Now what? You Dems have about 12 years until...Follow

I think they mean Canadia.

Nexa

I remember hearing something about Canadian politics a few months ago, guys. It had to do with raising the tax on whale blubber from 7.85% to 7.92% and all baby seal skins were rquired to be notarized within 24 hours of daylight or the Mounties would impound your sled dogs.

Wasn't it all contigent on which day in August certain inland lakes froze over?

Uh-ohhhh, someone broke the rules. It won't be the last time though.

Just an observation, somewhat by definition Conservatives aren't big on "progress". Our agenda is to build structures that don't require change, not to run in and change everything willy nilly. Demanding progress requires an assumption that what we're progressing towards is "better" then the way we're doing things now. I just think you're measuring Conservatives by the wrong yardstick.

The measure isn't what progress they made, but on what they didn't break and whether the country as a whole did well under their leadership. We didn't create universal health care. But then we didn't saddle the public with the costs of such a system. We didn't protect citizens from themselves via large scale "for your own good" laws, but then we didn't inhibit the rights and freedoms of the citizens either. All good things IMO.

We didn't redistrubute wealth from the rich to the poor. But then despite failing to make "progress" on that issue, we managed to see the largest economic growth since the post WW2 era during Republican control of Congress. We've seen real wages raise, we've seen dramatic GDP growth, we've seen US industry become competitive worldwide again after slipping for decades, we've seen the share of citizens who take part in investment profits (and therefore a share of the economic growth benefits) grow to over 50%, and we've seen a dramatic increase in the rate at which new and better consumer products have reached the public.


When you say that Republicans "failed", but measure that failure by looking at which Liberal agendas they didn't pursue you're automatically making a huge mistake. Republicans did what they were elected to do. They worked to limit the number of ways in which the government may inhibit the average working person from improving his or her own life. It's a much more subtle process because you don't see it through the passage of some law designed to "help the working folks". You wont see any spending on a program to do it either. You'll see it only when you contrast what the Republicans "didn't do" to what Dems would have done and see what impact that would have had on the average US citizen.


More interesting to me is that despite the macro-economic arguments that since Republicans didn't reduce overall spending they weren't sufficiently following the Conservative ideology, they still did *enough* to make a difference. And a noticable one IMO. They were able to prove quite resoundingly that lowering taxes does increase revenue over time. They were able to prove that by *not* introducing more expensive social programs that people's lives would improve anyway. They may not have reduced spending as many conservatives would have liked, but they didn't *increase* it either, and that made a difference.

Is there anyone here who'll argue that the average quality of life in the US is not better today then it was in 1994? What things out there improve our lives? Does computer ownership make your life better? Did the government buy you that computer? No? Ever consider it happened because the government allowed industry to do what it does best? How many of you own a cell phone? Same argument. How about DVDs, DVRs, digital cable, ipods, streaming video, and google? Did the government make any of those for you? Did the Republican congress spend money to build them? No? The more important question is: If the government had decided to provide some "computer stuff" to the people, would it have been as useful as what we ended up with? And what useful stuff do we have now would *not* have come to be due to the cost of the government stepping in? You can't answer that, but here's an interesting observation:


What would have happened if the government had decided that it needed to provide a way to allow any person anywhere to communicate with anyone else cheaply? We know how industry handled it. They developed and produced cell phones. And now anyone can buy one cheaply. But what would have happened if every penny that was spent doing that research had instead been taxed by the government so it could provide the same thing to the public? Would we have had cell phones?

I don't think so. Government spending tends to solve problems by throwing money at things they already have. I think that the government would have simply used the money to build a pay phone on every street corner and provide everyone with credits to use the phones for free. So, instead of a new way of communicating that is convienent and cheap, we'd have been saddled with eternally paying for a product that is vastly inferior but provided free from the government...


And that's the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the long run. So yeah. Dems will push forward programs to make your lives better, but you'll never know in what way's your lives might have been better still if you hadn't given that money to the government to do those things in the first place. I'd much rather let a free market come up with ways to improve my life, then some government agency. But maybe I just value my freedom more then others.

