I am not going to mince words on this subject so--unlike my other posts--this may get a little messy: I am a real conservative who believes in family values, taking care of the environment, keeping our liberal noses out of other's business, and financial responsibility. What I have noticed from the political talkies on the "right," here at gather.com isn't a pretty picture. They believe in an Administration and Congress that has in the past 6 years spent more money than GOD, put thousands of American lives in perdition; with standing armies in the Gulf--standing between Iraqis fighting—guess?—yeah, other Iraqis. And all of this while the politicians of these faux-conservatives have committed the greatest blasphemies against American free enterprise; i.e. allowing companies like Halliburton-KBR and Bechtel exclusively loot the American tax-payers in exchange for blatant incompetence in Iraq; turning a blind eye to the CEOs and “creative accountants” stealing American wages while the congressman and senators vote themselves yet another raise in pay, and all the while leaving American workers in the dirt. There is a code word for this kind of treachery—it's called stupidity.
Then we get to listen to these same faux-conservatives talking about public opinion polls as if they are meaningless. Well, one group of people (called Republican Conservatives ) thought they could “ignore” the public—*ahem*---I mean the polls. They were so high on themselves prior to the election on Nov. 7th, that their breakfast consisted of their own egos. Apparently they picked up the sea shell and listened to the ocean just in time for a tsunami wave to crash their picnic. Now I have a message for those who backed the losers: you know that ocean sound? Yeah, "it’s the people, stupid;" so put down the damn sea shell and get to work!
I have said these things and these faux-conservatives call me a “liberal,” or “commie” (or whatever term they can drudge from the bottom of their sophomoric background) as if abstract political philosophy had anything to do with common sense. Well, I will not apologize for my belief in fiscal responsibility (balancing the budget), port security, affordable health care, and limited military intervention; these issues aren't based upon the POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of politically challenged dumkopfs! Its based upon COMMON SENSE. Did you hear me? (put on your fake spectacles and throw that plastic turkey into the trash if you have to!).
In doing so they show their very lack of conviction (common disease among liberals) to engineer an argument that makes sense.
War in Iraq?
They say "Stay the chaos”--*ahem*--I mean “the course.”
Corporate scandal and profiteering?
They say, “who cares, what about God, gays, abortion, guns and flag burning?”
Affordable health care?
“Pfft! Everyone’s dies."
Or you hear “if you have enough money, you can afford it,” otherwise you get “well, if we take care of everyone, then the government will get all fat and bloated”—“limited government!!”--they all scream, while consolidating all power to one head; and while they put in new shiny curtains and chandeliers and create another branch of bureaucrats to teach the American people how do defend themselves using “duct tape.” Ridiculous—I’ve heard enough from these fake-conservatives.
Economy?
Yeah, if you count the Dow Jones Index as a measure of economic progress. Or better yet--if you count shipping jobs overseas (or importing cheap labor) as economic progress for America. You see, these people have a problem with their "bath tub trickle-down" theory--the water seems to be leaking (i.e. trickle-trickle) into China and India.
Now they talk about the “Global War on Terrorism”—yes, lets talk about terrorism. Here’s where the fake-conservatives tune out and begin foaming at the mouth—be careful as I name-drop some familiars. If you start spouting this stuff, they’ll grit their teeth (or tooth) at you start spitting venom like a cobra:
“No Regrets” Brzezinski (bless you) and Carter supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan—yeah, you’d expect this kind of nonsense from a liberal!
Reagan and his endorsement of the “freedom fighters” in Iran. Two cheers for Wilsonian Internationalis—hey, isn’t that a LIBERAL DOGMA?
Remember the Iran-Contra Affair—yeah, something about selling weapons to Iran in order to give weapons to Contras in Latin America?
(Psst! Contras, by the way, were terrorists--or er...freedom fighters--whichever side you're on!)
Remember Hussein and our “friendship” ties—the turning of the cheek (both really) when he—*pause*---gassed the Kurds on Reagan’s watch (Oopsies!).
