Interesting.... I wonder if the right-wingers will now rally around Huckabee?
Some wags have speculated that the GOP (thanks in large part to Bush) is headed for a very ugly divorce between the evangelical right wing and the establishment moderates, and this divorce could potentially split the GOP in half and lead to the formation of a third party.
Moderates won't touch Huckabee with a barge pole, and right-wingers seem to feel the same way about McCain. Could this be how the split happens?
LIG - I think you got it backwards on the republicans.
What's killing the republicans is their party got "big tent" in the 1970's when abortion became a national issue. Parts of my own family were life long democrats until 1971 when they became single issue republicans.
The republican party establishment is the conservative faction while the evangelical wing is the moderate. Either way, I agree that our political parties, Republican and Democrat are heading for breakups.
Not sure what to think about this election now. Surely Romney has less in common with the two democrat front runners. The election will now be more bland in my opinion.
I do think McCain has the ability to beat either Hillary or Obama, but the wild card is if the republican establishment boycotts the vote.
OBAMA WON CONNECTICUTS DELEGATES BUT HILLARY STILL GETS
THE MONEY.....DON'T KID YOURSELF THOSE YANKEES WITH MONEY
WANT HILLARY. I'M SURE HER COFFIRS ARE BEING LINED WITH THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE DOLLAR AND I'M SAD TO SAY IT BUT MONEY TALKS.
aquapura; Totally agree on the repubs & the Abortion 'issue'. They can't perform on the important issues, so they use the typical smokescreen issues like abortion to try & drown everything else out.
The main reason I'm behind McCain is that those repub clowns need some pull in a more constructive direction.
the reason I'm not strong on Hillary is that she's just got too much baggage & will add fuel to the ultra-right creeps.
The reason that I'm not strong on Obama is that he's Black...
Just trying to see if anyone's reading, cool them jets! The reason I'm not strongly behind Obama is that I think we need the experience factor .
Also, Obama can't pull the Repubs more to Center like McCain. I truly believe that's where most Americans are, or really want to be.
As for Rush Lmbaugh, he acts like a fat-ass that can't perform.
I'm starting to get the impression that McCain is 'Damned if he does. Damned if he Don't':
a) 'Konservativs' don't like him because he has reached across the aisle
Plus, there's that Illegal Alien thing. Funny how the Repubs say they want the Latino vote, but spew out the opposite rhetoric. except for McCain & .....ugggh Bush,lite.
b) 'The Left' doesn't seem to want him because we wants, for example, to finish the half-assed job in Iraq. Incidentally, this is a mjor reason that I am not behind Obama or Clinton. They don't hold my view that we must keep our International credibilty which Bush, lite has worked so hard to ruin.
...no, wait, he didn't work - he's been in the Lincoln bedroom w/ Jack Daniels since he's been in office.
As long as we use these people (and if you shop in a supermarket YOU have enjoyed the fruit of their labor) we owe them something. It is a matter of fairness no matter who is for or against it. After we solve that problem I do agree that we need to cut down and stop illegal immigration.
A wall will do nothing, except make conservatives feel warm and fussy. What we need is a brand new immigration system that acknowledges our need for this labor pool and their need for our money.
My spouse is an immigrant and through our experience at the DHS and immigration attorney we've talked with many immigrants about the issue.
I would tend to agree that legal immigrants oppose amnesty...then again they are shelling out a lot of $$$ to the DHS to process their immigration. You don't see the illegal aliens at that place. Not sure what their view is.
Eli, the cost savings in labor do not outweigh the cost in social services such as public schooling and emergency room care.
if farmers paid a healthy hourly wage (say $12-$14/hour) instead of the slave wages (less than minimum wage) they currently pay for illegal aliens, the cost of produce would go up about 3%.
so your head of lettuce would go from $1.00/lb to $1.03/lb
i'll take that rather than overcrowded public schools and emergency rooms.
and speaking of fairness, it's not fair to legal immigrants and blue collar workers to have their wages kept artificially low. isn't the democratic party supposed to be looking out for those people? strange ..
and barack, hillary, and mccain last summer all had the solution: just make everyone legal! problem solved!
at least it looks like mccain has come around - i'll more than likely vote for him this november.
I'm starting to think everyone has a family member in Iraq....just like everyone is Irish on Saint Patricks Day. I never have any idea
where my nephew is but he is in the military and I don't think you want me to be President.. Least no one has been putting money in my WAR CHEST!
Free....you really think McCain has done anything for immigration in ARIZONA.....I would like to know what if you can find anything. The guy sucks wind as far as I'm concerned. How fricking long has he been a leading senator...and I would say his back has been turned for so long to the issues of immigration that if you put him in a spin,
he would fall down a when he got up just ask for another bud.
the only thing mccain has done is to encourage more illegal immigration (with the hope! of amnesty)
he is a disaster on getting the federal government to enforce the not-broken laws already on the books. and he has the nerve to say things like 'i'm from a border state, i know what to do.'
my only hope is: he is finally talking like a convert to this simple solution:
1. build the fence (a double fence, not the reduced single fence).
2. throw employers of illegal aliens in jail (enforce the law)
3. jobs for illegal aliens will dry up, they will mostly self-deport
so if mccain is elected and then brings up the whole amnesty thing again, there will be huge public outcry (like last summer) to shut that bad idea down.
Patrick, what if there is a candidate that is good on the issues and people feel so strongly that THEY produce a video? That is not American Idol, you may want to dismiss it, but that is genuine idealism, hope for a better tomorrow that a candidate can bring.
