Comments on: Pelosi Defies Bush, Meets Syrian Leader

House Speaker Holds Talks With President Bashar Assad Amid White House Criticism

[jimibear]

"Even the richest ones still want to play bad boy... It's in their soul. No amount of opportunity would appease them, just as it won't the terrorist."

And see, that is the right-wing mindset that causes the problems. It's a perfect encapsulation. Because the NeoCons (and their predecessors, the Nazis and the KKK) exist in a perpetual state of hate and fear, are murderous thugs and bullies and only feel really good when they are hurting someone else, they can't conceive that everyone else doesn't operate the same way. This is due to the fact that they are also sociopathic narcissists whose fragile self-image depends upon their completely artificial sense of superiority. They are the "Master Race" and the "White Pride" and "White Supremacist" groups who are far from supreme and a source of shame, not pride, to most white people, myself included.

Sure, Bourbon, there are people in the Middle East who think the same way you do. Those are the terrorists, and they are in a tiny majority. Your tiny majority, our very own American terrorists, are currently in the White House. As they are murderous extremists just like the radical Islamic fundamentalists, but with far greater resources, they have turned the US into the most dangerous rogue state on the planet.

[rafterman1]

"I thought Barbara Bush said that living in the Superdome was a step up for them."

Something like that :) But it shows the general thought process of people who want to justify not doing anything that might inconvenience them (i.e., higher taxes to pay for social services) - the idea that people like being poor or in gangs, therefore no need to try and help them. Or worst yet, being in a gang is "in their soul" - in other words, a racist stereotype.

[shingles1]

I thought Barbara Bush said that living in the Superdome was a step up for them.

[rafterman1]

"That's actually delusional. Even the richest ones still want to play bad boy... It's in their soul."

In their soul? Interesting but try again. I come from a family of cops so I know what I'm talking about. A lot of these kids want out, but they have no choice. They have a cr@p education so its the gangs or MacDonalds. It's $6 an hour or $6000 a week. Which would you choose? It's true there are a lot of bada$$es who do like the life. But there are more who would quit in a second if they could.

But it's easier for you righties to imagine they are all just evil little Hitlers who like the gang life and that makes it easier not to give a *** or spend money on the inner cities. Like when Barbara Bush in the Superdome said that the people there were used to be underpriviledged and were OK with the conditions.

[bourbon83]

I imagine most gangstas would rather be a nice, legal Bill Gates than have to dodge bullets all day.

Imagine,being the key word... That's actually delusional. Even the richest ones still want to play bad boy... It's in their soul. No amount of opportunity would appease them, just as it won't the terrorist. The reason inner city schools don't get much money, is because they have shown time and again, they will destroy whatever we build for them. They don't need scholarships. They have a ton of money, and programs that offer them opportunity. It's easier to sell drugs, and steal.. You can't play patti cakes with that mentality. Plain and simple. Terror is a tactic, it is a mentality, but it materializes inside a physical being. That.. you can destroy.

[rafterman1]

"But they have been given every opportunity to be fat and happy...Give terrorist all the opportunity to better themselves, and they'll still choose to hate, and terrorize."

No, we don't have to put the ME on welfare. It has nothing to do with opprotunity to "better themselves". But staying out of their politcal affairs would be a start. When the CIA replaced the leader of Iran with the Shaw, how many years of misery did we buy ourselves? The whole current Iran issue boils down to our installing the Shaw. The Iranians never forgave that. Also, building permanent bases in Iraq is not helping either. It's our CONSTANT f*cking around in their sphere of influence that they resent, not our freedom or our wealth as you righties like to say.

As far as the inner cities go, you are kidding, right? I love you people on the right and your impression that those on welfare just "live it up" at taxpayer expense. Yeah, they just love the high life at that massive $10,000 a year. Education at the taxpayer expense? Uh, no. Only if they get a scholarship. But since little money is spend on inner city schools, developing that intellectual talent is a non-starter.

And while some gangbangers would do it anyways just for the rush of power they get (plus, they are f*cked up to begin with), I imagine most gangstas would rather be a nice, legal Bill Gates than have to dodge bullets all day.

[bourbon83]

I don't think inner cities are happy. But they have been given every opportunity to be fat and happy. More so than any of the working class! They get all the food the want, have cable tv, boom boxes, and enough money to buy drugs! They can go to college at the taxpayer expense, and most of them wont put the effort in to finish high school. We've built them tax subsidized housing, that with in a year aint fit for bumb to live in, simply because that's how they destroy it. All the while they still hate us oppressive people that make them live so poorly.
I address your points you just don't see the simple analogy's. Give terrorist all the opportunity to better themselves, and they'll still choose to hate, and terrorize. Yippi Ki yi yeah Rosie. Have a great delusional paranoid day.

