OCinBuffalo

"The real reason" is none of these things. And, they probably thought that the real reason was too complex for the average person to get, hence the reasons they gave us. The real reason is to create two fronts, and a handy land supply line to the sea, to be used against Iran, especially if they develop nuclear weapons. Iran has a very large army, and making them fight on two fronts divides it in half. Taking that with the attrition from our air assets, it makes it a strategically winnable war with far less divisions that you would otherwise need. People like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld don't plan for Presidential terms of office, they plan for the long haul, and ultimate victory, as they did in the Cold War. You are fooling yourself if you think Obama can have any real effect on what has already been set in motion. Chances are he's gone anyway, but it never mattered. The fact that we are leaving our tanks, etc. right where they are in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, tells you all you need to know. The troops may leave, but they can easily come back. The equipment stays. While putting Iran in a strategically precarious position also means deterrence from what they might do in the short term, the real goal is to gradually tighten the noose geographically while working on the diplomatic and intelligence fronts as well. They have a choice: behave or get rolled over. We'll see what they do over the next 10 years.

Is this supposed to be funny, or insightful? It's not. Perhaps you should go back to counting words and posting emoticons.

Knew the usual D-bags would come with the usual D-baggery. Look, I am trying to educate a freshman in college here. WTF do you want? I see little point in leaving out the context... just so I can say "Government spending masquerading as private sector entrepreneurship is phony, and worse, won't work"....and have him have no idea what that means. Like you have any idea if what I wrote was accurate or not....I imagine GG does....but it's good to know you are serving the board with your primary skill: counting on your fingers and toes.

Yeah, that's it. He wasn't a pragmatist at all.

The shortest version I can do: 1. John Maynard Keynes is best known for saying "in the long run, we are all dead". Which is another way of saying "who cares about people 50 years from now?" He said that approximately 70 years ago...so uh, how does it feel to be somebody Keynes didn't care about Adam? 2. Keynes said what he said because I don't believe he expected his concepts to be scaled and scoped to the level they have been. I believe he was mostly talking about near term, immediate action that would provide an economic spark, and then going back to reliance on what makes any economy go: private sector growth. The context his work was most famously used for was how to get us out of the Great Depression...not how to run the country for the next 60 years. 3. There are reasonable points that can be made that disprove what I am saying in #2. Keynes remains a bit of an enigma for most intellectually honest people. But taken on the whole, Keynes supported government fiscal policy(spending money) over monetary policy(Federal reserve rates, what we now call QE, or printing extra money, etc.). A little known fact: Keynes argued against tightened government control of wages and prices, but if you ask any supposed Keynesian, they will tell you that wage and price controls(i.e. government regulation = EPA, government picking winners and losers with tax loopholes and other laws) is absolutely in line with his thinking. 4. Where Keynes was absolutely wrong: Government Consumption is a good idea because it stimulates growth. In fact, Government Consumption crowds out private consumption and kills growth. If you make widgets, and you can sell them to the government for $5, and government will buy all of them, then private companies don't get any, so they don't grow, because now the short supply makes the price too high for them to pay. You might be able to charge a private company $7 for 20 of them, and the next one $8...but because the government is buying in bulk, all you get is $5...you don't hire new employees, because, you can't afford to. You take the stability of the government price and selling all over the risk of higher price and maybe not selling all...but your business, and therefore the economy, does not grow. Similar thing with government agencies doing jobs the private sector can do. Sound familiar? The fallacy of government spending replacing/propping up consumer spending is exactly why the Obama Stimulus failed. 5. So, on to your question: IF we are talking about simply issuing contracts to government contractors, and not government employees, to build infrastructure, then we are still using Keynesian thinking...it's just by proxy. The government is still spending money it doesn't have, on projects that may or may not be necessary, and certainly aren't evaluated by return on investment. Rather, they are evaluated by: which congresscritter can get what for their state/district, in return for X. 6. #5 simply moves the problem from one place to another, and doesn't solve a major Keynes talking point: the devaluation of our currency. 7. Now consider the alternative: Indiana's governor put up the maintenance of that state's interstate system and toll collection to the highest bidder. The government gets their take and makes a profit without having to run a deficit-->print money and devalue the currency in order to pay for this plan, the private company creates real jobs that are not paid for by tax dollars, and has to be effective and efficient, or it fails. That is best of all worlds. IF we are talking about #7...in most cases, I am all for it. If we are talking about merely playing a shell game in #4-5, Zakaria can blow it out his ass.

I'm not married...and I have every right to demand that liberals put a plan together, and that I get to take a look at it, before they do anything. Have you seen: 1. The economy 2. Obamacare 3. The imminent failures of the LBJ entitlements? On short, medium, and long range activities, these clowns have done NOTHING right. Why in God's name should I trust them to get this right? Why on earth should I "not worry about it"? These people have a serious problem with judgment and prudence...as in, they don't have any of either. So, no, until they can prove that they won't merely F up another thing, they do not get the benefit of my doubt.

