posted May 25, 2006 11:28 AM            

Opinion leaders, opinion makers acoustic?

You must be joking...either that or kidding yourself if you believe either of those groups are making intellectual arguments

I'm talking about enunciating a coherent policy...domestic or foreign and backing their arguments up with clear and convincing logic.

The left has no coherent or effective foreign policy. Their policy consists of turning US sovereignty over to the UN and retreat in the face of any enemy. Endless talk, talk, talk, talk but no action...ever.
Giving foreign opinion veto power over US security interests is not a coherent or effective foreign policy.

They have no domestic policy...except raising taxes coupled with class envy, class warfare and killing the US economy.

posted May 25, 2006 11:40 AM            

Not one of your allegations has contained an ounce of proof.

I keep asking you to prove Bush lied and stole.

So far, you haven't cited..by direct quote..what Bush said that was a lie and you haven't provided any proof as to what Bush stole or when.

I think you must have Bush confused with Commander Corruption whose lying is legend and legion.

Commander Corruption and his corrupt wife Hillary are the White House couple who stole from the American people by trying to make off in the night with art treasures donated to the people of the United States.

It's not your sources Mirandee, it's the fact they don't use any direct quotes by Bush which were lies either. Those are their conclusions lacking any proof. Proof, which would be readily available if those allegations were true.

posted May 25, 2006 12:39 PM              

The U.S. has appointed itself as the world's police. However they only "police" the countries where they have a vested interest. We don't see the U.S. sending troops in to help out the African peoples of Darfur and they didn't do that for Rwanda. Normally public opinion and putting pressure on them is the only time the government will even speak out about the genocide taking place in countries like that. The U.S. has never even chastised the Mexican government for the way they treat their people. As long as any country plays ball with the U.S. as far as our government is concerned they can treat their people any way they want to. That was also the case with Iraq as long as Hussein played ball with our government.

The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to come in and take over their country. They don't even know what democracy means. They only trust their religious leaders. I think that mostly the Arabic nations want leaders that they know will protect them from Israel and since the U.S. has always supported Israel no matter how horribly they treat their Arabic neighbors ( as is witnessed to in Palestine ) the U.S. is not a nation that the Iraqi people or any other arab nation trusts to protect them from Israel.

If the U.S. government along with Great Britian and the other European nations would develop a just policy that treats Arabic peoples equally with Israel there would be no terrorist groups like Hamas and al Quada. Those groups are born out of frustration, anger and oppression. The same was the case in northern Ireland where the Catholics were treated unequally and unjustly by the Protestants and that was tolerated by the British governments. The IRA was born out of anger, frustration and oppression. That is why all the Bush administration have served to do by invading Iraq and taking over the country is to create more anger, more hate and thus more terrorists.

Going into war with Iran will open Pandora's box onto the world and there will never be safety for anyone because Osama bin Laden and the al Quada are minor league players compared to Hamas who support Iran.

A just and fair policy of negotiating peace in the Middle East is what is needed. War will only create more terrorism and more terrorist organizations.

posted May 25, 2006 12:58 PM              

quote:

---

I'm talking about enunciating a coherent policy...domestic or foreign and backing their arguments up with clear and convincing logic.

---

posted May 25, 2006 12:59 PM            

Yes, it's quite clear that the intellectuals of our country fall to the left. I haven't seen you make any case of any significance to say otherwise.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, if you can find one leftist intellectual with a clear, coherent policy argument..either foreign or domestic who can lay it out chapter and verse, logically and reasonably, then post that argument here and let's have a look at that leftist intellectual and their argument.

---

Talk about an exercise in futility. I frankly don't feel like putting in the effort. If you impressed me with your even-handed views and ability to think critically and objectively maybe I'd consider discussing these things. As it is, though, I know you'd dismiss any policy argument I put before you without even considering whether the author has a point or not. That's predictable. You've never demonstrated any ability to look at things from multiple viewpoints. Dealing with hippies and conspiracy theorists is easy, but when confronted with issues of logic, science, and morality you have a really difficult time staying objective.

posted May 25, 2006 01:17 PM            

More 5 year old kiddie talk....

quote:

---

The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to come in and take over their country.....Mirandee

---

Sovereignty in Iraq was handed back to the provisional Iraqi government June 2004. Several free elections and a Constitutional Referendum later, the Iraqis have a permanent government in place...a representative government. Iraqis have been running Iraq since June 2004.

