Why must the Muslims actually detonate a nuclear weapon in the middle of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Chicago before they feel we should do anything, and then…when we do it should be to go after them with cops and hand-cuffs?

I personally feel we have no business waiting until that point. It is the Presidents job to PROTECT the United States and it’s peoples, not to respond after the fact.

I guess they haven’t realized that the cities targetted by Islam for destruction are the places where these Liberals live and have bondage festivals.

2007 World Gymnastics Championships

The actual event happened last month – NBC finally got around to televising a few minutes of it.

My reading list for you would be Treason by Ann Coulter and Unhinged by Michelle Malkin. You also might try reading some G. Gordon Liddy.

Before you started all this, I was in a good mood. I suppose I should go watch my recording of 2007 Worlds and see if my mood improves.

…I’m no genius, but I think I picked up from your prior post that you served in the armed forces (AF?…wife is an AF brat, brother-in-law is an AF officer and my best friend flew F-16s in Iraq). With all sincerity, thank you for your service to our country, and I really mean that.

…If you haven’t done so already, check out a couple of books that you might find interesting: The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater (a truly great American, country club Republican or not) and Conservatives without Conscience by John Dean.

…Lastly, lawyers have done much to earn the bad rap they (we) get, but many of the best and brightest leaders of our country have been attorneys. The list is pretty long and illustrious as I’m sure you well know.

Cheers.

…I’ve stated this in other comments, but in furtherance of being clear about where I’m coming from, I’ll say it again. I’m an independent.

And why should I believe that? I’ve seen nothing in your posts so far that indicate an ability to think for yourself. You are good, however, as quoting from the liberal handbook.

If pushed, I would describe myself as an “old school” conservative…a traditional conservative if you will. Fiscal restraint, smaller government (while recognizing those areas where the free market works better in partnership with the government), individual liberty, traditional conservative foreign policy.

If, as you say, this is all true, then why do you keep quoting from the liberal hanbook?

The social conservative agenda, not so much. A partial list of my kind of conservatives: Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, George Will, Bruce Fein, Colin Powell, Sandra Day O’Connor, just to name a few.

Your kind of conservative? Ok, I see Barry Goldwater first on your list – the same kinds of country club Republicans that led to liberal dominance in government. Bully for you.

…yes, liberals do in fact use the term “neo-conservative” in a pejorative fashion. However, it is also a term that traditional conservatives use as well in describing those conservative who currently dominate the movement.

It’s a pejorative in both circles. Have you ever wondered why your kind of country-club “conservatism” no longer dominates?

…every President from Truman through Reagan fought the Cold War, some more effectively than others. Reagan deserves a great deal of credit for closing the deal and presiding over the ultimate defeat of the USSR, but a lot went into arriving at that point in history over the preceding 45 years. Truman, JFK, LBJ, even Carter…I’m not sure any of these Presidents could reasonably be described as “liberal” or “left wingers”, at least in the way folks on this site use those terms.

Carter isn’t/wasn’t a “liberal” or “left-winger”?
Any conservative credentials you might have thought you had were just shot down by you with that ridiculous statement.
For the record, up until President Reagan, presidents either held the ground or lost territory to the soviets. Reagan was the first one to actually drive them back.

…Reagan was pretty old-school conservative in his foreign policy. Somebody brought up Libya and Grenada as counter-examples. C’mon now…really? I don’t think you can honestly describe Reagan as an interventionist.

So we didn’t bomb Libya or invade Grenada? Just so that you know, I was there when we launched the F-111’s from Lakenheath to bomb Libya, so apparently you’re telling me that we didn’t do what I was there doing. …ok… :::rolls eyes:::

…Sorry, but Bush 41 was old-school as well in his foreign policy. Regardless of Bush’s agreement with the UN not to invade Iraq, he received plenty of consistent advice along the same lines from his foreign policy/defense team. We’ll agree to disagree on this one.

Ok.

…My guess is that I’m probably older than you, and I’ve read plenty of history books. Not sure where you went to school, but I attended a mix of very traditional private schools and DOD schools as I followed my dad around the world as he helped win the Cold War in his role as a submarine officer.