All of this of course while America was “waging a war against drugs”—or on drugs—whichever is the case. Actually, the record reads as “War on Drugs”—how fascinating. Those aren’t my words. They are the words of faux-conservatives trying to wage war against the Soviets—through the “War on Drugs.” Drugs, Soviets, Latin Americans, Terrorists, Selling Weapons to Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, OPEC—what’s next you liberal fear mongers? Asteroids? Aliens? (Hahaha…)
And then came the first Gulf War when Osama bin Laden offered to fight against that “apostate” Hussein. Yeah, he was turned down by the Saudis. Sure they are smart enough to stay away from “freedom fighters”—unlike Carter, Reagan, etc. Saudis are evidently smart enough NOT TO GIVE WEAPONS TO OSAMA in order to get rid of Saddam? Saddam was also smart—he didn’t want Osama’s help and there’s plenty of LIBERAL PROPAGANDA to state this (you know, sometimes these liberals get it right!)
Liberal Propaganda Link (LPL): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3017
So who gets holding the bag-o-tricks in the Mid-East? Yeah, no one wants to be the bad guy bombing everyone else—so the Iranians sat on their asses while our troops drove Saddam’s (Hurrah for the Persians--ding dong the bastard's dead!) army out of Kuwait. But wait! There’s more!
The United States, especially Secretary of State James Baker, assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey. Source: Wikipedia
And, of course of which 74% were U.S. forces. So—c’mon people—who else but a LIBERAL would give weapons to Saddam, give weapons to the Iranians, remove the enemy of the Iranians (Saddam) and then forget the high-explosive weapons locked in a U.N. storage bunker facility in Iraq (visible from space satellite for God’s sake!) while trying to bring “freedom” to the Iraqi people? And now we realize that the real enemy—the “Axis of Evil” member state, Iran. Did I forget something? Oh! I’m sure of it! You know how these LIBERALS really confabulate things so much you forget what’s really going on.
Any takers? Any real conservatives want to take the credit for this wacko-jacko-job we call the Mid-East? Lets hear them! I am waiting.
*chirp* . . . *chirp* . . . *chirp* . . . *chirp* . . .
So now we're back in business--*ahem*--in Iraq--trying this LIBERAL "nation-building" program again. Aren't Americans getting sick of these LIBERALS telling the rest of the world how to live? We have the horrors of 9-11 and these LIBERALS reliving the day as if it never ended? Aren't we going to get the people responsible for this attack, instead of spending days and nights fighting in an Iraqi civil WAR?
Well, so much for fake conservatism--time to move on and get things set straight.
God Bless America. We have a new breed of conservatives taking the scepter away from these liberals and handing integrity, responsibility, and honor back to the American people. God bless our troops in Iraq: they're doing the best they can under the circumstances. God bless our Nation, its Constitution, and the American Tradition of Democracy.


Comments: 50
Whew!
they sure have interesting priorities: against same sex marriage, against abortion. where does the economy fit into this? outsourcing? illegal immigration? foreign policy?
we got the government we deserved, i guess. too bad it's been incompetent.
And as far as Halliburton/KBR, I won't disrespect your husband's brave efforts in Iraq, nor do I intend any disrespect to you. That being said, I cannot let this so called "CONSERVATIVE" Adminstration and (former) Congress off the hook on their implementation of "free enterprise" values in Iraq. No-bid contracts are not conducive to a "free enterprise" market. Free enterprise means competition--and when the Tonya Harding technique is used by those who call themselves :conservatives," I have to wonder who taught them their "family values."
Michael A.
san diego, CA
member since:
Sep 08, 2006
last signed in:
Nov 21, 2006
Nice to meet another Michael A. Actually, I go by Mike in the real world, maybe I should change to "Mike, eh?"
That's not true. They may not be the pillars of profit, but they haven't lost money throughout.
"Somone is going to go over there and do the job, might as well be Americans who want to better their life. "
No offense, but I would much prefer the work to rebuild Iraq be handed to unemployed Iraqis. It seems to me that those who're employed might not have the time to wage an insurgency. But, that's just me.
Michael A. ---> you had me going there for a second. I went to search for the Michael A. group and couldn't find it. Perhaps I typed in the wrong keywords on the search? Ok, joking. . . I didn't find it. Send me a message on the specifics.
Something we agree on Clark....
"No offense, but I would much prefer the work to rebuild Iraq be handed to unemployed Iraqis. It seems to me that those who're employed might not have the time to wage an insurgency. But, that's just me."
You are failing to understand that KBR is not sending people over there to rebuild Iraq. They are sending them over there to support our men and women who are serving in the military. The only time they leave the base is to go to a different base. This of course does not include the truck drivers who run convoys from one base to another.
