with the Iranian president striking a match to light it.

I just wish we had a presidential candidate that actually had both
1. The experience and
2. the guts to plan accordingly

to handle the situation.

Neville Chamberlain had great diplomacy. Hitler signed the treaty. "Peace in our time!"

Yep. Another stellar day for diplomacy.

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. You don't sign treaties with crazy dictators and expect them to abide by them terms of the treaty.

Treaties need to be made between trust worthy parties. I fail to see where the other side (terrorists in today's world) are trustworthy.

You two are better than Hannity and Colmes !!!

I prefer Anne Coulter -- she's got better legs than Sean Hannity.

Ok --- you two are better than Ann Coulter and Janeane Garofalo !!!

I don't recall having claimed Ahmedinijad wasn't behaving in a crazy way any more than Kim Jong Il. But within that apparent madness like a cold, calculating mind that has played George W. Bush and Company like a Kazoo. He has been running circles around Bush and making the American military look foolish. I am simply trying to eke out an admission that reducing the Iranian leaders to madmen severely underestimates their cleverness and does a disservice especially to the men and women in uniform in Iraq. Crazy like foxes.

Iran is no doubt a troubled country, but it is more stable than most NeoCons are willing to admit, whether or not you like their brand of ”democracy”. It has a history of very strained relations with the U.S. and your unwillingness to at least acknowledge the root of SOME of the resentment clearly shows to most rational people that you are either unwilling or unable to have an intellectually honest discussion that will lead to real solutions. Does Iran's resentment justify supporting Hezbollah? Not in the minds of most Westerners, but until we are able to wrap our brains around the fact that many in the Middle East do see an equivalency and this only becomes more problematic as we catalyze the killing of more innocence, we cannot change the facts on the ground and win hearts and minds.

Your solutions aren't solutions. They are bombast and bumper sticker slogans that simply prolong the stalemate and give us no reasonable way to affect the policies and leadership in the country. Have you read the entire Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and its amendments? They are not glib or coy. They are thorough and well-considered and in a time of crisis were able to take into account SO many points of view and create opportunities. Your solutions put us in a box made of one syllable words. Sometimes Bush shoots for three, but can’t pronounce Nuclear. Holy crap…I thought his folksy, normal guy routine was a ruse. But it wasn’t. He was that normal. I DO NOT WANT A NORMAL PRESIDENT. I want the smartest, canniest sonuvabitch we can find.



I don't believe this is an authentic admission of devil's advocacy. I think it is rather an attempt to back out of the deep end of the pool where serious discussion replaces wisdom gleaned from a single news source, biased or unbiased. I think it's easier to parrot half-truth “Talking Points” and to throw your hands up in the air and scream about the devil and nuclear warheads rather than present a substantive position based on facts and a serious understanding of the history of the region and how all of the parties interact rather than rumor and innuendo.



The dangerous part of the discussion is your inability to see beyond the end of your nose because of partisan fealty. I applaud Matt Antonino for making a sensible decision even though it may delay or even set back some important issues which I am sure he would like to see advanced as a Republican. He sees that McCain's plan is an extension of Bush's and will further alienate us from the world, weaken our ability to compete in a global marketplace and further insert us into inflamed regions with no plan to create a lasting peace. I am not mincing a single word when I say a foreign policy worldview based on ignorance of simple...VERY simple facts is prone to be lead around the nose by fear. Yes, I called your views ignorant.

And if you try and stick a Revolutionary War rifle up my butt with any more force, you are going to break your wrist. I have twice specifically denied any equivalency to make sure you wouldn't get confused (once when I made the original statement)...I may have even used that phrase, but the Bush doctrine is followed in force in your argument. Just repeat what you want people to believe as often as you can as loud as you can in the face of any argument and you think eventually people will believe it, no matter how absurd.

