Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 441 To 450 Of 657 Comments
Nick:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.04.2009 @ 10:35
For the "liberals" here trying to exchange ideas with citizens of all stripes, please STFU.
You didn't beat anybody. You didn't run for office. Nobody voted for you.
If you actually wanted "liberals" to be seen positively, please don't make such an a$$ out of yourself in "our" name.
@JPR:
You claim all politicians want to "dismember the USA". Name one."[Bush] at least had a correct ground rules, that too much centralized power is a mistake and goes against the American tradition"
Yes . . . When I think of W's tenure, the first thing I think of is an aversion to centralized power. Really his defining characteristic, don't you think?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.04.2009 @ 13:43
@Gayle Miller:
What Constitutional rights are being eroded?@Bob:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.04.2009 @ 14:22
Dems didn't win because of immigration or poor. Dems didn't win because of Obama. Dems won because of Bush and McCain/Palin. Bush made Republican synonamous with "lying incompetent weseal", and McCain/Palin, despite all their talk of change, appeared to the vast majority as Bush II. If the Dems had nominated a dead goat, it would have won.
OBAMA'S AFPAK PLAN JUST ABOUT RIGHT
Thanks for the information/education. Now, having fulfilled my "learn something new every day" quotient, I can happily melt my brain into tapioca with some cartoons.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.03.2009 @ 14:04
@B. Poster:
Upgrading I have no problem with -- the most expensive thing in the world is the 2nd best military, and as the nukes are our ace in the hole, they should be in top shape. Heck, the tech advances in rocketry over the last decade alone certainly deserve to be implemented.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.03.2009 @ 15:23
In addition to the upgrades, do you also think that the arsenal should be expanded? One thing I could never understand about the Cold War were the stockpiles of thousands upon thousands of nukes on each side -- as a Chinese general said when questioned about China's remarkably small number of nukes, "how many missles do you need to assure complete global destruction?"
Asuming we still have thousands of birds, we could probably drop/close 20% of the silos/launch vehicles, and the cost savings might cover the upgrades to the rest by itself.
I wasn't aware that warheads "go bad". Obviously, tech degrades over time, but do you mean that the fissionable components become unusuable? My physics education stopped well before nuclear mechanics, but I had just assumed that the material was stable and viable far beyond the mechanical/electrical components.
@B.Poster:
re: upgrade and expand our nuclear arsenal -- you don't think we have enough nukes to form an effective deterrent? (not being a smarta$$, I mean it as a serious question).@rssg:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.03.2009 @ 12:27
. . . nope, I'm at a loss. I was trying to come up with something snarky and flippant, but I'm just speechless. That's some serious, refined-plutonium-grade paranoia and xenophobia my brother.
@Eric Florack:
The question is -- do we need this?
As a positional paper, the Repubs state officially that they are for tax cuts, shrinking the size of the federal government, expanded offshore drilling, and so forth. Was there anybody in America that didn't know that already? These are the bedrock talking points of the GOP, and have been for years.
Its nice to re-state them and all, but bringing it out the way they did was laughable and embarassing.@Sal:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.03.2009 @ 13:34
"Why can't we elect repub leaders with brains?"
Because they are politicans -- the Dems hardly do any better.
When the prez race started, I looked at the full field on both sides and wept. These were the best and brightest America had to offer? Jon Stewart made a quip about how we had enough candidates to hold a baseball game.
A LETTER TO THE TIMES ON BOB HERBERT'S COLUMN PUSHING A THIRD AIRPORT FOR CHICAGOLAND
@manning:
y'know, there might be some real merit to that. As Mr.M noted, the political scene in Illinois is corrupt, and almost certainly will stay that way. By creating a specific centeralized "graft project", you'd essentially have a graft budget so a reasonable expendature could be incorporated into the state's finances, and hopefully by creating a specific feeding trough the pols would be encouraged to stop grafting other projects. It could be like "heroin parks" for politicians. And since the project is something nobody actually wants built, there would be no negative consequenes when it never gets finished.
I'm smelling a winner, here.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.03.2009 @ 14:16
ON FAILURE - OBAMA'S AND AMERICA'S
@ Mr. Moran:
"I would compare it to the left wanting Bush to “fail” in winning the Iraq War. Of course, they would never admit it but in reality, that is what they were advocating."
