Government Shut Down

[Adak]

Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war with Al-Qaeda and their supporters, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. That was mandated by the oath of his office.

Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.

Too bad that it took the military years to figure out how to win the Iraqi people, over to our side.

Bush wasn't a conservative, especially in his fiscal policies, but at times he was close to it, in social policies.

I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages you receive. Because I've never received one, but messages that are blatantly wrong, sound more like disinformation messages. Sent out by radical liberals, the source could hide under the guise of Conservatism, to discredit the right. I don't know if that's the case, but it sounds suspiciously like it.

I used to believe "that would never happen", but now I absolutely know differently. The radicals are out there, and wow! are they radical!

I don't listen to enough talk radio to have caught any racist baloney, but I'm sure it's out there, just as it is in every walk of life, if you look closely enough, long enough. The people I listen to are pragmatic, and color is not an issue. If you can do the job well, you're hired. If you can't do the job, then you're not hired. Simple as that. If you have a problem working with a person of color, you need to get over it, because that is your problem.

@Griff:
Yes, the Democrats are anxious to negotiate. The only pre-condition to the negotiation, is that the Republicans give them EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT, FIRST.

*A large increase in the debt ceiling - because the Dem's don't want to have this debate again in just 3 months.

*No changes for introducing Obamacare.

Does that sound, even faintly, like negotiations? Oh Hell No! Harry Reid has already stated that no House Bill amending the shut down, or causing any delay to Obamacare, will even be voted on, by the Senate. A few he did let through, because they were politically, too hot to turn down, but the rest - absolutely not!

This is Harry Reid we're talking about here.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war ...
Iraq was a poor decision...
Bush wasn't a conservative, especially ...
I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages ...
I don't listen to enough talk radio ...
<snip>

There's that mouse again...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.

That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.

Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.

Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.

Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.

Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.

NO! Saddam was looking to get a quick conquest on a rich little country like Kuwait, because his own economy in Iraq, was in utter shambles. Yes, he thought we wouldn't mind, but our Ambassador NEVER told Saddam it would be OK.

Saddam wanted to be a big shot in the Middle East, and throughout the Muslim countries of North Africa. There was a power vacuum after Egypt's failure in the last war with Israel (and their subsequent move to peace), and Gaddafi's step back from supporting WMD and terrorism.

He never wanted to be a US ally. Quite the contrary. If he could get our oil companies to spend a lot of money re-building his oil facilities, he would be glad to do it, but he wanted to be big in the Middle East, not a sincere ally of the US.

You know Limbaugh makes a lot of sarcastic comments, and you're taking one of them, entirely out of context in your quote.

If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.

And note: They also are the only large collection of people, who actually pick up their own trash, after an event!

What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.

Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist

What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.

So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.

Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.

They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist

So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.

A little balance to reality is always a good thing. Several reporters have interviewed the Occupiers, and they admitted they were paid anywhere from $15 to $40 per day, to be there and demonstrate with them.

Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.

They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.

I quite agree with Occupy, on some points. For instance, clearly Wall St. was coddled in the recession, despite the fact that they magnified the intensity of it, considerably.

But look at an Occupy demonstration after they're done, and it's utterly trashed, to say nothing of laws being broken, riot police being needed, and property being damaged.

Contrast that with the Tea Party demonstration. It's left clean, property rights are respected, and no laws are broken. There's no riot police needed, no tear gas, no molotov cocktails thrown - none of that. (and no rapes!)

I'll reluctantly admit that Anarchists are people, but since I have NO desire to live as the Cavemen did, I just can't follow their beliefs very far.