Facts most inconvenient to leftists Neither the kiddies in the press, the kiddies in the Congress nor the kiddies in leftist groups want to talk about that.

posted May 25, 2006 01:26 PM            

If you could, you'd put that leftist intellectual front and center here on this thread.

So called leftist intellectuals are engaged in a I hate Bush jihad but don't have a single thing to offer as alternatives to Bush policies that wouldn't get them laughed off the stage.

posted May 25, 2006 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

What you mean acoustic is that you can't think of a single leftist intellectual who has the ability to think clearly and enunciate a clear, convincing policy...either foreign or domestic.

---

No, what I meant is precisely what I said. Nothing more and nothing less.

quote:

---

So called leftist intellectuals are engaged in a I hate Bush jihad but don't have a single thing to offer as alternatives to Bush policies that wouldn't get them laughed off the stage.

---

Is it an "I hate Bush jihad," or a, "I love my country jihad?" You really don't get it. Plain and simple you just won't understand. It's past time for damage control on this presidency. Until you understand and accept the myriad ways that this administration has failed the country, you won't understand the left. You yourself ought to be able to list every mid-step this administration has taken, and the consequence of those actions. But you won't and you can't, because you buy the lie. You feel safer as we create more enemies. Even Clinton left the country in a better position for his predecessor than Bush will be.

posted May 25, 2006 03:05 PM            

The source doesn't matter acoustic. Just find someone on the left who makes any sense at all in the area of domestic or foreign policy for the United States.

Find someone who has some policy ideas which have not been tried by previous administrations which proved to be abject failures.

So far, it's all a jihad against Bush and has been since Bush was elected in 2000.

On the other hand acoustic, there are any number of people on this side who can make the correct and logical case for taking out the Taliban and Saddam. People who can make the clear and logical case for the Bush tax cuts. People who can make clear and logical cases for some other Bush initiatives which didn't get through the Congress but should have.

posted May 25, 2006 07:11 PM            

I'd be interested to see who you would choose to represent the logic of your side.

As far as policy from the left, what would you like to tackle? Since you're so confident you must have something in mind. Is it

* Fiscal Responsibility?
* Stem Cell Research?
* The Clean EDGE initiative?
* Raising the minimum wage?

posted May 25, 2006 07:40 PM              

Pid, I think you must have missed the BS about hanging Muslims from lamp-posts that I was replying to when I began to mention that role..ie killing as many Muslims as you can.

Rainbow although those cartoons you posted probably won't win a debate here against the Bush lovers, they're hilarious nonetheless.

Mirandee, you make things so clear and put everything into perspective... keep up the good work

And I must say, sometimes I like your blunt ?humour? MG.

posted May 25, 2006 07:54 PM            

Since you apparently don't know, one must assume their tanks are empty

Pid and others have asked what those bi*ching and moaning about Bush policies would do. So far, there's been a resounding silence.

This is a good time to explore leftist ideas about domestic and foreign policy.

Surely, you don't think an answer that is essentially....I'd do the same thing Bush is doing....but I'd do it better, longer, higher, deeper...you don't think that's going to fly...surely.

posted May 26, 2006 02:26 AM            

quote:

---

AG, you seem pretty bored....are you?

---

Yeah, a bit.

quote:

---

Pid and others have asked what those bi*ching and moaning about Bush policies would do. So far, there's been a resounding silence.

---

Where? What others? How did this change from, "Show me any policy from the left that can be laid out logically," to "show me what leftists would have done policy-wise that would have been better than Bush?" I'm quite certain that there are lots of people from either side of the aisle who could have gotten through 6 years without screwing things up to this extent.

quote:

---

This is a good time to explore leftist ideas about domestic and foreign policy.

---

I see you say that and yet you didn't have anything to say about the policies I put in front of you.

I let you goad me into posting some policy positions, and this is the best retort you can give? You try to change the subject by claiming Pid and others are asking for alternatives to what Bush did. That's a completely different train of thought to what you'd been asking for.

posted May 26, 2006 11:15 AM            

I know you're stumped and stymied trying to find even one leftist (so called) intellectual that's had a new idea in the last 40 years...but give it your best shot anyway.

After all acoustic, it's leftists who have been screeching, whining, moaning, rolling on the floor, stamping their feet, holding their breath and turning themselves blue in kiddie fashion over Bush policies.

