Campaign 2008

[bobobrazil1984 0]

When did having actual foreign policy plans/ideas become naive? Was it around the time we decided to elect a President who though the leader of Pakistan was 'General, uh, General General'?

 

it's the fact that it's a BAD plan that seems to ignore the repercussions of what would happen in Pakistan. Musharraf's support of US is already hugely unpopular - he gets regular attacks on him by islamic fundamentalists - sending US troops into Pakistan is way high up there on "worst possible moves we can do" (right behind 'an iraqi occupation' ... err, wait)

 

seriously is there ANY way this doesn't result in Musharraf getting toppled and a strong anti-US islamic gov't in charge of Pakistan? Anybody?? Hello am I speaking from an island here??? Do you guys know something I don't about the Pakistan situation? If so now's the time to say it - I'm all ears, because I can't fathom how this is in any way a good idea.

 

Anybody who honestly believes that throwing troops into Pakistan is going to HELP matters in any way, is in my humble opinion, NAIVE. or stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, i'ma go watch youtube videos and read about video games. :-P

[snuffbox 0]

I guess I'm not too keen on being al Qaeda's bent-over bitch.

 

'They might topple General General if we bomb their camps so lets just let them play!'

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Obvious sleight-of-hand (or sleight-of-word?) trick from the recently returned snuffbox. Nobody has a problem with Obama holding a firm stance, the worry is whether this specific firm stance is rooted in a misunderstanding of the issue at hand, and the "General General" thing that was tacked on at the end was in no way germane to the argument.

[Jingus 0]

Plus, lots of evidence points to Bin Ladin hiding in Pakistan now. Just sayin'.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

That's great and all, but we'res till glossing over the part where an ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST REGIME IS SUDDENLY IN CONTROL OF A NUCLEAR PAKISTAN. In other words, exactly what we want to prevent from happening in Iran.

 

Whoops.

 

Then again there have been a lot of "Whoops" in the battle against terrorists, so it would just be par for the course.

[Jingus 0]

I'm confused, was that an "if we invade terrorists will get nukes" or an "if we don't invade terrorists will get nukes" post?

[snuffbox 0]

How does our taking out terrorist groups in Pakistan equate to the terrorists taking over control of the country? Has faith in our country reached such depths that we only feel our military is capable of beating up unrelated nations, staving off migrant workers, & spending a lot of cash?

 

And, yes, the 'General, General' thing is germane to the argument. It shows what leadership we get when we elect leaders who know nothing about foreign policy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think metro is arguing that a US incursion into Pakistan would be incredibly unpopular and create instability for Musharraf, who might subsequently lose power. That power vacuum would then be filled by some form of Islamist theocracy.

 

I think it's important to remember that Obama's comment was purely hypothetical, there would have to be "actionable intelligence" and Musharraf would have to deny US entry into Pakistan.

 

I think metro raises good points. However, I think in that case, if I was president, I would attack bin Laden/al Qaeda despite the risks. Coddling a dictator isn't a good enough reason to not attack the world's greatest villain/terrorist group.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ted Nugent threatens to kill leading Democrats, then does William Wallace impersonation.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Ted Nugent threatens to kill leading Democrats, then does William Wallace impersonation.

I posted this in the Music folder, but nobody seemed to care. Still hilarious though.

 

Off topic, but I remember when "Surviving Nugent" was on the air, and how disappointed I was that it was nothing like "The Most Dangerous Game." Come on, who wouldn't want to watch that?

[King Kamala 0]

Semi off topic- but wasn't a then unknown Tila Tequilla on Surviving Nugent?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ted Nugent, truly a man's man:

 

Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment...

 

"... if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd kill all the hippies in the foxholes ... I would have killed everybody," he told the Detroit Free Press in an interview published July 15, 1990."

 

editorial in Chicago Sun-Times

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

More effective, but less amusing, than wearing a Toledo Mud Hens jersey over a dress, I guess.

[St. Gabe 0]

hey, how about that Ron Paul. He's both likable and sane.

[snuffbox 0]

I dont find being for both small govt & federal control over female bodies to be 'sane'. He was close, though.

 

To what extent will the continuing parade of Republican scandals play in the '08 elections? Foley, along with the financial scandals of others, certainly effected last November's outcomes...will the continuing downward spiral play up next year as well?