Obama has more meaty substance out there (in his site, in his speeches, in his commercials and pamphlets, etc...) than anyone, PLUS he can inspire.
I would go as far as to say that your vote today will be utterly unethical, and probably undemocratic. do you want to suppress the will of the many in the democratic camp? if you want mc-daddy to win, have the guts to do it cleanly, not by engineering a campaign that you can be satisfied with.
aqua, are you saying that our bureaucracy is the best way to stop illegal immigration? You can come, but you have to stand in line FOR EVER.
Oh God no. I think the legal immigration system is a mess. Since 9/11 and the forming of the DHS from the old INS has just made things a bigger mess. The only way to speed up the process is to hire an attorney to handle the paperwork. Which is cheap because if you screw it up yourself you end up refiling and writing more checks for the processing.
And note that for my wife's case it was an easier process because she was already here on an employer sponsored visa, got married to a citizen and was going through the permanent residency process. You'd think it would be simple. The attorney was cheap because the alternative is getting deported and losing her work income.
Now oppose that to an immigrant w/out a skilled education or a US citizen sponsor or several thousand dollars to spend on legal assistance. I can see why we have illegals. From their standpoint making $5/hr under the table is probably easier...and instant.
Im honestly tired of the people who continue to whine this no-substance argument as if McCain or Clinton have ever outlined plans more detailed than Obama has on Iraq or Afganistan or Healthcare or anything else. I mean christ, martyr a guy for being able to speak and actually mean what he says. If you arent willing to read or think critically Im just not that interested in your superficial opinion based on some barely affiliated youtube video just meant to excite some young people or the 5 seconds you saw him on CNN.
On the Rand Corporation report, it seems a bit technocratic, but I am glad at least someone is noticing its gonna take more than more troops to repair the damage weve caused over there.
aquapura: my wife, being from Brasil, had to go through the process of getting her Green Card through marriage. Because she met me a few months before her I-94 'Tourist' Visa ran out, she ended up being an 'illegal' for about 11 months. believe me, we were worried like Heyll during that time (she's a great driver because of it). Also, during that time, the INS was transitioning to becoming part of the Homeland Security gang. As such, her Visa process took at least an extra year. Also, being illegal complicated things, but only a bit.
we had a lawyer, who charged us about $1000 to do what we could have done, but they did speed things up a bit. for the money, I'd probably say the price was somewhat worth it.
When we finally got to the end of the process, the Gov't really didn't give us a hard time about being illegal. Once we got our final interview, she had her Green Card w/in a month or so. Not too bad.
The thing that sucks is that we have friends who went through the same process (they were mostly legal) & their processing time was half of ours because they applied after the INS was folded into the DHS.
So, I am not gonna hammer on someone who's illegal, but they really should work to get legal, if possible. I will say though, that without having an H1B, student, Political Asylum or Married/Relative Visa, it's extremely difficult to get Legal. Most of the Illegals, in the USA, are there fto WORK. That's something that Americans generally preach as being good. it's ironic that someone trying to feed their family gets so much flack from lazy-assed American clock-watchers. Also, these illegals are helping a lot of people/companies to save money on work most Americans think is beneath them. That's a good reason to have a limited amnesty.
Hillary 08 - because she lacks personality and popular appeal. this is exactly what you are saying, but is actually the reason to vote against her, she cannot pull the country together.
How is his platform on Iraq vague? He wants us to get out, but in a considered manner. In his website you find the best case scenario, if conditions in the ground are not right there will be necessary re-considerations.
The difference: He will do this in a transparent open process, not constantly behind our backs. Do you want random charts and numbers, what would satisfy you?
By the way did you feel the same way with Bush, who was, arguably, the vaguest candidate in a generation.
Once again, Obama has been forced into being the MOST substantial of all candidate, while he inspires people with simple slogans: THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS.
Patrick, your contempt for the American "public" is just astounding. You think everyone in this country but yourself is a voidoid robot sitting in front of American Idol and being brainwashed by that Obama video. Then when someone here calls you on it you just say "well, I didn't mean you, just the general public"...huh?
The article by Rand which you posted leaves out a fourth and most important aspect in their list of three "COIN" capabilites: good intelligence work and infiltration. The solution in this country always seems to be firepower (see McCain). But these "global" terrorist networks are sometimes very loosely affiliated, and they are not protected by large armies or located in any one place. Tactically, the most effective solution is to try to stop these terrorist events before they happen: and it can be done. The 2006 "transatlantic aircraft plot" was foiled by smart British intelligence. An undercover British agent infiltrated the group and his work and good intelligence work in general prevented who knows how many people from dying.
But this aspect is where the US is weakest, mainly because this country prefers war as a solution to international problems and there is a huge military-industrial complex to keep fed. So, for some reason, many in this country, including you and McCain, think we are "babies" and "delusional" if we suggest that feeding billions more into Iraq and Afghanistan to make war there is not a solution that makes much sense, and that money could be used more "intelligently" to fight terrorism. Just because McCain has a detailed plan for Iraq doesn't necessarily mean it's a good plan.
Ah, but you're the only one doing the serious reading and thinking on this issue, so just excuse the rest of us peons.
