Redstate

Personally, I am not one for name calling. That said, this is some of the most laugh out loud metaphorical nicknaming I have ever read. But I digress.

Living in the Peoples Republic of NYS, I could provide volumes of material and references to illustrate Clinton's foundational character. However, I will demure because streiff, et-al have provided so much evidentiary elucidation they should send a bill.

This latest diatribe is more of the same dishonest, slight of hand, Houdini-esque posture that Clinton uses to dupe the intellectually challenged masses. Her philosophy is a tax the citizens, oppose the defense/intelligence establishment, government expanding, illegal immigration supporting, socialized healthcare based amalgamation. Any moderation is election year contravention. Period.

Clinton's true intentions are contained in her political contribution list. Find the information and read it. You will find they are almost all George Soros School of Socialist-Marxist theory graduates. Nothing is a greater threat to our democracy then creatures that try to hide in the open. She is one and will be defeated.

Assuming I am an anti-semite, which would pose certain philopshical problems, as that would mean I hate myself, how exactly am a I not an American patriot?

In fact, some of the greatest patriots of the past 50 years vehemently challenged the "special" relationship this country has with Israel, given its  affect on our geopolitical standing in the middle east.  Of course, we could stop using Arab oil, and this wouldn't be a problem, but no one wants to do that.

Anyway, levelling the charge of anti-semitism against those that disagree with you is simply a way of ending debate with someone without addressing the substantive content of their argument.  

Rather than label people as anti-semites, self-hating Jews, and traitors to this country, you could provide substantive evidence for your claims that the left is rabid pack of jew-haters, that they don't support Israel's right to defend itself, and that they hate this country because they disagree with you.

Saying the left is anti-semitic because some far-left elements disagree fundamentally with zionism and the special relationship Israel has with the US is like saying the right is anti-semitic because Pat Buchanan and his friends are against zionism and doesn't support the special relationship Israel has with the US.  Or is that different?

. . . that Sen. Clinton was taken out of context.  The full quote is:

But with a Republican majority, that's not their priority. So, we do other things. You know, we do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base so they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time. We are wasting lives. We need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way.

plan is reading English.

They made their objections known. Objections which are simply contradicted by her plain words. There is nothing here to correct.

Links are provided and readers are free to choose for themselves whether she actually said what she is quoted as saying.

But it is always a lot more fun to not read.

Finally: the party that neither controls the White House nor either chamber of Congress has virtually no reason to offer substantive proposals, but I have a sense they're coming in time for September.

They have virtually no reason to, except if they want to retake the House and/or Senate.  See: 1994, Contract With America.

If it comes down to my body between YOU and those who wish to torture and kill you, My body will stay safe.  Period.

Word of warning for the rest of those out there like this, Person, Jota, the United States Military Tires of what you are saying.  Keep it up and we'll see just how many of us decide to risk our lives for you.

exaggerating. It is there. It is real. Check it out.

one man's shoddy journalism is another man's paper of record.

You read the paper, read it enough to have conducted a proctological exam of the delightfully named Kornblut, you tell me. Is it worth reading?

Is not the same thing as being against the war in Iraq or killing civilians or seeking diplomatic solutions or whatever else you're hanging on the "left's" neck here.

Except that it is when your negotiations are solely to the  benefit of those whose Entire reason for existence is the extermination the Jewish people.

And it Is when the war you oppose so vehemently, and occasionally violently, is a War for the Survival of the Jewish People.

And it Is when you don't show any sign that you care about the deaths of Jewish Civilians or the kidnappings of Jewish soldiers, but you can't stop screaming about the casualties inflicted by the Jewish people when they fire on the terrorists that are living with and beside the very civilians who are dieing to protect them.

And you know what?  

Anti-Americanism and a lack of Patriotism are only different from the above when you replace every "Jew" with American in the above statements.

So I WILL continue to question your Patriotism.  And I WILL continue to accuse you of anti-Semitism until all of the above is corrected.

the criticism.

You made perfect sense to me.

There is a big difference between general anti-Semitism, that is an undercurrent on both sides, and when a party codifies it by officially rooting for our common enemy, counseling to appease instead of fight and defeat them, and actually goes on the air to propose negotiating with terrorists and their actors in order to do it.  Did you not catch all the Sunday shows?  Have you not been listening to all the "sober" voices on the left arguing for diplomatic efforts in Israel's fight?  Those are not just typical liberal canards!  They mean to directly negotiate with recognized terrorists and international criminals!  They may mince words, and obfuscate what they are really asking for, but only a moron would fail to ask, "Negotiate with whom?".  Don't urinate down my back and tell me it's raining.  The American people are not a tenth as stupid as "progressives" think we are.

 and when they do, duck.  Harry Reid disagrees with you, he says October.  No sense doing today what you can put off for tommorrow.  

