4,000 dead Americans

[EricMM 0]

but the danger is, is that they work in concert.

 

Oh come on.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The argument was that Iraq and Al Qaeda were related as far as the overall War on Terror was concerned. I've posted countless times about how establishing stable democracies in the Middle East was central to Bush's plan for fighting this war. I won't do it again. Do a search. I will say that, after Afghanistan, Iraq was the perfect, justified, target to advance freedom. Now, I will totally agree that things are not going well. But if they continue to decline, the answer will not be one you like. The initial plan was the idealistic one, if we have to switch to a practical one, it will involve pulling troops out, as far as a ground war is concerned, and then leveling strategic cities throughout Middle Eastern countries. And then when they get built back up and get too powerful, knocking them down again. I prefer the idealistic solution, because I still believe there are moderate peace loving people that live in that region.

[EricMM 0]

And THIS ^^ good people, is why you need to GET OUT THE VOTE in two years time, so that Spicy, and people who think LIKE Spicy, never have any say in anything ever again.

 

Ever.

 

*spit*

[snuffbox 0]

How do people come to be neoconservatives? At what point in their educational development do they entirely miss the point that political views have never, and can never, be succesfully forced on foreign people via warfare?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

How do people come to be progressive liberals? At what point in their educational development do they entirely miss the point that all people innately crave freedom and inherently deserve it?

 

Eric, your post speaks volumes. You've always been fairly ignorant, and terrible at reading comprehension and using the written word to get your point across. But beyond that, you've always placed what you think is right above the freedom of others.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

the perfect, justified, target to advance freedom.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I knew I'd get the "But they didn't say it literally" response. That's never what I said in the first place. I said that there was an implication that Saddam/Iraq and al-Queda worked in concert to make the 9/11 attack happen. You're simply changing the terms of debate.

[Art Sandusky 0]

How do people come to be neoconservatives? At what point in their educational development do they entirely miss the point that political views have never, and can never, be succesfully forced on foreign people via warfare?

This was unnecessary.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Now you are not only lying, but you're delusional.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Okay, to thank you for the post you made after the one I was responding to, I'll take delusional and change it to mistaken.

[snuffbox 0]

See, you just called me a progressive liberal...which is what a Bill O Reilly or Anne Coulter say about ANYONE that does not subscribe to the Iraq policy (or lack thereof). It matters little to you what my repeatedly stated views are, if I oppose the current War in Iraq than it automatically means 'progressive liberal'. It's like the 'you people oppose the 2nd ammendmant' that you recently pulled out of nowhere to defend your support of Presidential wiretapping. Of course, you complain and try to assure us that you dont watch the Factor & you dont simply reguritate 'opinions/views' from whatever talking points attract you.

 

Question - When has the neoconservative idea of 'coerced freedom' ever worked? Throughout all of history, back way before the term 'neocon' was ever coined...please give one example.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

You called me a neoconservative first. Seriously, are you this dense? Can you not see that I phrased my post EXACTLY like yours to prove a point. I guess I have overrated your intelligence. I'm not much for sarcasm tags and obvious implications. I figured you could see the point was not me calling you a progressive liberal, it was how stupid it is to throw out labels like that without knowing anything. I have repeatedly asked you to name issues so you can see where, exactly, I stand. You won't do it. Because you think it's easier this way.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Economic Left/Right: 5.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

[EricMM 0]

Look Spicy, we can do this over here or over there, I don't care.

 

But the fact of the matter is this: your advocating the routine leveling of cities is absolutely shit, and I won't treat it any other way.

 

There is no worse way to do this. Doing it that way may be better than doing nothing, but there is more than one way to do it.

 

Fairly ignorant? Please.

[Guest Felonies!]