MysteryMan - sounds like you went through the same deal as my wife and I did. She was here on an employer sponsored TN visa. Most of her friends in Canada had all expatriated to the US and she followed suit. But, her visa was more or less a 1 year contract which her employer kept renewing. Needless to say, she was living her life here just as she would anywhere else. We get engaged and immediately learn from an attorney friend that us getting engaged showed intent to stay in the country. The TN visa is not "dual intent" and was a direct violation. So, technically not illegal, had the DHS known of our engagement she would've lost the visa and had two weeks to go home. (Not really time enough to sell a house and move away from a life you've had for years.) That's what makes immigration so damn complicated. Pitfalls like that. So we did a hurry up marriage and eventually got the green card...and at the interview not a problem. C'mon, we were both gainfully employed, paying a LOT of taxes, etc. But, then there's the migrant farm worker making low wages. How's he supposed to do it the right way? For one he cannot afford to. Secondly, it's so damn complicated. All research we did said nothing about the "dual intent" stuff. Big damn mess if you ask me.
Oh sorry patrick, that wasnt really focused at just you, I was watching that red-haired analyst twit on Fox with a room full of people saying the same thing and Free Ramos' yammering and the whole argument just got on my nerves.
Anyway Im being flippant.
On the technocratic stuff, I mean I guess thats what a report like that is supposed to do. But there are a lot of just emotional intangibles that it leaves out, ones that I think in the end are almost more significant to achieving a real peace than the tactical nitty-gritty.
Patrick, I do read the discourse going on in European nations. The one is Italy is certanly not "substantial", rather just confusing and mostly political mumbo-jumbo, and this comes from the politicians themselves as a way to really say and do nothing. You also might have noticed that most European countries want very little to do with Iraq any longer.
I don't take your arguments "personally", but your smugness and knowingness, far superior to this "populism" you condemn, is really way irritating. You should really just step back and read what you write. So you came back from living overseas: hell, I was born overseas, and I certainly don't look at things from just USA eyes.
Your constant argument that we can't talk about some kind of ending to this war, just because it's being fought as we speak and your brother is involved is really just getting tired, and when I bring up points, as I did above, about other means to fight terrorism that would probably be much more effective, and where the US can do better, you largely ignore my points so you can go back and rant on the US populace.
Oh, and McCain's smug pronoucement that how long we continue the war over there is really not important, implying that people are just stupid to even bring it up, is even more irritating.
Obama's position (i.e. McCain will keep us there for 100 years, I will have us out tomorrow)
What these two are saying is that one would prefer to get troops out as soon as it is safe, but soon, while the other is saying that Bush was right the middle east will change with our blood spilled in its streets for 'democracy' and we need to put more troops and money into the thing. They are just saying it in political speak.
If I may, and I am not doing this to be witty or nasty, I have two questions for you:
1-what does you brother think of McCain's plan of an endless war?
2-what where his leanings before he joined the military?
knowing a lot of military people, i know that they are all different. you find some very conservative ones and funnily enough you find extremely leftists in there too. your predilections before you joined the military affect how you view everything, that organization is, after all, a microcosm of the the larger society.
Patrick, you know what is amazing? What is amazing is how you and your brother fear The worst nightmare of any military man is to fight a war in which politics makes them commit strategic blunders; restraint makes them lose ground or give up extra lives. yet you make no mention of any fear of politicians "creating" these situations to begin with. Now, having had many relatives serve in these wars that were against dying or fringe ideologies, I have to say you are both quite naive, irrespective of your brother's honorable service.
WWII you'd probably say was a war about conflicting ideologies, but I would venture that when millions and millions of people are executed for being one religion or another, or when that country attacks another and starts to destroy peoples and lands, it's the world's collective responsibility to stop the genocide.
Yet, why is it the world does not see your point of view? Please don't tell me they haven't been attacked, that's not an argument.
The "hawks" who was the last hawk that got it right? Perhaps Eisenhower said it best;
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
More later, because you give me so much to work with....
Patrick, Im honestly having trouble teasing a cohesive logic out of your first paragraph. I think this is a really important point, and one that McCain has rested his entire candidacy on. Id really like to know, please, how exactly does is fighting "gangs of thugs" in Iraq help in a fight against "radical islam"? This is what Ive meant from the beginning about this profound oversimplicification with with which these Washington ideologs view the middle east. These groups are not the same. They have different political agendas, different worlviews, different methods and different weaknesses. Youd think people like McCain would get a clue when sunni militias turn on al quada and different groups of mutually shia militia start attacking each other. The idea that this is somehow a monolithic cosmic battle between the evil "radical jihadists" and everything that is good about freedom in the west represents a worldview that is simply factually false. The man for all his military experience just does not understand this conflict for what it really is, and because of that ignorance he will never have any hope of doing anything but exacerbating it.
I think people like McCain need to take a sober look in the mirror and begin to ask themselves if invading Iraq has done anything but hurt our cause in the middle east. They need to ask themselves if saber rattling with Iran has done anything but hurt the moderate reformists in that country and vindicate Ahmadinejad. They need to ask themselves if what we are doing does anything but play entirely into Bin Ladens hands in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Has anything we have done since 2002 over there improved the perception of us held by anyone in the middle east or in any way made the world a safer better place? I dont think they could honestly answer yes to any of those questions, and it should cause them great pause to consider why that is.
Well, Patrick, I DON'T take personal issue with what you say, I just think you're a pompous, lecturing ass and feel the need to call you on it. And I wouldn't enjoy a trip with you either, so get bent right back, and have a nice day too (don't listen to Ani DiFranco). Oh, and what do you want for your "points"? How about a donut?
The worst nightmare of any military man is to fight a war in which politics makes them commit strategic blunders; restraint makes them lose ground or give up extra lives.
What beta said above about that quote is right on (as was the quote from Eisenhower). This exact thing was already done to your brother and other soldiers, and this by right wing "hawks". And maybe consider what oe said as well.