Go back and read what I wrote again. I specifically made a comparison that the British red coats at the time viewed the American guerilla tactics against the formal British tactics to be as abhorrent as we view suicide bombers today. Though suicide bombing has no moral equivalency because it targets innocents, there is a tactical equivalency between suicide bombers and those guerilla tactics in the 18th century: it upends our ability to fight the war effectively, it maximizes the death toll inflicted by a small number of insurgents and forces the occupier to waste valuable time rewriting policy and making fundamental changes on every level in the middle of an occupation. Petraeus FINALLY was able to amass enough power due to Bush’s failures to deal honestly with this problem because he looked at it with clear, calculating (some would say cynical) eyes and adjusted the occupation. Unfortunately, it appears to be too late because the surge can’t be sustained past this summer without breaking the military or instituting a draft. It should have been done years ago but people like you chose to wave their d*cks around (and smaller ones than were warranted) instead of creating real solutions.



You fail to recognize treaties that not only end wars in domination but often allow a pause for cooler minds to prevail. Those moments are less dramatic, but they are just as crucial. You fight the wars you can win, right? You fight them in the way you can win. You continue to exhaust all possibilities even when involved in combat. Not to do so is foolish. That said, I don’t think I EVER mentioned any sort of treaty. You jumped forward into FoxNews land again.

I started out having this little back and forth because I thought you might have something substantial to offer a discussion but sadly, your arguments are all smoke and mirrors and not very well-crafted at that. I strongly urge you to start reaching outside your comfort zone and looking at some other news sources to create a more textured, deeper worldview which will allow you to make more informed decisions and HOPEFULLY be able to participate in a discussion about difficult subject without melting into a tiny droplet distilled from the sweat glands in Sean Hannity’s backside. Grow a pair. Get real information and maybe you can encourage the Republican Leadership to stand behind policies which both take into account the facts on the ground AND stand up for conservative policies right now.

Jeannine Garafolo? Eww..thank you but no. I am way too smart to listen to Air America. How about Diane Rehm? I'll be Diane Rehm. Mmmm...cagematch between Coulter and Rehm. For charity of course.

Two points... why are you still belittling Bush? The arguments against him always devolve to how he's nothing more than a stupid frat boy with oil money.

Dyslexia runs hard in my family. Other than minor spelling problems, I've been blessed to avoid it. However, I do get tongue tied easily and often. I call it dyslexia of the mouth.

When liberals make fun of Bush for not pronouncing words correctly, I want to slap them. The brain and the tongue aren't always in sync. Rather than belittling him, listen to his ideas, and decide on the merits of the idea. Argue about the idea. No need to insult him

Throwing insults does nothing to support your position. Instead it shows the character of the one in disagreement with GWB (BTW: I dislike many of GWB's policies and positions. He is not a conservative.)

Two: if you want the "smartest, canniest SOB" -- then you should be behind Hillary.

Gotta run... I'll review the rest of your post later.

OK, Ryan. I'm back and I'm re-reading your words.

In your first post, you said the Bush isn't smart enough to be president, but then insinuated that the untried and in experienced Obama is. You asked that we treat the elections less like a popularity contest, and more like a job interview. Since Obama is obviosly running against Bush, every time he mentions the McCain/Bush plan for whatever -- he needs to stand out better than Bush.

In a job interview, I'd notice class grades from college, I'd pay attention to type of college and major(s) earned... but all that fancy book lernin' doesn't make a good employee or manager. I'd look at past accomplishments. Obama got elected to various Chicago and Illinois posititions - running as a democrat, in very major democratic strong hold of Chicago. There is a reason that when discussing politics, The Chicago Political Machine and the Vote Early, Vote Often -- Where even the dead vote! phrases come to mind.

Think about the recent Indiana primary. Gary Indiana (Lake County) is basically, for all intents and purposes, a suburb of the Chicago Political Machine. The news agencies held off on calling a victory for Hillary until Lake County results came in. Why? Because of the political machine. Anyone who reported on the vote tabulation in Lake County indicated that it would definately go Obama, and that the results were *nudge nudge wink wink* taking a while, so that the machine could see how many votes Obama would need to swing the state. When it was obvious that Lake county alone couldn't give it to Obama (or perhaps they really did accurately count all the votes ) was the election called for Hillary.