OMG so move out of the country!!!!

Gbaji, my definition of progress isn't social reforms or more government sponsered entitlement programs, but rather, tax reform that includes simplifying the code or implementing a flat tax, cutting middle class taxes, and becoming more competitive in the marketplace. I'd have liked to have seen a commitment to inproving our infrastructure. It'd have been good to see military systems like the Israeli anti-RPG program incorporated into our military. Social security reform would have been nice.

While I agree that a lack of so-called progress is most often the best outcome when Congress is in session, the past twelve years are largely devoid of any of the changes that true conservatives wanted implemented.

We wasted an opportunity to effect genuine change and that opportunity will be a long time in coming our way again. As it is, Pelosi is talking about curtailing lobbyists' clout and helping the middle class, so maybe they learned a vicarious lesson from their opponents. I can only hope they don't make the cut-off for deciding who is in the middle class and who is "rich" by their traditional Third World standards.

We need to face facts, gbaji. The Republicans let an historic opportunity pass them by and all we have to show for it is a disgruntled public and a lot of corruption. That sucks and is gax.

Totem

Been asking Bushies this question everywhere.

How do you turn a former dictatorship into a freedom loving democracy at the same time you want it to become a destination for terrorists?


You got any ideas Totem?

I'm not sure what you are asking, Vassa. Are you asking a rhetorical question as a way of getting me to admit this was screwed up from the start or are you wondering if Bush had it in mind to collect more terrorists in Iraq than were already there while freeing Iraqis from a dictatorship? Because in either case you'd be wrong.

Regardless-- and assuming you don't have an amazing ability to see into the future and could have told us precisely what was going to happen --the present situation is an evolved one and not something that was a predetermined outcome from the beginning.

So I'll turn the question around on you. Would you have been content to allow Hussein remain in power? And if so, for how long?

Totem

No, Totem its not a rhetorical question.

It has been the stated strategy ever since those damn WMDs failed to show up.

"America invaded Iraq to free it from a Dictator and bring Iraq Freedom and Democracy."
"America is 'fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in America."


That has been the expressed Strategy of George Bush and his sycophants since the beginning.(well at least since those damn WMDs failed to show up.)

So the question is really just that, a question about how you think that is any kind of strategy at all? You see no contradiction between the two goals of the invasion?

Predictions? Who are the people who have been crowing about this strategy for the last 3 years? Demands of worship for George because of a 'mission accomplished' banner? Declarations of Victory just around the corner every month? Predictions of flowers and hugs and everybody home in 6 months?

But as far as seeing into the future? Yeah me and millions of people around the world predicted what would happen if people like you Invaded and Occupied Iraq.

So in answer to your question, Yes Saddam should have been left alone. He was contained and neutered. The fight should have continued in Afghanistan with our full attention.

So I am asking you again, HOW do you think it is possible to turn a former dictatorship into a freedom loving democracy at the same time your plans call for making it into a destination for terrorists?

"America invaded Iraq to free it from a Dictator and bring Iraq Freedom and Democracy."
"America is 'fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in America."

And we have done just that. Whether or not you agree it has been done well is a different question, but to this date we have met each of those conditions.

As for Hussein, he wasn't contained and nuetered. He was defying the terms of his unconditional surrender every few months by shooting missles at us and flying in the No-fly Zone to quash whatever rebellions he thought needed quashing. He was breaking the rules of the Food-for-Oil program. He was actively trying to nullify the total surrender agreement reached at the conclusion of GW1.

I guess if you call that contained and nuetered I suppose you'd call planes flying into the World Trade Center towers a slight excursion from published air routes.

Hussein was harboring terrorists inside his country. Does that constitute a connection to terrorism? Perhaps not to the degree of a direct link to 9/11, but he still had them inside his borders, healthy, happy, and free to move about as they saw fit.