     Controversial things Republicans and Bush won't do?  You left out a few things, tax cuts,Supreme Court appointments, and how did you forget this one, the War.

the Dims not the Senate. Sheesh. You must be using the NYT Style Book for reading practice.

  The Newsmax story indicates that  rhe warning is to democrats.  I will pass on Mediamatters for reasons best left unsaid, for now.  Instead I'll check out the full NYT's story later, a paper by the way that never saw a execrable act or utterance of The Blimp they weren't willing to defend.

    Regardless, does not Strief's interpretation fit in with those nasty little things continually buzzing around our ears and before our eyes, the facts.

    Has not Piano Legs Hillary unceasingly struggled to establish a "moderate" position for herself in an attempt to ready herself for the role which she thinks God annointed her for, the ,ugh, Presidency.  Imaginative thing that she is she is only, and plainly, following the path laid out by part time husband Bill.

    If Our Lady of the Hips wishes for her coronation she needs to defuse the louder elements in her party, to show people that her way is the most viable, to do it the way Bill did it.  To get elected and then double cross the American public.

   Even if wrong in the reading of this particular speech, get used to more that emphasize a hollow, non-confrontational message.  You will hear the word "moderate" till it's coming out your ears along with the usual crap about bringing people together & other exercises in nausea.

You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems.

I think jote might actually be either a D Rep or a staffer for one such.

Might want to take that in mind...

But I'll give you the last word here.

As you say both sides have explained their position and people can decide for themselves, so I'll just leave it at that. Except to say, this whole little digression is obviously conservative karma making you pay for quoting the NYT...

Since you're flatly wrong and refuse to correct it, it would be most wise to at least not argue it.

Anti-semitism on the left, as it is on the right, is a fringe phenomenon that gets universally smacked down whenever it appears online...

You're dreaming. Look at all the recent anti-war rallies in big leftist cities. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Palestinian flag at those "peace" rallies. And if you bring an Israeli flag to protest the protesters, you're taking your life in your hands.

The best liberal disenfectant is sunlight. No one is going to believe a word she has to say, so it really doesn't matter.

In the old days, the liberal fable worked when our three network media had the monopoly. Once one channel broke through it was all over -- that would be talk radio. Liberalism's downfall was written on the radio, and Limbaugh was the name. Now the need is not that great, as the public has their eyes wide open when it comes to liberalism and the nutty policies the expose.

The Internet carries on the tradition started by Limbaugh.

BTW, how is the gun slaughter in Florida going? Remeber the idoicy of the Brady bunch and their tourists campaign to alert everyone to not go to Florida? Why not, it was just over a year ago? Florida's crime rate is still dropping, contrast that to the gun control mecca of DC.

your quote and the audio support me and the NYT.

She is saying that Republicans do things to energize their base. Agreed.

And she is saying the Dems don't do things to energize their base.

Your interpretation seems to be, and I say that because it is hard to give the benefit of a doubt to anyone who would read much less quote the grotesque "media matters" as a source for context, that she says the Dems do nothing to energize their base because their causes are just too inately good to motivate people to vote, otherwise, the initiatives that she alleges are before the Senate would rally Dem voters. I contend that is horsecrap and she is afraid to put Dem red meat in front of the public.

  sayeth the Times.   What red state, Mars?  New York, Arkansas, mandated, compulsory & universal health care?  Where?

    Leave it to the Times to help Ms Varicose Veins with an off the wall fiction.  It's the only chance the Fat Lady has, to be recreated and upon winning to show her real, totalitarian self.

    "Do I have a plan for you", she will hiss through layers of makeup.  

Head for the bomb shelters when that happens.

Is not the same thing as being against the war in Iraq or killing civilians or seeking diplomatic solutions or whatever else you're hanging on the "left's" neck here.

Anti-semitism, last time I checked, means "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."  Healthy debate on foreign policy, last time I checked, is vital to a functinoing democracy and anti-semitic only to those who wish to use perjorative terms to stifle dissent and end debate on any issue.