Point is, Obama hasn't gotten anywhere on his smarts. He's gotten there because of the political machine. That like saying Bush got where he is because of his Daddy. I still wouldn't hire Obama. I probably would hire Bush. He's owned sucessful business in the private sector.

Bush, in addition, the stupid fool that he is, beat a long term, democrat incumbant, Ann Richards, and served two term as governor of one of our largest states. But the liberals always find a way to belittle him and his accomplishments. Obama was elected in a safe district, in a safe state to cushy positions.

Your own arguments continue to revolve around Bush is an incompetant boob! But Obama's severe lack of experience, and aligning himself with a religious nut case all should be downplayed because he's smarter than Bush.

i just don't get where you're coming from, unless I consider the leftist angle of "all things conservative are bad."

Now, onto the rest:



Regardless of who started the war between the terrorists and the US -- your statement above left a very strong equating of US Revolution equals terrorists. You seem to be arguing that we need to know whom the war is against because we are all "terrorists".

Psych warfare is very much a part of any battle, any war -- the colonialists realized that an undermanned, underarmed militia would commit suicide by playing by the traditional battle plans of the time. Let's all line up on oposite sides of a field and blow the snot out of each other, until one of us gets close enough to start stabbing the other one.

Terror is a weapon of war, and has always been a weapon of war. War is tradionally fought between nations, by armies. The always have, and always will be exceptions. But war is predominantly between nations. Therefore terror inflicting or psych warfare on one's enemies (their armies, not their civilians) is a reality in any war. Ambushes, as you stated, snipers, etc are are designed to make the enemy too scared to fight effectively, to sap their morale, and to insure ones own victory.

Terror was a nifty term for a type of psych warefare -- until the modern Islamic Jihadist decided to wipe the new nation of Isreal off the map. When civilian are enlisted en-mass to create acts of terror via suicide against other innocent civilians -- killing, and maiming hundreds --- kidnapping soldiers, and brutally beheading them on camera and posting such images in a public forum for all to see -- we have a new type of terror. This war on terror isn't against a nation's soldiers who use psych warfare against their enemies, but is instead a war against a collection of like minded extremists who have perverted a religion to serve their own ends for power and glory.

This is a distinction that has to be recognized. The terrorist tactics differ greatly in not only their methods -- but also the targets of whom they are trying to affect.

A terrorist in today's world is more than one who inspires terror. Today's terrorist is someone who routinely uses civilian death and destruction in the name of a corrupt view of a religious goal, to inspire terror amongst its civilan population, to change the course of their govenmental leadership.

We are in effect, embroiled in another Crusade. We are fighting against religious zealots. This time, however, the zealots are coming to us, instead of having the Christian Zealots invade the Holy Land.

So, rather than say that terror has been around for ages, and there is no such thing as a war on terror -- why don't we agree that the war on terror is nifty term that is easy for folks to remember, and is really a war on derranged religous extremists who want to destroy Isreal and all things/people Jewish, and take on and destroy those who they feel are the "great satan" detailed in their relious writing (The Great Satan = The USA, for those of you in Rio Linda).

Where this issue comes from, is that the liberals didn't want the US to extend anywhere beyond Afganistan. Period. "Bush Lied... People Died" is the liberal battle cry. They have to belittle and disparage the war's current front in Iraq, to invalidate it, in order to get the troops out of Iraq. Only by invalidating the war, will it end quickly enough for the liberal anti-war establishment.

Whether you like the war in Iraq or not... we've got to finish it.

We finish -- either by leaving the Iraqis to the mercy of whomever is going to take them over, be it Iran, Al Queda, or Bill and Hillary when they move their vacation home there...

Or, we stay and finish the job. Exit strategy is simple.... Help the Iraqis set up a functioning democracy, and provide protection for them and their citizens from opressors foreign and domestic until such time that the Iraqi governement, military, and police force can reasonably accomplish such security. No time tables are possible in that strategy. Stay until the job is done.

