Comment by Bush Bites — April 11, 2006 @ 6:18 pm

Not sure why insulting a hyper-masculinized, cock sucking, latently gay Dick Cheney so often includes disrespectful references to girls and women. Alas, the castration complex is alive and well in America men. When will you little boys stop insulting eachother by comparing eachother to women? If being female is really the worst insult/most horrible condition you can consider, you’d best rethink your own sexuality. Perhaps wearing leather chaps at “The Stud” in downtown San Francisco would be more fun for some of you? You can meet your pal Dick Cheney there…

As long as you guys use your real names Abbott and Costello. You can decided who who is who.

“And racism and bigotry generally is a conservative movement – and that’s what the minutemen is REALLY about.”

The is a very biggoted statement from a extreme position of ignorance on your part. Do you have some evidence of this? Please look beyond skin color, if you have that ability, and investigate their stated goals and the people who started the program.

“yeah, and it just passed in Mass. – the world changes, catch up.”

Who is going to fit the bill? You would actually be in favor of turing over 1/3 of the U.S. economy to the feds? Mass. can do what it likes and raise it’s taxes even higher to pay for their experiment, but this should definately should go no further than being an optional state run program.

You ALWAYS raise taxes during a war – it’s called CIVIC SACRIFICE? You served in the military and you don’t understand this?

During the Cold War, especially during the Kennedy and Regan years taxes were cut and tax revenues increased because of economic growth leading to a larger tax base. Remember this war that we are in right now, i.e. this war on terroism, will probably last for a LONG time like the Cold War did. If you keep taxes high for more than about 5 years you will be guranteed to have slowed economic growth which will in turn hurt the war effort. BTW I never said I served in the military. My brother in a major in the USAF and I have friends in the 1st Cav. out of Ft. Hood.

“Besides, raising taxes on the wealthy and pumping it into infrastructure projects has historically produced economic growth and MORE revenue.”

Please provide an example where increasing taxes has actually produced economic growth. During the 1990s Clinton raised taxed on the wealthy in order to pay down the national debt, NOT to stimulate the economy. You seem to have this weird notion that the government is responsible for economic growth, which is not the case in the U.S.

“Who told you that? The town of D.C. is largely poor and black, but the greater DC area spreads in to VA and MD…”

Washington D.C. has been a Democratic party controlled town for as long as I can remember. Is the mayor a Republican? No. Is the city council controlled by the Republicans? No. Are the vast majority of the elected officals of that city Republican? No. Also do you really believe all of those “supposed” thousands of Republicans in the stands were really the ones doing the booing? I doubt it.

I like this laundry list, unfortunately there isn’t really a clear and stated way to achieve there goals.

Examples:

“To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Democrats will:

• Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in
Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

How?

• Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Special forces have been dramatically increased. Intelligence free from political pressure? How do you ensure that in Afghanistan considering the violent consequences for those who “squeel” on the Taliban?

• Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political
conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defendhuman rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Again where are the specifics? Where is the economic plan to help Afghanistan’s economy?

• Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”

Unless a terrorist state like Iran gives some of that material to the terrorists.

• Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

Specifics?

“This strategy calls for increasing special operations forces, curbing terrorist financing, preventing the growth of radical fundamentalism, and advancing U.S. interests through diplomacy and development in the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia..”

Another good goal list but very short if not completely absent on mechanisms or ways to implement them.

“An objective of total elimination of North Korea’s nuclear and missile
programs, with fully adequate verification;”

No specifics mentioned afterward how to do it considering the IAEA isn’t even allowed in the North Korea.

“Military pressure to include the threat of strikes on North Korean WMD
production, testing, and deployment facilities;”

If they have nukes, like most experts agree they do now, then this is an asinine thing to contemplate.

“A combined Russian-EU guarantee to give Iran the opportunity to buy
additional civilian nuclear reactors.”

They already did. Which is how and why that they say they have produced enriched uranium with their centrifuges. No deal.

“If Iran agrees to the moratorium, in an appropriately verifiable way, and we
maintain the status quo on all other issues with Iran (i.e., human rights, being the #1 state sponsor of terrorism), we will be no worse off then we were yesterday on other issues in this relationship.”

So the Democrats are going back to the old failed game plan of containment with no real desire to see real political change in the Middle East. Nice.

“FIRST GOAL: PREVENTING NUCLEAR TERRORISM…”

“The key to preventing “proliferation” to terrorists is stopping the production
of fissile material for weapons and safeguarding all fissile materials
everywhere from terrorists.”

Well if Iran gets nuclear bomb fuel, which it says it already has, this is a foregone failed goal.

“SECOND GOAL: STOPPING THE PROLIFERATION OF URANIUM
ENRICHMENT AND PLUTONIUM REPROCESSING CAPABILITY”

“The world will need more nuclear power to fuel a growing demand for electricity without increasing dependence on fossil fuel.”

“Nuclear power is a key part of any strategy to contain carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.”

You are OK with nuclear energy? Not really a Democratic party platform.

“THIRD GOAL: STRENGTHENING VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE OF
THE NPT”

“The IAEA’s inspection rights, obligations, and procedures should be
extended from fissile material-producing capabilities to all nuclear
weapons-related activities;”

That is kinda hard if a country like Iran tells the inspectors to leave. Which they have.

“FOURTH GOAL: PREVENTING “BREAKOUT” OF THE NPT”

“Withdrawing states forfeit any technology they obtained for “peaceful
purposes” during their period of membership;”

LOL! How do you tell that country to “give back” the technology?

“HOMELAND SECURITY”

“To Protect America from Terrorism and Natural Disasters, Democrats will:”

• Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America’s nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.

That is impossible, but it makes for great rhetoric. LOL!

• Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure — such as ports, airports and mass transit — to foreign interests that put America at risk.

Well we better tell the Chinese who already run our ports on the West Cost which BTW the Clinton administration had no problem authorizing in the late 1990s. That’s of course not relevant to you if you don’t consider the communist Chinese government to be a threat…which is insane to think.

“Iraq”

“Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis
assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the
responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.”

How? Specifics? NATO help?…oh, they refused.

“Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and
defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.”

Insist? Good luck!

“Strength of the Iraqi Insurgency Increases:”

“Since November 2003, the insurgency has grown from 5,000 fighters to 15,000-20,000 fighters.”

That’s unproven.

“Democratic Record on Iraq”

“In June 2005, Democrats Fought to Require the President to Submit A “Strategy for
Success” in Iraq.”

Which the Democrats haven’t done in this report.

“More Funding for Body Armor and Other Equipment for Our Troops in Iraq.
Every step along the way, Democrats have sought to ensure that our troops were fully
equipped for the war in Iraq”.

Except for Senator Kerry and others.

That’s just a quick run down on a 123 page document in which OVER half is nothing more than a long criticism of the Bush Administration. No real specifics or plan, because a plan has to have mean and methods which this report doesn’t have.

Tracy is probably too young, and too dumb to get the reference, so I’ll help him out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Fred_Muggs