 

I think that people like Larry Craig are the only thing that might push the Republican Party back towards small govt/personal liberty/freedom. As of now the GOP is the Catholic Church of American politics.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think that people like Larry Craig are the only thing that might push the Republican Party back towards small govt/personal liberty/freedom.

 

I don't follow. How will Larry Craig trying to get himself some sweet man mouth while atop the crapper take the GOP to libertarian fantasyland?

[Jingus 0]

Especially since he's been saying "OMG IM NOT GHEY" in denial despite being caught hard at it. Do we need more blatant liars in government?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think what snuffbox might have been getting as was the fact that the GOP claims to be the party of conservative Christian values, but has seemed to fail pretty badly at walking the walk recently, with several scandals like this.

[EricMM 0]

Yes.

 

They won't be the party of conservative values because it seems that they CANNOT.

 

Except that isn't true. Even if every single person with an R next to their name is a closet pedo donkeyfucker whatever, they'll still vote for marriage between a man and a woman, and be anti-abortion. And that's what matters to the religious right. Not your morals, as much.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, I think you're right on that part.

 

I wonder if we might eventually see some kind of Christian Nationalist party try to rise up and sway religious conservatives, pointing to the failings of the Republican Party in regards to things like that.

[snuffbox 0]

These guys are politicians, first & foremost. If the 'moral majority' largely sits out an election, or if the Democrats can actually run thought-out campaigns, the GOP may have to look towards a sharp shift in their rhetoric from their current big govt/nanny state to the more classical Republican small govt stance. Lately though the political acumen of the GOP has been incredibly faulty. Yes, Rove & Co won in '02 & '04 on fear, but that is a recurrent but never constant or stable political strategy. It failed in '06 & will fail next year (barring another attack turning enough Americans into retards, or the Dems running another feeble campaign). The only crutch remaining for the GOP after fear is 'family values' & that is being noticeably weakened by Foley/Vitter/Haggard/Craig/etc.

 

There is a very good possibility of a 3rd or 4th party 'Christian' ticket siphoning off GOP votes. If that happens, 'small govt' may e their only option.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't think the time has ever been better for a third party in recent history, but I just don't see a real viable one rising up, barring a split in the Republican Party, or something along those lines.

[ZGangsta 0]

You gotta wonder how much all these guys hate themselves on the inside. There's no way you can be so hypocritical and feel good about yourself.

Mark Foley pushed for better laws against soliciting underagers online while doing it himself.

Ted Haggard evangelized against gay rights and for moral values then stole away every so often to score meth from and have sex with a male prostitute.

Vitter was a giant 'family values' pusher who enjoyed the call girls.

Craig was an anti gay rights crusader while clearly being gay himself.

I mean, there's got to be a huge amount of self-loathing going on to be so vocal against all these things while partaking in them yourself. And in the case of the gay ones, it's not like they were just closet gay and keeping it undercover for their political/religious career (like I'm sure there are plenty of politicians doing). It's the soliciting underage online/doing meth with male hooker/cruising bathrooms for annonymous sex stuff that they're into

 

I'm giving 2:1 odds on a sex tape between W and Karl Rove to be the next thing to come out. Don't try and tell me there was nothing going on between those two...

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Yeah, it's just basic reaction formation. Feeling guilty that they're homosexuals, they try to cope by trying to legislate it away, as if that will make them normal.

[ZGangsta 0]

Yeah, it's just basic reaction formation. Feeling guilty that they're homosexuals, they try to cope by trying to legislate it away, as if that will make them normal.

Like the homophobes who scream loudest about hating gay people are probably incredibly attracted to members of their own sex.

So how much do you want to wager that Ann Coulter is actually a lesbian?

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Asexual.

[ZGangsta 0]

Whoah, and I didn't know that this guy was one of the people behind (and a strong supporter) of the Military's anti-gay policies.

 

Don't ask don't tell indeed.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

From my outsider's perspective, I never got up in arms over don't ask/don't tell. I just always figured that it was best for all parties involved to not be open about anybody's homosexuality.

[snuffbox 0]

Hey, Chris Wallace, we only take our marching orders from al Qaeda in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a harsh critic of the Iraq war, plans to retire and will not seek the Republican presidential nomination next year, a leading Nebraska newspaper reported on Saturday.

-Reuters

 

I wonder if he'll run on the "Unity '08" ticket.

 

Also, his Senate seat is a likely Democratic pickup if Bob Kerrey runs there.