Seriously, lets save big words like "anti-semite" or "fascist" or "nazi" for people who really do embody those terms.  Why cheapen this powerful words for partisan purposes.  What happens when we do really face a new Nazi'like threat or wave of anti-semitism and this country, and no one pays attention because according to some members of the right and left, everyone at some point or another is an anti-semite, a commie, a nazi, etc.  

of transferrence from an obvious mental defective.

we simply move in different circles and all I can say to the more substantive issues is that right now it is Republicans, including Tancredo, who are running on immigration. And the Republican party and platform have been very clear on abortion since 1980, though you may be correct in saying that the party does not hold the view that I wish it did on the subject.

We did run in two elections on "privatization" of Social Security, 2002 and 2004 and we won both of them. Regretably it has fallen off the table but it is not because we are afraid to run on it.

On racial preferences, I'd like to say that we can all agree that you can't fight all battles all the time but I know that isn't good enough for you. But if you read the campaign literature of Republican candidates you find opposition routine to the point of being axiomatic.

you and acbonin don't agree. I don't think either of have bothered to read what she said or, unlike me, you have engaged in a Vulcan mind meld with Clinton that lets you know what she meant rather she plainly said... which is the quote and context I attributed to her.

I don't plan on arguing your bloggyhorse.

a charge that could be made in an alternate universe.

Now you may consider health care to be controversial, though as I said I still don't see Dems lining up to propose an answer.

But your position is that Republicans aren't pushing immigration reform? That Republicans aren't pushing abortion? That Republicans aren't talking about the war?

Which issues have the Dems provided proposals on that Republicans refuse to talk about?

I think we have our problems but I don't think keeping our base quiet is one of them.

reading brendan I find your critique to be nothing short of really, really strange.

You say "we" meaning the Republican Senate". What she says before you Dowdify it is:

"We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base."

Who is their base if we are the Republican senate? This means you are saying that her real context is that the Republican senate is doing things to fire up the Dem base? And she gave this speech to a Dem gathering. Do you think she refers to her supporters as "they" when addressing them?

[quote]

Is not the same thing as being against the war in Iraq or killing civilians or seeking diplomatic solutions or whatever else you're hanging on the "left's" neck here.

[/quote]

There you are wrong, because the left has a history of a complete dearth of compassion for innocent civilians being subjected to perpetual terrorism while publicly wailing every time we kill or capture a terrorist.  You care so much for the people and societies that harbor and support the terrorists, and nothing for the free people fighting them.  Those are Alqueda we are fighting in Iraq.  You know, the people who murdered 3,000 of your countrymen on live TV...remember?  

Israel is fighting Hezbollah and Hamas, who are supported by Syria and Iran, all of whom have sworn to ethnically cleanse all Jews from the Middle East.  You propose negotiating with and appeasing Nazis, there is no way around it no matter how your paint your views or couch them to try and sound reasonable, because the people you wish to buy off are completely irrational, and any concessions you give them will simply be turned to military advantage.  Why won't you listen to these "partners in peace" you have invented?  They tell you exactly what they are going to do, and then you act shocked and incredulous when they do it.  

[quote]

Healthy debate on foreign policy, last time I checked, is vital to a functinoing democracy and anti-semitic only to those who wish to use perjorative terms to stifle dissent and end debate on any issue.

[/quote]

"Healthy", is the operative word here.  Your modest proposal is nothing short of catastrophic illness, and you are quite correct that I see no place for it in a "healthy" debate of foreign policy.  If calling it exactly what it is stifles this debate then I am certainly guilty of it.  There can be no healthy debate of whether all Jews in the Middle East should be exterminated, and to even posit such a debate may be "progressive", but it is the antithesis of liberal.  I simply will not engage in it no more than I would consider negotiation with genocidal terrorists.  Such evil in our time must be confronted and destroyed, lest it will do the same to us, which is its stated objective.  

Were you to have your way, by all your rhetoric, you would appease, or even ally with foes who have sworn the genocide of people who believe and think differently from themselves.  This takes multi-culturalism to a whole new level, and pronounces that which is alien has the right to exterminate that which is similar.  If that is not pure fanaticism then nothing is.  Proposing to use diplomacy to solve problems with ideologies that are absolutist in their lust for the blood of anyone who does not agree with them is no different that allying our country with any other fascist and totalitarian ideology (Nazism) that we have defeated.    

[quote]

Seriously, lets save big words like "anti-semite" or "fascist" or "nazi" for people who really do embody those terms.  Why cheapen this powerful words for partisan purposes.  What happens when we do really face a new Nazi'like threat or wave of anti-semitism and this country, and no one pays attention because according to some members of the right and left, everyone at some point or another is an anti-semite, a commie, a nazi, etc.

