molson_golden2002

Cheney maybe evil but he knows his blaming the media tactic works on his useful idiot supporters. This story is great because Cheney is the one who is angry, not the America public who see the surge as anything from a mistake to outright murder. He says its the media that is "undermining" US troops, whatever that means. I suppose the media is also causing the massive corruption in Iraqi government, too. And the media is making the Iraqi government be infiltarted by militais that torture people to death. And when our 'undermined' soldiers die defending this corrupt Iraqi government partially run by militas it will be the media's fault, too. The media is losing Iraq. And btw, don't ask about HIS gay daughter, its none of our business what gays do, forget the 2004 election, it was a long time ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012402066.html Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the administration has achieved "enormous successes" in Iraq but complained that critics and the media "are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure" that they are undermining U.S. troops in a war zone, striking a far more combative tone than President Bush did in his State of the Union address the night before. In a television interview that turned increasingly contentious as it wore on, Cheney rejected the gloomy portrayal of Iraq that has become commonly accepted even among Bush supporters. "There's problems" in Iraq, he said, but it is not a "terrible situation." And congressional opposition "won't stop us" from sending 21,500 more troops, he said, it will only "validate the terrorists' strategy." The defiant tenor contrasted sharply with Bush's speech Tuesday night, when the president congratulated Democrats on their election victory, offered to work with them on a variety of domestic policies, and told skeptics of his latest Iraq plan that he respects their arguments even as he asked them to give him one more chance to win the war. Bush acknowledged deep troubles in Iraq and made little effort to paint it a success. In a recent interview, Bush said his old policy was heading for "slow failure." Cheney, on the other hand, rejected the idea that there has been any failure and gave voice to the aggravation many in the White House feel as Democrats step up their attacks on the administration. As leading Democrats lace their rhetoric with words such as "blunder" and "reckless," the White House has tried to calibrate how hard to push back. On a day when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution denouncing Bush's troop increase, Cheney decided not to hold back. "The pressure is from some quarters to get out of Iraq," he told CNN. "If we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task, that we don't have the stomach for the fight." Cheney said the administration would disregard the nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase and suggested it undermines soldiers in a war zone. "It won't stop us," he said. "And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops." Cheney has been criticized in the past for presenting what some called an overly rosy view of the situation in Iraq, most notably in 2005 when he said the insurgency was in its "last throes." The view he expressed yesterday seemed no less positive, and he sparred repeatedly with "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer, telling him "you're wrong" and suggesting he was embracing defeat. When Blitzer asked whether the administration's credibility had been hurt by "the blunders and the failures" in Iraq, Cheney interjected: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash." In fact, Cheney said, the operation in Iraq has achieved its original mission. "What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said. "The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed. His sons are dead. His government is gone." "If he were still there today," Cheney added, "we'd have a terrible situation." "But there is," Blitzer said. "No, there is not," Cheney retorted. "There is not. There's problems -- ongoing problems -- but we have in fact accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off." He added: "Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_..._russia_weapons TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian officials said Wednesday that they have taken delivery of advanced Russian air defense missile systems — weapons intended, according to one Russian news agency, to defend Tehran's major nuclear facilities. ADVERTISEMENT Announcement of the delivery of the Tor-M1 mobile missile launchers came as Iran launched three days of military maneuvers, its first since the U.N. Security Council approved sanctions against Iran on Dec. 23. "We have had constructive defense transactions with Russia and we purchased Tor-M1 missiles that were recently delivered to us," the official Web site of Iranian state television quoted Minister of Defense Mostafa Mohammad Najjar as saying. Najjar did not say how many missiles were delivered or when they arrived. Previously Moscow said it would supply 29 of the mobile surface-to-air missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract signed in December 2005, Russian media has reported. According to Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency, the weapons were expected to be used to protect major government and military installations such the nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran and in eastern Iran. ITAR-Tass on Tuesday quoted Sergei Chemezov, the head of the country's state-run weapons exporter as saying that the Tor-M1 missiles had been delivered before the end of December 2006. It is not clear whether the sale was completed before the Security Council vote. Russian officials have repeatedly said the sale would not violate any international obligations. The United States last year called for a halt to international arms exports to Iran, and for an end to nuclear cooperation with Iran to pressure it to stop uranium enrichment. Israel has also criticized arms deals with Iran. Iran denies U.S. accusations that it is using its nuclear power program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. On Monday, Tehran conducted missile tests and said it had barred 38 United Nations nuclear inspectors from entering the country. Separately, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Wednesday signed an agreement with India to jointly produce fighter jet engines and develop a new military transport plane. The agreements were signed on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India, which is expected to focus heavily on expanding military ties between the two nations, allies since the Cold War era. Russia aims to retain its traditional position as the chief weapons supplier to the Indian military, despite growing Western competition. "The development of a close and trusting relationship with India is a top priority for Russia's foreign policy," Ivanov said after the signing of the agreements. His Indian counterpart, A. K. Antony, hailed the "cordial, productive and mutually beneficial" military ties between the two countries. India has bought more than $30 billion of Soviet and Russian arms since the 1960s, and it has ranked alongside China in recent years as a top customer for Russia's weapons industry.