It's an entirely fair and reasonable adult question to ask what leftists would do differently. Further, adults have asked that question..Pid, Isis and others including me and now, like petulant kiddies, there's silence on that subject and an attempt to change the subject itself.

It seems reasonable and adult to ask what leftist intellectuals put forth as domestic and foreign policy positions...since much is made of the intellectual firepower of leftists.

But I don't hear anything acoustic.

"Not Bush" is hardly a foreign or domestic policy acoustic.

quote:

---

Fiscal Responsibility?
* Stem Cell Research?
* The Clean EDGE initiative?
* Raising the minimum wage...acoustic

---

posted May 26, 2006 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

Stop trying to change the subject acoustic.

---

I didn't change the subject. You did. Anyone can see that.

quote:

---

I know you're stumped and stymied trying to find even one leftist (so called) intellectual that's had a new idea in the last 40 years...but give it your best shot anyway.

---

What is this, denial?

quote:

---

It's an entirely fair and reasonable adult question to ask what leftists would do differently. Further, adults have asked that question..Pid, Isis and others including me and now, like petulant kiddies, there's silence on that subject and an attempt to change the subject itself.

---

Listen, first of all, you guys haven't asked that question in particular in recent times that I'm aware of. Secondly, in all this time you've debated here you've heard countless ways in which the left would have done something different.

I'll indulge your change of subject, though, briefly. What could another President have done better than Bush?

* Managed the country's finances
* Kept it's eye on the ball with regard to Bin Laden
* Pursued Iraqi adherance to U.N. resolutions by developing the worldwide sentiment of agreement on the issue instead of going at it cowboy style. (Did you see Bush last night?)
* Offered energy meeting details to the public for scrutiny
* Not established secret prisons which operate outside of the law
* Allowed at least the U.N. to inspect Guantanamo for the sake of the world's trust in our justice system

You already know all the ways that Bush has failed. Only a masochist would need to rehash these poor policy decisions.

quote:

---

But I don't hear anything acoustic.

---

You don't choose to hear anything, Jwhop. You regularly block out a huge segment of reality in order to keep up this illusion you have going.

quote:

---

This is what you believe represents a coherent foreign and domestic policy acoustic?

---

No, that was in relation to your actual question. I really don't understand how you can forget what you said earlier in this very thread:
"Find someone who has some policy ideas which have not been tried by previous administrations which proved to be abject failures."

posted May 26, 2006 12:22 PM              

We have constantly said that negotiation is superior to just going to war as a means of solving world problems.

quote:

---

What you really mean Mirandee is that you don't have a shred of proof to back up your outrageous allegations and can't find any.

---

I don't have to give facts to prove my opinions, Jwhop any more than you or anyone else does. What you call my "allegations" are my opinions. I give facts to back up what I say that is in the news. Otherwise it is my opinion on what is being discussed.

You are constantly spouting off your off the wall opinions around here. Can you give facts to back up your opinions and thoughts? If so put up or shut up.

posted May 26, 2006 12:28 PM            

Let's get to the bottom line.

You admit this is the question. Read the question in it's literal sense which is the language adults speak then attempt to find that or those leftist intellectual(s) you claim speak to the question of coherent domestic and/or foreign policies.

quote:

---

"Find someone who has some policy ideas which have not been tried by previous administrations which proved to be abject failures....acoustic"

---

That was the narrower question acoustic brought on by your failure to put forth leftist intellectuals who have coherent domestic or foreign policies...(to substitute for the Bush policies leftist moan, wheeze and screech about).

posted May 26, 2006 12:57 PM            

When you said Bush lied to the American people and also added that Bush stole from the American people, I asked you to prove it.

You could have proved Bush lied by posting the specific statement or statements Bush made which were lies....lies within the commonly accepted dictionary definitions of the words lie and lied.

You were utterly mute on the topic...except to continue making the statement with no proof. Proof which would be easy to find if it were true. Easy to find because when Bush makes a speech to the public, they are duly noted and disseminated to the public in newspapers, and spread all over the Internet.

Bush lied, people died is absolute horsesh*t Mirandee. If it were true, it would be the easiest thing in the world to prove.

So, prove it!

posted May 26, 2006 01:25 PM            

I think it's silly that you try to accuse me of bobbing and weaving when I've spoken twice now on things you've asked for in no uncertain terms. You asked for policy from the left. I gave it to you. You asked for policy that would have been better than Bush's. I gave it to you again. What are you not getting here? You're making an @ss of yourself, and I'm not comprehending why.

quote:

---

That was the narrower question acoustic brought on by your failure to put forth leftist intellectuals who have coherent domestic or foreign policies...(to substitute for the Bush policies leftist moan, wheeze and screech about).

