Republicans: Look! We’re Democrats, too
The Washington Times reports today that Congressional Republicans have a plan to ape Democrats in the next election;
The overall election strategy includes short-term and long-term plans — to be introduced next week — that will tackle the rising costs of gasoline and diesel fuel, the aide said.
Beginning in June, Republicans will tout proposals to deal with health care, the economy and national security.
“Americans have seen firsthand the change Democrats are making, and it is moving America in the wrong direction. To the American people, we say that Republicans will deliver ‘the change you deserve,’ ” the memo says.
The Republicans, whose 12-year reign as the majority party in the House ended with the 2006 elections, devised the strategy to prevent further losses and, they hope, chip away at the Democrats’ 235-199 majority in the chamber.
Too little, too late. The Republicans already lost the November 2006 because they acted like Democrats while they were in Congress and voters couldn’t see the difference in voting for either one. if the Republicans think they can beat Democrats by acting like Democrats, they’re dead wrong. The Conservative base abandoned them in 2006 because of their intellectually vacant postions on illegal immigration and national defense.
I’ve had GOP operatives request that I link this blog to their their’s and I’ve refused. I wouldn’t link to a Democrat National Committee blog, why would I link to a blog that was covertly acting like Democrats? I’m not a Republican because I like the name, and currently, the name is the only thing Republican about them.
Category: Politics
No points backing your statement. Just baseless opposition and insults. Pattern established. Ad nauseum.
TSO, again, you have offered nothing of substance beyond calling Rooney names. Your refusal to address Rooney’s argument using logic only underscores your ignorance. I seriously doubt anyone is swayed–much less impressed–by your tired you’ve-never-been-there-so-you-have-no-idea-what’s-happening mantra.
Your opinion consists of “I disagree with Rooney” … hardly the stuff of mensa, old sport.
But you go on thumping your chest and flaunting your degrees as if that makes any difference in the argument. That you have such accomplishments under your belt and still argue like a buffoon reflects poorly on you, your education, your service, and your ability to engage in any form of logical discussion.
Jonn wrote: Rooney has no argument – he just wants to argue. Old Sport.
And once again, you think I actually care to debate this guy. What would be the point? What on God’s Green Earth would one have to gain from debating someone like that? I don’t believe I ever even feighned to attempt to engage in a logical discussion. What’s the point, he is clearly unhampered by logic, so why would bother? It’s much more fun to remonstrate and get him to post like 15 times after he said he was done arguing. If I have something to say on an issue, I do so. Sometimes it’s just more fun to play the cat with a new toy.
Are you suggesting that a formal declaration of war and an approval of a joint resolution is one in the same Jonn?
Jonn wrote: Are you suggesting they’re not? Let’s revisit what the Constitution says – “To declare war….” Period.
I am absolutely saying they are not the same. The sacred power of congress is there to protect the from war being waged at the behest of the president, because that’s exactly what this resolution is about. So let’s say McCain/Obama/Hillary said that Sudan has WMD’s and they are a threat to the United States, even though the literature and the facts support otherwise, would you support a resolution to invade Suda? Sure, you can assert that they are one in the same but if they are, then why didn’t congress just go ahead and declare war against Iraq? Why go through the trouble of drafting up a resolution?
Jonn wrote: Oh, well, if you say it, it must be so. I don’t need any proof…your word is good enough for me. It doesn’t need to be in the Constitution or anything. I’ll call the President and let him know immediately.
When you have something of substance to say, let me know. You’d better get to researching before you come back, because you sitting there typing how you feel doesn’t count. You’re becoming a bit of a pest at this point.
That puts a smile on my face, thank you.
Jonn wrote: Why? Are you touching yourself? If you have a smile on your face, it’s because you’re a complete idiot. I quit answering you because you have nothing of substance to contribute the conversation – just like your half-witted girlfriend Rooney. Is that your debating technique? Making unsupported statements and keep making them until everyone is tired of typing to your semi-literate ass? Good, then you won.
This is a GREAT thread Jonn! I’ve had a wonderful time “fart[ing] in [their] general direction.”
Yes, unfortunately, I “missed” the Short Bus again! I rode home on Metro.
