New GOP Tactic: Encourage revolution via billboard.

[Serafine666]

Eh, I'd argue that the emergence of any serious right-wing terrorist organization would serve to massively alienate the general populace from the republican party, and, if the current administration had even a single brain cell, would also help to unite all but the most hard core conservative hold outs behind the administration. I imagine Homeland Security would also move to stomp out such a movement before it gained much sway.

You start to see why the billboard lists "starve the beast" and "remove incumbents" before "start shooting": people may not particularly care for the right wing but all but the most inbred mental midgets realize that people who like the idea of a revolution-by-vote would be foursquare against a revolution-by-gun. I'm not really sure how much it would affect the Republican Party, really... they're not a particularly conservative bunch of folks these days no matter how often they are equated with the right wing. Which, by the by, severely annoys conservatives who express their feelings by, say, "forgetting" to vote for McCain/Palin.

I wonder how governments elsewhere reacted to the formation of terrorist groups in their country. Anyone with a good knowledge of history to enlighten us?

No really great knowledge of history is required to answer the question. Whether the Tamil Tigers, the SA, IRA, Black September, or hundreds of others, governments respond to terrorist groups by attempting to exercise the vast power of the state by squishing them. From time to time, the terrorists turn into a revolution and spin up to the point of being able to confront the government directly; this is why there is a Red China and why there was a USSR and a Nazi Germany. Sometimes, as in the case of the IRA, they decay when their enemy steals their fire by treating those they style as "their people" more kindly. At least one, Black September, was hunted down by a foreign government (the Mossad) and made an example of. But the universal knee-jerk response of a government it to nullify the threat that the terrorists represent.

[Serafine666]

Losing Texas would shift the American political balance in favor of the party (somewhat) less likely to engage in idiotic foreign adventurism, and (statistically) more likely to enact (relatively) sane domestic policies. It remove from the equation the main reason that American textbooks are forced to take bizarre gibberish like Young Earth Creationism seriously: the Texas school system.

If you really think that the Democratic Party is the party less likely to engage in foreign adventure, you really need to take a second look at history. The first Democrat to engage in a foreign cause (war with Mexico) was James Polk.
Both of the next two major adventures, the Spanish-American War and interfering in the Russo-Japanese War took place under Republicans (McKinley and T. Roosevelt, respectively).
The next phase was World War I and the president was the Democrat Woodrow Wilson whose policy of "neutrality" consisted of permitting banks to lend overwhelmingly to the Allies, overlook the British mining of the North Sea and arming of merchant ships (both actions illegal under the international law of the time), and eventually pitch in directly for which the US got nothing except a long list of Allied debtors (with the exception of Finland). He also approved the crossing of Mexican borders in pursuit of Pancho Villa which ended up as a wild goose chase.
There was no direct American intervention again until World War II under the celebrated Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt who preceded Pearl Harbor by shipping arms to China (only avoiding breaking the law because he refused to officially recognize that China and Japan were at war), precipitating the Greer and Kearny incidents, occupying Iceland with US soldiers, extending US naval patrols to the mid-Atlantic (where they escorted British convoys part way), assuring America that Nazi Germany planned to invade the United States (a bizarre assertion given what was known even in FDR's time), and assuring both the British and the Dutch of US military support in case Japan attacked their Pacific possessions. Then came Pearl Harbor.
Next came the Korean War, started by Democrat Harry Truman as a "police action" under the new collective-security international organization called the United Nations that he'd officially signed the US into (although preliminary work was done by FDR). The war would last for his presidency and would be inherited by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Eisenhower officially edged us towards the Vietnam War (although didn't technically start sending combat troops), made plans to invade Cuba (but didn't actually do so), and supported a CIA coup returning the Shah to the throne of Iran.
The Vietnam War began officially under Democrat John Kennedy whose tenure also included the failed invasion of Cuba and the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis in which he imposed a blockade on another nation without calling it a blockade (a blockade is an act of war). His tenure, of course, ended with his murder in Dallas.
Democrat Lyndon Johnson significantly expanded the war in Vietnam through the use of the Gulf of Tonkin incident but otherwise was not directly involved in further foreign adventures.
The Vietnam War essentially ended under Republican Richard Nixon who was also notable for his indirect intervention (sending American cargo planes full of weapons to the Israelis) in the Yom Kippur War. He also was the first president to visit Red China although this wasn't technically an instance of foreign adventure.
The Vietnam War was officially ended under Republican Gerald Ford who undertook no foreign interventions himself due to Congressional constraint.
There were also no foreign interventions under Carter although there were several major foreign events during his tenure.
Republican Ronald Reagan was the first (I believe) president to send "peacekeeping" troops to a foreign nation although they were withdrawn after the truck bombing in Beruit. He was also involved in the invasion of Grenada, two separate incidents with Libya, and the sending of US support (such as it was) to Nicaragua and Iraq. His most significant foreign affairs incident, however, remains the 1987 IMF Treaty with the USSR.
Republican George H.W. Bush officially saw the end of the USSR, send "peacekeepers" to Somalia, and initiated the second "police action" to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.
Democrat Bill Clinton engaged directly in 44 different instances of foreign intervention during his presidency including the conclusion of Somalia, both major incidents in the Balkans, and numerous deployments of American soldiers in "peacekeeping" operations. During his tenure, of course, came the first WTC attack, the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the cruise missile attack against Afghanistan, the bombing of a chemical plant in Nigeria, the two separate bombings against American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the suicide attack on the USS Cole.
Republican George W. Bush was responsible for the invasions of two countries in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. I am not aware of any other instances of American foreign adventure during his tenure.

Now, the above is just a general list based upon what I know off the top of my head but as you might notice, Simon_Jester, major foreign interventions seem to be more of a Democrat habit than a Republican one. Based on this, I'd say your idea that having Democrats in charge will mean less foreign intervention is erroneous. If you know of any other foreign adventures that I am not aware of, however, I'm sure you won't hesitate to tell me so.

Duly noted.

The real concern is whether what we see now will inspire a smaller, harder-core movement of car-bombing, bazooka-collecting types.

It is possible but the trend seems to militate against it. There have been fringe instances of those on the right wing being involved in shootings during Obama's tenure but there is no sign that these were coordinated by any central person or organization so they don't really constitute a rebellion or even a "militia." The largest manifestation of right-wing discontent, beyond nasty slogans and individual threats against Obama (again, neither of which seem to be connected to a specific group) was the so-called "tea party" movement which has neither committed nor expressed the intent to commit violent actions. So I'd say that while anything is possible, I don't see it being particularly likely that there'll be any sort of terrorist group popping up anytime soon from the right wing.