Again... we are there... there is no going back. Pulling troops out will not help the situation.

Rather than compaigning ad naseum about how Bush Screwed up, lets all vote for Ron Paul and welcome the troops home on Jan 22, 2009! (I know, you never said Ron Paul! ) how about we figure out how to kick some ass and get Iraq stabile so we can come home?

That's enough for this post. I'll keep reading your previous stuff again and see what else we can agree to disagree on.

Oh, shut up everybody.

I have some Cuervo Black in the freezer, are you headed my way soon?

Why is your Cuervo in the freezer?

Did the terrorists put it there?

mmm... I have some Oro Azul. Me likey tequila. I'll bring the limes.

Shots are better ice cold!

Ahhhh...
I thought that perhaps a renegade band of Penguins were holding it hostage, and they worked their way north to take the Jihad to the oppressive infidel polar bears.

Glad to know you just like you booze cold.

Troy,
Honestly, I really don't think there is much to agree on and little more to say. I spent like 30 pages detailing the abysmal policies of George W. Bush and the only thing you can seem to read is my concern about his inability to pronounce the word "nuclear". Your reading is so deeply selective and your purpose seems to be to grab on to whatever tiny failing exists inside the closest reading of a sentence that you A) fail to grasp the basic thrust of the argument, not to mention the details and B) try to provoke an argument about something which has little or no bearing on the discussion at hand. I would respond to your above posts but they are just riddled with inaccuracy, an incredible overestimation of the American military to effect change in the Middle East and just blind faith in a conservative viewpoint which has failed miserably to contain and manage the very threat which you tout as the greatest danger in the world.

The only relief I find in this is that most people in the United States, and certainly abroad, are going to see that the U.S. is not composed of people whose only response to fear and intimidation is violence and occupation. We have an opportunity with Obama and a new democratic supermajority to roll back some of these awful domestic and international policies and create a deeper, comprehensive strategy to approach the world rather than the cowboy politics you espouse which refuse to take into account the incredible power of diplomacy. Do we still use the military? Hell yes, but as part of a multi-pronged approach which allows those who support us from within the mentioned regimes and countries in the region. What Bush has done has left us no options. Obama may very well be able to give us those options back AND secure the region at the same time.

Obama is going to win. Congressional seats are flipping to Democratic if you've been watching the news and it's going to be a landslide in November. Even the most conservative pundits admit the possibility. So, you'd better start boning up on your history and current events. I know some of my posts have been outright rude, but I honestly encourage anyone who wants to utilize American power in the Middle East to read:

The Christian Science Monitor
AntiSemite and Jew by Jean Paul Sartre
The History of God by Karen Armstrong
Holy War by Karen Armstrong

and VERY importantly, read Al Jazeera so you can understand the complexity of the issues we face in the region. You don't have to agree with it, but you MUST understand it if you hope to effectively change the conditions on the ground with any hope of permanence.

Oh and god, please stop watching pundits on either side of the aisle. They make money off of breeding ill-considered conflict for their own personal monetary gain and really throw a bunch of sand in the gas tank of honest discussion about these issues.

I just...I can't believe I say this and it will lead to much cheering in some quarters, but I am so done here. Oy. I understand why so many people have been emailing me with encouragements and kudos they have been unwilling to post here. It's like talking to a wall made of...well...brick. oy.

I'll leave my final word to James Baker:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg

Hey Ryan,

I'm the crusty old curmudgeon of OSP, and a sexist pig too! But I'm sure the emails and PMs have said as much.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And yes, I agree with you Obama will probably win. The election has not happened yet, so no one can say for sure. Six months ago, Queen Hillary was waiting for her coronation, and now Obama has come from a virtual unknown to the democrat messiah sure to win in Nov. So things can change in politics very quickly.

As for reading the media... my years spent as a working journalist, as a liberal working journalist, no less have shown me the true light of journalism in this country. The art of reading the media, is reading between the lines, and taking into account the biases in the system.

