nowhereman

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

The solution is cleaner energy solutions & less dependency on foreign oil.

If the Republicans are celebrating over this they are deluding themselves. The real story here is that more Americans are getting fed up with BOTH parties; over 30% of Americans don't identify themselves with either party & that is a significant number. Personally I would love to see a strong third party form that consists of independents & moderates fed up with their respective party. I realize this is unlikely, but one can dream.

Why would you ever vote against Obama?

Not even going to pretend to add anything to the discussion joe?

I think that the title is a bit misleading of this thread. What the poll shows is not a strengthening republican party, but a larger disillusion with both parties and the rise of a potential 3rd party. I don't see the Libertarian party as that party because they encompass far too many ideals. There is no definitive Libertarian platform.

Joe is the kid that couldn't resist smacking the hornets next with a stick & wondered why he got stung. Now he trolls VJ making nonsensical comments & gets virtual beat downs. I think he enjoys the attention (even if he loses pretty much every argument he gets in).

I think it is far more likeyly that Joe has Downs Syndrome.

sad...so so sad...

yawn.

It was a low blow, even given the fact that Joe consistently labels anyone with an opposing view as a "lib" and then makes derogatory remarks about "libs". I guess indirect insults are OK?

Hal don't confuse VJers with facts!

Hi all!!!!....I was just looking for some advice and Ideas on hold to handle the stress durring this process.....Personally it has been becomming harder and harder for me....Please dont judge me but I have been drinking more and more .....snapping at my employees and worse of all blowing things WAY out of proportion with Pam and loosing my mind over the littlest things !!!! please help me with some idea's on a way to relax.....

I played lots of World of Warcraft & drank lots of beer... often at the same time

Does patch 3.3 mean the next arena season is around the corner? I focus on PvP since it's fun & takes a lot less time than raiding.

I think it's time to update your argument..... or did you not know much of these "Facts" are found out to be fraud and the research they were based on no longer exists.

This is the part that is so telling.

If Glenn Beck is your poster child for the truth I feel very sorry for you. You can't find the truth if all you do is blindly support a political ideology (the truth has no party affiliation).

If the Republicans are celebrating over this they are deluding themselves. The real story here is that more Americans are getting fed up with BOTH parties; over 30% of Americans don't identify themselves with either party & that is a significant number. Personally I would love to see a strong third party form that consists of independents & moderates fed up with their respective party. I realize this is unlikely, but one can dream.

Why would you ever vote against Obama?

Not even going to pretend to add anything to the discussion joe?

I think that the title is a bit misleading of this thread. What the poll shows is not a strengthening republican party, but a larger disillusion with both parties and the rise of a potential 3rd party. I don't see the Libertarian party as that party because they encompass far too many ideals. There is no definitive Libertarian platform.

Joe is the kid that couldn't resist smacking the hornets next with a stick & wondered why he got stung. Now he trolls VJ making nonsensical comments & gets virtual beat downs. I think he enjoys the attention (even if he loses pretty much every argument he gets in).

If the Republicans are celebrating over this they are deluding themselves. The real story here is that more Americans are getting fed up with BOTH parties; over 30% of Americans don't identify themselves with either party & that is a significant number. Personally I would love to see a strong third party form that consists of independents & moderates fed up with their respective party. I realize this is unlikely, but one can dream.

Independents have traditionally made up around a third of the electorate, so this isn't new. The reason you don't see a third party forming is that these independents have less in common than the major parties. Some of them are ultra-right, some are ultra-left. Some are fiscal conservatives with liberal social policies, and vice-versa. Some are isolationists while others are hawks. Try building a coalition out of that.

I tend to disagree. If you look at the voting trends (and opinions) of Independent voters they very often split the difference between the Republicans & Democrats. For example over 90% of Democrats approve of President Obama & less than 10% of Republicans do, while the Independent approval rating is near the 50% mark. Sure you have the outliers mixed in with the Independents but for the most part they tend to be the most objective & non-partisan group IMO.

If the Republicans are celebrating over this they are deluding themselves. The real story here is that more Americans are getting fed up with BOTH parties; over 30% of Americans don't identify themselves with either party & that is a significant number. Personally I would love to see a strong third party form that consists of independents & moderates fed up with their respective party. I realize this is unlikely, but one can dream.

The bottom line with the global warming issue (or any issue for that matter) is that the truth is the only thing that matters. Anyone who goes into this discussion with ulterior motives based entirely on political bias are dead wrong from the get go. Science can be wrong... any reasonable person knows that. However the conspiracy theory nut cases are only muddying the waters of the debate & bring no value to the discussion.

OK try to think of Obama's decision in business terms... he took over as CEO of a failing business & he's trying to get the business back on track. In order for this to happen the CEO has to set goals, measurements for success & deadlines. Without doing this you can't make a profit & the business will go bankrupt. Don't get wrapped around the axle about the 2011 date... it is a goal & since it's based on conditions on the ground it is subject to change.