[Simon_Jester]

Losing Texas would shift the American political balance in favor of the party (somewhat) less likely to engage in idiotic foreign adventurism, and (statistically) more likely to enact (relatively) sane domestic policies. It remove from the equation the main reason that American textbooks are forced to take bizarre gibberish like Young Earth Creationism seriously: the Texas school system.

If you really think that the Democratic Party is the party less likely to engage in foreign adventure, you really need to take a second look at history....Now, the above is just a general list based upon what I know off the top of my head but as you might notice, Simon_Jester, major foreign interventions seem to be more of a Democrat habit than a Republican one. Based on this, I'd say your idea that having Democrats in charge will mean less foreign intervention is erroneous. If you know of any other foreign adventures that I am not aware of, however, I'm sure you won't hesitate to tell me so.

[/quote]I submit that there was a very strongly implied present tense in my statement. I should have used the present tense explicitly, because I had a good reason to do so: "the Democratic Party is relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures," not "the Democratic Party is, was, and ever shall be relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures, world without end, amen."

And by "is" I mean the immediately foreseeable political term, the period before a fundamentally different cohort of voters displaces the people now in their late teens and early twenties, before the current wave of retirees dies of old age, before the next major incident that gives the US something that can reasonably be called casus belli across party lines. At most, we're talking a horizon of ten years, because any damn thing could happen if we try to look much farther into the future than that.

I did not think this needed to be spelled out; I'm sorry.

[Serafine666]

I submit that there was a very strongly implied present tense in my statement. I should have used the present tense explicitly, because I had a good reason to do so: "the Democratic Party is relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures," not "the Democratic Party is, was, and ever shall be relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures, world without end, amen."

And by "is" I mean the immediately foreseeable political term, the period before a fundamentally different cohort of voters displaces the people now in their late teens and early twenties, before the current wave of retirees dies of old age, before the next major incident that gives the US something that can reasonably be called casus belli across party lines. At most, we're talking a horizon of ten years, because any damn thing could happen if we try to look much farther into the future than that.

I did not think this needed to be spelled out; I'm sorry.

That's well and good, Simon_Jester, but it doesn't change anything. You are certain that the Democrats are less likely to get us involved in foreign adventures but did not say why you believe this. To refute your conclusion, I listed examples that indicate, to me, that the Democrats are more likely to do so than the Republicans; historical precedent is my rational basis for thinking that you are in error. Further, although I did not state this, the Democratic Party is more inclined than the Republicans to work with the UN and more fully support its initiatives; one of these initiatives is morally-driven "peacekeeping" operations which constitute involvement in foreign adventures. Surely you have a reason other than simply faith to believe that the Democratic Party is presently less inclined than the Republicans to involve us in foreign adventures so may I ask what this reason is?

[bobalot]

I submit that there was a very strongly implied present tense in my statement. I should have used the present tense explicitly, because I had a good reason to do so: "the Democratic Party is relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures," not "the Democratic Party is, was, and ever shall be relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures, world without end, amen."

And by "is" I mean the immediately foreseeable political term, the period before a fundamentally different cohort of voters displaces the people now in their late teens and early twenties, before the current wave of retirees dies of old age, before the next major incident that gives the US something that can reasonably be called casus belli across party lines. At most, we're talking a horizon of ten years, because any damn thing could happen if we try to look much farther into the future than that.

I did not think this needed to be spelled out; I'm sorry.

That's well and good, Simon_Jester, but it doesn't change anything. You are certain that the Democrats are less likely to get us involved in foreign adventures but did not say why you believe this. To refute your conclusion, I listed examples that indicate, to me, that the Democrats are more likely to do so than the Republicans; historical precedent is my rational basis for thinking that you are in error. Further, although I did not state this, the Democratic Party is more inclined than the Republicans to work with the UN and more fully support its initiatives; one of these initiatives is morally-driven "peacekeeping" operations which constitute involvement in foreign adventures. Surely you have a reason other than simply faith to believe that the Democratic Party is presently less inclined than the Republicans to involve us in foreign adventures so may I ask what this reason is?

That's just dishonest. You know quite well he is referring to military adventures on the scale of Iraq. If the situation in Iraq wasn't so bad, there would be plenty of Republicans all for "dealing with Iran" and you know it.

[Stuart Mackey]

I find it both amusing and worrying. On the one hand if they do revolt the damned idiots don't seem to realize that they're up against a mechanized Army equipped with vehicles that can resist 12.7mm fire in many cases and they don't have the countless decades of insurgent fighting that 'them damn dirty moozlims' have, on the other I would hate to see fellow Americans' blood shed by Americans.

The only time one does have to worry about such people is when the army, or significant parts of it, ignores them or changes side and becomes the muscle for their cause, which would also mean a significant societal sea change in opinions and attitudes,and I don't see that happening.

[Yona]

I submit that there was a very strongly implied present tense in my statement. I should have used the present tense explicitly, because I had a good reason to do so: "the Democratic Party is relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures," not "the Democratic Party is, was, and ever shall be relatively less likely to get us into foreign adventures, world without end, amen."

And by "is" I mean the immediately foreseeable political term, the period before a fundamentally different cohort of voters displaces the people now in their late teens and early twenties, before the current wave of retirees dies of old age, before the next major incident that gives the US something that can reasonably be called casus belli across party lines. At most, we're talking a horizon of ten years, because any damn thing could happen if we try to look much farther into the future than that.

I did not think this needed to be spelled out; I'm sorry.

That's well and good, Simon_Jester, but it doesn't change anything. You are certain that the Democrats are less likely to get us involved in foreign adventures but did not say why you believe this. To refute your conclusion, I listed examples that indicate, to me, that the Democrats are more likely to do so than the Republicans; historical precedent is my rational basis for thinking that you are in error. Further, although I did not state this, the Democratic Party is more inclined than the Republicans to work with the UN and more fully support its initiatives; one of these initiatives is morally-driven "peacekeeping" operations which constitute involvement in foreign adventures. Surely you have a reason other than simply faith to believe that the Democratic Party is presently less inclined than the Republicans to involve us in foreign adventures so may I ask what this reason is?