That is possibly one of the most moronic statements I've ever seen you make. Nobody said "I want the President to fail", but you know that's what the Lefties secretly wanted because . . . well, because otherwise they just objected to the premise and execution of the war. That would simply be principled opposition, and I guess that's too beyond the pale to accept?
I'll put that right next to "Lefties cheered whenever they saw dead American soldiers" so I can always remeber that, despite being a clear thinker sometimes, you apparently fall victim to the ignorant, insulting stereotyping exemplified by the nutjobbers as much as the next person."Are they going to try and convince us that they wanted Bush’s war policies to “fail” but they wanted the US to win in Iraq? That’s even too convoluted for a liberal. I grant them their sincerity in opposing the president’s policies in Iraq but is there any other way to look at it except liberals wanted the US to fail?"
Here's a newsflash -- liberals don't like seeing dead or suffering Americans. They wanted out of the war because it served no reasonable or legitimate goal. They wanted out, win or lose. If The Iraqis spontaneously became self-reliant in a week and we got the hell out, liberals wouldn't go "Damn! I'm so pissed we won! I love it when we, as a country, lose wars -- it makes me feel great to get beaten!"
"And if there is another way to see it, why not give conservatives the benefit of the doubt in opposing Obama’s economic policies?"
Two reasons. First, because they're not offering an alternative. Tax cuts? A spending freeze? Unfettered free-market capitalism? All wonderful ideas . . . but none of them fix recesions. Sure, there are conservatives with actual legitimate alternatives based in sound ecconomic theory. When I turn on c-span, that's not what I'm hearing from House and Senate opposition -- I'm hearing some version of "trickle-down ecconomics" which is too damn slow for the current situation. Liberals offered an alternative on Iraq: get out and take the loss. Not because losing makes them happy, but because if the ony legitimate American interest in staying is our ego, then that's not a good enough reason to get more Americans killed.
Second, The Repubs have been patting themselves on the back for opposing every thing Obama has done since day one. That makes their "principled" opposition suspect. After 9/11, most Dems signed off on the war resolution. Lots of Dems backed No Child Left Behind. Repubs are boasting how they're denying votes to the Administration. Maybe their opposition to the stim bill IS based on principles -- but it's pretty damn suspicious that they oppose EVERYTHING he's done or tried to do.
I'm lumping Conservatives and Republicans together in this rant, because most of the anger I see from liberals isn't targeted at conservatism per se. It's targeted at two main factions: Republican politicians and "Obama is a communist/socialist/AntiChrist/smear-on-the-soul-of-America" wingnutters. Conservatives are unfortunately inexorably linked to these two groups, and their shameful behavior smears a legitimate philosophical and moral ideology. Want conservatives to be respected? Get the hell away from these two groups, as far as possible. Take out Restraining Orders to keep 'em at least 100 yards from conservatives.
Just saw Newt on the box today. Asked about the stim bill, he commented about how Obama was doing everything wrong. Asked about economic recovery, he commented everything Obama was doing was essentially un-American. Asked about joblessness . . . Obama drinks baby blood. No alternatives, just attack Obama. That doesn't sound like "principled opposition" -- that sounds like "my party hates Obama with the cold intensity of a thousand dying suns, and if he magically made candy fall from the heavens for the children we'd complain about the how he's trying to give the kiddies cavities."
You've commented on the need to re-format the Repub party. You've recognized the harm the talking heads and the wingnuttia are doing to the body and soul of conservatism -- and then you wonder why non-reds aren't listening to your philosophy.@Steve:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.03.2009 @ 22:02
Define "self-interest". An ACTUAL threat to the homeland? That's what war is for. I don't know a single liberal who opposed rolling into Afganistan when they wouldn't give up Bin Ladin, for example. "He tried to kill my daddy"? "Y'know, I never liked that guy -- let's go get 'im"? "Let's use a tragedy to do some social engineering"? NOT what wars are for -- isn't that the basis of the Right's complaint against Obama? That he's using the recession to "re-make" America?
A BRIEF RECAP OF <EM>24</EM>: 4:00 pm TO 6:00 pm
Unacceptable.
"Ooohhh, I work. I pay taxes. I support myself and my family. I have moral and legal obligations."
As the Grand Poobah of the Omniverse, my edutainment clearly outranks your "need" to feed yourself and keep the heat on. Subsequent delays in 24 updates will be dealt with harshly. I'm not sure what . . . whatever Grand Poobahs do. But it'll be harsh!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.03.2009 @ 17:37