I can agree that maybe we should have just gone in and killed Iraqi troops and stomped around until we found Saddam. Then we could have summarily executed him and left the country. In fact, I would actually propose that kind of behavior for our country, except it wouldn't be "diplomatic." You mess with us, we go in, break things, kill lots of people, and leave the garbage for you to clean up. Undoubtedly many would disagree with me. Whatever. I guarantee that by the third or seventeenth petty dicator who pisses us off dies violently, most countries would give us a wide berth and I'd be fine with that.

But all that is hindsight. It's not what is the situation we have today and we can't just go back and keep Hussein "contained." The truth is given enough time, the very situation we have would likely have broken out once Saddam died from natural causes (assuming no Iraqi or one of his sons didn't kill him first). Why? Because the Shiites have been just itching to get their hands on some Sunnis and play "Payback is a ************." Which is exactly the situation we have today.

The only difference is that we at least gave them the chance to freely elect their own government, make their own constitution, and make their own choices unfettered by a gun barrel at the back of their head. It's not our fault every Muslim crackpot wants to unstablize Iraq and foment civil war. That is an issue that pretty much faces every one of those barbaric countries. None of them seem to be able to govern without the heavy hand of an oppressor squeezing the life out of them.

/shrugs

They are like the stupid women who crave dudes to hit them and tell them they are worthless cnuts. Force is the only kind of love they seem to understand.

As I see it your type is the pu55yfied "I wash my hands of everything wrong in the world" and won't do anything to change it. ***** you. You'd rather let that horsefly bite you repeatedly than to just simply swat it dead once and for all.

Totem

Let's draw back and see the bigger picture, paulsol. Avoiding godwin's Law and such, let's assume you were back in 1939 and you see a post WW1 Germany arming. Time goes by and while the US hasn't gotten actively involved, there is a considerable resistance to entering the war based on an innate American isolationist streak. More time passes and we decide we have to take a stand and more importantly, help our friends.

We join the war. However-- and this is historical observation --it appears very much in doubt that we can win the war. England looks like it'll topple at any time if Hitler just invades and Russia is too weak to do anything as long as Germany doesn't chase them back into Mother Russia.

Now what? Millions of peole could tell you then that it is a foolish idea to get involved-- after all, we are safely tucked away on this side of the Atlantic, and losing the war just means that we'll needlessly kill a bunch of our boys. Maybe we should just sit this one out.

Another example: the American Revolution. By any measure the British should have killed every last Continental soldier, but thankfully, due to incompetant leadership and long supply and communication lines, they didn't.

So are you telling me that you foresaw foreign fighters coming into Iraq to fight a war that is not theirs? Because that is what's going on here. Perhaps you wouldn't have been so worried if we could have prevented them from entering Iraq? Tell me. I'm curious. This precogniscient ability intrigues me. Gimme a heads up on who's gonna win the World Series next year so I can get my bet in early.

C'mon. The reason you and those other millions of people who "knew" this was going to be disaster were simply philospohically opposed to war, empirialism, a misguided sense of capitalists preying on oilfields, and some such.

Had this turned out as planned, you'd still have been ******** about Halliburton and our colonization of Iraq, because at its heart, you just don't like the United States projecting power, regardless of the reason.

Totem

There really is no conflict in your head at all is there? You really can't see how it is an asinine idea?

Turn a country into a vast wasteland of IEDs, snipers, and death squads and at the same time install a 'voting' process?

Met each of those conditions? Please stop waving that ink stain in my face? Cuz that is all it is, an ink stain.


I have an idea. I think the 'Bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq' is a line of ********* The main goal is to create a fantasy land that can be pointed at and claimed, "See, daddy Bush is protecting you! Don't be afraid."

The problem with that Totem, beyond the abject Cowardice it demonstrates in its proponents, is that it is a Giant Pile of steaming dog ****. Dubya's Folly has INCREASED the danger not the other way.

Saddam was NOT a danger to the United States and no I don't want a taste of your Kool-aid, so stop trying to sell me on Saddam's ties to terrorism and 9/11.

The cowardice of Bush followers has been proven to be a much larger threat.

Best and worst post ever.