So, from one brick wall to another, I wish you well.

God help us all in the next four years no matter who wins in November.

Now that this threat has ended... PARTY AT NATE'S HOUSE!

I hear he has ice cold Cuervo!

Ummm -- I don't understand this thread.. Can you and Ryan start over and post again? Maybe I will understand it the next time around.

Readers digest version:

Liberal view:
He's an Obama supporter who understands the world much better than any dumb conservative, and I'm just as much of a moron as George Bush is.

Conservative view:
We're stuck with a liberal candidate in both parties and are screwed either way come November, so lets have fun debating!

My Reader's Digest version-

Ryan's view:

Troy's view: Troy has concerns about the wisdom of electing a president who is untested by the rigors of an executive position. Troy is reasonably certain that withdrawing troops before democracy has time to gain a foothold will create a more dangerous world for America and her allies. Troy believes that even the appearance of negotiating with Rogue nations with nuclear ambitions undercuts our efforts to contain those regimes and rewards their obsitinance. Troy believes that terrorism is evil and has provoked the United States into war and this war is about protecting our freedoms, blood and treasure domestically and abroad.

Ryan's view: Ryan believes that intelligence, the ability to delegate, common sense and the talent to inspire are sometimes more important than experience. Ryan is reasonably certain that, at this point withdrawing troops is likely to provide the opportunity to provide stability in the long run for the Middle East and the safety of America and her allies. Ryan believes that communicating directly with rogue regimes in conjunction with threat of a muscular military response provides a stronger platform to effect change in crucial events that define America's safety in the world. Ryan believes that terrorism is evil and because of that we must seek to understand the roots of Islamic fundamentalists in order to permanently cut off their supply of money, willing recruits, religious support and relationships with sovereign nations in the region.

Again, this is Reader's Digest, so I am sure I got a few things not exactly right, but it seems a somewhat fairer and more balanced representation of our views. I think we both agree that this is a crucial time in our nation's history and in the world and that the choices we make now appear to hold our nation's future in the balance.

Sometimes, our beliefs in a certain time require us to overleap the perceived rudeness or futility of political dialogue and try to keep each other honest and make sure the power of politics is used for the good of our freedom. Troy, I would share several Tequilas with you if the opportunity arose. I think if we talked about family, friends, aspirations and especially photography, we would have a lot in common.

And I would drink your ass directly under the table. As well as your sidekicks. Combined.

Drink of choice is Mondavi Opus One.

One bottle to share with friends is enough. Cause I'm a lightweight when it comes to booze (FIL was an alcoholic that drank himself to death - so I take it easy)

Rush for President!

Not to get all serious again, but I do have a question for you, Ryan. I've noticed that hard knock conservatives never have a problem with the label. In fact, it seems to get placed fairly easy. Almost as easy as if you don't strongly dislike the president your a right winger. That doesn't really bother me, to be honest.

Now, what I am getting more perplexed about recently is that I know of very few people on the left who welcome their label. Not often is one labeled a staunch left winger (in the way that there are labeled staunch right wingers). Right wingers are okay with the label and left wingers seem to say (often enough, at least) "what is "left" anyways?" or "I'm actually not a hardcore lefty." I'm being completely honest in saying that nearly every person I've met who says that has ever been able to express significant differences with the left on substantial issues.

So, why aren't you a lefty but Troy is a righty? On what significant liberal issues do you disagree with Obama, for instance? I only ask because of you said you weren't a left winger.

Bobby

Stop playin'

Rush won't take the paycut to be president.

Rush is the only conservative out there that liberals actually tune in to listen to, call in for, and agree with...that oughta say it all :-)

No answer?

Sorry, Bobby. This thread is spent for me. My fingers are still bleeding and if after everything I wrote, THAT is the main question on your mind...? I think we have bigger problems...

Okay, it was late and that after re-reading your question, I see that it does have a salient end, though it's a little confusing. Apologies for the brisk response.