[bourbon83]

The advice from the military on the ground was to do the simple, intelligent thing: hire them as the soldiers of the new Iraqi government.

If they wore a uniform to fight us they should have died, or been imprisoned. If they didn't want to fight us, they should have turned on saddam, had their civil war before we showed up.
In war you can't play dr. phil with all your prisoners to determine who may really want to kill you if you let them go. You assume they want to kill you, and deal with it!!

[jimibear]

"Ya, we keep or inner cities fat and happy, look at how violent they still remain."

If you could actually answer a question instead of going off into some tangent, that would be nice. For one, if you think our inner cities are happy, you've never been in one. For another, the failure of the welfare state (and yes, in many ways it is a failure) has no bearing whatsoever on the failure of the Bush presidency.

It might also interest you to know that the Federal money available for welfare in FY 2000 (the most recent year I could find on a quick search) was $24.2 billion, of which only about $12.5 billion was spent by the individual states. (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0302friedman.html) The Iraq war costs $80-100 billion a year (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0829/p15s01-cogn.html)

Which is the better investment, do you think? How many people has welfare killed this month?

[bourbon83]

By the way, I notice you don't answer any of the questions I raised about 9/11. I'm not positing any theories. I'm just saying that something very obviously is "off" about the official story. Do you think you could address my points instead of just saying I'm nuts or high?

I did address your points. It's nuts to think our own goverment would do that? Just so we could go get their oil, which we don't control?
I do think there are scandals during war with all contractors, under all administrations, that crooked people capitalize on. I don't believe it's right. But I certainly think it's ludicrous to suggest we assisted the terrorist in bringing down our own towers. That's straight out of fat piggy delusional Rosies play book.

[jimibear]

(cont.)

The advice from the military on the ground was to do the simple, intelligent thing: hire them as the soldiers of the new Iraqi government. Instead, at Rumsfeld, Cheney's and Bush's instructions, they were let go. So immediately, those who were Saddam sympathizers went to work fighting the Americans, and those who didn't like the Shi'ites were unsupervised and went to work fighting them. We could have had a ready-made Iraqi army that could now be keeping order under much easier conditions. Instead, we have thousands of trained soldiers as enemies; those same soldiers we could have had working for the new Iraq.

You see, this is another flaw in conservative thinking. You try to blame the mess on the Democrats, when you controlled the Congress, the Senate and the White House, and all the blunders were made by your guys. The Democrats are basically just following the Republicans with a pail and shovel right now.


By the way, I notice you don't answer any of the questions I raised about 9/11. I'm not positing any theories. I'm just saying that something very obviously is "off" about the official story. Do you think you could address my points instead of just saying I'm nuts or high?

there have been numerous incidents throughout history, including in this country, where governments manufactured reasons to go to war. (Remember the Maine?) To stick your head in the sand and say "It couldn't happen here" is the real delusional behavior.

[bourbon83]

If they are fat and happy, there's no need to do terror. You stop terrorism by removing the reasons for them to want to become terrorists, not by continually poking them with a stick - which is the righty method of forcing compliance.

Ya, we keep or inner cities fat and happy, look at how violent they still remain. Perhaps Pelosi can put the whole middle east on Welfare, and start a world tax so we can keep them all fat and happy. Then we'll be safe... I can hear you cheering now.. You would go for that... Rosie would. Now back to checkers.

[jimibear]

"Actually tora tora tora would be more appropriate! You can't kill the terrorist in afghan. when they run to all the surrounding country's to hide."

No, I meant Tora Bora. Where US Special Forces had Osama cornered and were denied authorization to capture him. Why? You can kill the terrorists when you have them in a box.

"most of them are happy Suddam is gone"

I don't deny that. But they aren't happy at the chaos that has replaced him. Far more Iraqis have suffered under us than under him. That's why they hate us.

"Sadly thats what happens when you catch an entire military then let them go because some weak kneed souls don't want to keep them imprisoned. They were suddam sympathizers"

That's only coincidentally and partially the way it went, and I notice you don't name the "weak-kneed souls". Actually, the military on the ground told Rumsfeld that they shouldn't just let the soldiers go, and most of them weren't Saddam sympathizers at all. They were paid by Saddam (badly) and in most cases only too happy to surrender at the first opportunity. They would have likely been more loyal to a democratically elected government.

[bourbon83]

As for blowing up our own towers, as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that. Something about the official story of what happened stinks to high heaven. For one, it defies simple physics.