[/quote]

I agree 100%.  There you are; in the looking glass.  That is not a danger, it is exactly what has already happened to you.  The left's pejorative uses of terms "Nazi" and "fascist" against any and all political enemies is precisely why you are unable to see that Hamas and Hezbolah, along with the Islamofascist ideologies of Iran (whose leader publicly claims to idolize Adolph Hitler) and Syria are indeed one and the same.  I do not use the terms lightly or for effect.  I use them because in the cases of these enemies we face, in their own words, they are precisely applicable.  Their ideologies are so similar it is eerie.  Simply replace "volk" with Islam, and these beliefs are so similar that you cannot tell the difference.  Add to that the religious fervor of these terrorists, and you have a commitment and certainty of belief among adherents that actually eclipses the Nazis of old.  Hitler and the Nazi Party ordered 6,000,000 Jews murdered.  These people believe that God has ordered the murder of these 6,000,000.  Hitler offered the German people a glorious future on Earth for the rest of their lives.  These people believe that eternal paradise awaits them in the next.  Which do you think may be more committed.  These people make the fanaticism of Nazism pale by comparison.    

In terms of their absolutist and illiberal ideologies they seek to enslave or murder any infidels (that includes you and me) they come into contact with, impose a draconian, religious law meeting out incredibly harsh punishments for things we would not even consider crimes, and control education to the point where a single book constitutes the breadth of human knowledge.  They are not figuratively Nazis.  They are literally Nazis, and probably several times worse, yet the left continues to make allusions to the right in this country being Nazis, but wants to negotiate with these enemies.  And, they are the people you would seek a peaceful solution with, exactly like your blind predecessors who sought a peaceful solution with the Germans in the thirties.  All it will bring us is a greater and wider war that will set the whole world on fire.  You've learned nothing from history, and instead have substituted your own ideology and own opinions on the worst humanity has ever produced.  Very sad.        

The NYT is running a correction:

Editors' Note

An article published on the Web site of The New York Times on Sunday reported on a speech by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Rogers, Ark. The headline and article said that Mrs. Clinton had criticized Democrats on Saturday for "wasting time" by dealing with issues that helped Republicans turn out voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects. The opening sentence of the article and the headline were based on a misinterpretation of a passage in her speech in which she first referred to the Democrats' agenda in the Senate and then went on to criticize the actions of the Republican majority in Congress.

She was referring to the Republican-led Congress -- not Democrats -- when she said: "So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way." The article used only the phrase "wasting time," not the full quotation.

I'm not going to argue this with you but there is nothing at all out of context in the quote and what you provide here places it perfctly in the context that I intended.

If you had bothered to read either the story or the quote that you provide you'd see that.

May I direct you to your local military recruitment facility?  I'm sure they'll happily take you instead of the convicts and mentally challenged folks they're taking in now due to the shortfall.

Where, in this thread, did I post about dialogue with militants?  In this thread, and others I post in, I bristle at this black and white notion many on this board have that if you're not with us, you're against us, and all of our enemies are this monolithis fascist hoard bent on our death.  It's that worldview that exacerbates the problems we face.  Its similar to a foreigner assuming that all Americans are like you, or me, or any other simple facsimile or guidepost that precludes grasping nuance and distinction between X and Y.  

You're right to be concerned by Islamic fanaticism.  You're wrong to presume that anyone that doesn't tow the party line is liberal/democrat/unpatriotic/traitor/etc.  Simple enough.

Let me ask you this:  Is the world more safe today than it was 6 years ago?  Did your black and white apporach to "islamofascists" properly predict that taking out Saddam would strengthen Iran, embolden Hizballah and Hamas, and create a power vacuum to be filled by the Iranians, who are now and always have been the main threat and exporter of terror in this world? Is this a democratic talking point too?

we can't be the Senate as she uses we and they in the same phrase. This implies, of course, that there is an "our" base which you seem to believe is the non-partisan base of the Senate.

So your interpretation got the benefit of being classified as Dowdified.

And if 'they' is the Republican base, kind of strange since 'we' is a Republican senate, then you don't have an issue with my post.

I understand you guys hit the nasty little David Brock's site and TPM every day to get the spin, but your real issue here is the lede para from a NYT article.

But I'll give you the last word here.

She is chastising the Republican-led Senate.

"Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water.

You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems.

But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

You can listen to the audio here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607170001

She didn't chastise Democrats as the quote states, she chastised "we" meaning the Republican Senate. The quote isn't really central to your story -- why not just fix it?

Anti-semitism on the left, as it is on the right, is a fringe phenomenon that gets universally smacked down whenever it appears online, even when it's directed towards the junior senator from the Nutmeg State.