The term "liberal" was smeared VERY successfully in the 70's and 80's in what most historians agree was a willful ad hominum campaign which had little do with real policy discussion. Inevitably, when some folks on the right feel attacked, they staple anyone left of center to nutjobs like Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon...the list goes on and on. These people each represent a very loud, very public and very far left vision for our party and the country and have been elected more by the right as straw men than by a substantial portion of the left. So, yeah, I am not so keen on being squished in with that lot. Those hard-knock liberals don't mind the label either...and they scream it out loud while most moderate liberals cringe and wait for them to calm down while getting called all sorts of nasty names.

Where do I differ from the far left? I believe that a powerful military and the right to use it intelligently and with great discretion is important. I do believe that a limited nuclear arsenal is an effective deterrent. I believe that third term abortions should be illegal except in cases of incest, rape and when the mother's life is in very real danger. I eat meat and love it, though I would to limit the environmental effects of the factory ranching that go on. I do think that we should be able to detain FOREIGN enemy combatants with few restrictions. I think that in extraordinary circumstances, waterboarding is an effective interrogation tool that may need to be used. I think all government sponsored unions, gay or straight, should be civil unions. You want to get married? Go to church. This is a more moderated position, but it does separate me from the lefty flock.

I could go on, but I think that addresses most of the hot button issues which pertain to your question. That and Tami has been screaming for my blood...she's such...an instigator. Oh and Troy...sadly, Mondavi recently died...so you can be sure a bottle of Opus One is on the horizon for us in his memory.

Hey Ryan,

Welcome to the conservative side.

About the only things I didn't see in your post was:

Taxes
Role of Big vs Small government
Entitlement programs.

I think that most of what you endorsed above fits the conservative side more than the liberal side.

And, yes, a memorial bottle of Opus One is required. Did you know it was Mondavi that got Coppola to reopen the vineyards he was living on? Coppola invited him to dinner, and Mondavi brought a bottle of wine --- Coppola loved it and asked where it was grown.

"Right here on your land!"

Really appreciate the respectful reply after the initial dismissal

I guess I'm confused on where all of those "nutjobs" that you noted differ from Obama, Ted Kennedy, Hilary, Edwards, Dean, Pelosi, etc...

Seriously, if you believe all of this, I just don't see why you will vote for Obama. I actually like the guy. I've said on more than one occasion that I would probably love having him as a neighbor. I don't like that one of the most left senators is being portrayed as a moderate and one who will unite everyone, however. Everything you stated that was "far left" almost unanimously goes along with Obama's ideology. So, if you're actually a moderate (I mean this generally - not you personally), I don't see how you could vote for Obama over McCain considering how McCain is far more moderate (in the sense that he embraces quite a few things that conservatives don't) and Obama is about as far left as a senator gets.

Bobby

Hahah...nice try guys...I need to be about Troy's age to go conservative and I've got another what...like 40-50 years? But I will bite and write a little diatribe on why I consider myself liberal more than conservative.

What you didn't hear me say is that I am very much in favor of diplomacy first and far beyond the bounds of what most foreign policy conservatives would deem prudent. The military should be used judiciously and any need for a long term commitment should give us more than a bit of pause. It's pretty clear from Scott McLellan's book that the worst fears of the far left are pretty true insofar as it pertains to the Bush Admin's lack of serious thought about the consequences and post-invasion policy in Iraq. Democrats may have voted to authorize the war, but the so-called planning has given leverage to the far left and that's the NeoCon's own darned fault.

I believe that first and second term abortions should be legal without exception and definitely without parental notification. Case in point: these FLDS polygamist yahoos who are breeding a generation of young girls to slake the sexual appetites of charismatic, authoritarian church leaders. Young men are pushed out of the communities to make sure men have no competition for wives. A young woman at the age of say...13? She should be able to get an abortion because she is being coerced into sex without the right of adult consent.