Most wars are usually started by moral indignation at some thing or another. Some imagined insult (they tried to kill my Pa) or threat . Or (gasp) over Religion.

Working with the UN does not mean "starting wars", it does often mean humanitarian projects. Isn't "helping" and "giving" to others in need supposed to be part of the "Christian" credo? Or does that only occur to those that are "like them" ? Given that the World is a shrinking habitat, it makes sense to be at least aware of what is happening in other corners. Sticking ones head in the sand is not an option. That does not equate to starting wars. Sadly, the UN is basically ineffectual at what it does due to rampant Nationalism and personal agendas within.

The Republicans start them without the UN, and started the last one by lying to the whole world including the UN. What was the excuse Bush/Cheney used ? I don't need to state it. We all know. We also all know what it has cost us in terms of lives lost and economy's ruined.

The current incarnation of the Republican party is nothing more than greedy, right wing, white, Christian, racist, prejudiced, nut jobs. They fully believe that the end justifies the means. The end being their people in power. They are showing that they have no tolerance for any beliefs other than their own narrow minded views. They will say and do anything to accomplish this, including stopping ANY initiative by Congress or the current President to accomplish any substantial reform efforts in Health Care or any other arena. They know full well that if something like HC passes, and works, they are finished as a major political party in this country. They will be relegated to the status of a bunch of fringe lunatics.

Maybe they could all move to Texas.

[Chocolate Kiwii]

The Republicans start them without the UN, and started the last one by lying to the whole world including the UN. What was the excuse Bush/Cheney used ? I don't need to state it. We all know. We also all know what it has cost us in terms of lives lost and economy's ruined.

No. It needs to be stated again, and again, and again. Americans have nothing if not an incredibly short memory and attention span. The "We don't need to state it" is exactly the excuse being used to not prosecute any of that administration for their many, many, blatant crimes.
And don't forget that England the second greatest military power behind us totally backed this war.

The current incarnation of the Republican party is nothing more than greedy, right wing, white, Christian, racist, prejudiced, nut jobs. They fully believe that the end justifies the means. The end being their people in power. They are showing that they have no tolerance for any beliefs other than their own narrow minded views. They will say and do anything to accomplish this, including stopping ANY initiative by Congress or the current President to accomplish any substantial reform efforts in Health Care or any other arena. They know full well that if something like HC passes, and works, they are finished as a major political party in this country. They will be relegated to the status of a bunch of fringe lunatics.

I think you are grossly underestimating that "greedy" fringe. It's filled with doctors, lawyers, C.E.O's, Executives, and middle management: These people swing a great deal of cash, clout, and authority. They have decided despite their intelligence, foresight, and knowledge about the world that they would rather throw in with a party that celebrates ignorance, flippancy, and trifling. They would turn this country into Haiti or Russia if they could. They believe that nepotism, corruption, and indignation are perfectly valid strategies in a modern society.

Appreciate that half of this country is christian. And by christian, I don't mean religious moderates who choose faith as a personal bastion from this dark scary place we inhabit. I mean imbeciles who honestly believe that the known cosmos is younger than the evidence for agriculture and written language. I mean they honestly believe that God has laid down the foundation for this country and it is sacrosanct on his command. They believe in a talking dead guy. And since Nixon they are eager to piss away opportunities for growth and development on social issues that don't neatly fit from modern society into the context of bronze-age savages. The scariest part about this segment? Despite that many of them think along the lines of "We only need one book" they don't even read it, but have it regurgitated from the pulpit from people with very real and barbaric conservative agendas. You'd think the reformation that Americas progenitors were fleeing from had never happened. You'd think that modern American christianity was just a less treasured catholicism. May the cosmos have mercy on their brilliant ignorance.

And that nut-jobs segment? Pretty goddamn huge. It's every person whose household makes under 50K a year that believes that some day. Any time now. Their gonna strike it big. And they don't want any legislation to be passed that's going to take all of that money they earned. These people are ill-informed, and tightly cling to idealist market-rhetoric, and refuse to accept that higher taxes are imminently beneficial to themselves.
In these households they talk endlessly about the "Facts" of a welfare state that they did not receive from research or statistics but instead by what they know from the gut.
These gut-brained people don't bother with electing their officials based on voting history, or politics, or reasonable deduction: instead they vote for people with strong values, that seem approachable and impressive. They fear politicians, and agendas that make them feel ignorant. They base their cultural iconography without consideration to context or an appreciation for anything that might sully their ideals of Founding Fatherhood, The federal documents, the history of this country, the current geopolitical situations, or nationalism.

No, if you are expecting health care to be a route for the Republican Party in this country I think you are sadly mistaken. The republican party is great at making emotional appeals, rewriting history, and fostering fear in the gut of the American populace. Never forget how dangerous someone who cocoons themselves and their actions in a flag is. Especially when their shouting with vigor and authority. Most especially when it sounds like they know what their doing.

And on top of all of that, there is the impotence of the Democratic party. The inability for liberals in this country to stay involved and focused. The horror which is democratic-politician wrangling. And their obsession with not looking weak to the stupid half of this country.

Maybe they could all move to Texas.

NO.

[Serafine666]

That's just dishonest. You know quite well he is referring to military adventures on the scale of Iraq. If the situation in Iraq wasn't so bad, there would be plenty of Republicans all for "dealing with Iran" and you know it.

Actually, bobalot, I do not know "quite well" that he is referring to large-scale military adventures because he did not bother to quantify his statement. I would generally assume that if he meant "Democrats won't get us into another Iraq", he would have SAID something like that instead of blandly referring to "foreign adventures" and then, when challenged, not include the qualification in his irritated-sounding explanation. Your opinion is, however, duly noted.

[Serafine666]

Most wars are usually started by moral indignation at some thing or another. Some imagined insult (they tried to kill my Pa) or threat . Or (gasp) over Religion.

Working with the UN does not mean "starting wars", it does often mean humanitarian projects. Isn't "helping" and "giving" to others in need supposed to be part of the "Christian" credo? Or does that only occur to those that are "like them" ? Given that the World is a shrinking habitat, it makes sense to be at least aware of what is happening in other corners. Sticking ones head in the sand is not an option. That does not equate to starting wars. Sadly, the UN is basically ineffectual at what it does due to rampant Nationalism and personal agendas within.