As far as the general question of whether liberals keep "controversial" stands hidden, I think it's a charge that could be equally leveled against Republican leaders.

it's really that complicated. And just for the record I don't appreciate the Dowdification charge, especially in this context.

"We" is the Senate, of which Clinton is a member. "Their base" is the Republican base, since Clinton is a Democrat.

In the past, I am starting to like you.  You put into better words my Exact reaction to this self-proclaimed Jew.

  aren't they the new democratic voting block?

  If they're letting them in the army, democratic voters that is, you may have a point about the quality of our soldiers.

She said, "We do things that try to inflame their base".

Why does SHE do it then?  Is she incapable of controlling her own actions?

She is a shrill, sniveling, whining, moron.  Sounds more like an ex-wife than a potential president.

Aha, the perfect Democrat presidential candidate.

and i think we all understood what you meant1

you opinion DOES matter in a democracy, and when it gets amplified by a media who shares your delusions, and refuses to actually listen to what dangerous people with hateful ideas say.  History is my guide, and it informs me bad things happen quickly when good people either fail to pay attention to what the bad ones are doing, or even worse, simply refuse to look and listen.  The majority of the world is not like the West, and ideals and objectives are not widely shared.  Part of it is due to ignorance, and the other part to calculated indoctrination.      

I am not satisfied with simply disagreeing with you, because my philosophy does not allow for different realities based on mere personal perspective.  There is one, unified, and common reality that we all share.  It is governed by the laws of physics and we act in it according to our natures, good and bad.  The truth is there if we can divorce ourselves from our narrow perspective and consider the universe as objectively as possible.  I look at the world like the Greeks, and like our scientists do today.  The world is full of unpleasant truths that do not make any sense to a people raised in the bosom of freedom.  I am not interested in seeing the metaphysical form of the chair, because I do not believe it is possible, but I would like to see the sharp shadow so that I can see it for what it is, albeit imperfectly.  

You seem to believe that your perception is reality, and because of this it is likely that you place man at the center of the universe.  This leads down many dead ends, and has caused immeasurable suffering on the earth even when good intentions lead it.  As a subversive who is just being contrarian in a free society I have no problem with you, and I am both intrigued and fascinated by the way your mind works.  I'm fairly sure you are a good person who has probably never been in a fight or sought violence.  I cannot say the same for myself, but I have learned a few things.  Violence of the random and unfocused sort that we encounter in a free society that is governed by the rule of law solves nothing.  Focused and purposeful violence in defense of that society is absolutely necessary against the ideologies that seek to destroy it.

You cannot negotiate and buy your freedom from the people who believe in totalitarian ideologies.  You must stand and fight or you will loose everything you care about, including your own life.  I would ask every American to support the people fighting for them, and understand that though all of them are not eloquent enough to express why they do what they do, there are very few who do not understand that they place themselves in harms way so that people like you do not have to.  That is not because you are better or smarter than them, because I assure you that you are not.  It is because your beliefs and values are not the same as theirs, but you still deserve to pursue your happiness in peace.  

Things like honor, and courage, and commitment are largely alien to someone like you who thinks in terms of only your own perception.  To other men they are more important than their own lives.  I think they are better than you, but that is just my opinion.  For someone like you to denigrate them, and then feign surprise when someone takes offence is a bit much to stomach, but we'll defend you anyway for being in the lucky sperm club and being born in our country.  Were you a Palestinian you would be summarily executed for speaking against the militia.  Remember that as you slur the people who keep you safe and free.  Some of the men and women who volunteered today will be dead in a year, and they will be in that state to protect you and your family.  All this despite your incredibly low opinion of the huge sacrifice they make for you.  

Having an honest debate with someone like you is difficult, but you matter because you are here and have a voice, so I am going to try and shame you into seeing the truth, and rejecting your self centered opinions.  This is not a time for a diversity of opinion, though it is your right.  This is a time for responsibility as we face a modern incarnation of the most evil ideologies we've ever seen.  This is a time for unity, and to give honor where it is due.  This is a time to recognize the danger our enemies pose the entire free world, not because they are supermen, but because they hold beliefs that do not negotiate or compromise, and culminate in the elimination of anyone who does not share the same beliefs.  They are certainly weak, but they have chosen a tactic that negates their disadvantages.  They are very clever.  The difference between us and them is so stark as to be almost black and white.  I fear it will take the total destruction of an American city before you listen to this enemy.  As in 1940, the situation by that time will be dire indeed, and our advantages may be gone by that point.  I would rather endure the withering political attacks from the likes of you than see that history written.  We can either drive this history or get run over by it.  It really is that simple, because seeking a peaceful conclusion with an ideology that preaches genocide and slavery will be fleeting at best.              