I think we should be regulating food, drug and oil companies aggressively because the only way those markets "correct themselves" is when the companies start to hurt. Previous to that, the customers are the one who bear the brunt of mistruths, poisonous contents and price gouging. (Why the HELL are we still giving these oil companies ENORMOUS incentives and tax REBATES!??? We should take that money back and invest it in companies who are developing clean, efficient energies...no brainer...)

Also, screw this nonsense about "torte reform"...payday legal cases for consumers are one of the only tools they have left to force companies' hands. Those damage awards may be gratuitous in terms of what individuals get, but the companies need to HURT from consciously deceiving customers, allowing unsafe environments and actively deciding to gamble their customer's safety in order to increase their bottom line.

Tax the SHIT out of everyone. We are in the middle of the war and we need to pay for it as well as the upcoming 10 TRILLION dollar debt. Wasn't the budget balanced in 2000? Who is fiscally conservative? We also need to invest heavily in infrastructure, green energy and EDUCATION. We need to start investing in our country's long term viability. All of these things would create jobs, pump money back into the economy and provide stability for future generations while safeguarding our democracy.

I think the "big/small" argument is dead. Making government smaller for the sake of it is foolish and short-sighted. Now if we need to balance the budget...sure...cut wasteful spending, but do it in a bipartisan way if possible. Even then, the so-called "conservatives" have done nothing like it. They have grown government in the last 7 years...ballooned it, just as Reagan did, while cutting regulatory controls...which is really the juice behind the "small government" argument. It's been amplified by lobbyists to inflame the libertarians while at the same time, helping their proft margins. It's sort of a disingenious argument...not sort of...definitely is.

We need so-called "entitlement programs" to create a lowest standard of living for all Americans, even if a significant number of people abuse it. It keeps crime low, federal medical expenditures down, makes our populace less likely (in extreme circumstances) to take up terrorism...it essentially is a shock absorber. I know it sucks and why don't people plan better, save more, eat less, but we have a responsibility to make sure that people have the cushion to take the risks needed to better their station while also making sure the consequences for failure aren't consistently death, extreme poverty or prison. Our federal government is the last line of defense in protecting those who have been stripped of choice by poverty, abuse, neglect or oppression. It can't be a sufficient democracy when people are starving or under threat of violence.

You also have to realize that this is like a game of tug of war in our political system. You don't pull just to keep the other guy in place. You want things to pull in your favor. There always has to be SOME hyperbole when it comes to political expectations. The president is capable of some unilateral decision-making, but each side has to just slightly overwhelm the other and you do that by pushing harder than you think you need to and sometimes supporting people you disagree with in order to get things done. Neither the Republican or Democratic parties are true ideological monoliths. Both are coalitions for the sake of convenience. It blows my mind when people mindlessly offer up fealty to every talking point on a party platform. If you have no disagreements with your party, then you are a fool. I mean a holy hell of a fool and shouldn't be voting.

Back to foreign policy in a fashion, I am VERY against the imprisonment of any U.S. citizen outside of our domestic legal system. I don't care if the person kills thousands, it is of the utmost importance that we don't let a single person choose who gets put in prison and for how long, much less executed. It strikes to the very core of our values. Once we give up our right to a trial, the government will eventually abuse it. People will be extraordinarily rendered to Guantanamo because they have information which harms the president or someone important, including affairs, malfeasance or plain old treason. There are times when habeus needs to be suspended, but it needs to be put back and FULL inquires need to be made about everything done after the fact. It cannot be a permanent condition.

I think McCain lost his way in 2008. I think Bush crushed the last bit of hope and replaced it with cynicism. I don't trust him on Iraq. I completely disagree with his foreign policy platform. I think his lack of support for the G.I. Bill is completely embarrassing and his support for this insane gas rebate for the summer should give people pause when considering his "straight talk." His turnaround on evangelicals as "agents of intolerance" should worry everyone on both sides.

