User Tag List

First 39474849505159 Last

Results 481 to 490 of 798

  1. #481
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From Pat Buchanan at The American Conservative:

    Come Home, America—and Republicans

    The Country needs a Strategic realignment

    In that year of happy memory, 1972, George McGovern, the Democratic nominee, declared he would chop defense by fully one-third.

    A friendly congressman was persuaded to ask Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to expatiate on what this might mean.

    The Pentagon replied the Sixth Fleet might have to be pulled out of the Med, leaving Israel without U.S. protection against the fleet of Adm. Sergei Gorshkov, and provided the congressman a list of U.S. bases that would have to be shut down.

    Radio ads were run in the towns closest to the bases on the Pentagon list, declaring they would be closed and all jobs terminated, should McGovern win.

    Something akin to this is going on with the impending sequester.

    A cut of 7 percent, $46 billion, in Pentagon spending, says Army chief Ray Odierno, will mean a “hollowing” out of his force.

    The Navy? The carrier Harry Truman will not be sailing to the Persian Gulf. The Abraham Lincoln will not be overhauled in Newport News. Thousands of jobs will be lost.

    Reporter Rowan Scarborough writes that the Air Force has produced “a map of the U.S. that shows state-by-state the millions of dollars lost to local economies,” should the guillotine fall.

    Military aid to Israel may be cut, says John Kerry.

    But if an evisceration of the national defense is imminent, why did Obama not tell us in 2012? Why were the joint chiefs silent, when they are panicked now? Are the generals, admirals and contractors all crying wolf?

    Undeniably, spending cuts by sequester slicer, chopping all equally, is mindless. And with the national security, it manifests a failure of both parties to come to terms with the world we are now in.

    The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is gone. Mao’s China is gone, though a mightier China has emerged, as America’s share of the global economy is shrinking. Moreover, as ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen contends, our greatest strategic threat is not Kim Jong Un or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the soaring national debt.

    And if, as Republicans insist, we have a debt crisis because we are “spending too much,” spending will have to be cut—discretionary spending, entitlements and defense. And the only question about the defense cuts is not whether they are coming, but where.

    What is needed is what America, since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, has stubbornly resisted doing: a strategic review of all U.S. commitments abroad to determine which remain vital to the national security. Before we decide what our defense forces should be, let us determine what is in the U.S. vital interest to defend at risk of war.

    Start with NATO. In 1961, President Eisenhower urged JFK to bring home the U.S. forces and let the Europeans raise the armies to defend themselves, lest they become military dependencies.

    Yet, more than 20 years after the Wall fell, the Red Army went home, East Europe broke free and the Soviet Union fell apart, we have scores of thousands of troops in Europe.

    Why? The European Union’s economy is 10 times that of Russia. Europe’s population is twice Russia’s.

    Why are we still there?

    Though we have given NATO war guarantees to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, our McCainiacs want them handed out to the Ukraine and Georgia. Yet no president in his right mind is going to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over some Caucasus dustup or Baltic brawl.

    If Richard Nixon could achieve a modus vivendi with Chairman Mao, have we no statesman who can patch it up with Vladimir Putin? A first step might be to pull all U.S. missiles out of Eastern Europe and put our democracy-meddlers on the next plane out of Moscow.

    Even as Ike was telling JFK to bring the troops home from Europe, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was urging JFK not to put his foot soldiers in Asia—advice not taken there, either.

    On retirement, Robert Gates said any future defense secretary who advises a president to fight another land war in Asia ought to have his head examined. So why do we have 28,000 U.S. troops in Korea and 50,000 in Japan?

    In his Guam Doctrine, Nixon declared that in any future Asian war, we should provide the weapons to our Asian allies and they should do the fighting. Does that not still make sense today? Before we can decide the size and shape of our defense budget, we need a consensus on what we must defend.

    And if Republicans wish to remain a viable party, they cannot delegate these decisions to the “We-are-all-Georgians-now!” crowd that plunged us into Iraq and is bawling for intervention in Syria and war on Iran.

    The GOP desperately needs a credible, countervailing voice to the uber-hawks whose bellicosity all but killed the party in the Bush era.

    Obama is president because of them. And his most popular act, according to voter surveys from 2012? Ending the war in Iraq.

  2. #482
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    You know Republicans have hit a new low when even "pro wrestling" mocks them with a villanous Tea Party character.


  3. #483
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    You know Republicans have hit a new low when even "pro wrestling" mocks them with a villanous Tea Party character.
    (mod note: insult removed)

    For a more substantive position take George Will's position on the manufactured nature of the sequester "crisis".

