|
Not Yet Drinking Liberally Drinking Liberally? Bush Announces The End of the Surge McCain Breaks His Own Laws McCain's Idea of Love Unofficial "Bloggers' Brunch" at Dagny's Saturday Republican State Parties in Disarray Publican's Political Genius I did not have sexual relations with that woman! Amazing Obama Video August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
What a Liberal War on Terror Might Look Like
Over and over again I see people here talking about liberals as appeasers, Liberals as weak on terror; basically, I see a lot of bad information and wrong ideas. So let's take a look at what a hard core Liberal War on Terror might look like: 22 comments from 9 users
1
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Sounds wonderful, but unlikely to work because none of these "fixes" addresses the fundamental flaw in our forign policy, the need to be surerior and our new Imperialist mentality. What we will do is to build an international spy network which will makes us even more feared and hated around the world and which eventually will be turned against our own in America.
As for the Paperless" world, it is an insiduous practice that we cannot and will not let go easily even though there are not now and nor will there be soon sufficent safeguards for securing the integrity of information. The Educations system will never be what it once was universal education for all because that is no longer the objective in America. What we seek and what the government supports is an elite class to maintain the current balance of the top 3 percent holding the wealth and power and dictating what our lives are destined to be, this both desired and will be maintained at all cost starting with the Presidency of the United States where heredity has replaced intellect. But the fall of education is well on the way with local politics leading the way. Take KHSD as an example, there expansion policy in the last three decades has produced wanted results and has produced them with the consent of the electorate because the have not divulged their plan to change education with the help of special interests. Developers, builders and politicans not educators will dominate the course education will take in the future as it has in the last three decades. It is not ofr instance KHSD's goal to increase the value of education to the individual child. it is KHSD.s goal to provide the best teachers and facilities to the elite in the City. If they really wanted to do the best job, instead of building new flat top schools with the same builders and developers advice they would look first at improving the schools already in use. Increase the size of the Campus, use new scheduling of classes, pursue first rate teachers who want to teach not just be part of a "new"school in the new elite part of a growing City. But none of this is in the cards, building new school in new elite area's and neglecting old schools is likely to be more successful when an elite 3 percent is the goal. As for Universal healthcare, forget it, the top 3 percent objective would be impossible to maintain. What is likely to happen regardless of who is elected is more military and more places to use it. More intelligence and more people to use it against, less education but more quality education to maintain the 3 percent, and more religion to have a reason for the our behavior. As for solving the energy problem as long as our military is the strongest is the world, oil will not be a problem is our thinking. Plan B of course is that the special 3 percent education will produce results in new energy, but not until it is time, and timing is everything, no more of this cheap energy it creates too much wealth for the lower 97. For now, you can look forward to more conquests around the world, more miltiary spending, more intelligence and less personal freedom, more miracle cures for the top3 percent and less healthcare for the lower 97, more educational opportunities for the elite and more drones for the top 3 percent's use and of course another generation of hereditary politics. There will be US in the millineum and all those who are unlike us will be TERRORISTS and the country will continue with the current system of top three percent leadership, and a steady indentured servant 97% population. posted by
TomW
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:12 AM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15 AM
All in all, great post. We need to keep putting our ideas out there so people can't say that liberals don't have a plan. I've always found it as rediculous as saying that any american hates the troops. Neither is anywhere close to the truth. posted by
TomW
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:25 AM
As far as idealistic stuff, are you familiar with the Overton window idea? Basically it says that you should propose nutty stuff so that the compromise is closer to what you want. The Republican think tanks mastered it and now we've got the President making a "compromise" that still guts Article 3 and suspends haebeus corpus. Who'd have thought 6 years ago that we'd even be *debating* whether torture was ok? posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:31 AM
. But for those kids who can (like yours truly), our schools need to be able to cater to them and bring the best out of them. . (But now we're not talking about the war on terror anymore, but about domestic education policy. Oh well.) posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Harbored terrorists? Check. Nuclear weapons? Check. Military dictatorship? Check. Ties with Taliban? Check. Looks like Bush should be invading Pakistan any day now... posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:36 AM
posted by
TomW
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:37 AM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 19, 2006 at 10:47 AM
posted by
anglo1
on Sep 19, 2006 at 11:00 AM
We are attempting to stop the flow of money to terrorist groups, and its been effective, tracking the flow of suspicious monetary transactions was useful in the latest British action, could have been successful before the 9-11 attacks. How do you stop the threats that are already here and in place? Taxpayers paying to transition factories to do what, make more efficient vehicles? Who will but them? Do we force Americans to buy certain autos? Seize patents? Coming from someone who feels our civil rights are being taken away by this administration, where would the aclu stand on the issue of the US gov. seizing my patent for harnessing granola and wheat grass flatulence at coffee houses? Your drug options sound interesting. I agree the punishment without quality rehab and employment options are a waste of money and lives. I don't think going door to door in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Yemem.Lybia,etc.telling all that we are the good guys is exactly what you meant and I don't get your statement. How do you remove someone like Saddam from Kuwait? I agree on your military care programs. It has to be attractive to draw the best in country. The old "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t. Advocating changing lobbyists roles and pork barrel spending could be putting your life at risk. From both sides. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 19, 2006 at 11:26 AM
I love the what if scenarios, anything has a what if, and it depends on your point of view which conclusions are valid. We are attempting to stop terrorist groups, some countries consider us terrorists.