So, are you saying that the crack pots who espouse the crack pot ideology, DIDN'T, run back to crackpot universities once it became clear that crackpot economics doesn't work in the real world? I know, I know, it's not the ideology that's wrong and fails to get results...it's just that the people who implemented it didn't do it the right way. You know who else says that? Scientologists. Yes, your arguments are now just as good as those who believe that we evolved from clams, as neither of you can provide anything to back up what you demand we spend massive sums of $ to hear. And, if the head crackpot at the most crackepotted university who is essentially the keeper of the crackpot flame...doesn't know how to implement the ideology properly...then...a...WTF? Who is supposed to know better how to implement Keynsian economics better than economics professors form Harvard and Berkley? I will give you a mulligan on the University of Chicago guy, because they are not known as a far-left idiocracy. But the rest? No excuses. Either the ideology sucks, or it simply can't EVER be implemented correctly. At the very least it's FAR PAST TIME to get new methodology.

Oh look: Another unmitigated moron that thinks: "I tend to follow Jeffereson's thinking on most things" is the same as "I absolutely follow Jefferson's thinking on all things...and all those things I take literally and without historical context or modification for the world we currently live in" Jesus, how pathetic is this? Pretty bad when they have to resort to failed attempts at word parsing.... EDIT: And peace? Do yourself a favor and read the history surrounding this statement: "Jefferson didn't fight to outlaw slavery during Constitutional convention era, but as such a law would have "unintended consequences" and lead to a "legal quagmire," and realize just how accurate and poignant it is...and therefore, hysterically ironic, that a dolt like you would make my point for me...unintentionally. You wanted unintended consequences? Well, there they are. Provided by you, of your own free will. :lol: What an unmitigated moron.

I proved you are full of it...because for the last 3 posts you cannot back up what you are saying with a single shred of evidence. Do we need a 4th post from you where you obfuscate and dance around and STILL be unable to point to anything specific? Have you considered the fact that you might have me confused with someone else(Hint: who was also posting in one possible thread I think you are talking about)? Have you considered the fact that I all have ever said, on that issue or any other, is the truth? In another thread: I was forced into a 2 white kid-rest black kid class, but I didn't feel forced...I was just doing my thing. However, because I was was white, I was assaulted repeatedly. My patience ran out and I did beat the hell out of the entire class with a chair. Exactly nothing happened to me, because the liberals in charge didn't want the truth of the folly of their "inclusion theory" to get out and they sure as hell didn't want my parents to call a lawyer. This is the truth, tough **** if you don't like it. WTF is racist about standing up for yourself...especially when dealing with the worst case scenario? Is it that you don't like it that a bunch of black kids got their asses kicked by one white kid? Too bad. I was 8, they had it coming, and come on...it was 30-1, WTF did you expect me to do? I'm not some candyass liberal pansy, and I obviously(um, 8 years old) never have been. So, no, you still don't have a single shred of evidence that makes me a racist by any standard. It's simple: there isn't any, because I ain't one.

An entire post and nothing even coming close to resembling a plan. Yeah, that's rational. You really prove beyond that shadow of a doubt that you have nothing but an emotional argument with this one. If I am Mr Spock, then you are the lady in the red mini-dress that does the screaming...and solves nothing. How many states had specific anti-gay marriage laws...before you and your idiot friends decided to "take up the cause of gay people"(read: tried and failed to force a political wedge on the American people, cause you thought you'd get votes with it)? Answer: also 0. You set out to piss off and then marginalize the social conservatives...instead you pissed off and motivated the majority of the country. You and your emotional arguments, if not cynical assclownery, are the reason those laws now exist. Nice work. Me and my rational arguments are the only way your craven tactical error gets walked back and we get a law that works for everybody.

Yes, and you are an unmitigated moron as well. Both because you are of your own accord, and, because you took what another unmitigated moron said at face value without making sure it was valid first.

See, that's a reasonable response. Perhaps I am expecting too much...but I haven't even seen anybody even TRY to put something together. I blame that 100% on the approach taken by the left. You don't begin a conversation by spewing expletives and character assassinations, unless you are Buftex. The left poisoned the well on this before it even started, and I am simply holding them accountable for doing so. Why would any Republican attempt to engage on this issue, just so they can be called names and lied about from the very beginning? The difference on this board is: I can engage on this issue because nobody gives a F if Buftex calls me names. I am a huge believer in bottom-up solutions in general, so normally I would support a "states first" approach. But, not when it comes to civil rights, precisely because I don't see the usual socially conservative states doing anything on this. Hell, we had to go through war and other hell, just for black people to vote. So, I don't see why we should expect states to lead the way on this. Rather, I think that should Republicans end up with the House, Senate and Presidency, they should take the lead on this and play the wedge right back at the left = come up with an equitable solution that completely solves the problem, yet doesn't call it "marriage". This would split the Democrats, and has the added benefit of being the right thing to do, so...it's smart and it punishes the people who are responsible for making this an irrational mess in the first place. Yes, when asked for evidence, you obfuscate. You are the one making the charges here. You need to prove them. Otherwise, you are simply embarrassing yourself further. You are free to think whatever you want. But, don't expect others to share your views, especially when you fail consistently to back them up. Like I said: pitiful.