If the UN was infected by the virus of "rampant nationalism", it'd butt out of internal domestic affairs because each nation would be demanding that it stick to feeding starving kids and monitoring elections instead of forcing "peacekeepers" on nations that it deems to need them, passing endless "international law" resolutions declaring from on high that anyone who does not comply with their special version of "moral" is bad, and shoveling money into the hands of kleptocrats the world over. Yes, that also describes recent American foreign policy and that is why I despise the UN: it is just like us at our most stupid but on a larger and more nosy scale. In defense of the UN, however, it is actually highly competent at feeding hungry children and keeping an eye on elections.

The Republicans start them without the UN, and started the last one by lying to the whole world including the UN. What was the excuse Bush/Cheney used ? I don't need to state it. We all know. We also all know what it has cost us in terms of lives lost and economy's ruined.

Although that war has nothing whatsoever to do with our wrecked economy, your point is well taken. Of course, we also did not lie to the UN but again, your point is well taken.

The current incarnation of the Republican party is nothing more than greedy, right wing, white, Christian, racist, prejudiced, nut jobs. They fully believe that the end justifies the means. The end being their people in power. They are showing that they have no tolerance for any beliefs other than their own narrow minded views. They will say and do anything to accomplish this, including stopping ANY initiative by Congress or the current President to accomplish any substantial reform efforts in health care or any other arena. They know full well that if something like HC passes, and works, they are finished as a major political party in this country. They will be relegated to the status of a bunch of fringe lunatics.

I'm glad to see that Republicans and right-wing nutbars aren't the only people who go for deliberate ignorance. Consciously choosing not to pay attention is the only explanation I can think of for honestly believing that it is the fact of the health care "reform" that incites Republican opposition and not the details of it. Like the tobacco companies assuring the public that their cigarettes don't hurt people, the government has to buy economists who'll assure Americans that their "reform" will reduce costs and increase coverage; the assertion is comedic outside the ranks of the government's "hired guns".

Maybe they could all move to Texas.

Maybe they can import Texas' financial liquidity and discipline into the blue states.

[Yona]

If the UN was infected by the virus of "rampant nationalism", it'd butt out of internal domestic affairs because each nation would be demanding that it stick to feeding starving kids and monitoring elections instead of forcing "peacekeepers" on nations that it deems to need them, passing endless "international law" resolutions declaring from on high that anyone who does not comply with their special version of "moral" is bad, and shoveling money into the hands of kleptocrats the world over. Yes, that also describes recent American foreign policy and that is why I despise the UN: it is just like us at our most stupid but on a larger and more nosy scale. In defense of the UN, however, it is actually highly competent at feeding hungry children and keeping an eye on elections.

When I say "Nationalism", I was talking about being self serving. The "what's in it for me, give ME the money, don't let someone else get the credit" attitude that is prevalent throughout it's members. Decisions are based on personal agenda's, not what is best for the people needing help. For the previous 8 years, the U.S. policies were also heavily oriented in this direction. They are shifting now, but not due to any effort by the Republicans.

Although that war has nothing whatsoever to do with our wrecked economy, your point is well taken. Of course, we also did not lie to the UN but again, your point is well taken.

The TWO wars that Bush/Cheney started are not the sole cause of economic failure. Greed on the part of their cronies contributed heavily to it also. They did, however, help stretch an already fragile structure to near failure. We are pouring billions into two countries that should be doing more to help themselves. The Iraqis have the capacity now to shoulder more of the burden of rebuilding and security.

I'm glad to see that Republicans and right-wing nutbars aren't the only people who go for deliberate ignorance. Consciously choosing not to pay attention is the only explanation I can think of for honestly believing that it is the fact of the health care "reform" that incites Republican opposition and not the details of it. Like the tobacco companies assuring the public that their cigarettes don't hurt people, the government has to buy economists who'll assure Americans that their "reform" will reduce costs and increase coverage; the assertion is comedic outside the ranks of the government's "hired guns".

Why is it when the Republicans trot out the numbers, and they are shown to be bull shit, no one seems to notice. The plans they have put forward are nonsense, and do nothing to alleviate the Health Care problems in this country. They only continue to benefit the "money men". More than 60% of Americans WANT Health Care reform. The majority want the Democratic plan with some sort of "Public Option".

The numbers published for the Democratic have been verified by the GAO as valid. The numbers for the GOP plan have been shown to be nonsense.

So all the posturing by the GOP is pure BS. This is about POWER ! The GOP knows that if any form of Health Care passes, and it works as advertised, they are finished. It's the same tactics they used when reform was proposed before by Clinton and previous Democratic Presidents.

The GOP's sole goal is to prevent ANY Democratic proposals from being enacted.

Maybe they can import Texas' financial liquidity and discipline into the blue states.

I know a lot of people in Texas. I even have relatives there. If you are looking at "Texas liquidity", you are not looking at the average citizen or community. You are looking at the abundance of "big money" that has migrated to Texas. They have a lot of Oil Industry, I know, I worked for one. They also have a lot of Military related jobs. Not to mention Ft. Hood, the largest base we have. Lets also talk about how they have one of the largest drains on the Health Care system in the Nation in their Emergency rooms.

A lot of "hidden gems" in Texas.

Have a nice "Turkey day"

[AMT]

Although that war has nothing whatsoever to do with our wrecked economy, your point is well taken. Of course, we also did not lie to the UN but again, your point is well taken.

So when we told the UN Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the facilities to make them... that wasn't a lie. Ok... must be nice to live in Bizzaro World.

[Serafine666]

So when we told the UN Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the facilities to make them... that wasn't a lie. Ok... must be nice to live in Bizzaro World.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what a lie is and how it differs from an error. A lie requires prior knowledge that the statement is false and an intent to deceive. The "lie" you cite involved neither of those elements and thus was not a lie. Unless, of course, you have some indication that we knew for a fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to manufacture them?

[Serafine666]

When I say "Nationalism", I was talking about being self serving.

Which is the entire point of a nation's government: to serve the nation above all.

The "what's in it for me, give ME the money, don't let someone else get the credit" attitude that is prevalent throughout it's members. Decisions are based on personal agenda's, not what is best for the people needing help. For the previous 8 years, the U.S. policies were also heavily oriented in this direction. They are shifting now, but not due to any effort by the Republicans.

