21st June 2006, 7:23 PM
The idea that people are still latched on to the concept that Sadaam had massive stores of still-unfound chemical/biological weapons is so absurd that it's not even worth mentioning... he had stuff. In 1990. Then sancitons hit, and they hurt and did a good job of keeping a lot of materials away from him. Then inspections hit, and they too were pretty effective and found a lot of banned materials. By the time of the invasion, Sadaam had very little left... nobody really realized that because he was doing his best to pretend that he had stuff (to be scary or something?) and we had no effective intelligence inside Iraq (the intelligence failures are staggering... believing single defectors with obvious agendas, having no serious intelligence network, etc, etc...) to show what the truth was, so... well, we invaded, and promptly learned that Sadaam had nothing worth mentioning (oooh, two trailers that were probably used for something like fertilizer, and a lot of red liquid some scientists had been telling Saddaam falsely was a chem/bio weapon! Scary!). Only people like Biggah could still believe that Sadaam had any significant amount of chemical or biological weapons... that is, people who know what the truth is before they start looking for the facts... so when the facts don't fit the truth, you just wait until they do or redefine the facts (read: make things up) until them and your agenda match! Presto!
True conservatives would be just as horrified as liberals are that the Bush-appointed Supreme Court nominees have revoked 700 years of precident by neutering one of the main parts of the fourth amendment... but Bush people are not conservatives. Real conservatives these days are probably much closer to Libertarians because of how far the Republican party has gone from conservatism... (remember when Republicans were complaining that DEMOCRATS were increasing the budget deficit. Yeah.)
This is part of why the Republican party is weak in the Northeast -- the Southern-style Republican line just isn't as effective here. Of the 12 senators from New England, seven are Democrats and five are Republicans... including the three most liberal Republicans in the Senate and two more (from New Hampshire) who are from the most Libertarian state in the country. I found it really interesting that not one of New England's senators voted in favor of the Republican Party's latest attempt to support a constitutional ban on gay marriage... the only one (Judd Gregg of NH) who had two years ago the last time they tried switched his vote this time after seeing that Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage had indeed not led to a total breakdown of society. :)
From here I'd have to cross through four whole states (not counting this one) until I found one that voted for Bush in '04...
Me and Biggah are so completely opposite politically that discussing politics with him is completely pointless... but maybe some other people will have more interesting things to say...
Quote:I dislike Bush on immigration. I disliked Bush on the Dubai ports...but on the war on terror, tax cuts (6 million new jobs in the last 3 years), and judge nominations and he has my FULL support.
True conservatives would be just as horrified as liberals are that the Bush-appointed Supreme Court nominees have revoked 700 years of precident by neutering one of the main parts of the fourth amendment... but Bush people are not conservatives. Real conservatives these days are probably much closer to Libertarians because of how far the Republican party has gone from conservatism... (remember when Republicans were complaining that DEMOCRATS were increasing the budget deficit. Yeah.)
This is part of why the Republican party is weak in the Northeast -- the Southern-style Republican line just isn't as effective here. Of the 12 senators from New England, seven are Democrats and five are Republicans... including the three most liberal Republicans in the Senate and two more (from New Hampshire) who are from the most Libertarian state in the country. I found it really interesting that not one of New England's senators voted in favor of the Republican Party's latest attempt to support a constitutional ban on gay marriage... the only one (Judd Gregg of NH) who had two years ago the last time they tried switched his vote this time after seeing that Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage had indeed not led to a total breakdown of society. :)
From here I'd have to cross through four whole states (not counting this one) until I found one that voted for Bush in '04...
Quote:Come on, ABF. Don't disappoint. It's been a long time.
Me and Biggah are so completely opposite politically that discussing politics with him is completely pointless... but maybe some other people will have more interesting things to say...