1 Do it then. No, the colonists couldn't vote, we can. 2 No, look at the Whig party, they were for a loose interpretation of government to build infrastructure the Small government, strict Constitutionalists were against it. The government built it and it worked great. Also, the government pioneered the internet, radar--huge impact--and the space program which led to many, many spin offs. The government is a positive good. 3 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 told private businesses they had to serve blacks. Without the law Blacks wouldn't be able to stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, etc. So abolish that law? 4 Great, back to the days of poisoned food and drugs that "cure" anything 5 That isn't the point. FDIC helps the economy by instilling confidence in the banks. Banks make the capitalist world go round ya know 6 Yup, we are being starved to death by taxation, even though we have the highest standard of living in world history. Yup, good point there 7 Will you personally go around and kick the old ladies out of nursing homes who are there on medicade? What about the sick kid getting cancer treatment on Medicade? Health care won't get any cheaper if the government pulls the plug on it, just fewer people will get treatment, that's all.

Chuckle, sorry but that's a debate that took place long ago and your side lost. I guess you are a Lincoln hater, too? Imposed the federal will on those nice old southerners he did. Tyrant! Here is why you are wrong about the "It's not in the Constitution" argument. Alexander Hamilton--you know, the guy who wrote many of the Federalist papers--was for a loose interpretation of the Constitution, as were many other Founding Fathers. Hell, even Jefferson was against the strict interpretation when it suited him. The Supreme Court has upheld the expansive powers under the 'necessary and proper clause' and the interstate commerce clause since John Marshall was on the court. So many of the things that have made us a great nation have come about because the government took the lead on making them happen and provided the funds. The Erie Canal, for instance, was a government [NY State]project and it enriched the nation many times over in the riches it gave to the nation. Buffalo wouldn't be here without it. Several questions: Do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is wrong? [it ended Jim Crow in public facilities] Would you abolish the Food and Drug Administration? That's not in the Constitution FDIC? When is the last time we had a run on a bank? Redistribution of wealth? Is it ok to collect more money from rich people than average Americans? Would you simply abolish Medicare? Actually, was wondering what you thought. Let me guess, he says the New Deal made the depression worse, or something? And again, I have accused you of preaching pie in the sky bull crude and that still stands. Dismanteling the entire apperatus of the Federal regulatory arm, its tax gathering system and the services it provides would be a recipe for anarchy. You are not much different than the communist at the other extreme of the political spectrum.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977 here is another article on Mars and warming which argues the sun is a factor but man is having a bigger factor.

This ought to be interesting. So tell me what a "Constitutionalist" believes. Just be specific. What New Deal programs are 'raping our liberty'? Please tell.

That's laughable. .0000000001% of Islam's followers are suicide bombers. To say that the whole country or even its leaders would choose death just to get one good shot in on us is beyond ridiciulous

The peace treaty, if there is one, would be between Syria and Israel. And I hardley think little Iran would start a world war. Deterence won the Cold War it can be used again

I don't watch Fox a lot but sometimes they do great stuff. Thought their 2004 election night coverage was the best on. It was especially great when the all believed Kerry was going to win. Webb, wow! He was great. Speaking about inequality first then pulling out that pic of his dad. Very moving. Loved what he said but his and the Democrats 'plan' for Iraq is silly. "We are not going to just pull out but we are leaving." Can't have it both ways, either we leave or we don't.

I think they should drill ANWAR but it would hardley solve our problems. It's touted as a solution when it isn't. Same with off shore drilling. What needs to happen is the investing of massive amounts of government money to finace research and development of alternative energy. Conservation efforts are also needed. For the amount of money wasted on the Iraq fiasco [perhaps $2 trillion by the time all accounts are settled] we could have been along way towards finding our future.

LOL, ya. You Libertarians are funny. Is that what you are? You do realize that Libertarianism is pie in the sky bull sh-- made for useful idiots like yourselves. As a governing philosophy its about as hairbrained as communism

What about it? Which side do you consider Hitler? Which side Stalin?

Reagan is beyod reproach, eh? So many call him a 'Great' President. I wish someone would explain that to me Speaking of calling people nazis, Yad Vashem Council Chair slams settlers for abusing Palestinians By Reuters and Haaretz Service The head of the council of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial on Saturday assailed Jewish settlers who harass Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron, saying the abuse recalled the anti-Semitism of pre-World War Two Europe. A Yad Vashem spokeswoman told Haaretz that Yad Vashem Council Chairman Yosef (Tommy) Lapid's comments do not reflect the memorial center's position. Lapid's unusually fierce and public attack was prompted by television footage showing a Hebron settler woman hissing "whore" at her Palestinian neighbor and settler children lobbing rocks at Arab homes. Advertisement Lapid, a Holocaust survivor who lost his father to the Nazi genocide, said in a weekly commentary on Israel Radio that the acts of some Hebron settlers reminded him of persecution endured by Jews in his native Yugoslavia on the eve of World War Two. "It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora bitter before they began to kill us, but persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn," Lapid said. "I was afraid to go to school, because of the little anti-Semites who used to lay in ambush on the way and beat us up. How is that different from a Palestinian child in Hebron?" Hebron has been a frequent flashpoint of more than six years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting. Some 400 settlers live there, under heavy military guard, among 150,000 Palestinians. Hebron settlers were not immediately available to respond to Lapid's criticism, but Israel Radio broadcast earlier comments by the community's spokesman, Noam Arnon, in which he played down the televised harassments as "fringe incidents." "In six years, 37 Jews have been murdered in Hebron, and now they're preoccupied with curses?" Arnon said. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered a cabinet-level probe last week into Palestinian allegations that abuse by Hebron settlers is commonplace and routinely ignored by Israel. Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh said he hoped for a military crackdown against the settler "provocateurs", but Palestinian officials called for comprehensive action. "If they are serious about coexistence, the Israelis must take practical steps on the hundreds of daily violations against Palestinians in the old city," Hebron Governor Arif Jabari said. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815603.html But Carter is an antisemite?

No, they are just urging Bush to get serious about be they think its a fraud

You are a scream. You really are. And so transparent. What you are doing is so see through I can't believe you even try it. Well, maybe I'm not surprised. Also surprising is that no one has called you on it--or maybe they have before I arrived. If the liberals do something wrong, they are horrible. If Bush does something wrong its both political parties to blame. You want it both ways. You ask what MY party accomplished on these issues, and I'll answer this way. Pre-Reagan both parties made major strides on conservation, but after he came along that was cast away, and yes, with some Democratic help, hello John Dingle of Detroit. On Israel Bush stands alone in his blind support of Israel. Carter made progress, Bush 1 serioulsy tried, Clinton tried, but this Bush is a complete lap dog to the right wing Israelis. And in a way its funny in the results. Give em enough rope as the saying goes, serves them right and hopefully they will wake up. Iraq is all Bush's fvck up. Pure and simple.

Poor Dar Dar and his knee jerk reactions to criticisms of Bush. He calls me stupid when he misrepresents my very simple statement. Typical. Have to create a strawman to knock it down, doesn't he? America may have had problems without Bush, but this clown and all his supporters--a vast mass of ignorance, hate and passion--has certaintly increased the problems by several factors. Those tax cuts and spending increases sure hit the spot! The Iraq War--Mission Accomplished! The Israeli settlements? I believe Bush probably has the same view as many of the right wing idiots on this board do, hey, we stole land from the Indians, let Israel do the same thing! BTW, keep the subsidies coming to build the illegal settlements! Energy independence? Ya right, let's just rely more on imports and pretend there isn't a problem. The market will take care of everything. Stupid indeed Dar Dar, stupid indeed

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport...cle.jsp?aid=722

I have a wood burning stove so I don't have to worry about the furnace breaking. Boy, I wish I had been in Buffalo when that storm hit in October! I'd have enough wood for 10 years!