But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've read on and on about your contempt for the "idiotic" American public. Well, let me tell you about a group that gets on my goat, just like the other group gets on yours. These are people who justify any war, no matter how ill advised and foolish, by quoting Rand Corporation papers, Gen. Sherman, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Macchiavelli. They believe that the best response to an enemy that has a vicious ideology; where believers are willing to destroy themselves in order to destroy you; no standing army; no sovereign county as such; in place in cities and towns all over the world; pretty much infiltrated and living in society, this group believes that the best response to such an enemy is through overwhelming technological warfare, smart bombs, preditor drones, billions and billions of expenditure and serious loss of life and property. Or, like another country we all know, they surround the "insurgents" in a 20 foot concrete walls, along with a whole population. These are the best ideas they've come up with so far.
Rather than trying to infiltrate the enemy themselves, turning their tactic on their heads, they instead select a straw dictator which they can easily take down, do so in the guise of giving them "democracy", then proceed to make a shambles of that country, and have no real vision on how they will install this democracy or how they will bring the conflict to an end. Now, this is the governing facet of this group, but they have a large chorus of followers who will ape their philosophy.
And if you try to argue with this group about the fact that SOME WARS, not all, may be a folly and should be ended, they will turn the argument around on you and say you are "soft" and "decadend" and have no real understanding of the realities of war. Only they themselves have considered the issues, only THEY know the real price of war, thus only THEY can make this ultimate judgement.
This is the group I really fear, because they cause real damage and pain: the idiots sitting in front of Americal Idol, drinking their Bud, well, they're mostly harmless.
But now, don't you go taking this personally, I was just talking about this particular group.
Also, you picked and chose your response to my first paragraph, going with the easy target of Italy. Again, if Europe is having such a "substantial" debate on Iraq, considering all the issues more fully, why is it that they have mostly gotten or want to get the hell out of there? Has their reasoned debate led them to a different conclusions than yours? Nah, couldn't be: they're all just mesmerized by their TV sets, watching Spanish Idol, French Idol, and German Idol.
I DID read the Rand Corporation paper - I responded to a specific point in it, if you recall - and have done much reading similar to that. Also, I did not say that there will be no more wars, or that they are not justified in some cases, just that some are wrongly started and fought.
Oh, but you took all this personally: I wasn't labeling you a warmonger; I told you, I was just talking about a specific group. ;-)
Yes, I disagree with most of what you say about Iraq specifically and much of what you believe about exactly who can know the horribleness of war. I will also assert that your thinking (as held by people in real power like - potentially - McCain) will go a long way to keep war the solution most always resorted to (not just by the US) to solve international problems and get what you want. But there you go.
You still did not answer why most European countries, which I agree with you are more sophisticated generally in their political discourse, now want nothing much to do with the Iraq war.
Oh, and the couch potatoes don't actually send young men into harm's way and don't drop laser guided bombs from a distance (and here I'm not talking about the poor soldiers). Also, there are many less of those stereotyped couch potatoes than you think. I wish you at least had the decency to admit that you ARE in fact including people in this forum with your whitewashing of the "American public". You state that people that want to end the Iraq war are living in illusion and decadence, but if someone here states that opinion, you dodge by saying that you don't mean us, we're actually quite intelligent, you mean THOSE OTHER people. Here's a little clue: there is no "American public"; there are individuals mostly, and that's who you're talking to in this forum, so please quit your idiotic praising of Archinectors while flinging barely veiled insults.
Patrick, I was making an inference with the Europe question, which is: you wrote that people in this country can't be bothered with a true discourse about politics in general and Iraq in particular, but it was your observation in Europe that they CAN be bothered, and have had such clear discussions; then should'nt they have come to your same conclusion, i.e. that Iraq is a war worth fighting and committing large manpower and funds to? I mean, that's what you implied, and you certainly can't say that Europe has not known war directly, can you? But they didn't come to your conclusion, just the opposite. And maybe they're not hypocrites: maybe they in fact do support democracy in Iraq but are now convinced that the US path is the entirely wrong way to pursue it, particularly since we've bungled it so. Hypocrisy is your spin on it. But your statement "the course of policing nations" tells me all I need to know: I've seen that duck before.
I also have a take on the "simplification of messages" during an election and why it occurs, in fact probably SHOULD occur: I'll post that later, if the mood strikes.
"And I think that your implication that a smarter voting populace would be against the Iraq war is silly at best."
Not WOULD be in all cases, but just MIGHT be in this case.
Oh, so the Europeans might never oppose the USA's actions because maybe they are simply wrong or ill-conceived, only because they need to grow up, I see.
Are you a McCainIAC?
ROMNEY TO GET OUT!!
http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/07/sources-romney-to-quit-race/
I am now officially satisfied with this election season. Now let's get Obama elected and that would be just peachy.
Interesting.... I wonder if the right-wingers will now rally around Huckabee?
Some wags have speculated that the GOP (thanks in large part to Bush) is headed for a very ugly divorce between the evangelical right wing and the establishment moderates, and this divorce could potentially split the GOP in half and lead to the formation of a third party.
Moderates won't touch Huckabee with a barge pole, and right-wingers seem to feel the same way about McCain. Could this be how the split happens?
LIG - I think you got it backwards on the republicans.
What's killing the republicans is their party got "big tent" in the 1970's when abortion became a national issue. Parts of my own family were life long democrats until 1971 when they became single issue republicans.
The republican party establishment is the conservative faction while the evangelical wing is the moderate. Either way, I agree that our political parties, Republican and Democrat are heading for breakups.