---

This was not the narrower question. Prior to that question it was:

"Now acoustic, if you can find one leftist intellectual with a clear, coherent policy argument..either foreign or domestic who can lay it out chapter and verse, logically and reasonably, then post that argument here and let's have a look at that leftist intellectual and their argument."

I gave you some policies, and you didn't touch ANY of them. You didn't specify that they should be alternatives to Bush policies, but now I've given you those and you still have nothing to say. Face it, you lose. Bush failed, and took the wrong course of action on many fronts. Point blank. There's absolutely no denying that.

Like I said before, there are plenty of people on the left and the right who could have done a better job than this ignoramus. Even if another person had the exact same policy aims as this president, the execution could have been a hell of a lot better. That's why even Republicans don't think he's doing a good job anymore.

posted May 26, 2006 01:43 PM              

He was told the "things" the Iraqis were moving and concealing were probably WMD. Finding that "less than convincing," Bush asked for a more detailed briefing by CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin, which took place on Dec. 21 , 2002.

McLaughlin's version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence.

"Nice try," Bush said when the CIA official was finished."I don't think this quite – it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin's boss, and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we've got?"

posted May 26, 2006 02:12 PM            

Well acoustic, I see you're still asking questions...instead of attempting to prove leftist (so called) intellectuals actually have domestic and foreign policies which make any sense.

What is it you don't understand about the question?

What is it you don't understand about domestic policy?

What is it you don't understand about foreign policy?

Is it the word policy? If that's it acoustic, I mean an integrated policy of dealing with foreign nations and groups with clearly enunciated statements of intent, purpose and actions.

I mean an integrated policy of dealing with domestic issues by stating clearly to the public, administration intent, purpose and intended actions for dealing with domestic issues in every category which affect Americans...issues which fall under the control and jurisdiction of the federal government.

So, who are these so called leftist intellectuals who have clearly defined domestic and foreign policies....to substitute for the leftist hated Bush policies? And what are those stated policies?

It's one thing to whine and moan about Bush and quite another to put forth leftist policy initiatives to take the place of Bush policies.

So far acoustic, I don't hear a thing new coming from the left. The left appears to be a vast wasteland when it comes to ideas.

Being for Mom and apple pie is not a domestic policy acoustic.

posted May 26, 2006 03:55 PM            

quote:

---

Well acoustic, I see you're still asking questions...instead of attempting to prove leftist (so called) intellectuals actually have domestic and foreign policies which make any sense.

---

Asking questions as to your state of mind, yes.

As to your questions, I've already commented on these things. It's you who's not saying anything of any substance. We get that you don't believe democrats can make policy, but we don't see any substantiation of that case.

On the other hand there's lots and lots of substantial information proving that Bush's pursuit of his policies has been shameful. It's therefore logical that the onus on proving the logical basis for policy decisions would be on the party making such terrible decisions. At this point all alternatives look good.

If you want to look into democratic policy ideas, go ahead. I provided a short list for you. Let's hear what your argument is against them.

Or, you can take the alternatives I myself offered for how Bush could've executed his policies better, and we can see who wins that argument. (HINT: Standing by a Bush presidency is like standing by a Nixon presidency. It's a laughable position to be in.)

quote:

---

I mean an integrated policy of dealing with domestic issues by stating clearly to the public, administration intent, purpose and intended actions for dealing with domestic issues in every category which affect Americans...issues which fall under the control and jurisdiction of the federal government.

---

Why don't you go to the Democratic Party's site, and get it yourself? It's under Agenda. Pick a topic.

quote:

---

It's one thing to whine and moan about Bush and quite another to put forth leftist policy initiatives to take the place of Bush policies.

---

Policy alone isn't the answer here. To say that is to have a very limited field of view. Like I said previously, another president with identical policy objectives as Bush could've done a better job in pursuing them. Policy is only one piece of the puzzle, and no matter how logical or illogical the policy is it's the implementation that ultimately decides the policy's fate.

quote:

---

So far acoustic, I don't hear a thing new coming from the left. The left appears to be a vast wasteland when it comes to ideas.

---

posted May 26, 2006 04:50 PM            

You're embarrassing yourself with your ducking, weaving and evasion.