Who “surrenders” to us? Nobody. We just kill them all until whomever they are decides to quit attacking us. Like I had noted earlier, learn something about the War(s) on the Barbary Pirates. BB, you didn’t know that our first conflict with Islamic theory happened during President Thomas Jefferson’s (he is generally credited with drafting the U.S. Constitution), did you?
You’ve never studied the differences about the so-called “Declarations of War,” either. As is obvious. As I pointed out earlier. Hello? Try “Google,” it is a fantastic resource. STUDY the so-called “Declarations of War,” and then contrast and compare the differences for the so-called Less Than Declarations of War for the United States, that have occurred since the CREATION of the United States under the Constitution.
The so-called “Declaration of War” clause that differs from a “Joint Resolution” “non-Declared-War” (which seems to mean something to you) is that the United States Government promises to expend every financial and physical resource to the successful prosecution of the war. Do you REALLY want to go that far, BB? Do you want the ENTIRE economy of the United States to be absolutely-and-unconditionally-dedicated to the ABSOLUTE ERADICATION (btw, ever hear of “genocide”?) of the threat? If so, then you are no different than Osama Bin-Laden, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, or Pol Pot – an idiotic fanatic who desperately NEEDS to be killed.
Now, “go away, or I shall TAUNT you a SECOND time!”
Listening to you guys go back and forth is certainly entertaining. I’ve been a long time fan of this blog and have tried, thus far, to stay out of it an pursue an outside, objective point of view. I can’t anymore. I’m a former military officer who served not only in the middle east, but also in America’s war against drugs…and…I’m an alcoholic. In order for our country’s young service men and women NOT to end up like me, we NEED a president like John McCain to fix this crisis we are in. The difference between a “formal declaration of war” and some strange Congressional concensus is like asking “Does the sun rise in the East or West?” or “If your standing facing Canada, does the sun rise on your left or your right?” IT’S ALL THE SAME! We got folks over there, 99% of them who are COMPLETELY misinformed about the true reason America is involved in this mess, who bust their asses day in and day out because that’s what they think is the right thing. That’s why I’m for McCain…he’s the man to get us out of Iraq. As for all you fine folks that support Ron Paul…What does he offer that McCain doesn’t besides a sense of subversiveness. Does it make you feel better that you’re different than the rest? That your vote counts? I’ll stand up and defend anybody’s right to express their opinion or carry a loaded .45 into a grocery store, but, sorry gents, I’m not down with a bunch of crack heads getting high on the street corners near my house and putting a knife in my neck just for five bucks to score their next rock…take it easy.
Apologies to BOB!!! First time user, those were not his comments, but mine. I owe you a beer!
Jonn wrote: OK, now I’m confused.
First, if you are veteran, and are suffering from your experiences, then I have every condolence for you (I offer as minimal proof my earlier post about IVAW veterans). Seek counseling from other veterans. You need to be able to talk to other veterans who’ve been there. The “larger” veteran community, even the Vietnam Vets, DO understand your stresses. SEEK them out. Talk TO them, not AT them.
As to the “formal declaration of war” business, its a manufactured assault designed to undermine a Soldier’s/Marine’s/Sailor’s/Air Force man’s/Coast Guardsman’s belief in the righteousness of their cause. As a serviceman, you NEVER get to “pick” the righteousness of the mission, you merely have to serve. History (notwithstanding the modern version of immediate-revisionist-theory crap) will decide who was “right,” and who was “wrong.” If you have daughters, do you want them wearing burquas and being beaten (or killed) by their husbands (or other family members) because they’ve “dis-honored” your family? I do not.
As for “crack heads” carrying guns, there are federal laws prohibiting precisely what you describe. I am a VERY stout defender of the Second Amendment, but I am also a VERY stout defender of prosecuting federal firearms-law offenders. Some federal firearms laws I disagree with, but not this one. Look up 18 U.S.C. 922(g).
Returning to the point, seek assistance, B.B., don’t permit yourself to become a “poster-boy” for leftist propaganda.
Sincerely,
509th Bob
If my comments need to be redirected to Danimal, then let it be so.
509:
I appreciate your quick reply. I wrote a short apology to BB about posting under his name. I’m writing under “Danimal”, my name’s Dan if you didn’t guess. As for my alcoholism…I don’t blame that on ole’ Uncle Sam…I blame it on my mom…cheers!