The Supreme Court will still be Conservative. But you are right that Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves after they gain more power. They will have a honeymoon period of trying to clean up Bush's messes, but that won't last too long.

I can't take credit for this, it is posted on the Sabres message board, but very interesting and depressing http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/16510864.htm

Ron Paul is the leading anti-war candidate in the race, so he has almost no chance at all of winning GOP nomination or the general election. I think Hillary can beat McCain because she can paint him the as the candidate who will get us into another war. I was a big McCain supporter in 2000. I liked him, as did many people, but some saw him as a warmonger. I have to agree with them now, and I'm sure others will too. The 2008 campaign will be a strange one. No one is going to love either candidate, IMO.

I wasn't saying that, but yes they are good things generally. Nothing is all good or all bad, I suppose

Don't know the details, maybe these companies just want to cash in on it while they can, or maybe they see this as real. Of more interest to me is the Democratic Congress's move on energy independence, if they accomplish something large there, they will have made progress no matter what else they do. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle2169176.ece Big business joins greens to pressure Bush on climate By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles Published: 20 January 2007 An unprecedented coalition of blue-chip US companies and environmental lobby groups will urge President Bush next week to get serious about global warming, calling for caps on carbon dioxide emissions that would cut greenhouse gases by 10-30 per cent over 15 years. The group, called the US Climate Action Partnership, will unveil the details of its plan on the eve of President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday. The companies involved include some of the old-fashioned pollution-generating industries normally associated with anti-environmental policies and politicians - the chemical giant DuPont, the bulldozer company Caterpillar, the aluminium producer Alcoa and the US subsidiary of BP. They, and environmental lobby groups such as Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, said yesterday they will call for "swift federal action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and speeding the adoption of climate-friendly technology". The initiative was the latest of several indications of a big shift in US attitudes on global warming. The two-week-old new Democrat-led Congress has already generated a flurry of bills offering emissions-reduction targets. Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker, is setting up a dedicated climate change committee in the House of Representatives with the power to recommend legislation. Ms Pelosi has also promised a legislative package on energy independence, to be delivered by Indepedence Day on 4 July. Her enthusiasm is mirrored in the Senate by Barbara Boxer, the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has called the fight against global warming her number-one priority. The change in attitudes goes beyond the political arena. The star feature of the Detroit Auto Show last week was a plug-in hybrid vehicle being developed from General Motors. The age of global warming denial, meanwhile, also appears to be drawing to a close. Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, has cut its funding to groups who argue global warming is a hoax, and is now working to develop strategies it can accept for emissions reduction. That's a huge change from just a few months ago, when Exxon Mobil's chief executive, Lee Raymond, arguably the world's most prominent global warming sceptic, was still at the helm, and the Senate Energy Committee was headed by the Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, who made it his business to dismiss scientific opinion on climate change as a conspiracy. The biggest hold-out against radical policy change is probably the Bush White House. Aides to the President have indicated his State of the Union speech will include some provisions on energy, notably championing the use of ethanol-based fuels. The administration remains opposed, however, to any mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. The White House is likely to come under increasing pressure to do something, however. One possible route has already been taken by Mr Bush's fellow Republican, California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases in his state by the year 2020. The Schwarzenegger plan does not operate on a rigid system of emissions caps, but rather offers incentives to companies who move faster than their competitors, who can "trade" their margin of emissions reduction with companies lagging behind. The "cap and trade" system contrasts with a bill championed by Senator Boxer, to mandate a reduction in emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Dude, just shut up

The Erie Canal was a geographic feature? And how many ships do you see on the Great Lakes today? No doubt the local government screwed up some opportunities, but the age where the canal and lakes would keep us on the commercial network of the nation are long gone. I agree about Niagara Falls, though, and you can blame the corrupt unions in large measure for that. Thank God the feds came and helped out with that