INGREDIENTS

 

* 2 pounds skinless, boneless chicken breast halves - cubed

* 2 cups sliced carrots

* 2 cups frozen green peas

* 1 cup sliced celery

* 2/3 cup butter

* 2/3 cup chopped onion

* 2/3 cup all-purpose flour

* 1 teaspoon salt

* 1/2 teaspoon black pepper

* 1/2 teaspoon celery seed

* 3-1/2 cups chicken broth

* 1-1/3 cups milk

*

* 4 (9 inch) unbaked pie crusts

 

DIRECTIONS

 

1. Preheat oven to 425 degrees F (220 degrees C.)

2. In a saucepan, combine chicken, carrots, peas, and celery. Add water to cover and boil for 15 minutes. Remove from heat, drain and set aside.

3. In the saucepan over medium heat, cook onions in butter until soft and translucent. Stir in flour, salt, pepper, and celery seed. Slowly stir in chicken broth and milk. Simmer over medium-low heat until thick. Remove from heat and set aside.

4. Place the chicken mixture in bottom pie crust. Pour hot liquid mixture over. Cover with top crust, seal edges, and cut away excess dough. Make several small slits in the top to allow steam to escape.

5. Bake in the preheated oven for 30 to 35 minutes, or until pastry is golden brown and filling is bubbly. Cool for 10 minutes before serving.

[EricMM 0]

Chicken Pot Pie?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What about the fact that the President simply hasn't done a good job running the war in Iraq? Where's the accountability? Hey, maybe it was a good idea to remove Saddam either way, but we're still bogged down there, while US advances in Afghanistan seem to be slipping away, and we're unable to respond in meaningful ways to threats from North Korea and Iran. Plus, we have fewer allies than before. But hey, the President had good intentions, so I guess we just let him get away with it.

 

Ahem.

[snuffbox 0]

See, the reason I called you (Spicy Higgins) a neoconservative is that you are wholeheartedly defending the policy of attacking countries and forcing them to live under our political system. You say the exact same things..."Everyone wants to be free!" and then you repeatedly use that as a reason for nation-building. It is the single most glaring trait of neoconservatism, and you are fiercely adament about it. You offer NO other explanation for why we invaded Iraq EXCEPT the neocon-policy talking points and you struggle to find any faults in this particular War. So, you're not being called names, you are being labeled with a word that fits your philosophy re: this issue.

 

And now, again, please offer ONE time when the neoconservative idea of coerced-freedom has EVER worked. And, again, you get the entire history of mankind to work with here. One, please.

[snuffbox 0]

It also requires more than the results of an online quiz to determine your political philosophy. A libertarian wants free borders (illegal immigration loses far less jobs for Americans than outsourcing), less laws (none of this banning gambling by tucking stuff into appropriations bullshit, no more hugely expensive/largely worthless War on Drugs), and lower taxes for ALL Americans (which will never happen if we continue to waste money with such follies as the Iraq War & the Great Wall in Texas).

 

So, your quiz results tell you that you are a libertarian...yet you support the invasion of countries, huge expenditures, a wall around the border for more cash spent, and wiretapping (infringing on the rights of Americans is not a popular idea amongst libertarians). Forcing another country to adopt the political philosophy of another is extremely authoritarian, your quiz results notwithstanding.

 

At this point, the only area where the GOP compares to libertarians (the real conservatives) is on gun control. After going farther with the drug war than any other administration, adding laws like the gambling ban, starting wars, etc...todays Republican Party has no claim to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater.

[Guest Felonies!]

You say the exact same things..."Everyone wants to be free!" and then you repeatedly use that as a reason for nation-building.

Maybe he's an extremist BoDean. Instead of being closer to free, he's going all out.

[BUTT 0]

Yo what up Spicy Higgins.

[snuffbox 0]

You say the exact same things..."Everyone wants to be free!" and then you repeatedly use that as a reason for nation-building.

Maybe he's an extremist BoDean. Instead of being closer to free, he's going all out.

 

What happened to the Party Of Five joke?

[SuperJerk 0]

Economic Left/Right: 5.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

 

No foriegn policy category?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hey guys, guess what?

 

Here's mine:

 

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 0.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

 

And yes, I answered all questions honestly.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Eric, start naming alternatives. If you're going to criticize, you need to have a solution in mind. "Do it differently," is not a solution. I just said I advocate the idealistic solution, but it's seeming less and less like it will work. I'm not suggesting the possibility of leveling every city. If you want an example, let's talk about Iran. I'm talking about attacking their nuclear locations as well as their capital, if it is justified. And then, IF they start rebuilding their nuclear capabilities, leveling those again. You have absolutely no common sense.

 

I3K, the accountability decision was exercised in 2004, the president was reelected in the most decisive election in 16 years. Now, the accountability decision can be exercised in the upcoming election. And then again in 2008. I don't agree that were unable to respond in meaningful ways to North Korea and Iran, because we wouldn't use a ground invasion anyway.

 

Snuffbox, first of all, your criticism assumes that Freedom is just another ideology in a long list of equally valid ideologies. Perhaps it's unintentional, but you come across as someone who thinks all forms of government are the same, whether they be communist or Democratic... I hope I'm mistaken. I think government is a necessary evil, and as such should be as limited as possible in its effect on its own citizens. I also think Freedom is special, and yes everyone does want to be free. And no, I do not think other countries should live under OUR political system, just a free one. I don't understand how the concept is acceptable in Afghanistan and unacceptable in Iraq. You're telling me the reasons I'm defending this, and yet you've neglected the countless examples of my posts in which I show why a free Iraq is necessary for the idealistic solution to the war on terror. I'm completely at a loss to understand how you can write that I struggle to find any faults in the war. I have only posted about why I feel the war is justified, nothing about how it's going. Also, every instance in human history of people asserting their freedom is an example of coerced freedom. All freedom is coerced because it involves overthrowing some power and asserting your rights.

 

I want: a closed border (for the purposes of national security, and if you're against that you're truly out of your mind) but open immigration, less laws, wholesale drug legalization, and lower taxes. Military/national security spending is the last thing we should be cutting in an effort to lower taxes. Start with every welfare program, none of that should be done by the government. I support the invasion of certain countries, when justified. I'm completely against huge expenditures. I'm against unlawful wiretapping on American citizens, but in favor of wiretapping terrorists. I don't support forcing another country to adopt my country's political philosophy, but I do support fighting for the right of the oppressed to be free. "Freedom" is different than "the exact same political philosophy as the United States".

[snuffbox 0]

I think the 'social' part of that lame quiz deals with some foreign-policy as well.

[snuffbox 0]

Again, closed border = higher taxes. The majority of Americans' taxes havent been going down under Bush, and this big spend will only drive them up even more. Or, we continue to go into debt to other nations. Or, we can keep doing the old LBJ trick of waging expensive war and letting all social issues at home falter away.

 

But anyway...when was the last time 'coerced freedom' ("You guys are free to ignore our permanent military bases!") worked? Seriously, one example will do.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Read my post.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

You better source the claim that most Americans taxes are not down.

[snuffbox 0]

Do you collect a paycheck? Did you collect a paycheck in the 1990s?

 

I dont think anybody is denying that the only tax cuts have gone to the wealthy, they just use the trickle-down(pissing on) reasoning for it. Or do you really believe the tax cuts were for everybody? Again, we go back to using talking-points as your reasoning.

 

Wars (like in Iraq) are very expensive. Ive already tried explaining to Imvader how much a Great Wall will cost. Does money just appear out of the blue as long as we keep the GOP in control?

 

Again, please give one example (out of many attempted) where a nation has accepted it's invaders? When has your belief in coerced freedom EVER worked? You did not give an example in your post. If its worth this much money, if its worth scarring a generation, if its worth having permanent bases built there...you should probably have at least a modicum of precedent on your side to override the laundry list of failures for this strategy.