Not sure what to think about this election now. Surely Romney has less in common with the two democrat front runners. The election will now be more bland in my opinion.
I do think McCain has the ability to beat either Hillary or Obama, but the wild card is if the republican establishment boycotts the vote.
Rush Limbaugh now loves Mac, begins fundraiser for Hillary (so that McCain can beat her)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020708/content/01125114.guest.html
OBAMA WON CONNECTICUTS DELEGATES BUT HILLARY STILL GETS
THE MONEY.....DON'T KID YOURSELF THOSE YANKEES WITH MONEY
WANT HILLARY. I'M SURE HER COFFIRS ARE BEING LINED WITH THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE DOLLAR AND I'M SAD TO SAY IT BUT MONEY TALKS.
aquapura; Totally agree on the repubs & the Abortion 'issue'. They can't perform on the important issues, so they use the typical smokescreen issues like abortion to try & drown everything else out.
The main reason I'm behind McCain is that those repub clowns need some pull in a more constructive direction.
the reason I'm not strong on Hillary is that she's just got too much baggage & will add fuel to the ultra-right creeps.
The reason that I'm not strong on Obama is that he's Black...
Just trying to see if anyone's reading, cool them jets! The reason I'm not strongly behind Obama is that I think we need the experience factor .
Also, Obama can't pull the Repubs more to Center like McCain. I truly believe that's where most Americans are, or really want to be.
As for Rush Lmbaugh, he acts like a fat-ass that can't perform.
Music video for McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
thus it begins
sardonic. sad. funny.
mellencamp politely told mccain to stop usin his songs.
I'm starting to get the impression that McCain is 'Damned if he does. Damned if he Don't':
a) 'Konservativs' don't like him because he has reached across the aisle
Plus, there's that Illegal Alien thing. Funny how the Repubs say they want the Latino vote, but spew out the opposite rhetoric. except for McCain & .....ugggh Bush,lite.
b) 'The Left' doesn't seem to want him because we wants, for example, to finish the half-assed job in Iraq. Incidentally, this is a mjor reason that I am not behind Obama or Clinton. They don't hold my view that we must keep our International credibilty which Bush, lite has worked so hard to ruin.
...no, wait, he didn't work - he's been in the Lincoln bedroom w/ Jack Daniels since he's been in office.
most legal immigrants (who followed the rules to become u.s. citizens) do not favor giving amnesty to illegal aliens
Free,
As long as we use these people (and if you shop in a supermarket YOU have enjoyed the fruit of their labor) we owe them something. It is a matter of fairness no matter who is for or against it. After we solve that problem I do agree that we need to cut down and stop illegal immigration.
A wall will do nothing, except make conservatives feel warm and fussy. What we need is a brand new immigration system that acknowledges our need for this labor pool and their need for our money.
["MAD"=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2234894660_279d799256.jpg?v=0]link[/MAD]
My spouse is an immigrant and through our experience at the DHS and immigration attorney we've talked with many immigrants about the issue.
I would tend to agree that legal immigrants oppose amnesty...then again they are shelling out a lot of $$$ to the DHS to process their immigration. You don't see the illegal aliens at that place. Not sure what their view is.
aqua, are you saying that our bureaucracy is the best way to stop illegal immigration? You can come, but you have to stand in line FOR EVER.
Eli, the cost savings in labor do not outweigh the cost in social services such as public schooling and emergency room care.
if farmers paid a healthy hourly wage (say $12-$14/hour) instead of the slave wages (less than minimum wage) they currently pay for illegal aliens, the cost of produce would go up about 3%.
so your head of lettuce would go from $1.00/lb to $1.03/lb
i'll take that rather than overcrowded public schools and emergency rooms.
and speaking of fairness, it's not fair to legal immigrants and blue collar workers to have their wages kept artificially low. isn't the democratic party supposed to be looking out for those people? strange ..
and barack, hillary, and mccain last summer all had the solution: just make everyone legal! problem solved!
at least it looks like mccain has come around - i'll more than likely vote for him this november.
my nephews in iraq and i don't think my bro should be president.
MCcains new Video MUST SEE
the original was serious (about itself) - much sillier
but how dare mccain set a timetable of 10,000 years! he's giving into to the enemy!
free, patrick,
i truly find the original inspiring, do you guys hate it from partisan rancor or do you truly dislike it if so, why? I am truly curious.
Also, what would you find inspiring?
well i can understand obama's ability to inspire. and he's a great speaker i'll give you that.
what i dislike is his speech said nothing more than 'yes we can, si se puede' we can do it! hope and change! change for hope!!
and then you get all these people repeating it word-for-word
just creepy in a brain-washed sort of way
I'm starting to think everyone has a family member in Iraq....just like everyone is Irish on Saint Patricks Day. I never have any idea
where my nephew is but he is in the military and I don't think you want me to be President.. Least no one has been putting money in my WAR CHEST!
Free....you really think McCain has done anything for immigration in ARIZONA.....I would like to know what if you can find anything. The guy sucks wind as far as I'm concerned. How fricking long has he been a leading senator...and I would say his back has been turned for so long to the issues of immigration that if you put him in a spin,
he would fall down a when he got up just ask for another bud.
the only thing mccain has done is to encourage more illegal immigration (with the hope! of amnesty)
he is a disaster on getting the federal government to enforce the not-broken laws already on the books. and he has the nerve to say things like 'i'm from a border state, i know what to do.'
my only hope is: he is finally talking like a convert to this simple solution:
1. build the fence (a double fence, not the reduced single fence).