So CEO's typically divulge their internal strategy to their competition? I think not. Obama's never run anything and it shows.

You are under the very false impression that I am unable to think for myself... this tactic is often used by the bitter conservatives that are upset that Obama won the election. I have a vast amount of military experience & 3 college degrees... I have been there, done that & got the T-shirt. Trust me I am fully capable of forming my own opinions, especially on military related subjects.

You're starting to sound like BY. You are capable, yet you don't do it. Tooting your own horn doesn't lend you any credence. Was Hitler a good source for military strategy?

- Nice non answer on the first part. Again you seem to prefer Bush's approach of an open ended military operation with no stated goals & no desired end state. Makes sense to me B)

- As for the 2nd part I stated BEFORE Obama's decision that I agreed with SecDef Gates course of action. Compare it with Obama's & they are pretty similar. So am I able to predict the future now too?

Thats their only answer ever when they're proven wrong:

"do your homework"

"its beyond your comprehension"

"take some science classes"

Their GW BS hoax is unraveling before their eyes and yet they still hold firm. Gotta give them credit, like the guy who worked for Saddam and kept saying the US wasn't really invading and they weren't attacking.

It's actually quite the opposite... the people who steadfastly deny global warming & think we can just pollute the earth forever with absolutely no consequences are the same type of people who believed the earth was flat & crucified anyone who told them that it's round.

I'd challenge you to poll each and every person here who labels themselves a conservative or right wing, and ask them if they think pollution should be cleaned up. I'd wager that you'd find 100% think pollution is a bad thing. You prove yourself once again as the dishonest liberal that you are. You claim moderation, but it isn't true.

All of us support clean water, clean air, and an overall clean environment. You've basically just admitted that the ends justify the means, even if the means is a complete and utter lie.

You have an amazing talent to miss someone's point & totally misrepresent their opinion. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am disgusted by the fact that this issue is politicized. It is the most inherently non-political issue you can find, yet you once again are trying to make it a conservative vs "lib" issue. I am completely open to the possibility that some of the studies on global warming are inaccurate, but this whole conspiracy theory garbage based entirely on political bias is infuriating. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own truth.

Joe you aren't offering a solution because you don't have one & once again your reply has absolutely no substance to it... basically you are glossing over the fact that Bush didn't have an end state in mind & Obama does. As for the "this from a veteran" quip that is just plain stupid... many veterans (e.g. Generals) had significant input for Obama's plan (he didn't just lock himself in a room & come up with it himself).

Yes I have, put in the original requested amount of troops from his generals, and don't announce to the enemy when you're leaving. Can you explain to me how its good for the enemy to know when you're leaving?

OK try to think of Obama's decision in business terms... he took over as CEO of a failing business & he's trying to get the business back on track. In order for this to happen the CEO has to set goals, measurements for success & deadlines. Without doing this you can't make a profit & the business will go bankrupt. Don't get wrapped around the axle about the 2011 date... it is a goal & since it's based on conditions on the ground it is subject to change.

Its hard for someone who accepts whatever Obama does and never disagrees (except for your token "i disagreed with him in this one instance") to comprehend any alternatives.

You are under the very false impression that I am unable to think for myself... this tactic is often used by the bitter conservatives that are upset that Obama won the election. I have a vast amount of military experience & 3 college degrees... I have been there, done that & got the T-shirt. Trust me I am fully capable of forming my own opinions, especially on military related subjects.

I'm thoroughly disappointed in Obama over this...seriously.

ditto

Charles please elaborate on your opinion... Joe is doing an awful job trying to articulate his & as a fellow vet I'd like to hear yours.

You either pay for things you break or at the least... fix them.

So I would assume that the experts and Generals feel it is a good strategy to announce a 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan, then tell the enemy that they'll be gone by 2011 "if conditions on the ground warrant it" ---catch my drift Mr. Terrorist man? Hint hint? Just stop attacking until the end of that timeframe, and we'll be gone and you can go back to what you were doing before. If you're real good, we can get out alltogether and hand over the country to you! How's that!

So you preferred the Bush approach... write a blank check to the Afghan & Iraq governments, with no defined end state or benchmarks for success? All military operations should have a "commander's intent" (tactical level) or a strategic end state... an open ended, undefined end state isn't an end state at all. Moreover the statement "if conditions on the ground warrant it" is key; 2011 is a goal but not set in stone. Finally I haven't seen details of President Obama's plan but I imagine it will include a sizable force (maybe a division) that is nearby & ready to respond quickly if something flares up after troops are withdrawn.

Lock-stock-and-barrel once again eh? Pull out, and then if it goes wrong, go in again.. This from a veteran? Ridiculous.

Joe you aren't offering a solution because you don't have one & once again your reply has absolutely no substance to it... basically you are glossing over the fact that Bush didn't have an end state in mind & Obama does. As for the "this from a veteran" quip that is just plain stupid... many veterans (e.g. Generals) had significant input for Obama's plan (he didn't just lock himself in a room & come up with it himself).

The democrats were in unison that an "escalation" would not improve things in Iraq. How will it improve Afghanistan where it wouldn't have worked in Iraq? (which it did)

From the very beginning (to include during his campaign) Obama said he would beef up Afghanistan. His message has been very consistent concerning Iraq & Afghanistan & the facts have supported his position (i.e. a link was found between 9/11 and Afghanistan but even Cheney himself stated no credible link was ever found between Iraq and 9/11). The democrats are fractured on this issue & many more, so it is highly inaccurate to paint the picture that all democrats oppose additional troops in Afghanistan.

You either pay for things you break or at the least... fix them.

So I would assume that the experts and Generals feel it is a good strategy to announce a 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan, then tell the enemy that they'll be gone by 2011 "if conditions on the ground warrant it" ---catch my drift Mr. Terrorist man? Hint hint? Just stop attacking until the end of that timeframe, and we'll be gone and you can go back to what you were doing before. If you're real good, we can get out alltogether and hand over the country to you! How's that!

So you preferred the Bush approach... write a blank check to the Afghan & Iraq governments, with no defined end state or benchmarks for success? All military operations should have a "commander's intent" (tactical level) or a strategic end state... an open ended, undefined end state isn't an end state at all. Moreover the statement "if conditions on the ground warrant it" is key; 2011 is a goal but not set in stone. Finally I haven't seen details of President Obama's plan but I imagine it will include a sizable force (maybe a division) that is nearby & ready to respond quickly if something flares up after troops are withdrawn.

Thats their only answer ever when they're proven wrong:

"do your homework"

"its beyond your comprehension"

"take some science classes"

Their GW BS hoax is unraveling before their eyes and yet they still hold firm. Gotta give them credit, like the guy who worked for Saddam and kept saying the US wasn't really invading and they weren't attacking.

It's actually quite the opposite... the people who steadfastly deny global warming & think we can just pollute the earth forever with absolutely no consequences are the same type of people who believed the earth was flat & crucified anyone who told them that it's round.

It never ceases to amaze me that certain people just cannot grasp the concept that the earth can only handle so much pollution until significant adverse effects (e.g. global warming) are felt (doesn't take a scientist to understand this painfully simple truth). I am also equally amazed (and disgusted) when this issue is politicized. Clean energy benefits everyone... left wing & right wing nuts included, so does it really matter if we are at the point of global warming? Do we want to continue polluting the environment to the point of no return?

Grist to mills of Steve & Joe (OP): even Joseph Farah supports calling it quits and bringing troops home (due to 0bama lacking strategy other than bumping-up of numbers).

Can't just "call it quits" in either Afghanistan or Iraq; we need to leave both countries but only after a stable & secure environment has been established. Granted "stable & secure" are relative terms... I'm thinking something on par with Detroit

Yes all lawyers are useless

Does this thread constitute baiting or trolling?

What's your level Charles? I'm 75 (a mafia noob)

Which Bush doctrine? There are several.

I was referring to the two main pillars identified in the Bush doctrine: preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. These ideals are not inherently flawed but we attacked Iraq based on wrong (and many argue trumped up) intel & then royally screwed up the execution of the war for about 3 yrs (2003-2006).

Diplomatic? Obama hasn't persuaded our allies to join in and more will quit if Obama announces a withdrawal timetable. No need for the Taliban to talk peace while they're on the offensive.

Diplomacy doesn't always work & we have to be prepared to apply other measures, but if you don't at least try then of course you're down to just 3 options (info, economic or military).

Information? Well Obama dumped the foolish talk about scrapping intelligence gathering from the Patriot Act but will that last? Less harsh interrogation methods and fear among interrogators of getting prosecuted later may not help much.

I have mixed feelings on this one... I have no problem with harshly interrogating terrorists but without the proper supervision & leadership it can easily lead to abuse & buffoonery (like Abu Ghraib).

Military? He's half-stepping the troop surge to keep his political base and to keep spending on his pet programs against his own handpicked commander in theater.

I have stated previously that I wish President Obama made his decision on Afghanistan quicker, but lets see what the plan looks like (Obama speaks tonight).

Economic? He's a walking disaster there as the economy flounders so he can only issue promisory notes.

There are signs of economic recovery... whether this is due to Obama's policies or is just part of the natural economic cycle I am not qualified to say.

However from my vantage point President Obama is trying to enact positive change, while President Bush just kept trying the same failed policies over & over. Supporters claim Bush was consistent, but then again the coach of the Detroit Lions was consistent last year as well. B)

If I were on a flight full of Miss America contestants and two fat dudes with my luck I'd be between the two fatties