No, that is not my argument, way to mischaracterize it. My argument is: I have no idea what the consequences will be, and, more importantly neither do you. Given the history of far-left "thought", we can expect that they will be both massive and unintended. I..want...a...PLAN. Let's try it this way: Chicken little is irrational. I am the exact opposite. I want a rational approach to solving the ENTIRE problem, and I don't want to be told "don't worry about it" by the same people who keep saying that and then keep failing. Yes, and I am sure that the concept of insurrection in a newly freed Iraq seemed highly unlikely to the dopes that planned that escapade. Or, do you think that the government's record is good when it comes to planning? (um, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, etc.) And, I am sure that the very same dopes said "there may be a few problems, maybe, but no more" as well. Poor planning is endemic to emotional arguments, like yours. Stop talking about having your Hallmark moment, start talking about how we solve the whole problem. Yes, my objection is so weak that your only answer is: "they will figure it out". Hysterical. Sorted out how? How does this not end up as a legal quagmire, if there is no legal codification? Judges don't create law, they only strike it down. I want the legislative branch to create a comprehensive Federal law that solves this problem once and for all, put it in front of the Supreme Court, have them find for it, and be done with it. Instead of that: the left wants to keep trying, and failing miserably(35 anti-gay marriage laws), to score political points with this issue...which does nothing for gay people. The worst part is: rubes like you have fallen for the con here, and as such you are directly contributing to gay people continuing to get screwed. It is shameful that instead of actually working in the interest of the rights of gay people, the left is simply using them, and you, as pawns. This whole thing has been applied as a wedge issue, that by definition, polarizes us rather than bringing us together and actually solving the WHOLE problem. The left's entire intention has been to use this issue to stick it to social conservatives, and that simply has not changed, and will not change, which is why we can expect a large volume, not small, of lawsuits from these hateful pricks. The fact is the left got it's bluff called on this, but, since they are playing with gay people's chips, gay people are the only real losers.

Fist thing: The fact is that health insurance for union members, and workers compensation, and safer working conditions, and union stewards, etc. are things the unions have spent their entire history fighting to get. Now, Bob the non-union member, who has not spent a nickel in dues, will get the same benefits as Steve, the union member. So...why in hell would Bob ever decide to join a union? Why would he ever pay a single $ in dues? The whole point of having a union in the first place was so that the best skilled laborers could get a better deal as a group, rather than trying to negotiate individually. Notice that there's nothing in there about EVERYONE joining the union. The socialists union bosses desire for power and dues has overtaken their responsibilities to their members. So much so that they can't even see that Obamacare is a direct challenge to their authority and the entire premise of a union. Look, the labor unions had to purge the communists once already. They will have to purge the socialists now, or face extinction. The only difference is that now the socialists will be politely asked to leave, rather than beaten out with axe handles. Second thing: I don't make it sound like anything. He was playing the "I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Progressive" game...and I am saying to that. I agree with you: it's awfully rare for a conservative to not vote Republican. Just as rare as a Progressive not voting Democrat. So, I have no idea what you are talking about on this one.

Moron. Merely calling me a racist doesn't make me one either. Projecting your racist, arrogant views and/or transferring your anger with your brother, onto me does not make me a racist either. You cannot prove what you are saying. It is not for me to prove a negative. Told you I would prove you are full of schit...and I just did. I feel sorry for you for the following reasons: 1. It's too bad that you can't suppress your emotions long enough to see things accurately, and seem doomed to eternally emote your way through life 2. Nobody should have a bad relationship with their siblings 3. Given #1, I have doubts that your characterizations of your brother are even accurate, but worse, I don't ever expect you to be able to make an objective decision about that 4. So basically it's all bad, all the time In fact, the right way to say it is: I pity you. EDIT: Not contempt...just pity.

So you don't know the difference between: "I tend to follow Jeffereson's thinking on most things" and "I am like Thomas Jefferson"? You are an unmitigated moron. What the F are you talking about? I never said that. That is your piss poor reading comprehension at work. You are an unmitigated moron.