    From the Washington Post:

    The manufactured crisis of sequester

    Even during this desultory economic recovery, one industry thrives — the manufacture of synthetic hysteria. It is, however, inaccurate to accuse the Hysteric in Chief of crying “Wolf!” about spending cuts under the sequester. He is actually crying “Hamster!”

    As in: Batten down the hatches — the sequester will cut $85 billion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget! Or: Head for the storm cellar — spending will be cut 2.3 percent! Or: Washington chain-saw massacre — we must scrape by on 97.7 percent of current spending! Or: Chaos is coming because the sequester will cut a sum $25 billion larger than was just shoveled out the door (supposedly, but not actually) for victims of Hurricane Sandy! Or: Heaven forfend, the sequester will cut 47 percent as much as was spent on the AIG bailout! Or: Famine, pestilence and locusts will come when the sequester causes federal spending over 10 years to plummet from $46 trillion all the way down to $44.8 trillion! Or: Grass will grow in the streets of America’s cities if the domestic agencies whose budgets have increased 17 percent under President Obama must endure a 5 percent cut!

    The sequester has forced liberals to clarify their conviction that whatever the government’s size is at any moment, it is the bare minimum necessary to forestall intolerable suffering. At his unintentionally hilarious hysteria session Tuesday, Obama said: The sequester’s “meat-cleaver approach” of “severe,” “arbitrary” and “brutal” cuts will “eviscerate” education, energy and medical research spending. “And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.”

    “Forced”? The Navy did indeed cite the sequester when delaying deployment of the USS Truman. In the high-stakes pressure campaign against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, U.S. policy has been to have two carriers in nearby waters. Yet the Navy is saying it cannot find cuts to programs or deployments less essential than the Truman deployment. The Navy’s participation in the political campaign to pressure Congress into unraveling the sequester is crude, obvious and shameful, and it should earn the Navy’s budget especially skeptical scrutiny by Congress.

    The Defense Department’s civilian employment has grown 17 percent since 2002. In 2012, defense spending on civilian personnel was 21 percent higher than in 2002. And the Truman must stay in Norfolk? This is, strictly speaking, unbelievable.

    The sequester’s critics correctly say it is not the most intelligent way to prune government; priorities among programs should be set. But such critics are utopians if they are waiting for the arrival of intelligent government. The real choice today is between bigger or smaller unintelligent government.

    Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it, warns that the sequester’s budgetary nicks, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product, will derail the economy. A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.”

    Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.

    Because crises are government’s excuse for growing, liberalism’s motto is: Never let a crisis go unfabricated. But its promiscuous production of crises has made them boring.

    Remember when, in the 1980s, thousands died from cancers caused by insufficient regulation of the chemical Alar sprayed on apples? No, you don’t because this alarming prediction fizzled. Alar was not, after all, a risk.

    Remember when “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” (New York Times, May 21, 1975) with “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976) which must “stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975)? Remember reports that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973)? Armadillos were leaving Nebraska, heading south, and heat-loving snails were scampering southward from European forests (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Newsweek (April 28, 1975) said meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that cooling would “reduce agricultural productivity.”

    Today, while Obama prepares a governmental power grab to combat global warming, sensible Americans, tuckered out with apocalypse fatigue, are yawning through the catastrophe du jour, the sequester. They say: Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the hamsters of sequestration.
    Last edited by Randomnity; 02-25-2013 at 10:31 AM.

  4. #484
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The only thing hitting a new low here is your brain's ability to form a cogent or salient thought.
    Oh, now we're going for petty insults? If you're going there, at least be relevant and personal. Don't waste your shot.

    If you cared about the R party, you'd laugh too. This is what happens when you cater to the far right - even the wrestling crowd thinks you're funny.

    And before you think you can churn out some reply that I'm from the left, and don 't care about Republicans myself, know that I once voted for GW Bush ().

  5. #485
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Oh, now we're going for petty insults? If you're going there, at least be relevant and personal. Don't waste your shot.

    If you cared about the R party, you'd laugh too. This is what happens when you cater to the far right - even the wrestling crowd thinks you're funny.

    And before you think you can churn out some reply that I'm from the left, and don 't care about Republicans myself, know that I once voted for GW Bush ().
    I don't think you're from the left.

    *mod edited to remove insults*
    Last edited by Vasilisa; 02-24-2013 at 04:38 PM. Reason: remove insults

  6. #486
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I don't think you're from the left.