Jonn wrote: OK I fixed your comment so it’s under your name now. I think. Welcome – I hope you stop just lurking and start participating.
A person drinks for their own reason, Danimal. Seek counseling. Otherwise, the same observations apply. After the Army, I law-clerked for a Vietnam combat veteran judge. He was a fine man, and I appreciate my service to him. Don’t let your “past” defeat you. Move on and make something of your life.
As for posing under BB’s identifier, I noticed it came up as default identifier, and erased it.
Jonn, something is wrong with your website (or your webhost’s supplier) if it automatically defaults to a previous commenter’s name.
Jonn wrote: The only way you can stop that is to register as a commenter and sign in. I used to make people register to comment, but I stopped it last summer.
That’s “posting,” not “posing.” Too many beers!
Jonn wrote: Blasphemy! There’s no such thing as “too many beers”. A fatwa on you.
This has been an interesting exchange. Can’t believe I read it all. I think James Madison summed up the core of the discussion well:
“In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. …War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. …It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable and venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”
The fact is, after 911, Congress blew it’s role as Madison saw it to check the Presidency. Many of the writers on this blog seem enthusiastically supportive of what Madison calls the President’s “executive aggrandizement,” more specifically Bush’s effective bamboozling of Congress into giving him his “joint resolution” — or whatever legal noun it may go by. Who cares what it’s called, since the Constitution is on hold. Members of Congress simply didn’t do their job. Let’s hope they find the balls to do it in the future, especially vis-a-vis Iran.
Hey Grant, let have an even more interesting discussion.
Where’s the audit for the $500,000 the PUBLIC contributed to VFP for Katrina relief? PUBLIC paid, PUBLIC should know.
Why did VFP National send $50,000 to the other groups involved with that? A bribe for their silence or reparations for misconduct? What?
Why should VFP decide $50,000 is enough? What about the other $450,000? Shouldn’t an outside, INDEPENDENT entity, perhaps the Louisiana and Mississippi Attorney Generals have decided that?
TSO- While we’re all beating around the bush, what everyone is trying to tell you is that you just don’t have the mental horse power to discuss anything. But go ahead and keep thinking so highly of yourself though.
And while I don’t seem to be beating around the bush, you don’t seem to understand that I couldn’t care less what your intellectual assessment of me is. This isn’t the floor of Congress dolt, it’s a blog. There’s very little point debating already committed individuals who populate a political blog. My assessment of myself is irrelevant, and I fashion myself no brighter than the average bear, but your nonsensical rants are hilarious to me, which is why the proprietor of this blog is kind enough to email me when you respond so I can come back and poke you a bit more. You seem no brighter or denser than your initial assinine statement about voting.
Wow, quite a debate. While I’m a little skeptical about the “non-voting as principle” idea, I think I understand where you’re coming from, Rooney. There’s definitely a case to be made that the illusion of choice is not a choice…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you suggesting that there’s no hope in casting a ballot–here or abroad? If I understand your argument correctly, then, voting is kind of like that scene in Braveheart where William Wallace is standing before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate offers him two choices: “confess and you will receive a quick death; deny and you must be purified by pain. Do you confess?” If that’s the case…well, I need more convincing before I’ll go along with you, sorry. I’m not sure if I’m ready to compare “kissing the royal emblem on the Magistrate’s cloak” with voting. I’m all ears if you want to strengthen your case, though.
Finally, TSO…nice try. Clever move towards the end to act like you were playing devil’s advocate to bait Rooney, but sadly your previous comments–as well as your blog–reveal that you engage in bullying tactics when you are proven wrong…as was the case here. Just an observation…I await your insult barrage with baited breath.
Eddie,
As pointed out in your Braveheart example- the authority of the state comes from its power to punish those who do not support it. At the very core of it, the state’s power is coercive in nature. The state relies on your vote as a sign of its legitimacy. By voting and giving consent you are resigning yourself to the state’s power. By not voting you are rejecting the state’s legitimacy.
As the great writer Thucydides points out: states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics. Ask yourself this question- does the US govt’s ideals (power, might, and security) match your personal ideals? Or does it undermine your own personal power, might, and security?