Whootziedude

Would we have allowed it? Would our state department had acted as impotently as thay do today? Would we have Universities inviting him to speak to a full house, treating him like a rock star?

Originally, I thought I liked W for being a man of fortitude and uncompomising principles. For all the times I tried to make that point in this very forum, I admit I was wrong. He's wussified just like the majority of our politicians. I made the mistake comparing him to another president who had courage and fortitude in the face of low poll numbers -

"It isn't polls or public opinion at the moment that counts. It is the right and wrong leadership--men with fortitude, honesty, and a belief in the right that makes epochs in the history of the world." - Harry Truman

He also said something else that W once believed in - "You won't get any doubletalk from me. I'm either for it or against it." Sound familiar? What do you Democrats think HE would have done with Ahmademajad's request?

My 10 year old step son is obsessed with his dad. His mom and I have been married 4 yrs. now, and he spends every waking moment that he spends with his mom wanting to talk to his dad on the phone. I don't mind - it's not about me - but it is understandably very upsetting to his mom. She is the only parent who set rules, while his dad works on being the best friend. The father spends hours, even his work time, on the phone with his son. Meanwhile, the obsession has grown worse, rather than abated, over the last four years. My 10 year old will now resort to lying and hiding to call in secret, like he is seeking a drug. I haven't figured out how to be supportive of their relationship as it has grown increasingly not well. The father babies his son with kisses and giving in to whatever he wants. I know how he feels as the father from a previous marriage myself, but he is over-compensating to the point of it being very sick for a 10-years-old. Plus, my lovely wife is failing...

No, I'm not a Bush-hater (just ask my wife), so don't bother answering the question if you don't get-or refuse to take the joke.

Okay there's the question - here's the analysis:

If Bush the Inept was a better choice than Gore or Kerry, then one would have to imagine that someone less inept could beat someone far more divisive than Gore or Kerry ever imagined ever being. Basically, Hillary is the biggest silver platter that my admittantly struggling GOP could ever be given. I hate to be so optimistic when my party is screwing up so many things - but I do want to be the first to iterate the sound bite for all those who will NEVER vote for her...Right Tme - Wrong Woman. I want royalties on whoever sells the bumper sticker. I honestly would vote for a woman, or a minority of any sort for that matter...but certainly not her, and I am confident that over 1/2 of the USA will come to the same conclusion. The other side of the equation is that the GOP couldn't possibly put up anyone more incompetent than GWB, so, how sad for the DNC when they realize how out of touch they are once again. Don't forget to answer!

Here's mine, what yours?

50s I Love Lucy

60s Dick Van Dyke Show

70s MASH

80s Cosby Show

90s Friends

00s none for me really.

I'm not a big fan of Newt Gingrich's Republican-bashing, but on Fox News Sunday he made a good point about the aspiring terrorists arrested Saturday in the JFK plot:

Three of the terrorists had been in the US for 23 years illegally, intercepted by the police 75 times in the last six years.

I am glad the plot was foiled, but from Reagan to present, we have failed to prove that we have a clue as to how to deal with the immigration issue.

I still have a 23% ratio, and have not been in violation of any rules that I know of. Has this ever happened to any of you? Could it just be a glich? I know I can go to the answers team, but thought I'd give people a chance to earn points instead

Two of my 360 conservative friends have recently flipped on the issue. One, a GWB, faithful supporter, went from favoring to disfavoring after a look at the flaws in the bill.

The other, a Christian conservative, went the other way after considering the plight of the Mexican economy. Here's my partisan response to him.

Although the bill isn't cut and dry as good or bad as the sparring candidates are giving as an impression , keep in mind that what makes this so complicated is the long-term implications. Ever since the days of Prop. 187, Republicans have been desperate to rebut unjust Democratic charges that they are anti-immigrant (read: anti-Latino) bigots. Fair enough.

The problem is that signing on to this incredibly flawed immigration bill isn't the way to solve that problem -- even though a short-term resolution of the illegal immigration problem might cast a warm glow over a politician's heart.

A University of Maryland study reveals that passage of the current immigration bill would, in fact, precipitate a political realignment hugely favorable to the Democrats (no wonder Teddy Kennedy was supposedly willing to accept some less-than-favored provisions in the bill).

And none of this has to do with race or ethnicity. The fact is that the immigration bill as it's currently constituted would offer citizenship to a vast number of uneducated and very poor migrants. Given that the Democrats had (at least until 2006) been losing electoral market share, integrating these people into the political system has no doubt seemed, by far, like the best way to revive the welfare state's flagging fortunes.

Indeed, Republicans have long hoped that Latinos would become the 21st century equivalent of the Reagan Democrats. But in order to care about limited government and low taxes, one must have some money and property that needs protecting from the government. Importing what's essentially a reserve army of the desperately poor and unemployed from Mexico isn't only a recipe for finding new big-government clients, it also inhibits those who are already here (and already citizens) from climbing the economic ladder.