2. throw employers of illegal aliens in jail (enforce the law)
3. jobs for illegal aliens will dry up, they will mostly self-deport
so if mccain is elected and then brings up the whole amnesty thing again, there will be huge public outcry (like last summer) to shut that bad idea down.
"they will mostly self-deport"
ha ha ha, you cant possibly really believe this.
10,000 years, sounds like a plan from a flip flopping tortured war vet
if you enforce the laws, there will be no need to physically round everyone up (what barack and hillary say the republicans want to do).
just enforce the laws. nothing is 'broken'.
Patrick, what if there is a candidate that is good on the issues and people feel so strongly that THEY produce a video? That is not American Idol, you may want to dismiss it, but that is genuine idealism, hope for a better tomorrow that a candidate can bring.
Obama has more meaty substance out there (in his site, in his speeches, in his commercials and pamphlets, etc...) than anyone, PLUS he can inspire.
I would go as far as to say that your vote today will be utterly unethical, and probably undemocratic. do you want to suppress the will of the many in the democratic camp? if you want mc-daddy to win, have the guts to do it cleanly, not by engineering a campaign that you can be satisfied with.
Oh God no. I think the legal immigration system is a mess. Since 9/11 and the forming of the DHS from the old INS has just made things a bigger mess. The only way to speed up the process is to hire an attorney to handle the paperwork. Which is cheap because if you screw it up yourself you end up refiling and writing more checks for the processing.
And note that for my wife's case it was an easier process because she was already here on an employer sponsored visa, got married to a citizen and was going through the permanent residency process. You'd think it would be simple. The attorney was cheap because the alternative is getting deported and losing her work income.
Now oppose that to an immigrant w/out a skilled education or a US citizen sponsor or several thousand dollars to spend on legal assistance. I can see why we have illegals. From their standpoint making $5/hr under the table is probably easier...and instant.
Not saying I agree with it....but I understand.
Im honestly tired of the people who continue to whine this no-substance argument as if McCain or Clinton have ever outlined plans more detailed than Obama has on Iraq or Afganistan or Healthcare or anything else. I mean christ, martyr a guy for being able to speak and actually mean what he says. If you arent willing to read or think critically Im just not that interested in your superficial opinion based on some barely affiliated youtube video just meant to excite some young people or the 5 seconds you saw him on CNN.
On the Rand Corporation report, it seems a bit technocratic, but I am glad at least someone is noticing its gonna take more than more troops to repair the damage weve caused over there.
aquapura: my wife, being from Brasil, had to go through the process of getting her Green Card through marriage. Because she met me a few months before her I-94 'Tourist' Visa ran out, she ended up being an 'illegal' for about 11 months. believe me, we were worried like Heyll during that time (she's a great driver because of it). Also, during that time, the INS was transitioning to becoming part of the Homeland Security gang. As such, her Visa process took at least an extra year. Also, being illegal complicated things, but only a bit.
we had a lawyer, who charged us about $1000 to do what we could have done, but they did speed things up a bit. for the money, I'd probably say the price was somewhat worth it.
When we finally got to the end of the process, the Gov't really didn't give us a hard time about being illegal. Once we got our final interview, she had her Green Card w/in a month or so. Not too bad.
The thing that sucks is that we have friends who went through the same process (they were mostly legal) & their processing time was half of ours because they applied after the INS was folded into the DHS.
So, I am not gonna hammer on someone who's illegal, but they really should work to get legal, if possible. I will say though, that without having an H1B, student, Political Asylum or Married/Relative Visa, it's extremely difficult to get Legal. Most of the Illegals, in the USA, are there fto WORK. That's something that Americans generally preach as being good. it's ironic that someone trying to feed their family gets so much flack from lazy-assed American clock-watchers. Also, these illegals are helping a lot of people/companies to save money on work most Americans think is beneath them. That's a good reason to have a limited amnesty.
Hillary 08 - because she lacks personality and popular appeal. this is exactly what you are saying, but is actually the reason to vote against her, she cannot pull the country together.
How is his platform on Iraq vague? He wants us to get out, but in a considered manner. In his website you find the best case scenario, if conditions in the ground are not right there will be necessary re-considerations.
The difference: He will do this in a transparent open process, not constantly behind our backs. Do you want random charts and numbers, what would satisfy you?
By the way did you feel the same way with Bush, who was, arguably, the vaguest candidate in a generation.
Once again, Obama has been forced into being the MOST substantial of all candidate, while he inspires people with simple slogans: THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS.
Patrick, your contempt for the American "public" is just astounding. You think everyone in this country but yourself is a voidoid robot sitting in front of American Idol and being brainwashed by that Obama video. Then when someone here calls you on it you just say "well, I didn't mean you, just the general public"...huh?
The article by Rand which you posted leaves out a fourth and most important aspect in their list of three "COIN" capabilites: good intelligence work and infiltration. The solution in this country always seems to be firepower (see McCain). But these "global" terrorist networks are sometimes very loosely affiliated, and they are not protected by large armies or located in any one place. Tactically, the most effective solution is to try to stop these terrorist events before they happen: and it can be done. The 2006 "transatlantic aircraft plot" was foiled by smart British intelligence. An undercover British agent infiltrated the group and his work and good intelligence work in general prevented who knows how many people from dying.
But this aspect is where the US is weakest, mainly because this country prefers war as a solution to international problems and there is a huge military-industrial complex to keep fed. So, for some reason, many in this country, including you and McCain, think we are "babies" and "delusional" if we suggest that feeding billions more into Iraq and Afghanistan to make war there is not a solution that makes much sense, and that money could be used more "intelligently" to fight terrorism. Just because McCain has a detailed plan for Iraq doesn't necessarily mean it's a good plan.