Ohh my goodness! :}I do believe I'm chatting with Rosie Odonell...Lucky me... I seen the show on PBS reflecting how the towers fell. The acutal architect was in it. It portrayed a rational explanation on how they desentigrated into a smoking heap. Any building hit by that much force would have collapsed sooner! The fighfighters did their job, just as they would have at any time, war or no war. Do you think Bush ordered them in there? That thinking is insane? Just as believing we created terrorist!People like that existed since the beginning of time. If only good existed, there would be no wars. If only evil existed people would always be killing people, wars would be rampant. Good can't rationalize with evil, just as conservatives can't rationalize with the absurb thinking of libs. You've been smoking something else in your peace pipe.

[rafterman1]

"then they'll spend many years trying to rebuild. In that time they'll be too busy to think of being terrorist."

Wrong and this is the basic flaw in conservative thinking - that you stop terrorists by destroying their homes and their countries. But what you actually do is create more terrorists. Instead of rebuilding their homes, they (and their children and children's children) are going to see revenge and attack those that hurt them, which is the standard of thinking in most parts of the ME. It is their culture to revenge the wrongs done against them. But the righties are too arrogant to learn of how other cultures actually work and, instead, just try and force a "western" solution and think it will work because they demand it.

Not too many who have a good, secure life with material means are going to give that all up to become terrorists. If they are fat and happy, there's no need to do terror. You stop terrorism by removing the reasons for them to want to become terrorists, not by continually poking them with a stick - which is the righty method of forcing compliance.

[jimibear]

As for blowing up our own towers, as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that. Something about the official story of what happened stinks to high heaven. For one, it defies simple physics that the Towers came down the way we were told. For another, basic procedures were not followed which would have prevented some of it; scrambling fighters above our nation's capitol when the nation is under attack, for instance. For a third, the standing authorization to shoot down hi-jacked airliners posing a threat to civilian and military safety was revoked by executive order a few weeks before 9/11. Why? For a fourth, the plan to invade Iraq was in place before 9/11. How odd.

For a fifth, the family of the man responsible for the attack was shipped out of the country before the FBI could question them. For a sixth, the metal from the rubble of towers (which would have shown any explosive residue and which miraculously supposedly melted at a temperature 500 degrees below where steel actually melts) was sold to India as scrap and shipped out before investigators could look at it.

For a seventh, the guy who designed the Twin Towers has said repeatedly that there is absolutely no way they could have collapsed as they did without help, as they were specifically designed to withstand mulitple impacts from passenger planes.

And the list goes on and on and on. Something ain't right, and we're being sold a lie in some fashion.

[bourbon83]

(Tora Bora, anyone?)
Actually tora tora tora would be more appropriate! You can't kill the terrorist in afghan. when they run to all the surrounding country's to hide.

[But it's not a war on terror now; it's a war on freedom. We have installed a government at gunpoint and called it democracy. It's sickening]

I think it is a war on freedom. Our freedom, and their freedom. The thing most the leftist press don't show you is that most of them are happy Suddam is gone. Sadly their own people are still killing them to try to regain power. Sadly thats what happens when you catch an entire military then let them go because some weak kneed souls don't want to keep them imprisoned. They were suddam sympathizers. What do you think they're going to do? That's why we need to do as we would did in WWII. Massive Force, Massive occupancy, then they'll spend many years trying to rebuild. In that time they'll be too busy to think of being terrorist. Plus they'll know the consequences are not worth the benefits!

[one_american]

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16

"As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

[jimibear]

Bourbon,

I don't think the troops are murderous thugs. They're doing their job as instructed, as they swore to do, and I commend them for it.

The murderous thugs are the people in Washington sending them to fight the wrong war against the wrong people. If we were still in Afghanistan in force, going after real terrorists in an effective way and actually capturing them when we have them cornered (Tora Bora, anyone?) I would have no problem with the war on terror.

But it's not a war on terror now; it's a war on freedom. We have installed a government at gunpoint and called it democracy. It's sickening.

[bourbon83]

Don't worry, righties; we'll find a way to clean up all your mess eventually. It'll be a challenge, though, because in addition to being murderous thugs and war profiteers, you are so blitheringly incompetent that you make the Keystone Kops look like the Untouchables.


Ha ha. Yoo funny guy.. Calling our troops Murderous thugs. If I felt that way about the place I lived. I would move. Maybe you should go set up a peace camp with mustavarodupurpooper, smoke a peace pipe, and play checkers. The only reason your free enough to express your ridiculous opinions, is because you live here, where many have died stomping out evil to insure you that right. Cleaning up our mess? Like we blew up our own towers? It's all are fault they chop off heads, blow up people? Those cowards sick ten of their unarmed men to tear a helpless dog into shreds as part of their military training. Or do you think that video was a right wing propaganda stunt? You stand as good a chance of reasoning with mentality like that, as you do with libs. You're apathetic.