Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nice red herring C...Frank. Stay on point an answer these questions: After 2/26/93, how many troops died in response to WTC attack #1; and how much treasure did Clinton squander in response to WTC attack #1?
Next Question: How much safer our we today, as a direct consequence of Mr. Bush's War on Terror?
BTW, wouldn't someone whose house burned down make sure to take precautions in the future?
Just once it would be nice if someone, anyone, who defines themselve as a conservative would define a serious problems (such as health care) and suggest real world solutions.
I am not a conservative but will nevertheless accept your invitation.
Healthcare has been regulated by the government since 1840.
But , in spite of that, it was substantially affordable before 1965, before the Medicare/Medicaid wet into effect.
Accordingly, the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, ....get government at all levels the fuck out of healthcare
Let the invisible hand of the FREE MARKET regulate healthcare or forever hold your peace and pay the consequences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Nice red herring C...Frank. Stay on point an answer these questions: After 2/26/93, how many troops died in response to WTC attack #1; and how much treasure did Clinton squander in response to WTC attack #1?
Next Question: How much safer our we today, as a direct consequence of Mr. Bush's War on Terror?
BTW, wouldn't someone whose house burned down make sure to take precautions in the future?
Ringel05,
I'm unsure who you addressed in your post above, but I will respond.
I am sure of one thing, we are no safer today than we were on Sept. 10, 2001 or Feb. 25, 1993 - the world is a dangerous place and each day we do nothing to ease tensions it becomes less safe.
We will never be safe, there are always risks and dangers. Both can be mitigated but never eliminated, and that is the point I'd like to make.
Bush II exacerbated the tensions and thus created greater animus towards our nation by the peoples in the ME. He and those who served in his administration, in particular Cheney and Bolton, are bullies. They operate with the mind set that might makes right and the end (as defined by their jingoistic ideology) is justifed by what ever means benefits the United States. Worse, the United States, in the minds of neoconservatives, is not our people, or our Constitution, or even the rule of law; rather, it is business, profit, wealth and power.
If not for oil why would we care if the Iraqi people suffer under dictatorship? Are we the police force for the world? Sen. Goldwater (a REAL conservative) thought not.
But I digress. The only way to mitigate the hate against us is to understand why we are hated, and to change our behavior. That does not mean we surrender to terror, or cower in the face of adversity, it simply means we think of new ways to interact with others who share the world with us.
There's time to kick some ass and time to make peace; we need wise leaders who are strong, not bullies too dumb to know the difference.
A real world solution to national security? That's pretty easy. Where are the threats, and why are we threatened? Once defined, enlightened leaders can structure a foreign policy appropriately. We can refrain from calling our adversaries evil, seek common goals and work towards peaceful and mutually beneficial solutions.
You know, it's not as if a terrorist attack on our country was unexpected, it was the stuff of novels and made for TV movies for years before 9/11.
George W. Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11 and his actions subsequently have only exacerbated terrorism world wide. Rather than strengthen our defenses, Mr. Bush has squandered them, along with the lives of over 4,500 members of our armed forces.
Jingos, because that's what today's conservatives are, see the world through a very narrow lens, I suspect, because at their core they are scared. Fear of those who look different, worship a different way, fear of change, and especially fear of ideas that challenge them to question their beliefs.
Yeah, we did that after the first WTC attack.
How'd that work out for us?
It worked rather well, the perps are in prison for life. Did you ever wondered why the WTC was a target just 36 days after Clinton assumed office? Or have you ever considered the phrase, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"? Simple little things but the consequences of not thinking critically are huge.
Jingos, as I think of neoconservatives, are too narrow of mind and too arrogant to govern or to debate. Consider the posts above, one, suggests I'm too lazy to work and expect a handout - she's wrong on both counts - and another who implies the policies of George W. Bush in reaction to the WTC attack of 9/11 were superior to that of Clinton's reaction to 2/26.
What evidence is supplied to support the later assertion? None. There never is evidence supplied to support neoconservative ideology, it is all based on emotion of which hate and fear are two of their favorites.
Convictionand continuing questions. The trail of investigation would eventually lead to Ramzi Yousef, who authorities believe was in the van that delivered the explosives to the WTC. With him was Eyad Ismoil. Also implicated in the bombing, along with Salemeh and Ayad, were Ahmad Ajaj, Mahmoud Abouhalima, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. On March 4, 1994, a jury found Salemeh, Ajaj, Abouhalima, and Ayad guilty on 38 counts, including murder and conspiracy, and the judge handed down multiple life sentences.
Yousef fled the country, and engaged in other terror plots before he was captured and brought to the United States from Pakistan in February 1995. He was sentenced to life plus 240 years. As of 2003, Yasin had not been captured, and was believed to be in Iraq. In October 1995, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric who taught at mosques in Brooklyn and New Jersey, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the attack. But some observers wonder whether the roots of the 1993 WTC attack run much deeper.
The fact that Yousef is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top figure in al-Qaeda, suggests a strong connection between the 1993 conspirators and the group who ultimately brought down the towers eight years later. After the September 2001, attack, it was the opinion of many investigators and analysts inside President George W. Bush's administration, that the perpetrators of that attack had a state sponsorIraq. A number of details, including the fact that Yousef was traveling on an Iraqi passport, as well as the date of the 1993 attackthe second anniversary of the U.S. liberation of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf Warfurthered suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 incident. Mohammed was later involved in masterminding the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, and was arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003....
Yes Annie, it worked rather well. Perfect, no, but little in life is. I stand by my post wherein I suggest Bush&Co (and the neoconservative ideology spelled out in Project for a New American Century) is wrongheaded and has made us less safe. That said, I agree thourghly with Ringel05 when he criticizes me for a "Modernistic" cop out.
In response I defend myself by admitting Bush was only the latest of three generations to fail to understand the culture; mistakes were made in 1920 when GB was given control of Iraq by the League of Nations and by each and every President of the United States and PM of the UK since that time.
The why is easy: OIL. But this is not the place for a history lesson, it is the place for a discussion on "what now".
As I stated, Bush&Co made matters worse; Obama has changed course, to use an old metaphor; sadly, the conservative wing of the Republican Party wants to put us back on the course that lead us to where we are today.
We are quite a bit safer with the policies booooooooooosh implemented.
I have, as you suggest, asked myself how the media impacts current events and I've concluded it's impact is the best of and the worst of; an informed citizenry is necessary for a democratic republic to thrive. 24-7 news does inform and educated; yet, it no longer (if it ever did) stands apart from current events, it excelerates events, changes them as well as the players and the observers.
Elected officials and media moguls understand this very well, and use the dissemination of information to benefit themselves (yes, follow the money is good advice).
My problem with the 'conservative chic' (those "typical conservatives" you note above) is they are generally anti-intellecutual. I see very little critical thinking and even less honest evaluation/examination of core beliefs. It has become a philosophy filled with platitudes whose talking points are generally (mostly) based on emotion and not reason.
I spend some time listening to Limbaugh, Hannity and Dobbs and other 'leaders' of the "typical conservatives" speak (Gingrich, Palin, McConnell, Steale); such an activity requires active listening, for each in their own way, has mastered the art of sophistry. Now, I'm not suggesting the other side is not similarly motivated to employ invalid arguments to deceive, but it does appear to me that the motivation is different. And that is why I reject both the neoconservative ideology as well as those I see as adopting conservative ideals (the conservative chic). Objectivism is to me a rejection of the liberal paradigm which is the foundation upon which our great nation was founded, a rejection of the social contract encapsulated in the Preamble to (our) The Constitution.
It seems the hoi polloi of conservative Republicans and conservative independents are bereft of ideas. Never have I read a post from this class which suggests thought, all (and I'm not engaging in hyperbole) of their comments are negative.
They, as a group, never define problems - though they always blame (fill in the blank, liberals, Democrats, progresssives, women, non-whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews) and never accept responsibility for problems or errors.
Typically they post the daily talking points, propaganda, lies, half-truths and rumors issued by leaders of the Republican Party (and The Dear Leader of the Republicans seems to be Rush Limbaugh).
Just once it would be nice if someone, anyone, who defines themselve as a conservative would define a serious problems (such as health care) and suggest real world solutions.
Morning Ring...my post above was in response to Yank.
Let me ponder your most recent post, and I'll get back with a response, maybe tomorrow. Today is my (and my wife's) 35th Wedding Anny, and I need to get a move on. We're heading to the coast for lunch, some beach time and a nice dinner.
We live about 30 miles from the coast (actually east of Berkeley, two sets of hills from the ocean, so the high here will be close to 100, at the beach it will be around 70).
Take care, I appreciate a real debate and thank you for posting an honorable opposition. I do listen (or read and think about other views when I'm not called names).
Wry.
).
Let the invisible hand of the FREE MARKET regulate healthcare or forever hold your peace and pay the consequences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right.... like the deregulated banks - THAT'S who we want doling out life and death treatment - greedy & corrupt CEO's. Oh wait... that's what's happening now... Do you people pay attention at all???
