I've don't know what omnislashing is, but I have no arguments with Vindibudd's response.
Now to show where he messed up...
The problem is not filibustering that keeps the Democrats from passing insta-veto bills, the problem is that the Democrats are trying to build a veto proof majority and the only way they can do that is by cutting pork deals with everyone. Not even all the Democrats want a withdrawal bill. Another problem is that they are trying to tack on withdrawal deadlines to funding as well and that rubs a lot of people wrong.
I am specifically calling for more "stunts" as you call them. These "stunts" would pin the republicans and moderate democrats to this misbegotten war in a way that would guarantee their expulsion come election time. Also it would show exactly how many of our politicians have been bought.
The Democrats were filibustering judges which is outrageous and until the previous congress had never been done in the history of the senate. The Republicans were not mad that the Democrats were filibustering bills, they were mad, and rightfully so, that the Democrats were filibustering federal judge appointments and acting like children instead of allowing up or down votes.
This is wrong. Here's proof:
(which no prosecutor can really refuse ... it's a legal thing), and the White House claimed it was because she was not good at her job.
There are several on the list who the White House had little to no reason to fire for incompetence, but were reluctant to pursue obviously trumped up voter fraud charges or were too interested in Republican misdeeds.
Now, Vindibudd is correct. The President can hire and fire prosecutors at will. Usually presidents do this at the beginning of their first term in office. Clinton Did. Bush Sr. Did. They all did. It is extremely unusual to do it in the second term but not illegal.
But if the White House did fire the prosecutors to prevent a crime from being discovered, then that is a criminal misdeed. If there is a way to find out if that happened without an investigation, I don't know what it is. I suppose since it's a Republican Administration, we should just take them at their word, right?
They are more interested in hunting administration heads than they are about doing the business of the country and the country according to approval ratings are getting fed up. It's just like when the Republicans were trying to impeach Clinton.
Yep. Politicizing the judiciary to the point where it is used as a tool to punish or reward one's cronies is exactly the same as exposing a bj in the White House.
That's out of context there, Ronson. What Snow was saying was that Bush wants to see the US in Iraq as a force of stability like what the situation is in South Korea, which is to say, South Korea is stable and doesn't have terrorists running around all over the place. To compare the Korean Conflict with the Iraq War is not valid because Iraq is not in a civil war.
I'm sorry Vindibudd. I hate to break it to you. Most people see what's happening in Iraq as a Civil War. Colin Powell has said it, several retired generals have stated it, Most scholars accept it as true but debate the beginning of it
Now, I understand you don't want to call it that. And there's still a very small sliver of daylight between a completely in your face civil war and what we're seeing in Iraq. You might not know this but dozens of headless bodies turn up in the street EVERY DAY. Sometimes they're Sunni, sometimes they're Shiite. I suppose we could just call it religous and regional terrorism directed at citizens of Iraq by citizens of Iraq...you know, if it makes one feel better to do so.
No one cares that we are in South Korea because there are no terrorist bombings going on all the time in South Korea.
The point isn't that we don't care, it's that it isn't a solution. A peaceful negotiated settlement should have been accomplished between the Koreas. It hasn't because they are intractable.
And I don't see how I took Tony's quote out of context, but will not split hairs with you. Either way, Snow claims that we will be in Iraq indefinitely, spend American dollars (and many lives) there, with no forseeable end in sight. Doesn't sound like a great plan to me.
Considering the reasoning for the ceasefire in effect there, yes, I would consider that a victory. Or maybe you would have rather had an all-out war with Communist China and the Soviet Union vs. the United States? Me, not so much. But have no illusion, the U.S. would not lose that fight.
I think a better solution could be found. But I suppose China has figured out other ways to fight since then.
This is just plain incorrect. The Republicans are anything BUT the epitome of party unity. For Pete's sake, look at Olympia Snow. Or you can look at the recent immigration fiasco, not much unity there.
Yes, there are a handful of moderate Republicans. The immigration fiasco is another thread and this is already too long by half, but the reason for it getting killed has nothing to do with party unity and more to do with who signs the politicians checks.
Conservatives stand for smaller government. Period.
But they vote for politicians who bloat the government every bit as much as the most liberal Democrats, even moreso with Bush.
Republicans in general are for strong national defense and limited interference in people's regular lives.
Except for the wiretapping, the sneak and peek investigations, redition, disappearing, torturing, the anti-choice loonies, the anti-gay loonies, the anti-stem cell loonies, the ones who want to force prayer into public schools or force Intelligent Design theology into science books ... the list goes on.
And I don't agree with the first bit either. Republicans are for "looking like" we're doing something strong on defense. The first thing a Republican does is destroy diplomatic relations by proving we can do it all by ourselves. Then they critique (constantly) any of the checks and balances that our Constitution put in place to protect the citizens from tyranny. Your own stance against investigations into potential criminal behavior proves that. What about Pat Tillman? What about Jeff Gannon? What about the outing of a covert agent? What about voter caging lists? What about eavesdropping without a warrant or even without legislation legalizing the eavesdropping?
If it was a Democrat, the republicans would be all over this stuff. The difference is, people like me would be right there with them. The bj that Clinton lied about was enough for me to want him out of office, but Bush has literally killed thousands of our soldiers using fake intelligence and the republicans pretend like it didn't happen.
If you want to talk about liberal brains and loyalty, how about Susan McDougal who rotted in prison for months rather than testify about Clinton in the Whitewater investigation. A real shining example of someone not being blindly loyal right there. I can go on, but there are more important points to address.
I forget, what political office was Susan McDougal elected to? Wait, I'll google it... huh, lookee there, none
I'm not talking about blind party loyalty. Both sides have that. I'm talking about the elected officials who refuse to work with the opposition because of political maneuvering. I know both do it, but the Republicans do it more and don't care who they hurt in the process.
Decades? The Democrats held the house for 60 years. Republicans? 12.
I'm talking about the specific "government = bad" mentality that exists today. Even I have it to an extent. It was pushed beginning in the Reagan era, but it has become the standard of too many politicians today. And I did blame the Democrats for bloating the government to the point where it was a meme that could be exploited.
1. The best way to help the average American worker is to give corporations and the super-rich (billionaires) more money so that they can retool their businesses to run with less (and cheaper) people and to create products that don't last as long so that everyone has to buy them more often.
That's too nebulous to respond to.
Sorry you didn't understand.
This is not brainwashing, this is standard politics from both sides.
Again, the republicans popularized it to the point where it has become a standard for both sides. The republicans still get a little more play with it because they (for inexplicable reasons) are considered strong on defense.
The military is not a bureaucracy so that is where that statement breaks down.
I'm not a member of the military, but I have been given to understand that it certainly is a bureaucracy. Maybe Phantom Penguin can chime in and straighten that bit out?
Whew. I bet no one reads this last sentence.