Judging by your responses so far, you may be older than I am, but you haven’t learned very much.

…your comments about fighting terrorism were pretty patronizing and reflective of a lack of ability to engage in civil discourse.

No, my comments were a direct response to your patronizing comments and your total inability to engage in civil discourse. Don’t try projection with me, it won’t work.

I’m not sure I’ve even really stated my position regarding the best way to fight terrorism, and it would be pretty arrogant for me to do so in any event. If you’ve got it all figured out, please clue everybody in. I think we can agree, however, that we need to find these guys, and either kill them or otherwise bring them to justice…just not sure the best way to go about accomplishing that goal. That good enough for you?

In case you haven’t noticed, conservatives have been stating how we should fight the terrorists. One of the ways is to go into Iraq and use it as a staging area for our operations in the ME. If you knew anything about military history at all, you would know that.
And no, it’s not arrogant to state a position on fighting terrorism.It is arrogant to tell everyone else just how wrong they are when you won’t come up with a position yourself.

…BTW, what do you know about lawyers anyway, and what do you do for a living that you feel comfortable insulting people you don’t know based on their chosen profession?

Does this mean you’re going to stop insulting me and other real conservatives?
I could go on and on and on about all of the corrupt lawyers and judges I’ve known, but I don’t have time to write a book about it. You don’t want to know about a lawyer and judge I once knew that conspired to murder a woman and take everything she had – and got away with it. And, of course, when you find a lawyer and judge like that, you can’t find a lawyer to take them on.
Don’t even talk to me about lawyers.

Take it easy sport, and go Sox!

“Take it easy, sport?” That’s like the apology that said “if you were offended”.
When you learn that you’re not better than everyone else maybe we can have a discussion.

…I’ve stated this in other comments, but in furtherance of being clear about where I’m coming from, I’ll say it again. I’m an independent. If pushed, I would describe myself as an “old school” conservative…a traditional conservative if you will. Fiscal restraint, smaller government (while recognizing those areas where the free market works better in partnership with the government), individual liberty, traditional conservative foreign policy. The social conservative agenda, not so much. A partial list of my kind of conservatives: Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, George Will, Bruce Fein, Colin Powell, Sandra Day O’Connor, just to name a few.

…yes, liberals do in fact use the term “neo-conservative” in a pejorative fashion. However, it is also a term that traditional conservatives use as well in describing those conservative who currently dominate the movement.

…every President from Truman through Reagan fought the Cold War, some more effectively than others. Reagan deserves a great deal of credit for closing the deal and presiding over the ultimate defeat of the USSR, but a lot went into arriving at that point in history over the preceding 45 years. Truman, JFK, LBJ, even Carter…I’m not sure any of these Presidents could reasonably be described as “liberal” or “left wingers”, at least in the way folks on this site use those terms.

…Reagan was pretty old-school conservative in his foreign policy. Somebody brought up Libya and Grenada as counter-examples. C’mon now…really? I don’t think you can honestly describe Reagan as an interventionist.

…Sorry, but Bush 41 was old-school as well in his foreign policy. Regardless of Bush’s agreement with the UN not to invade Iraq, he received plenty of consistent advice along the same lines from his foreign policy/defense team. We’ll agree to disagree on this one.

…My guess is that I’m probably older than you, and I’ve read plenty of history books. Not sure where you went to school, but I attended a mix of very traditional private schools and DOD schools as I followed my dad around the world as he helped win the Cold War in his role as a submarine officer.

…your comments about fighting terrorism were pretty patronizing and reflective of a lack of ability to engage in civil discourse. I’m not sure I’ve even really stated my position regarding the best way to fight terrorism, and it would be pretty arrogant for me to do so in any event. If you’ve got it all figured out, please clue everybody in. I think we can agree, however, that we need to find these guys, and either kill them or otherwise bring them to justice…just not sure the best way to go about accomplishing that goal. That good enough for you?

…BTW, what do you know about lawyers anyway, and what do you do for a living that you feel comfortable insulting people you don’t know based on their chosen profession?

Take it easy sport, and go Sox!

This is what appears to be going on here, and if not-then pardon this “John D.” for being so skeptical about the religion of peace being peaceful with some innocent ASL.