Ah, but you're the only one doing the serious reading and thinking on this issue, so just excuse the rest of us peons.
MysteryMan - sounds like you went through the same deal as my wife and I did. She was here on an employer sponsored TN visa. Most of her friends in Canada had all expatriated to the US and she followed suit. But, her visa was more or less a 1 year contract which her employer kept renewing. Needless to say, she was living her life here just as she would anywhere else. We get engaged and immediately learn from an attorney friend that us getting engaged showed intent to stay in the country. The TN visa is not "dual intent" and was a direct violation. So, technically not illegal, had the DHS known of our engagement she would've lost the visa and had two weeks to go home. (Not really time enough to sell a house and move away from a life you've had for years.) That's what makes immigration so damn complicated. Pitfalls like that. So we did a hurry up marriage and eventually got the green card...and at the interview not a problem. C'mon, we were both gainfully employed, paying a LOT of taxes, etc. But, then there's the migrant farm worker making low wages. How's he supposed to do it the right way? For one he cannot afford to. Secondly, it's so damn complicated. All research we did said nothing about the "dual intent" stuff. Big damn mess if you ask me.
Oh sorry patrick, that wasnt really focused at just you, I was watching that red-haired analyst twit on Fox with a room full of people saying the same thing and Free Ramos' yammering and the whole argument just got on my nerves.
Anyway Im being flippant.
On the technocratic stuff, I mean I guess thats what a report like that is supposed to do. But there are a lot of just emotional intangibles that it leaves out, ones that I think in the end are almost more significant to achieving a real peace than the tactical nitty-gritty.
Patrick, I do read the discourse going on in European nations. The one is Italy is certanly not "substantial", rather just confusing and mostly political mumbo-jumbo, and this comes from the politicians themselves as a way to really say and do nothing. You also might have noticed that most European countries want very little to do with Iraq any longer.
I don't take your arguments "personally", but your smugness and knowingness, far superior to this "populism" you condemn, is really way irritating. You should really just step back and read what you write. So you came back from living overseas: hell, I was born overseas, and I certainly don't look at things from just USA eyes.
Your constant argument that we can't talk about some kind of ending to this war, just because it's being fought as we speak and your brother is involved is really just getting tired, and when I bring up points, as I did above, about other means to fight terrorism that would probably be much more effective, and where the US can do better, you largely ignore my points so you can go back and rant on the US populace.
Oh, and McCain's smug pronoucement that how long we continue the war over there is really not important, implying that people are just stupid to even bring it up, is even more irritating.
Patrick,
Obama's position (i.e. McCain will keep us there for 100 years, I will have us out tomorrow)
What these two are saying is that one would prefer to get troops out as soon as it is safe, but soon, while the other is saying that Bush was right the middle east will change with our blood spilled in its streets for 'democracy' and we need to put more troops and money into the thing. They are just saying it in political speak.
If I may, and I am not doing this to be witty or nasty, I have two questions for you:
1-what does you brother think of McCain's plan of an endless war?
2-what where his leanings before he joined the military?
knowing a lot of military people, i know that they are all different. you find some very conservative ones and funnily enough you find extremely leftists in there too. your predilections before you joined the military affect how you view everything, that organization is, after all, a microcosm of the the larger society.
Patrick, you know what is amazing? What is amazing is how you and your brother fear The worst nightmare of any military man is to fight a war in which politics makes them commit strategic blunders; restraint makes them lose ground or give up extra lives. yet you make no mention of any fear of politicians "creating" these situations to begin with. Now, having had many relatives serve in these wars that were against dying or fringe ideologies, I have to say you are both quite naive, irrespective of your brother's honorable service.
WWII you'd probably say was a war about conflicting ideologies, but I would venture that when millions and millions of people are executed for being one religion or another, or when that country attacks another and starts to destroy peoples and lands, it's the world's collective responsibility to stop the genocide.
Yet, why is it the world does not see your point of view? Please don't tell me they haven't been attacked, that's not an argument.
The "hawks" who was the last hawk that got it right? Perhaps Eisenhower said it best;
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
More later, because you give me so much to work with....
looks like it could very possibly end up obama vs mccain. i'm just very happy we have two good choices from which to pick!
we actually spend less percentage gdp on defense now than we did during kennedy's administration.
Patrick, Im honestly having trouble teasing a cohesive logic out of your first paragraph. I think this is a really important point, and one that McCain has rested his entire candidacy on. Id really like to know, please, how exactly does is fighting "gangs of thugs" in Iraq help in a fight against "radical islam"? This is what Ive meant from the beginning about this profound oversimplicification with with which these Washington ideologs view the middle east. These groups are not the same. They have different political agendas, different worlviews, different methods and different weaknesses. Youd think people like McCain would get a clue when sunni militias turn on al quada and different groups of mutually shia militia start attacking each other. The idea that this is somehow a monolithic cosmic battle between the evil "radical jihadists" and everything that is good about freedom in the west represents a worldview that is simply factually false. The man for all his military experience just does not understand this conflict for what it really is, and because of that ignorance he will never have any hope of doing anything but exacerbating it.
I think people like McCain need to take a sober look in the mirror and begin to ask themselves if invading Iraq has done anything but hurt our cause in the middle east. They need to ask themselves if saber rattling with Iran has done anything but hurt the moderate reformists in that country and vindicate Ahmadinejad. They need to ask themselves if what we are doing does anything but play entirely into Bin Ladens hands in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Has anything we have done since 2002 over there improved the perception of us held by anyone in the middle east or in any way made the world a safer better place? I dont think they could honestly answer yes to any of those questions, and it should cause them great pause to consider why that is.