The author you quote, Kornblut, is known for shoddy journalism and has been corrected by various web sites and letters to the editors on numerous occasions.

I find it interesting that some people will criticize the NYTtimes for every little thing and then, when it suits, cherry pick a clearly shoddy piece of journalism and build an entire critique off of it.  Is the NYTimes worth reading or not?

. . . my argument is that Republicans aren't pushing the more controversial parts of their own agenda -- you didn't see the President campaigning on privatizing social security in 2004; that came out in 2005.  And you certainly hid immigration reform (and Tom Tancredo) in 2004.  

I don't recall the President ever calling for abortion to be outlawed, and there certainly has been no public push for an end to racial preferences for some time, yet these are things which are still at the core of the conservative agenda, no?

Finally: the party that neither controls the White House nor either chamber of Congress has virtually no reason to offer substantive proposals, but I have a sense they're coming in time for September.

This was in no way meant as a snide comment about Jews in general or any Jew in particular.

Had I the option, I would be there fighting beside the IDF.

It was typed rather hastily and in great anger at someone who Claims an ancient and greatly respected religion and in the same breath wants to discount the Evil of the Islamofascists as being on par with the evils done by the Western World (or did I mean that in the opposite order?  Too mad to figure it out).

I apologize to any other the object of my anger for any offense I may have caused.

and not a warning. I've seen plenty of posters banned for less offensive posts than this one by this jerk.  

And then he has the nerve to try and backpedal, asking us if we are looking for reasons to take offense (#44).

I know I have zero say in who gets the boot, but he still gets my vote.

This poster strikes me as a She.  Not sure why...

"Out of context" isn't quite right.  Clinton is claiming that the Republican controlled Senate ("we") takes on "controversial" (and apparently unimportant) issues as a means of mobilizing their (the GOP) base, and she blames the Democrats for acknowledging and arguing these "controversial" issues, as doing so advances the Republican cause.  But Streiff is correct in that Clinton's implicit advice to the Democrats is to avoid the "controversial" issues and attempt to find common ground where none really exists by skewing their positions.

Repeating a liberal lie does not make it so.  Recruiting is cyclitic, and we have the highest retention of veteran troops in history.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm  

I take deep personal offense to your idiotic characterization of the people defending your worthless hide.  The people defending you are not "convicts and mentally challenged".  They are the finest people I've ever known, and one of them is worth a hundred of you shiftless fools.  

I am a veteran, and have trained alongside the IDF, so I am not speaking out the wrong end, like you.  I'm old and fat, but if we need to draft people, like you, who don't want to go I will drop my life and fight in whatever capacity my government sees fit to put me.

Again, your problem is that you believe yourself to be so darned smart that your opinions are more valid than those of our enemies, and you project your own politics on to them and never even think of listening to them and considering their words.  I do not think that our enemies are "monoliths", but they are certainly fascists bent on destruction or domination of anyone who does not believe exactly as they do.  That is not simply my opinion, but an objective assessment of their own words and actions that anyone who is paying attention without a head full of false premises and misperceptions would make.  

Worldview?  Worldview?  You are literally arguing that Nazism (Islamofacism) is not all bad, and we should not view it as a black or white issue.  Calling yourself enlightened for such an ignorant view is ridiculous.  The worldview of our enemies is vastly more important at the moment, and you seem to have blinded and deafened yourself to their clear words.  There is evil in our world that is beyond redemption, and the ideologies that preach violence and authoritarian control meet the criterion; add in religious fervor and you exponentially increase the danger.  The world is shades of gray that can be argued over till you meet an ideology that preaches genocide as an acceptable solution to the debate, then it is, actually, black and white; just as surely as life and death.

It is not enlightened to disavow generalization when discussing groups of hundreds of thousands of people.  There is culture and disposition that does transcend the individual, and ignoring it because it is more palatable to attempt to take every individual on his/her own merits is to ignore reality.  Outside of a liberal democracy with the rule of law your proclivities are less than meaningless.  Certainly it is a noble endeavor in peace and harmony to concentrate on each and every individual, but if you hadn't noticed, the does not carry the same level of importance in the totalitarian cultures we are fighting globally.  In fact, the individual is the enemy of these ideologies, and they pride themselves on indoctrination that crushes the individual and suppresses individuality in the extreme.  All you are doing is projecting your western ideals on an enemy that totally rejects them, and that is why you are unable to grasp their simple, stated objectives.  