"Today KBR employs over 30,000 people in Iraq. Halliburton's work in Iraq is diverse and complicated. In addition to troop support, Halliburton also provides air traffic control support; produces 74 million gallons of water a month for consumption, hygiene and laundry; deploys as many as 700 trucks a day to deliver essentials to American forces; and provides firefighter and crash-rescue services, as well as working to restore Iraqi oil infrastructure." Source: Wikipedia s.v. "Halliburton"
The six companies allowed to bid:
Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp. and Washington Group International Inc.
So there are a lot of operations going on there--its a complicated situation.
I have a suggestion! Why don't you start an excellent company of your own, and get over there to show them how it's DONE!
I don't mean to be rude, but this is not a discussion on how to clean up the mess of failed policies. On the contrary, we are talking about fake conservatives claiming to promote free enterprise while actually supressing competition: they would rather give lip-service to free markets--markets which are supposedly (according to them) the "most productive and efficient" markets--than actually curb governmental intervention. But this pattern of intervention (which in the extreme is called "socialism") parallels the fanatical militaristic intervention measures in Iraq. So we have economic interventionism constraining competition to six companies involved in Iraqi reconstruction and U.S. coalition logistics support--along with the militaristic intervention which is to create the artificial demand for such services. Both of these policies are patently liberal and rather sickening. The more chaos in Iraq, the more troops needed, the more services and support required from these companies, the more money needed to bring these services, the more Iraqis unemployed, the more civic unrest, the more chaos--and round and round we go.
So conservative policy implies limited intervention; faux-conservativism implies maximum intervention and "nation building" via pork funneling. All this in the name of international peace and stability of course.
Nope, they have not awakened yet. However, the number of Evangelical Christians voting Republican this time around dropped from about 73% last time to only the high 50's this time.
On the "fake" conservative issue, we need more moderates to put a stake in the ground for what is possible. Bill Clinton did his "ooh and aah" shift to the center and out popped welfare reform (and much more).
I now look to Nancy Pelosi to see whether she will build bridges--to the White House, across the spectrum of the Democratic caucus, and across the aisle, so that productive work will be done in Congress. Our country desperately depends on progress.
I think family values are something that families have and cannot be imposed from without. I firmly believe that such things as gay marriage, flag burning, and other such things are personal issues and are best left to individuals rather than taking up valuable time of the entire government while they ignore real issues.
Heck. I'm so liberal I even believe in zero based budgeting and small government.
I haven't seen anything from CBS on the topic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401237_pf.html
"KBR took in $1.2 billion in revenue for the quarter from Iraq-related work, though the company said the profit margin on that work was just 3.7 percent before corporate expenses and taxes."
"Clark, KBR is not over their rebuilding Iraq. "
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3628
"KBR
The major engineering and construction arm of Houston, Texas-based Halliburton.
What it's doing: Reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry, as well as providing logistical support and services to the U.S. military"
I wish your husband great luck in returning home safely.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=iraq+for+sale&hl=en
A clarification: if you have problems with the link, you can search for the video at google > videos > search keywords: iraq for sale.
The film is 1 hr 15 min long.
I agree with what you say, but that does lead to the next questions:
"How did we get to this point ?"
" How did polliticans manage get so comfortable with bamboozling us ? "
" Why did it take so long for the defecation to hit the ventilation ?"
And the biggy:
" Will we hold out for real change, or will we just elect the next guy who promises it to us ?"
I hereby demand that the President, George W. Bush be impeached for the following reasons:
1. Violation of Article II., Section 1., of the United States Constitution re:
Violating his Oath of Office by not "preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States". Article II., Section 1., of the United States Constitution regarding the Presidential Oath of Office states:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: --"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Reference link for the above violation:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
2. Violation of Article II., Section 3., of the United States Constitution re:
Failing in his constitutional duties, willfully or otherwise to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Below is the pertinent section of Article II., Section 3., of the United States Constitution:
"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
It is not stated anywhere in the United States Constitution that the President can pick and choose which laws he will execute (enforce) and which he may not execute (not enforce). Article II., Section 3., of the United States Constitution states specifically that the President shall faithfully execute ALL Laws.