Well, Patrick, I DON'T take personal issue with what you say, I just think you're a pompous, lecturing ass and feel the need to call you on it. And I wouldn't enjoy a trip with you either, so get bent right back, and have a nice day too (don't listen to Ani DiFranco). Oh, and what do you want for your "points"? How about a donut?
The worst nightmare of any military man is to fight a war in which politics makes them commit strategic blunders; restraint makes them lose ground or give up extra lives.
What beta said above about that quote is right on (as was the quote from Eisenhower). This exact thing was already done to your brother and other soldiers, and this by right wing "hawks". And maybe consider what oe said as well.
But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've read on and on about your contempt for the "idiotic" American public. Well, let me tell you about a group that gets on my goat, just like the other group gets on yours. These are people who justify any war, no matter how ill advised and foolish, by quoting Rand Corporation papers, Gen. Sherman, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Macchiavelli. They believe that the best response to an enemy that has a vicious ideology; where believers are willing to destroy themselves in order to destroy you; no standing army; no sovereign county as such; in place in cities and towns all over the world; pretty much infiltrated and living in society, this group believes that the best response to such an enemy is through overwhelming technological warfare, smart bombs, preditor drones, billions and billions of expenditure and serious loss of life and property. Or, like another country we all know, they surround the "insurgents" in a 20 foot concrete walls, along with a whole population. These are the best ideas they've come up with so far.
Rather than trying to infiltrate the enemy themselves, turning their tactic on their heads, they instead select a straw dictator which they can easily take down, do so in the guise of giving them "democracy", then proceed to make a shambles of that country, and have no real vision on how they will install this democracy or how they will bring the conflict to an end. Now, this is the governing facet of this group, but they have a large chorus of followers who will ape their philosophy.
And if you try to argue with this group about the fact that SOME WARS, not all, may be a folly and should be ended, they will turn the argument around on you and say you are "soft" and "decadend" and have no real understanding of the realities of war. Only they themselves have considered the issues, only THEY know the real price of war, thus only THEY can make this ultimate judgement.
This is the group I really fear, because they cause real damage and pain: the idiots sitting in front of Americal Idol, drinking their Bud, well, they're mostly harmless.
But now, don't you go taking this personally, I was just talking about this particular group.
Also, you picked and chose your response to my first paragraph, going with the easy target of Italy. Again, if Europe is having such a "substantial" debate on Iraq, considering all the issues more fully, why is it that they have mostly gotten or want to get the hell out of there? Has their reasoned debate led them to a different conclusions than yours? Nah, couldn't be: they're all just mesmerized by their TV sets, watching Spanish Idol, French Idol, and German Idol.
I DID read the Rand Corporation paper - I responded to a specific point in it, if you recall - and have done much reading similar to that. Also, I did not say that there will be no more wars, or that they are not justified in some cases, just that some are wrongly started and fought.
Oh, but you took all this personally: I wasn't labeling you a warmonger; I told you, I was just talking about a specific group. ;-)
Yes, I disagree with most of what you say about Iraq specifically and much of what you believe about exactly who can know the horribleness of war. I will also assert that your thinking (as held by people in real power like - potentially - McCain) will go a long way to keep war the solution most always resorted to (not just by the US) to solve international problems and get what you want. But there you go.
You still did not answer why most European countries, which I agree with you are more sophisticated generally in their political discourse, now want nothing much to do with the Iraq war.
Oh, and the couch potatoes don't actually send young men into harm's way and don't drop laser guided bombs from a distance (and here I'm not talking about the poor soldiers). Also, there are many less of those stereotyped couch potatoes than you think. I wish you at least had the decency to admit that you ARE in fact including people in this forum with your whitewashing of the "American public". You state that people that want to end the Iraq war are living in illusion and decadence, but if someone here states that opinion, you dodge by saying that you don't mean us, we're actually quite intelligent, you mean THOSE OTHER people. Here's a little clue: there is no "American public"; there are individuals mostly, and that's who you're talking to in this forum, so please quit your idiotic praising of Archinectors while flinging barely veiled insults.
I will address your Obama question later, since it's a long response.
Patrick, I was making an inference with the Europe question, which is: you wrote that people in this country can't be bothered with a true discourse about politics in general and Iraq in particular, but it was your observation in Europe that they CAN be bothered, and have had such clear discussions; then should'nt they have come to your same conclusion, i.e. that Iraq is a war worth fighting and committing large manpower and funds to? I mean, that's what you implied, and you certainly can't say that Europe has not known war directly, can you? But they didn't come to your conclusion, just the opposite. And maybe they're not hypocrites: maybe they in fact do support democracy in Iraq but are now convinced that the US path is the entirely wrong way to pursue it, particularly since we've bungled it so. Hypocrisy is your spin on it. But your statement "the course of policing nations" tells me all I need to know: I've seen that duck before.
I also have a take on the "simplification of messages" during an election and why it occurs, in fact probably SHOULD occur: I'll post that later, if the mood strikes.
"And I think that your implication that a smarter voting populace would be against the Iraq war is silly at best."
Not WOULD be in all cases, but just MIGHT be in this case.
Oh, so the Europeans might never oppose the USA's actions because maybe they are simply wrong or ill-conceived, only because they need to grow up, I see.
But I agree, let's move on.
def not a McCainiac:
www.dumpjohnmccain.com
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.