If refusing to negotiate with fanatics bent on genocide is "towing the party line," then you're right.  I think you have absolutely nothing positive to contribute to the discussion, and that your opinions are those of an ignorant child who believes that everything revolves around the self.  Truly, there are deep psychological roots to your "worldview" that you ought to explore before contributing to a discussion about international relations, because this is not about either of our worldviews.  It's about the worldview of the people trying to destroy us.  Listening to them, and understanding that they believe what they say, because God demands it, is the central point, and the fallacy of all your pronunciations.  

I totally reject your premise.  I do not see Iran as becoming more powerful because Hussein is gone.  I see them doing exactly what they were doing before, and that is acting as the central clearing house of terror in the war they openly declared on us these thirty years.  They are now just closer than ever before to perfect the nuclear weapons they have sought for decades.  They try to exert control in Iraq, and are a nuisance, but I don't see 130,000 Revolutionary Guards on the ground keeping order.  I see proud American troops helping a damaged society back on its feet after a thirty year nightmare under a monster. I also do not think that freeing Iraq emboldened any other terrorists.  Why did Quadafi spontaneously dump his WMD program and allow inspectors to confirm its destruction?  I also see American power and influence in the Middle East being thousands of times greater than at any time in history, and I see Arabs looking to our armed forces for protection and help in finally being free of despotism and tyranny.  That you have such a negative and skewed view of things is not surprising.

Your ridiculous drivel never freed a single soul.  Clearly you do not understand the democracy you live in, and understand what it is like to live without it even less.

Democracy is like a Chinese handcuff.  When you are in it the more you violently struggle the more bound and doomed you become.  That is why every great social movement in a democracy embraced non-violence and was triumphant against their oppressors.  In any system where public opinion is of critical importance there can be no reckoning with such moral superiority.  The moral superiority of non-violence and negotiation, especially in the face of violence, is undoubtedly proven by its repeated success.  

Up to this point democracies have been nearly unbeatable when matched against totalitarians, because as Cicero observed, "One free farmer defending his land is worth ten pressed Hoplites".  However, the same proofs not only do not apply within a totalitarian system, where the will of the people is meaningless, but they are in fact reversed, and pacifism is met with total annihilation, as in Tiananmen Square and countless other massacres perpetrated by those who keep power at the point of a sword.  

What you know and understand to be true is indeed true in the system in which you live.  Outside that system of individual freedom and peaceful resistance for change your world is turned upside down, and everything you know to be true is false.  Letting go of what you know, and listening to the people who have declared that our fate is to be slavery and death is the only enlightened way to understand what we face.  

This enemy is simply another incarnation of the one we have been fighting for 200 years.  It is war against the worst part of human nature.  It is the rejection of the individual in favor of the collective, and the systematic crushing of individual expression and identity.  It's penultimate achievement is when the individual becomes meaningless, and individual sacrifice for the collective is the highest expression of purity and good.  That is where we are.  We fight the ideological equivalent of Nazis, with a religious fervor that Adolph could only dream of, and to fail to understand this is to obscure the truth, not reveal it.    

as a convict or mental defective if I thought a POS like you was worth raising my blood pressure over.

Nah, that didn't do it; my blood pressure is raised!  I have a 20 year old in an armored infantry unit carring a SAW so someone like you has the right to say something like that about him.  You vile creature!  You don't deserve their shedding their urine for you much less their blood.

I'd best check out b4 I'm banned since I've run out of civility.

It is black and white and you are wrong.

The dig wasn't at the military, people.  The dig was at the recruitment shortfalls leading the military to lower their threshold requirements for eligibility, implied from a war predicated on monolithic black and white thinking.  Are you just looking for a reason to be offended?

Liberal execration--if I spit such drivel, why exert thousands of words refuting it.  Just ignore me.  First rule of public relations.  Also, I respect your right to your opinion, shouldn't you do the same?

May I direct you to your local military recruitment facility?  I'm sure they'll happily take you instead of the convicts and mentally challenged folks they're taking in now due to the shortfall.

This is your One Bite™ at the apple.

Thanks,

Mgmt.

How do you pretend to know me from about 10 lines posted on this thread?  

I stipulate to Israel's right to defend itself.  I stipulate to the fact that Israel should not end its  incursion into Lebanaon until a) it dismantles the Hizballah infrastructure, and b) it get's it soldiers back.  Since (b) will only happen in body bags, I'll settle for (a).