Specifics Buftex, specifics. Let's hear what you recall, or links, doesn't matter either way because you are full of schit and I will prove it. Since you were away, perhaps you missed this: the tactic of calling people Racist! and then exchange smug high fives with other intellectual poseurs? Yeah, that officially died on this board about 2 years ago. I know, because I was the one who killed it. I killed it the same way I kill most of your non sequitors, using logic. Let's apply that here: I cannot be a racist, because I do not believe in making any distinction, and therefore giving undue favor, government or otherwise, based on race. If my views are absolute and universally applied, and when aren't they?, it is illogical to call me a racist. The inverse that is also true and is therefore completes the proof; You may be a racist, because you do believe in making distinctions, and giving undue favor, based on race. And, as we all know, your views are relative and never universally applied, especially if it gives the far-left an opportunity to gain power. Is is therefore logical to call you a possible racist. Of course, much depends on your ability to comprehend logic...and since we are talking Buftex...who knows? Edit: and you are still ducking me on the other issue. Candyass.

I do not think the above is that far off actually. Look at the economy. Obama made every decision 100% based on crackpot ideology. In fact 95% of Obama's decisions have been at least couched in, if not fully driven by, crackpot ideology. We can blame him, or, we can blame the college professors he hired, who have have since fled back to the safety of the various Crackpot Universities they came from, but, it's still Obama's ultimate responsibility. We can all say, "well, the job was to get to 5, and he got to 5, and that's no big deal if you started at 0". But, based on what we now know about Obama....he starts every decision at -20.....so getting to 5, and not finding a way to f it up along the way, like he has with almost everything else, is actually a large accomplishment.

Tell me exactly what and I when I have glossed. See, ...lybob, I always tell the truth, whether you like it or not. That pisses people off, makes them jealous of me, or any number of other negative consequences, but I simply don't care. Lying to spare people's feelings is a complete waste of time, and a sign of weakness, because in the end they are going to find out the truth anyway. I am not talking about being insensitive, just the opposite. Now, give me one example delusional glossing of skills/achievements....this is going to be hysterical. Who want's to bet that this will be yet another question ...lybob will refuse to answer?

Sorry Tom, but your lame attempt to draw Buftex's fire will fail. She has had it in for me every since she came back and I reminded her that The Surge worked and she was terribly wrong. I forgot women rule #4: never prove a woman wrong in public....enemy for life. It's just so easy in Buftex's case, and draws such a massive reaction, that it's hard to resist.

Whatever. You know I could convince you to pee on the nerd fraternity's lawn. And, tell me how Obamacare doesn't screw the unions out of members, because I find your inability to realize that you are peeing on the very people who built your party repulsive. Ok, you let me know when the Progressives start voting for anybody other than Democrats.... Modern Whigs...jesus f'ing..... The very second that I started speaking Democrat in this thread....try to keep up. After all, you're the ones who think black people need your help to "rebuild their neighborhoods, communities and families". I think that's a unbelievably arrogant position, but, if I go back to speaking Democrat: "We have a moral obligation to help black people, because they simply cannot live their lives without our help"

Racist! Boy, now that I see how it grows on you so quickly, no wonders the left does this instead of actually constructing arguments. Hell, I've been working too hard.

Racist! Both you and Dave! Racists! See, I can do it too. Hey this is actually kind of fun, you don't have to think, just yell Racist! The only difference is: when I call Dave a racist, I can actually back it up. EDIT: well, perhaps not able to back up racist...but arrogant? Yeah, I think that one's pretty well nailed.

The fact that you think "we" need to busy ourselves rebuilding other people's very existence(neighborhoods, communities and familes) says it all. Would I need help rebuilding my life? Would you? How much pride in your own work would you have if, not only somebody else was doing it for you all the time, but also telling you why "you" needed to do it, then self-congratulating themselves on how they were able to rebuild your life, but then telling you to feel good because it's February and it's "your month"? You think that a black man can't spend 20 years improving his house, seeing his neighborhood improve, kids grow older, feel a sense of accomplishment...unless you help him? I can see it now: the new 9th ward in NOLA! Look at what Dave was able to do with these poo black childrins. Look how great he was at rebuilding their lives. Now, let's all GTFO of here and go to the dinner party where we can congratulate Dave, and where we don't have to be around the childrins no more. This would be funny if it wasn't so utterly arrogant.

Not once since I have been on this board have I ever said such a thing as "I want Congress making war decisions". I want it to work as it is supposed to work = Congress declares war, or they don't. They get one vote, and then they are out of the loop. The President runs the war, and he succeeds or fails without hindrance. It's on the President to make the right calls, and he alone should take the credit/blame for them. If's he's going to have all the responsibility, then he needs all the authority. That is the reality of leadership. Notice that people making the biggest noise about war, are the very same people that have never lead anything, or have consistently failed at leadership, and nobody would follow to a free beer tent. EDIT: and go ahead and define "people that call me stupid" and "all the time", I dare you. Should be good for a laugh.