Voting for Obama is as much about perception as it is policy. We need to show the world a new hand. We need to shake things up and put our regulatory system back into place. I think your claim, Bobby, that he is the "farthest left" is untrue. Have you heard what Denis Kucinich is proposing? How about Nader or Chomsky? These people are the far left. It may be convenient to neglect them to paint Obama's moderation as extremist. Obama is a liberal in his platform but a moderate in his tactics, which accounts for a lot. Obama is going to be asked to compromise from all sides and I believe he can do it intelligently. Have we seen the guy get ruffled yet? I mean, really ruffled? He has the temperment to make good decisions under pressure.

Have we seen McCain get ruffled? Yeah, and that leads me to believe that he won't behave responsibly and make good decisions when he is under pressure. Also, the dude is freakin old. I know people may perceive this as agism, but the likelihood of him succumbing to disease, wear and tear or something like Alzheimer's are quite high. I am not hiring him to be my plumber...I want the guy to work 16 hour days EVERY day with no freaking vacations at his ranch. I want our well-being to weigh HEAVILY on him. Have you seen how much presidents age in four years of office? McCain will turn to dust after four years of what's ahead. I don't want my president to be unable to do his job because he fell down in the Rose Garden and broke his hip or got a chronic flu.

Wow...bringing it full circle...nothing like Bill O'Reilly ruffled. Can people really defend this? I mean the dude is at his job, I don't care what job he has, but he just completely loses his freaking mind on the set and starts screaming obscenities like a 14 year old.

Oh and Tammy...we need to secure our border and create reasonable Visa and citizenship laws. We need to protect our country from terrorism...not Mexicans. Let's make them citizens and bring their families in. They will bolster our blue collar workforce tremendously. They will give us a pool of fresh recruits for our army. And it will go a LONG way towards strengthening our relationship with Mexico. Need I remind anyone about the leftist revolution in South America? Mexico needs to be solvent and powerful as an ally and a buffer against pressure from the south.

RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTY RANT RANT

Oh and as far as nukes...someone mentioned nukes earlier...we need enough nukes to destroy the other guy completely. After that, it's like hunting quail with a bazooka...expensive and dangerous overkill.

Real quick, I don't think I said that Obama was just the "farthest left." I added "senator" to that, I believe. If I didn't, that's what I meant. Who cares how far left Chomsky is. He's not running.

There's a lot there that you wrote (much of which I disagree with, of course) but I guess so long as you acknowledge that you, the moderate, are voting for one of the most not moderate senators over one of the most moderate senators, I'm cool. My point is rarely to change peoples' minds. It's just to add clarity. The clarity here? That Obama comes across as a moderate - but is in fact no moderate, pragmatically speaking (and I see nothing wrong with that. But I do see something wrong with people believing he is something he isn't - namely a middle of the road moderate). I don't argue that he isn't one of the most eloquant, presidential candidates I have seen in my young life - because he is. I personally would LOVE a black president who has the personality that Obama has - I just need to have some values lined up in order to do so. I simply want people to know that they feel they are getting a moderate - but they are not. But hey, some people like feeling better about their candidate over picking the one they actually are aligned with most (as far as values are concerned).

Fun talking

Bobby

And as far as the O'Reily video goes, I don't care one bit and find it childish that so many think that this somehow matters. I don't care about private things, for the most part. I didn't care about Bill Clinton's scandal. I didn't care about Cheney saying the "F" word. I don't care about O'Reily flipping out years ago. I have NO idea what these matters have anything to do with the points that these men try to make. It's petty and ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care who it happens to.

Three words for Scott McClellan's stories being true.

He... was... fired!

He's in dirty politics payback mode.

Kiss and tell books on both sides of the aisle can be trusted about as far as you can throw one underwater.

Interestingly, Primary Colors -- a work of fiction -- seems to be a more reliable witness than most of the political kiss and tell books over the last 20 years.

Another Obama vid: Lefists will love it.

PS: Ryan... you've only got 9 years til you're my age.

Eh? Nah...that's just a mirage, Grandpa Troy...sleeeep....sleeeeeeeep.