“My name is John Doe, and I won’t be silent anylonger!”

Sorry JHSII, but it’s not just liberals who use the term “neocon”. Traditional, old-school conservatives use the term as well to describe those who have hijacked their movement.

Dakine,
Liberals use “neocon” as a standard slur. I’ve engaged enough liberals in battle to know that.
The only ones who think anyone has “hijacked” (your term) the conservative movement are liberals (and yes, there are liberal Republicans).

Also, I did not describe Reagan and Bush 41 in particular as non-interventionists.

You were the one who said:

Republicans right up through Reagan pretty much stuck to the non-interventionist (or isolationist if you want a stronger term) philosophy

If you didn’t intend to include Reagan in that group, then why did you put his name in that group? I’m not going to let you have it both ways.

Reagan used military force in very narrow, limited duration situations, and certainly did not occupy any foreign countries.

Reagan at the time was fighting the Cold War, something the left was trying desperately to lose. Read up on your history, real history, not the stuff they teach in school nowdays.

Bush 41 went went into Kuwait with massive multi-lateral support, again in a military action with a very specific goal. Again, no occupation.

I wish we had gone to free Kuwait with “massive multi-lateral support”. :::rolls eyes:::
The only reason we didn’t overthrow Saddam then was that when we went to the UN (a mistake) we agreed not to. As for “no occupation” you only do that when you defeat an enemy, and Saddam was anything but defeated at the cease-fire. (It was a cease-fire, not a surrender)

Republics have always been willing to ultimately engage in “necessary” military action. Preemptive or optional military engagements, not so much.

Preemptiion has become necessary, if you haven’t been paying attention. Or do you still believe that terrorists are scared off by a subpeona or warrant?
hmmm…I see now that you’re a lawyer which explains much. Most of the people you deal with are probably afraid of subpeonas and warrants. Here’s a clue: terrorists aren’t.
Do you know what would have happened if you had tried to negotiate with the hijackers on 9/11?
They would have slit your throat just to shut up your whining, and then continued on. Same result if you had gotten someone on one of the four aircraft armed only with a “cease and desist” order.

I’ll be nice and not tell any of the lawyer jokes I know.

RetFireman, pretty clear to me that you don’t like lawyers. That’s okay. I don’t like them much either, and I happen to be one. Let me try one more time. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I’m simply trying to tell you that not every lawyer who represents the most horrible criminals imaginable is a low-life scumbag. As you know, under the Constitution, every person is entitled to a competent defense. When an individual cannot afford an attorney or is unable to convince any attorney to represent him because of the nature of his case (and that happens alot), one must be appointed for him. I’m not going to get into to comparing credentials with you, but you’re just wrong on much of what you say. There are many times when an attorney must essentially represent a client against his will because no one else will. Most of those kinds of cases are money losers. You are also very wrong as to why most criminal defense lawyers do what they do. Very few do it because they are seeking truth and justice for all the poor criminals out there…really not that many liberal bleeding hearts in the criminal defense bar. Here are the 4 basic categories of the criminal defense bar:

The Big-Time Money Guys – these are the name guys. They do it for the money, plain and simple. They only represent clients with money or take cases with big publicity which might lead to book deals or more clients with money. The big money is with drug lord clients, organized crime guys, white collar criminals (think Enron or Martha Stewert) and rich folks who get into trouble or whose kids get in trouble. There’s no bleeding heart seeking justice kind of deal with these guys and gals.

The Hacks – these guys are also in it for the money, but they aren’t very good. These are the guys who advertise in the yellow pages and on bus benches. These guys are representing the regular folk who get in trouble and your basic low-life criminal. They also take court appointment cases and may or may not care about how hideous their client is. Lots of your scumbag-types in this category RetFireman.

Public Defenders – usually not the cream of the crop, but there are a few really good lawyers who do it because they are true believers. They obviously take the cases assigned to them.

Pro Bono/Public Interest Guys – these are typically your liberal true believers RetFireman. A pretty small part of the criminal defense bar, and lots of them work at the appeals level. Usually very good lawyers and aren’t in it for the money. Normally wouldn’t be representing the truly bad guys.