The Republicans would just as soon dropkick the UN out of its headquarters in Turtle Bay. This would not be an inconsiderable improvement. It is depressing, however, that ego dominates charity in the United Nations.

The TWO wars that Bush/Cheney started are not the sole cause of economic failure. Greed on the part of their cronies contributed heavily to it also. They did, however, help stretch an already fragile structure to near failure. We are pouring billions into two countries that should be doing more to help themselves. The Iraqis have the capacity now to shoulder more of the burden of rebuilding and security.

That Iraq can help itself, and that we ought not to be pouring more resources into it, is beyond dispute. However greedy the "cronies" of Bush/Cheney were, however, it was not the Republicans that said "no" when it was suggested that irresponsible companies (Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae) get extra scrutiny.

Why is it when the Republicans trot out the numbers, and they are shown to be bull shit, no one seems to notice? The plans they have put forward are nonsense, and do nothing to alleviate the Health Care problems in this country. They only continue to benefit the "money men". More than 60% of Americans WANT Health Care reform. The majority want the Democratic plan with some sort of "Public Option".

Actually, the most recent AP poll indicates that the more the American people learn about the specifics of the Democrat plan, the more they oppose it. They support healthcare reform overwhelmingly but only support the public option until the pollster starts adding qualifications like "do you support it if it increases the cost of health insurance?" As the AP put it, Americans support the Democrat plan in inverse proportion to how much information they have about it: the more information they have, the less they support it and the more time is spent in debate, the more information people obtain. This is not a really good indication, especially in light of the original Democrat plan to get this done as quickly as possible i.e. get it done too fast for people to learn about the details.

The numbers published for the Democratic have been verified by the GAO as valid. The numbers for the GOP plan have been shown to be nonsense.

Whereas the CBO's numbers disagree and their numbers work on the built-in assumption that the economy will experience another period of 1980s/1990s hypergrowth despite the current recession. They also estimate that the number of uninsured will increase by 8 million.

So all the posturing by the GOP is pure BS. This is about POWER ! The GOP knows that if any form of Health Care passes, and it works as advertised, they are finished. It's the same tactics they used when reform was proposed before by Clinton and previous Democratic Presidents.

On the contrary... they realize it may pass, know that it will not work, and do not want a costly unworkable system imposed on Americans. Granted, they also have a political motive but this motive dovetails with opposing the plan because it is extremely misguided.

The GOP's sole goal is to prevent ANY Democratic proposals from being enacted.

No... they goal is to prevent any LIBERAL proposals from being enacted. They'd be perfectly content if the Democrats started proposing serious and workable reforms to save healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, and other big programs in big trouble.

I know a lot of people in Texas. I even have relatives there. If you are looking at "Texas liquidity", you are not looking at the average citizen or community. You are looking at the abundance of "big money" that has migrated to Texas. They have a lot of Oil Industry, I know, I worked for one. They also have a lot of Military related jobs. Not to mention Ft. Hood, the largest base we have. Lets also talk about how they have one of the largest drains on the Health Care system in the Nation in their Emergency rooms.

A lot of "hidden gems" in Texas.

Have a nice "Turkey day"

That's nice. Not one of those things you brought up addresses liquidity or financial discipline. California houses the center of the American electronics industry and has a significant amount of oil and oil processing as well as being one of the most agriculturally productive states in the US. Despite natural and economic resources rivaling those of Texas, they're in the hole so deep they can't see the top. California houses two of the most significant Pacific Coast harbors (the other is the Puget Sound near Seattle) and thus is critical to the USN... but they're in the hole so deep they can't see the top. Interestingly enough, the drain they represent on the healthcare system dwarfs that of Texas... yet they're in the hole so deep they can't see the top and Texas is not. Anything else?

Also, have a nice Thanksgiving, Yona.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The only time one does have to worry about such people is when the army, or significant parts of it, ignores them or changes side and becomes the muscle for their cause, which would also mean a significant societal sea change in opinions and attitudes,and I don't see that happening.

I see you failed to pay attention to what I actuall said: I said they worry me because I'd rather not see someone needlessly killed in an attempted uprising of the idiots who actually believe their 2nd Ammendment Rights were drafted to ensure the government was beholden to their will. I have no fear of a popular uprising considering these people do as much as they can to alienate moderate citizens (which is what the majority of Soldiers are) and that they're incapable of restraining their paranoia induced self-righteousness from prematurely going revolutionary.

[Crossroads Inc.]

So all the posturing by the GOP is pure BS. This is about POWER ! The GOP knows that if any form of Health Care passes, and it works as advertised, they are finished. It's the same tactics they used when reform was proposed before by Clinton and previous Democratic Presidents.

On the contrary... they realize it may pass, know that it will not work, and do not want a costly unworkable system imposed on Americans. Granted, they also have a political motive but this motive dovetails with opposing the plan because it is extremely misguided.

The GOP's sole goal is to prevent ANY Democratic proposals from being enacted.

No... they goal is to prevent any LIBERAL proposals from being enacted. They'd be perfectly content if the Democrats started proposing serious and workable reforms to save healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, and other big programs in big trouble.

I'm sorry but how is this better? You have all but admitted that the GOP serves nothing but it's own interests and couldn't care one bit about the American people at large. "Democrat" or "Liberal" what it boils down to is that if anyone wants to do something that isn't a part of "Them" they will do everything they can to kill it.,

Whatever you may think of the current health bill, the GOP has lied through its teeth to try and kill this bill, a bill that would CLEARLY help thousands of Americans across the country.

I would like it if you can tell me how the GOP, as it currently stands, does anything to help the general public of America, aside from only serving it's own interests.. Basically show me things the GOP have done in the past 10 years that have had visible positive gains toward America

[Serafine666]

I'm sorry but how is this better? You have all but admitted that the GOP serves nothing but it's own interests and couldn't care one bit about the American people at large. "Democrat" or "Liberal" what it boils down to is that if anyone wants to do something that isn't a part of "Them" they will do everything they can to kill it.

I'm a little lost. I say "On the contrary... they realize it may pass, know that it will not work, and do not want a costly unworkable system imposed on Americans." and "They'd be perfectly content if the Democrats started proposing serious and workable reforms to save healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, and other big programs in big trouble." How do either of these admissions translate to "the GOP serves nothing but its own interests and couldn't care one bit about the American people at large"?
Of course the liberals are not "them" (at least generally as there are quite a few liberal Republicans) but what does that have to do with anything? The big deal, as I said, is that the program is costly and unworkable, not that it is a liberal program. Granted, being costly and misguided seems to be two features that dovetail with programs that are proposed by liberals but it isn't that the programs are liberal but that they are wrong.

Whatever you may think of the current health bill, the GOP has lied through its teeth to try and kill this bill, a bill that would CLEARLY help thousands of Americans across the country.

It increases the number of uninsured by 8 million in the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. Increase means that it hurts 8 million and helps a few thousand. Why is this a good thing?

I would like it if you can tell me how the GOP, as it currently stands, does anything to help the general public of America, aside from only serving it's own interests.. Basically show me things the GOP have done in the past 10 years that have had visible positive gains toward America

Putting the brakes on "comprehensive immigration reform" and putting both Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court and unfortunately, with a president whose emphasis was foreign policy and enacted extremely unwise domestic policies, that is pretty much all the GOP has been able to do over the last 10 years. Well, unless you count going so far over the top that they were tossed out of office so hard they bounced.
As for if the GOP, as it currently stands, does anything to help the general public of America, they are fulfilling the purpose of an opposition party to try and take down the dangerously foolish schemes of the current majority power. This is all that the minority power is able to accomplish.
All of this said, I am not trying to defend the GOP's past performance because it has been abysmal. And I cannot help but notice the rather disgusting irony that the Republicans are too politically cowardly to roll out their ideas for solutions unless they are the minority party. The point I'm trying to make is that the GOP is not as irresponsible as it has been accused of being.

[Yona]

@Serafine666

Well, most of the response was nothing but double talk, but that is exactly what we've had from the GOP for several decades now.

Actually, the most recent AP poll indicates that the more the American people learn about the specifics of the Democrat plan, the more they oppose it.

NO, most support it. The poll was taken with several version of the "question" put to the respondents. Most still favored a "public option".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_ ... B1YmxpYw--

It is the only one that makes sense because the Government does not need to make a profit, just cover costs. They also have the muscle to force these companies to control the cost better. The GAO has repeatedly supported the Democratic plan as not only feasible, but also able to reduce the deficit. How is it that translates to "it will not work" ? Because it doesn't continue the Insurance companies outlandish profits, or because the Republicans don't want anything that is not their idea to succeed ?

It's high time our politicians start doing what they are elected to do. Do what's best for us,... not themselves or their "party".

I understand that concept may be hard to understand given the failings of the last administration, but that same GAO has also said the Republican proposals are nonsense and have no chance of working, but will, in fact, INCREASE not only the deficit, but also the COST of Insurance. It will also has the effect of MORE millions being without Insurance. Yeah,... that's something to be proud of. That will really help.

The Republicans have (and still are) conducted such a successful media blitz against what they are against for so many years, using "buzz words". They have conditioned a segment of the population to believe certain things when those words are used. Just like psycho Cheney does when he calls all that don't agree with him "unpatriotic". Just like when you try to equate "liberal" with costly and unworkable.

The figures and the experts say you are wrong. More importantly, the majority of Americans are saying the same thing.

[CmdrWilkens]

So when we told the UN Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the facilities to make them... that wasn't a lie. Ok... must be nice to live in Bizzaro World.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what a lie is and how it differs from an error. A lie requires prior knowledge that the statement is false and an intent to deceive. The "lie" you cite involved neither of those elements and thus was not a lie. Unless, of course, you have some indication that we knew for a fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to manufacture them?

We knew there was an incredibly low likelyhood they had them. In the parlance of percentages you might say there was a 10% chance they had them and a 90% chance they didn't. Since the US was operating under the 1% Doctrine (Suskind's book of the same title is quite a worthwhile read) we treated a 10% chance as absolute certainty...the problem was it wasn't and we KNEW it wasn't. That we treated it as such does not diminish from the fact that the administration was perfectly aware of a host of dissenting evidence and if they didn't LIE about it they deliberately withheld and suppressed contrary evidence which is DECEPTIVE if not outright LYING. So yes they didn't lie they just deceived...which is a near enough equivalent that the point made stands in light of your attempt to pick semantics.

[Serafine666]

@Serafine666

Well, most of the response was nothing but double talk, but that is exactly what we've had from the GOP for several decades now.

Actually, the most recent AP poll indicates that the more the American people learn about the specifics of the Democrat plan, the more they oppose it.

NO, most support it. The poll was taken with several version of the "question" put to the respondents. Most still favored a "public option".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_ ... B1YmxpYw--

Ah, you have a newer poll than the one I had been referencing. That explains things a bit.

It is the only one that makes sense because the Government does not need to make a profit, just cover costs. They also have the muscle to force these companies to control the cost better. The GAO has repeatedly supported the Democratic plan as not only feasible, but also able to reduce the deficit. How is it that translates to "it will not work" ? Because it doesn't continue the Insurance companies outlandish profits, or because the Republicans don't want anything that is not their idea to succeed ?

Well, in a competition between a CBO analysis and a GAO analysis, which one do you regard as the more credible? Because both organizations, meant to be nonpartisan, reached different conclusions on the numbers. I argue that it won't work because you look at the CBO; you argue that it will because you look at the GAO. Can you propose a way to determine which one is more credible?

It's high time our politicians start doing what they are elected to do. Do what's best for us,... not themselves or their "party".

I agree fully.

I understand that concept may be hard to understand given the failings of the last administration, but that same GAO has also said the Republican proposals are nonsense and have no chance of working, but will, in fact, INCREASE not only the deficit, but also the COST of Insurance. It will also has the effect of MORE millions being without Insurance. Yeah,... that's something to be proud of. That will really help.

The GAO is incorrect then. The most significant driver of health care cost increases is not litigation, greed, HMOs, insurance companies' schemes, or any of the most politically well-known causes. The biggest driver is a dearth of cost-benefit capability in the healthcare industry. Simply put, doctors presently have no access to information determining the comparative effectiveness of certain treatments and are thus forced to rely on their own judgement which inevitably results in costs increasing since one expensive treatment after another is tried when treatment #6 was the best one. As part of this problem, there is no data to assess the effectiveness of the newest and shiniest treatment option (which is always the most expensive) and the natural attractiveness of newer draws patients and doctors alike to the newest big thing when the new extremely expensive machine may be less effective than the 10-year-old one that does the job better for a fraction of the cost. Neither bill addresses this serious issue because politicians are largely ignorant of such matters and they are so esoteric that they are difficult to explain to a public that, naturally, can rarely appreciate the importance of information the way that a PHD economist (which is who identified the issue) does. But of the two, the Democratic bill attempts to do the logically impossible: reduce costs while increasing the amount of healthcare that will be bought and distributed. In other words, they propose to buy more without increasing the amount of money spent to buy more. Even the Republicans' plans cannot be discredited with such a simple application of logic.

The Republicans have (and still are) conducted such a successful media blitz against what they are against for so many years, using "buzz words". They have conditioned a segment of the population to believe certain things when those words are used. Just like psycho Cheney does when he calls all that don't agree with him "unpatriotic". Just like when you try to equate "liberal" with costly and unworkable.

I did not say that liberal = costly and unworkable. I said that of the two general camps (conservative and liberal), the liberal one has the greater tendency to propose plans that are costly and unworkable.

The figures and the experts say you are wrong. More importantly, the majority of Americans are saying the same thing.

The figures of the GAO say I'm wrong, the experts (in this case, I'm referring to economists without a financial interest) say I'm right, and the CBO says I'm right. As to option polls, as your own link shows, support for the plan depends upon the language used to describe it which sort of makes "the majority of Americans" a less reliable measure of whether the plan is a good one. If their opinion was consistent upon being given all the correct information, however, it would mean something.

[Serafine666]

We knew there was an incredibly low likelyhood they had them. In the parlance of percentages you might say there was a 10% chance they had them and a 90% chance they didn't. Since the US was operating under the 1% Doctrine (Suskind's book of the same title is quite a worthwhile read) we treated a 10% chance as absolute certainty...the problem was it wasn't and we KNEW it wasn't. That we treated it as such does not diminish from the fact that the administration was perfectly aware of a host of dissenting evidence and if they didn't LIE about it they deliberately withheld and suppressed contrary evidence which is DECEPTIVE if not outright LYING. So yes they didn't lie they just deceived...which is a near enough equivalent that the point made stands in light of your attempt to pick semantics.

The person's entire point was that Bush's assertions were lies and that if I didn't see it, I must live in the Bizarro World; you have just reinforced my point that Bush's statements were not lies. If the person, however, had said that the Bush Administration DECEIVED the United Nations (and that if I didn't agree, I must live in the Bizarro World), then my nitpicking about whether the deception was in the form of a lie or not would be a red herring. However, since the person stated that they lied, I refuted it and you agreed, my semantic argument adequately refutes their assertion.

It is worth noting, however, that choosing which intelligence opinion to work with and asserting that the intelligence proves that your chosen opinion is correct is only barely a deception; after all, it is literally true that the intelligence indicates both things although one possibility is stronger than the other. Moreover, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the CIA was not the only agency to believe that there was a strong likelihood that Bush's assertions were correct.

[CmdrWilkens]

We knew there was an incredibly low likelyhood they had them. In the parlance of percentages you might say there was a 10% chance they had them and a 90% chance they didn't. Since the US was operating under the 1% Doctrine (Suskind's book of the same title is quite a worthwhile read) we treated a 10% chance as absolute certainty...the problem was it wasn't and we KNEW it wasn't. That we treated it as such does not diminish from the fact that the administration was perfectly aware of a host of dissenting evidence and if they didn't LIE about it they deliberately withheld and suppressed contrary evidence which is DECEPTIVE if not outright LYING. So yes they didn't lie they just deceived...which is a near enough equivalent that the point made stands in light of your attempt to pick semantics.

The person's entire point was that Bush's assertions were lies and that if I didn't see it, I must live in the Bizarro World; you have just reinforced my point that Bush's statements were not lies. If the person, however, had said that the Bush Administration DECEIVED the United Nations (and that if I didn't agree, I must live in the Bizarro World), then my nitpicking about whether the deception was in the form of a lie or not would be a red herring. However, since the person stated that they lied, I refuted it and you agreed, my semantic argument adequately refutes their assertion.

It is worth noting, however, that choosing which intelligence opinion to work with and asserting that the intelligence proves that your chosen opinion is correct is only barely a deception; after all, it is literally true that the intelligence indicates both things although one possibility is stronger than the other. Moreover, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the CIA was not the only agency to believe that there was a strong likelihood that Bush's assertions were correct.

I'm actually going to take back what i said a little earlie. Since you forced me to dig in to semantics:

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing \ˈlī-iŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lēogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lŭgati
Date: before 12th century

intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Look HARD at that second defenition. Without question the Bush Administration lied within the meaning of the word. As your defense to my point was solely on the semantic distinction between lie and deceive I'll point out that you were using an incomplete definition of lying which encompasses only the first defenition.


As to your supporting assertion that the CIA was not the only agency to believe in the WMD assessment it is deceptive in and of itself. The CIA held internal debates and was not confident in its assertion beyond the 95% interval nor even much beyond the 50% interval. Pointing out that other agencies had similar internal disputes and partial agreements with teh WMD assertion doesn't change the root problem which is that the Administration KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the evidence for Iraqi WMDs was incomplete and contradictory whereas the case they presented was one of absolute certainty. Given this they clearly deceived everyone and they most certainly created a false or misleading impression...which means they lied.

[Serafine666]

I'm actually going to take back what i said a little earlie. Since you forced me to dig in to semantics:

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing \ˈlī-iŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lēogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lŭgati
Date: before 12th century

intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Look HARD at that second defenition. Without question the Bush Administration lied within the meaning of the word. As your defense to my point was solely on the semantic distinction between lie and deceive I'll point out that you were using an incomplete definition of lying which encompasses only the first definition.

Frankly, that is the only one I've ever heard of since generally, creating a false or misleading impression is commonly called deception. But you are correct: "deceive" and "lie" are interchangeable when talking about deception. I'll point out, however, that while I accept that you were right and I was wrong, using the word "lie" often depends upon the impression you wish to make about the deception. Someone who wants to exaggerate its importance and make it more damning will generally use "lie" and someone who's trying to downplay it will generally use "deceive."

As to your supporting assertion that the CIA was not the only agency to believe in the WMD assessment it is deceptive in and of itself. The CIA held internal debates and was not confident in its assertion beyond the 95% interval nor even much beyond the 50% interval. Pointing out that other agencies had similar internal disputes and partial agreements with the WMD assertion doesn't change the root problem which is that the Administration KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the evidence for Iraqi WMDs was incomplete and contradictory whereas the case they presented was one of absolute certainty. Given this they clearly deceived everyone and they most certainly created a false or misleading impression...which means they lied.

So for you, what's the difference between deceiving someone and creating a false or misleading impression... which is designed to deceive someone? As to the administration's deceptiveness, wouldn't your criticism apply to every politician who, knowing that their information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, presents their assertion as being factual? It would seem that, based on what you're describing, the Bush Administration was no different than the typical politician; if this is incorrect, how do you distinguish between the bad faith of the Bush administration and the normal political practice of representing probable as beyond doubt?

[Simon_Jester]

That's well and good, Simon_Jester, but it doesn't change anything. You are certain that the Democrats are less likely to get us involved in foreign adventures but did not say why you believe this. To refute your conclusion, I listed examples that indicate, to me, that the Democrats are more likely to do so than the Republicans; historical precedent is my rational basis for thinking that you are in error. Further, although I did not state this, the Democratic Party is more inclined than the Republicans to work with the UN and more fully support its initiatives; one of these initiatives is morally-driven "peacekeeping" operations which constitute involvement in foreign adventures. Surely you have a reason other than simply faith to believe that the Democratic Party is presently less inclined than the Republicans to involve us in foreign adventures so may I ask what this reason is?

Simple.

At this moment in history, the Democratic Party has at least a tenuous alliance with the antiwar movement, and many of its voters are war-weary citizens ranging from their teens to retirement age. They have at least some constituency that opposes large scale foreign wars, especially wars that are not fought in response to a major imminent threat or in a specific attack. This constituency acts as an anchor on the party; witness the trouble Obama is having trying to get his own party to go along with maintaining force in Afghanistan, and how his approval ratings plummet as he tries to compromise with 'centrist' positions on the Middle East (confrontational words aimed at Iran, talk about continued long-term presence in Afghanistan). The people opposing his recent actions are in large part disappointed left-wingers who oppose US military involvement over what seem to them to be petty reasons.

The influence of this faction, to me, makes the Democratic Party relatively less likely to start new foreign wars than the Republicans. Where the Democrats have at least some ties to the antiwar movement, the Republicans have already lost every antiwar voter they can possibly lose, and have spent the last fifteen years whipping up a strong jingoist sentiment among their own support base. Moreover, they have proven unable to assess the international situation clearly enough to know which wars are winnable (witness Iraq), which means that not only are they relatively likely to get us into wars, they're relatively likely to get us into wars we're going to lose.
_________

That's just dishonest. You know quite well he is referring to military adventures on the scale of Iraq. If the situation in Iraq wasn't so bad, there would be plenty of Republicans all for "dealing with Iran" and you know it.

Actually, bobalot, I do not know "quite well" that he is referring to large-scale military adventures because he did not bother to quantify his statement. I would generally assume that if he meant "Democrats won't get us into another Iraq", he would have SAID something like that instead of blandly referring to "foreign adventures" and then, when challenged, not include the qualification in his irritated-sounding explanation. Your opinion is, however, duly noted.

In this case, bobalot understood me correctly, and you did not, because I was ambiguous. I should have spent more time going over my statements to make them airtight, and I apologize for neglecting to do so.

[Serafine666]

Simple.

At this moment in history, the Democratic Party has at least a tenuous alliance with the antiwar movement, and many of its voters are war-weary citizens ranging from their teens to retirement age. They have at least some constituency that opposes large scale foreign wars, especially wars that are not fought in response to a major imminent threat or in a specific attack. This constituency acts as an anchor on the party; witness the trouble Obama is having trying to get his own party to go along with maintaining force in Afghanistan, and how his approval ratings plummet as he tries to compromise with 'centrist' positions on the Middle East (confrontational words aimed at Iran, talk about continued long-term presence in Afghanistan). The people opposing his recent actions are in large part disappointed left-wingers who oppose US military involvement over what seem to them to be petty reasons.

The influence of this faction, to me, makes the Democratic Party relatively less likely to start new foreign wars than the Republicans. Where the Democrats have at least some ties to the antiwar movement, the Republicans have already lost every antiwar voter they can possibly lose, and have spent the last fifteen years whipping up a strong jingoist sentiment among their own support base. Moreover, they have proven unable to assess the international situation clearly enough to know which wars are winnable (witness Iraq), which means that not only are they relatively likely to get us into wars, they're relatively likely to get us into wars we're going to lose.

As you said, simple. I knew you probably had a solid reason but I didn't get that from your first response.

I agree that the Democratic Party is the less likely of the two to get us involved in actual wars (although neither of the ones Republicans got us into are any more unwinnable than Vietnam) but as I pointed out, more likely to deploy the military in brushfires that are unwinnable but stay off of CNN because of their low-key nature. No one has ever really heard of the 44 times Clinton stuck American soldiers overseas and only heard of things like Somalia and the two Balkan conflicts because they were big news. It's not really easy to judge the relative badness of making constant small-scale use of the military versus making selective but large-scale use of it although in my mind, the small-scale stuff rarely even pretends to serve American interests and is the more pointless of the two approaches.

It is interesting that the two parties look at conflict in such different ways, however. In a way, I think, it's a product of Vietnam: one side saw the war as unwinnable overall and, seeing the subsequent humiliation and casualty lists, determine that the best way to avoid such a disaster would be to avoid war altogether. The other side, however, saw the war as unwinnable because it was made unwinnable by indifference and a lack of commitment. The modern manifestations are a party that avoids war to avoid possible defeat and the other that accepts war as sometimes necessary and believes in cultivating a jingoistic attitude so that no future wars can be lost by weakness. Both sides are blind to the holes in their approach: the second party doesn't recognize the limitations of gung-ho warmaking. The first party believes that no war is worth fighting and are ill-prepared to take forceful action if forceful action is needed. There is a heavier irony in the first party's position because they come from the political line that successfully prosecuted three major wars and rallied the numerical and technological strength (in the beginning) to fight a fourth.

In this case, bobalot understood me correctly, and you did not, because I was ambiguous. I should have spent more time going over my statements to make them airtight, and I apologize for neglecting to do so.

It's all good. As you might guess, I tend to zero in on little details like the difference between a lie and deception (surprisingly, there is no definitional difference) and between a simple deployment of the military and deployment for a full-scale war.