Reference link for the above violation:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
3. Violation of Article IV., Section 4., of the United States Constitution re:
Failing in his constitutional duties, willfully or otherwise, to protect the states from Invasion. Article IV., Section 4. of the United States Constitution regarding invasion states:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"
Reference link for the above violation:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
4. Violation of Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1324(a), Subsection 1324(a)(1) (A)(iv),
Encouraging/ Inducing, which is defined as: makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Reference link for above violation:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01907.htm
5. If Mr. Bush conspired with others in his encourage/inducement of illegal aliens to enter the United States, then he is also in violation of Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1324(a), Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A) (v), Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting, which is defined as: expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Reference link for above violation: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01907.htm
Penalties for violations of Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1324(a), Subsections 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iv) and 1324(a)(1)(A) (v) are:
With regard violations of 8 U.S.C. Sections 1324(a)(1)(ii) -(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/ inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
Penalties above quoted from the following link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01907.htm
6. He can be impeached for willfully not enforcing the portion of the "Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" which addresses enforcement of sanctions against Employers who employ illegal aliens. I do not have the link to Simpson-Mazzoli or any applicable U.S. Code from the "Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration and Control Act of 1986" at this time.
7. He may also be impeached for Obstruction of Justice. If the President or someone from his White House staff suggested, instructed, directed or ordered the Justice Department, Homeland Security Department or any other Federal Law Enforcement Agency, verbally or in writing NOT to cooperate with State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies when they apprehend suspected illegal aliens.
If, after a Congressional Investigation, it is determined that suggestions, instructions, directives or orders emanated from the President or his White House staff to Federal Immigration and Law Enforcement Agencies to NOT cooperate with State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies when they apprehend suspected illegal aliens has in fact been done, then the President should be Impeached for Obstruction of Justice.
Now you have these neocons who are all full of dread because the Dems are going to start spending again.
I miss the good old days when the Republicans used to accuse the Democrats of being fiscally irresponsible.
They say "Stay the chaos"--*ahem*--I mean "the course."
As you know, and much to my chagrin, "they" are no longer saying that. The Baker Hamilton leaks changed all that, and so did the elections.
Corporate scandal and profiteering?
Such as ??? It seems to me Bush has put away corporate "players" that scandalized the public all through the golden years of the Clinton era, and is the enforcer, not the thief.
Affordable health care?
And you call yourself a conservative, with that kind of entitlement mentality ??? PUHLEEZE....
Economy?
What's your problem there ??? Despite a mild let down in housing, all in all, we're in very good shape. The numbers tell the story, no matter how you'd like to pretend otherwise.
It isn't my problem if you can't perceive the threat of the islamists. It is real, it is clear and present, it is imminent.
We attacked them in Afghanistan which was the right thing to do. We never finished the job and the country is now sliding slowly back into anarchy. It's not enough to invade. You actually have to stay, pacify, establish order, and rebuild. We did step one. Then we decided to find another sandbox to play in before the first job was finished. We're paying the price for this really poor choice now on a daily basis in lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians.
Entitlement mentality? I said "affordable health care," not "free" health care. Yes, lets talk about entitlements, shall we? With the entitlement mentality of sending a soldier to Iraq to "fight for" your "freedom" while making a paltry middle-class wage and you get to brag with your "support the troops" and "freedom ain't free" slogans. Sure, "freedom" definitely "ain't free" to the 2800 or so soldiers who died, yet its quite fine that a great majority of these people die making middle-class wages--you certainly know how to talk the talk about entitlements and yet your support for the war SCREAMS entitlement; as if you are "entitled" to cheap freedom bought by the lives of middle-class soldiers.
Let's talk about oilcorp and its "entitlement mentality" after making billions in record profits.
Thanks for taking the bait on the "affordable health care"--that opened up a huge can of worms, jJack.
I'll get back to you on the rest of your comments later--boredom strikes again.
But your larger point that so-called "conservatives" have been profligate in spending, in running off half-cocked to Iran, and endless earmarking is spot on.
(And for Rex, like "homeland security," "permanent warfare" creates jobs, but is primarily corporate welfare. Technological byproducts of any civilian use from Big Weapons systems is exorbitantly expensive and a piss-poor way of developing technology of anything but weapons.)
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil..."
It seems we have people who want to impose their ideals on others and believe that it is the government's role to do such things.
And any faux-conservative who wants to argue with me on this better put their intellectual flak jackets on--because I'll break their "talking points" to itsy-bitsy pieces.
It was sarcasm, gatobilis
I am also not very confident in the total repudiation of government regulation as quietly accepted by the "classical liberals"--though I have repeatedly demonstrated the problems of Mises maxim, "the ego is the unity of the acting being." You can read all about this seemingly dry refutation of strict "classical liberalism" in my article on Mises.