Nobody forces anyone to buy certain autos, but they can for auto makers to build better autoes....unfortunately by buying foreign. I have a Ford my wife has a toyota, her vehicle is far superior to mine, both in efficency, lower maintenance, and utility. As for going door to door anywhere in the world, why go at all? These "fanatics" are not stupid just as the Chinese and the Russian are not stupid, they will never try to annhilate anyone much less each other , all they want is a piece of the pie bomb so as they can thump their chests just like we have been doing since WWII. As for Israel, they sqatted on others land and they will have to come to a solution with them. The would never be wiped off the map with nuclear weapons unless they used them themselves, the whole Arab world knows and understands that Israel for better or for worse has a lifetime bodyguard, guess who that could be? posted by
TomW
on Sep 19, 2006 at 11:41 AM
As for the transition, yes, we need to make more efficient autos and if given a choice between spending a dollar on an American factory so we use less oil and spending a dollar in the Middle East to protect our oil supplies, I've got to go with spending it here. And forcing Americans to buy certain cars? We already do. There's a really cool company called Smart owned by Chrysler I believe, that sells great small effecient cars in Europe. They don't meet American standards though so you can't buy them here. Same with the Chinese Chery QQ. Seizing patents is the best way to allow all the companies to use the best technology available to make more efficient cars. I'd be happy to reimburse the patent owners some amount, but that's hardly an infringement on civil liberties. If the patent holders supported America, they'd probably donate their patents if they thought it could help us win. Moving on to Saddam, this is why I said we should pull out of Iraq. We need to repair our military. What would happen today if Iran invaded Turkey to chase after Kurdish terrorists? Who would we be able to send to stop them? By going door to door, I mean that you have to communicate directly with people via the media etc. Not like an Amway salesman. :) On the places we agree, awesome. I'm taking your chicken salad quote. And we both agree on the lobbyists, so do many. they can't get us all. Finally, we know that Iran wants to sit down and talk. They've asked us repeatedly. Russia proposed a deal like the one I'm talking about, basically calling Iran's bluff and we scuttled it. If they want nuclear power, sell them the fuel rods at less than the cost of producing their own. If they have other intentions, they won't accept the deal and we blow the crap out of any uranium enrichment facility. They have not yet officially linked their nuclear ambitions to world conquest. But we'd get a ton of international support if we did everything we could to enable them to have peaceful nuclear power while cutting off their domestic enrichment programs. posted by
TomW
on Sep 19, 2006 at 11:46 AM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 19, 2006 at 11:48 AM
From Raw Story "The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst. "So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure," Wylde stated. "This story has been blown out of all proportion. The liquids would need to be carefully distilled at freezing temperatures to extract the required chemicals, which are very difficult to obtain in the purities needed." Once the fluids have been extracted, the process of mixing them produces significant amounts of heat and vile fumes. "The resulting liquid then needs some hours at room temperature for the white crystals that are the explosive to develop." The whole process, which can take between 12 and 36 hours, is "very dangerous, even in a lab, and can lead to premature detonation," said Lt. Col. Wylde. posted by
anglo1
on Sep 19, 2006 at 11:56 AM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 19, 2006 at 12:02 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 19, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Sorry but if you want a genuine Japanese product they are stamped on the inside door jamb. Trust me my wife asked for a made in Japan car after an unhappy experience with a bad Buick Regal.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 19, 2006 at 01:31 PM
posted by
dusty1215
on Sep 20, 2006 at 04:04 PM
posted by
marsh
on Sep 27, 2006 at 09:42 AM
posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 09:58 AM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:43 AM
You must be young if you want to go back to your roots, you just might not like Bakersfield roots, the are the same as today except more blatant.
1
|