    *mod edit to remove insults*
    Nonsense. I think you just value one kind of argumentation style. One where you expect to be guided through every fact, piece by piece. To me, a picture is worth a thousand words. My argument is within the image itself (or in this case, a video).

    My point is that Republicans have lost their centrism. Even the politicians who have been right of center have catered to the far right. Demographics in this country have changed enough that Repubs needed to re-strategize. But instead of appealing to minorities (which is the new strategy now.. and one GW tried somewhat), they relied on building up their base instead. And they went to the far right to do it. The Tea Party, the libertarians, the minutemen types, even more extreme than usual evangelicals (some of these evangelicals don't even think Bush was conservative enough). Building up the base is always a bad strategy, I think. This is a Centrist country. What's happened is that it's gone so far right that they lost to a fairly beatable incumbent President, in a shitty economy. And it's gone so far right that even the WWE is spoofing them. That means the WWE crowd might be centrist. This is what I find amusing. I think Vince McMahon himself is Republican - and I think the demographics of wrestling fans isn't all that liberal either. I grew up when wrestling "villains" were the Iron Shiek (Arab fear) and Nikolai Volkoff (Russian fear). Now there's a Tea Party villain.
    Last edited by Vasilisa; 02-24-2013 at 04:41 PM. Reason: removed repeated insults

  7. #487
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Nonsense. I think you just value one kind of argumentation style. One where you expect to be guided through every fact, piece by piece. To me, a picture is worth a thousand words. My argument is within the image itself (or in this case, a video).

    My point is that Republicans have lost their centrism. Even the politicians who have been right of center have catered to the far right. Demographics in this country have changed enough that Repubs needed to re-strategize. But instead of appealing to minorities (which is the new strategy now.. and one GW tried somewhat), they relied on building up their base instead. And they went to the far right to do it. The Tea Party, the libertarians, the minutemen types, even more extreme than usual evangelicals (some of these evangelicals don't even think Bush was conservative enough). Building up the base is always a bad strategy, I think. This is a Centrist country. What's happened is that it's gone so far right that they lost to a fairly beatable incumbent President, in a shitty economy. And it's gone so far right that even the WWE is spoofing them. That means the WWE crowd might be centrist. This is what I find amusing. I think Vince McMahon himself is Republican - and I think the demographics of wrestling fans isn't all that liberal either. I grew up when wrestling "villains" were the Iron Shiek (Arab fear) and Nikolai Volkoff (Russian fear). Now there's a Tea Party villain.
    Oh no I understood all of that and that that was what you were trying to convey.

    That just adds nothing to the conversation about the future of the party.

    You just enjoy skewering the tea party, and (in my estimation) disagreeing with me, and will take any opportunity to do so, regardless of whether that is germane to the discussion at hand.

    More to the point regarding your inability to have an original political thought, 2005 - 2010 called and wants its argument about the right being to strident and extreme back.

    Way to parrot every thoughtful journalist of the last half decade.

    We've moved on and are working our way through a reformation currently. How professional wrestling has anything to do with politics I don't know.

    Duh most wrestling fans are right wing. The sky is also blue and water is wet.

    So if you want to contribute, feel free to try, maybe you have thoughts on the sequestration which happens to matter right now (with the march 1 deadline coming up).

    More likely you don't.

    Either way, spare us your gotcha journalism esque proclamations.

    Tell me something I don't already know smart guy.

    EDIT - the libertarian wing is also going to end up being a big portion of the future of the party. They will force the social moderation we need to craft a message attractive to modern voters. They will also be willing to sacrifice the golden calf of military spending, and entitlement spending, and currently have the market cornered on actual willingness to cut government spending.

  8. #488
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Either way, spare us your gotcha journalism esque proclamations.

    Tell me something I don't already know smart guy.
    lol.. Gotcha journalism? You're way to close for comfort with politics, man. As if everyone else you're conversing with is some political insider or intern playing the same game as yourself. I'm not trying to parrot anything or playing "gotcha". If I wanted to do that, I'd mention my own Senator, Ted Cruz.

    If this is all so obvious, then why did Obama win? He could have lost. If you detached for one second, you'd see I'm not even championing the "left". If that's the type of thing that you call stupid, you're your own worst enemy. Swinging at the air, indiscriminately. "You're stupid!" Derp.

  9. #489
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    That video says something about the mcmahons, but it will only say something about the republican party if those villains last which I just can't imagine happening.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #490
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    That video says something about the mcmahons, but it will only say something about the republican party if those villains last which I just can't imagine happening.
    Actually, I heard the wrestler got in some trouble with a DWI, so probably not.

    They should keep the manager though. Find another wrestler.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO