Firestarter

Ditto everything JMA said. Arnold is the man.

Rather a piss-poor example, Mike. Executives of the DeBeers diamond cartel don't dare to set foot on United States territory for fear of being arrested and thrown into federal prison on charges ranging from maintaining illegal monopolies, price gouging, exploitation of workers, and being accessories to war crimes, among others.

Oh please. This is an issue that, in time, will be looked back upon as simply and constitutionally protected as giving women voting power, and our children's children and their children will wonder why we didn't stop bickering and just get it done sooner. Possibly. In the meantime, our children's children and their children are a few decades away, and the election is in less than 14 months.

Maybe, if you're referring to Jewel's "poetry." Or Maya Angelou's, for that matter.

It was an idea that you yourself admit is completely unrealistic. Come up with a better hypothesis and I'll listen.

I don't know what you're talking about. Just because certain attitudes the article advocates (double standard on the use of force, &c) were found in imperialist countries in the past in no way means that the article is advocating imperialism per se. Even if it were, it wouldn't matter. The United States cannot become an imperialist power. The Constitution doesn't allow it, the economy doesn't need it, and the people wouldn't stand for it.

1. Landmines are used extensively in the DMZ between North and South Korea, yes. And yes, they serve a vital strategic purpose there. 2. US landmines are far more advanced than any other country's, and are equipped with standard remote detonation/deactivation systems, which means they pose practically zero threat to civilians after a given conflict is over. Therefore it makes perfect sense in both strategic and humanitarian terms to insist on other countries adhering to a ban on landmines while refusing to sign it ourselves.

Just like AoO and Breetai, you missed the point completely. What Pipes and Harris advocate breaking is not the rule which forbids mass destruction and the murder of civilians, but the implicit acceptance of militant Islam as a responsible, honourable, and respectable power which abides by the same codes we do. Neither pre-emption, nor the rehabilitation of Moslem polities, nor a double standard in the use of force inherently violates any moral standard recognised by the civilised world. Your childish sarcasm is directed against an argument no one has made.

Further documentation of this trend can be found in two more columns by Dr Pipes: Victory Shifts the Moslem World 100 Bin Ladens on the Way?

"The Treasury is issuing a new $20 bill with more colors, including light blue, pale green and peach. They're responding to the complaint that the $20 wasn't gay enough." - Conan O'Brien

Bullshit. Everyone predicted that "the Arab street" would rise after we invaded Afghanistan. It didn't. The Arab street was very loud before we invaded, yes. As soon as the Marines landed, it went as quiet as a mouse. Barely a squeak could be heard. Very few "death to America" chants, even in Iran. Yemen suddenly wanted to be our best friend. Saudi Arabia cracked down on its militant imams without even being asked. Pakistan pledged absolute support. Even Saddam Hussein shut his mouth for a few minutes as thousands of cruise missiles roared into the Taliban's "impregnable mountain fortresses" and blasted them into fine powder. Not one Arab opened his mouth as real Hellfire sent thousands of the "unconquerable warriors of God" to an earlier appointment with Him than they were expecting - those "warriors" that didn't switch sides as soon as they saw a Marine releasing the safety on his rifle. Posters of Usama bin Laden went unsold on the streets of Pakistan. The foreign "fighters" of the "die-hard Taliban" turned tail and ran for the border. Invasions and wars only breed terrorism if we lose. And that's simply not going to happen.

Correct. In its proper context, "We killed your leader because he murdered innocent people and supported or committed acts of terrorism." Almost correct. Again, in context, "You will either change or refuse to act upon those beliefs which require you to murder innocent people in order to serve your god. If you encourage, support, or commit such murders we will hunt you down and we will kill you. Please note that Jews are defined as people. If you do not accept this definition and you murder Jews we will also hunt you down and kill you." Correct. In context, "You have rejected both the benefits of civilisation and the codes of conduct civilised behaviour requires. As a result you are too evil to compromise and too weak to conquer. Now you are reaping the inevitable harvest of your evil and your weakness. Stop whining."

You completely misread the article; it advocates nothing of the sort. Here is what it does support and advocate: Nowhere in the article is there any advocacy for using terrorism against terrorists. Nowhere does it advocate the murder of civilians, mass destruction, suicide bombings, or the use of chemical weapons. The only measures it advocates are strategic, social, political, and legalistic in nature: measures that render worthless the Moslem strategem of exchanging powerlessness for power.

Maybe, but where's the beef? Go Arnold!

Nope. It won't. Yes, I realise I'm being ambiguous, and I'm being ambiguous for a reason. If you're talking about "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," he hasn't done very much at all, really. And that's why he'll win.

What about the schools it left on life support? The Act is more concerned with children than schools. I realise it's hard for a Democrat to understand how that can be a good thing. Much like vouchers, I suppose.

Tyler, I'm not talking about the war in Iraq. I'm talking about the broader war against militant Islam: the "War on Terrorism." No. The fact is that one year before the election, the economy is already recovering. It will only continue to improve. The Democratic candidates are using a short-term issue to gain ground in the primaries, but in the long term, it will butcher their nominee nationally. Cato is not a conservative institute. Anyway, by "base" I was referring to Christians, foreign policy hardliners, supply-side tax-cutting conservatives, and other groups that the President's policies have consistently pleased. I guess we'll see. My prediction is that it will be a nationwide landslide for the President, and furthermore, the DNC is fully aware of this. In fact, the smartest Democrats are betting on it.

You're out of your mind. There's no other way to explain this. An incumbent facing zero primary opposition with absolute and unqualified support from his party's base. An ongoing, protracted, popular, and overwhelmingly successful war made necessary by a national tragedy. A recovering economy. Whether or not anyone's life has improved doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if every single person who voted in 2004 had seen a major decline in his quality of life. However you want to characterise the 2004 election, it can't be called a "crapshoot."

... No matter what you think of the President or his policies, that sort of confidence is simply insane. Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? Jesus Christ, a crapshoot? I don't even want to know what you're smoking. Mike said it best. Your polisci teachers are robbing you of an education.

He should. His performance was, well, a miserable failure. Oh dear, is that phrase trademarked?

Tyler and JotW are correct. The 9/11 attacks had little lasting impact on our economy, and the marginal recession had begun before they occurred.

What charming naivete.

Yep. Just as in the past I called threads on other boards rejoicing in lower approval ratings for Clinton (in the middle of the Starr fiasco) right-wing circlejerks.

It's all right, I'll take him away. <takes Vyce by the elbow and leads him out> Sorry he interrupted your left-wing circlejerk. Carry on.

Incidentally, I hear you're a journalist. Do you work for The New York Times, by any chance? Just curious, because it'd explain a few things - like their consistently intelligent, objective, eloquent, and carefully-researched articles. I'm a great admirer. Really.