As for your diatribe purporting to know me and what I stand for, you only prove my point.  I deigned to disagree with you, hence I am living in the looking glass/kool aid bowl whatever.

Again, can you point to any mainstream members of the "left" or the "democratic party" who advocate a modeern Holocaust of jewish blood?  Can you point to any documentation showing this "secret agenda" of the left? Can you hear me or is the echo reverberating too loudly?

By the way, you do a great insult to the millions upon millions who died in WWII at the hands Hitler et al.  Don't go invoking the holocaust of my people for your weak analogy.

I'm obliterating the false premises you are basing your arguements/statements upon.  

It's well and good that you support a free people's right to defend themselves against a brutal, totalitarian enemy.  Juxtapose that against the fact that you wish for a dialog with said enemy to take place and you've lost me.  Diplomacy is not an end, it is a means.  Talk for its own sake wastes time, and in this war we are the stronger and time is on the enemy's side.  They want to talk and to keep talking, because while people like you hold out for changing their minds and countermanding orders received directly from God, they can prepare to strike, and assemble arsenals of weapons delivered by their nation state sponsors (as we are seeing now).   They cannot do so in the same manner when fighting for their lives (or deaths as the case may be).  

I only know what you posted, and it was near verbatim Democrat talking points (that are very poorly reasoned by the way).  After writing that, if you do not count yourself a "liberal" or "progressive", then you define it differently than the rest of us.  Extrapolating on your ideas, and bringing them to logical conclusions is not the same thing as claiming to "know" you.  You are in the looking glass, because you are precisely right about fascism and Nazism being overused terms in the vernacular, and I only made it clear that I use the terms precisely, and not for effect.

Of course mainstream members of the left and Democrats do not advocate another holocaust, but if their actions mirror those taken before the last one, and they persist in trying to reason with and sympathize with evil, another one is exactly what we will get.  When someone threatens your family and your life you take it seriously, period.  You do not dismiss it, and then project your own politics on the aggressor trying to find personal meaning in their violence. You call the police, arm youself, and defend your family.  

What liberals and Democrats are advocating is negotiating with an ideology that is hell bent on genocide, and quite clearly states it in their charter documents (as I alluded to earlier).  This is exactly the course of action and failure of courage that allowed the old Nazis time to build their power to the point where they could stop hiding what they were doing and proceed from a position of power.  It is codified in the Koran in the tales of Mohamed's slaughter of the Koreish, whom he signed a ten year peace treaty with and slaughtered in two.  In the critical pre-WWII years there was ample resources and knowledge to stop the Nazi's rise to power.  Those in power lacked the courage, and feared war more than they feared a world in which Nazism ruled.  I see defeating these Islamofacists in exactly the same respect.  Having fought in war I am quite sure that no one hates it more than me, but it is certainly not the most fearful of events I can imagine.  

A world in which I and my family are dhimis is exponentially more distressing to me than fighting.  My freedom is worth everything I know, and it is not open for negotiation whether it is a Danish cartoon, or women wearing shorts in public, or religious police enforcing Shariah outside the purview of legitimate government.  I will fight for it, and I will not negotiate with anyone whose objective is to take it away from me, or any other free people.  Their greatest hope is that we abandon our other democratic allies so they can take us out one at a time.  In my estimation those who council Israel to restrain its response lack the intelligence and imagination to understand what it would be like if rockets were raining down on one of their own cities, and I find it repulsive that anyone could be so obtuse.  

When I reference the Holocaust, it is NOT an analogy.  I wish it were, but a repeat is the stated goal of all these Islamic fanatics.  Get it through your thick skull that the Islamofacists mean it when they say they intend to, "Wipe Israel off the map, and drive every Jew before them into the sea."  What could possibly possess you to dismiss their clear and unambiguous words?  

Furthermore, I'll invoke it all I want.  By my own actions and the actions of my family I am quite certain that I've earned the right to discuss the Holocaust without being one of God's chosen people, period.  

Again, I do not invoke it to prove a point.  I say the Arabs want another Holocaust because THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY!    

Are you not aware that Hitler published his plans for the Jews while in prison?  Just like you dismiss the Mullahs today, so too did the world dismiss his writings as the rantings of a madman.  Why repeat a mistake with such terrible consequences.  All you need to do is stop believing that you have all the answers, and listen to the enemy.  Their words are more for their own people than they are for you (most of the time), and they do indeed mean what they say.  I'm sorry its not some great conspiracy theory, but it never is.  It has webbed feet and goes quack.  It is a duck.