What are your pros and cons from your perspective?

...to enjoy education, health care and all the rest during their tenure as illegal aliens -- but once they're given citizenship, they owe the United States nothing?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic...

What a bad mistake -- not only in terms of equity, but also politically, for The White House.

So. the argument is that it would be too difficult to round up 12 million illegals? I'm sure that wouldn't be the philosophy of the IRS.

Well, at least opponents of amnesty aren't the only ones who are objecting to the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill. Lots of illegals are unhappy, too:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070517/D8P6DP802...

Maybe that will count for something with John McCain -- since the well-founded reservations of fellow Republicans are obviously irrelevant to him.

Porn star Jenna Jameson has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

She says this about Slick Willie:

-The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office.

I'll bet. And then there's this:

-I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us . . .

That's a slogan to be proud of . . . "Democrats: Making the Climate Better for Porn Stars."

The questions highlighted why Fox News has become such a popular source for news. In contrast to some of the stupid questions posed by Chris Matthews at the first debate -- do you believe in evolution? what do you dislike most about America? -- the moderators didn't assume that either the candidates or those likely to support them were something out of Deliverance.

Not a single question posed to the candidates could be characterized as "easy" or "a softball" -- but though they were tough, they were fair. They demonstrated respect for the viewing audience and didn't implicitly hint that the candidates were out of the mainstream in the way the MSNBC debates did. Even the after-coverage, where Hannity & Colmes interviewed the participants, offered an opportunity to take another look at the candidates, and enough verbal space from the questioners to hear what they had to say.

It was the most provocative debate I have seen yet. Too bad the Dems are dodging the network.

Considering that congress' approval is lower than Bush's

At least, that's what Gallup is reporting.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589

What's more, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, a solid majority of Americans oppose cutting and running in Iraq before the country is stabilized.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=2...

Both findings lend credence to the suspicion that the Democrats have misinterpreted their supposed mandate of 2006. They say the public was telling them to end the war, essentially at any cost; it doesn't appear that that's the case.

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/05/kei...

No, I don't watch Fox News, but you liberals ought ot love this guy. His newest was to totally discredit the foiling of the terror plot against my basic training Alma Mader.

I suppose he would have said about 9/11, "yeah, sure, boxcutters. Oooooo scary", had our intelligence prevented it.

Liberals - will they ever appreciate their personal security?

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-CtSuerA6da_B94NCfsY...

According to this piece, Al Qaeda is mocking the Democrats' white flag legislation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3143623

As I've noted before, the kind of surrender the Democrats are advocating would only validate Al Qaeda's long held view that Americans in particular and the West in general are too lazy, decadent and pathetic to fight them.

Way to go, Dems.

The Democrats' withdrawal plans from Iraq aren't just short-sighted, but also ignorant of history:

In recent years, South Korea has strengthened itself to the point that the United States cut its forces to "only" 37,500 military personnel.

We still have 69,000 troops in Germany, 62 years after V-E Day. We still have 47,000 troops in Japan and another 12,000 in Italy.

The U.S. military has more than 165,000 troops stationed in those four nations decades after their wars ended (technically, the Korean War is in a 53-year cease-fire).

That is 20,000 more troops than we now have in Iraq.

What's more, the conflicts that preceded the stationing of troops in those four countries cost many, many more lives than the approximately 3400 that have, sadly, been lost in the Iraq conflict.

Sunni Muslim sheiks have joined the US in fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p01s04-wome.htm...

Al Zarqawi's successor has been killed in Iraq -- by Sunnis: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ...

Could it be that our General on the ground knows more than the Bush haters, even as the Democrats try to pretend that retreat is an option and that the whole thing is a civil war in which we are unwelcome?

-We do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network. . . . There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq. . . . The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us . . .Typically, in fact, still we believe that, oh, 80 percent to 90 percent of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreigners.-

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic...

Pundits have spent endless hours discussing the ways that the Iraq war has been hurting Republicans politically. But as this piece in the Washington Post today suggests, Democrats may have their own political headaches.

There's a split in the presidential field over how aggressively to challenge the president. Notably, Clinton and Obama favor less confrontation than do the other candidates, no doubt casting a weather eye toward the general election. It will be interesting to see how much this debate strains the unity Democrats are striving for in the run up to the '08 election.

And it's worth pointing out that there's a decent chance that, if both Obama and clinton continue on the less extreme course, John Edwards could wind up as the Democratic nominee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

In an earlier question, answers ignored the evidence and repeated the propaganda:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai_xt...

Even as the Democrats try to pretend that retreat is an option, and that we could significantly draw down troops if we restricted our mission to fighting al Qaeda, Petraeus notes:

"Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq."

Oh, and what's more:

"We do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network. . . . There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq. . . . The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us . . ."

Finally,

"Typically, in fact, still we believe that, oh, 80 percent to 90 percent of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreigners."