The battle between former Secretary of State Colin Powell and reigning GOP king Rush Limbaugh escalated last week. Two quotes:
“Rush Limbaugh says, ‘Get out of the Republican Party.’ Dick Cheney says, ‘He’s already out.’ I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there’s another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again.” — Powell, in a Boston speech
“He’s for more spending. He’s for higher taxes. He’s against raising the social issues. He’s for affirmative action. He’s for amnesty for illegals. He endorsed Obama. And now there’s an agenda — an emerging agenda — that he’s waiting for for the Republican Party? The only thing emerging here is Colin Powell’s ego. Colin Powell represents the stale, the old, the worn-out GOP that never won anything. The party of Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton, Arnold Schwarzenegger and those types of people.” — Limbaugh, on his radio show
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- Skeptic on Death penalty review promised
- cosmos_originally on Death penalty review promised
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- oliveoyl on Roberts already wants a fourth term
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- satatom on Open thread 11/8
- satatom on Shooting is tragic, terrible
128 Comments
Colin Powell is a true American hero. His detractors are, what, politicians who led us into a war that never should have happened.
Limbaugh and his ilk want a Republican party made up of old white guys, Blacks on the back of the bus, women at home making babies, and business run without any government regulations.
Colin Powell wants a diverse Republican party that embraces people of all backgrounds. People who can build the Republican party to what it once was, not the one-sided divisive party of hasbeens it now is.
Colin Powell is not a republican. His values do not reflect republican values nor does his supporting a black for president, because of his skin color reflect the republican ideal. If you disagree with Powell voting on skin color, then you must believe Powell supported Obama on values.
Powell cannot just declare, “I’m a republican” any more so than Obama could.
Sorry, it won’t fly. But it will be fun to banter about.
“Limbaugh and his ilk want a Republican party made up of old white guys, Blacks on the back of the bus, women at home making babies, and business run without any government regulations”.
Chuckle… Hey Walker, you forgot the one about hating gays, and the one about wanting a theocracy.
That mess, of course, is right out of the Democrat playbook. “What to do when you can’t make a cogent argument — Insult and stereotype”.
Limbaugh v Powell. Who will prevail?
Sound compelling, but it isn’t either or folks. As in any large DIVERSE group, all have their place and their influence on the makeup and positions of the party. And all are entitled. In fact, as a Republican now, you have a bigger voice than if you are a Democrat. If you are a Democrat, you are Obama. Especially the far left, which thankfully seems to be getting kicked to the curb as Obama puts on big boy pants and tries to build his base.
Ah well, that’s America. Happy Memorial Day all.
There are several things of profound sadness about the GOP ca2009.
One, Cheney (never served in the military, accepted at least 4 Vietnam-era draft deferments) is leading the GOP down the same screwball path he lead the whole country down during the runup to the clusterf*ck aka Iraq II in 2002-2003. The road he’s piping down now doesn’t end in Baghdad, true, but it’s a dead end nevertheless – it very likely ends at death’s door for the GOP.
Two, that what remains of the GOP base would willingly follow Cheney over General Powell — that the base is incapable of seeing the strength of character shining through Gen. Powell’s every political stance — just goes to show how well Cheney and his ilk pipe and how near the fatal end of the GOP Cheney has lead them.
In today’s GOP — the GOP led by Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney — an ideology proven time and time again to be dysfunctional has been mistaken for principle. For a long time I’ve believed the party to be incapable of the kind of healthy self-analysis necessary for survival, and I see nothing today to change my mind.
In a striking example of the kind of dysfunctional decision-making pilots call “augering in,” George W Bush led the USA into Baghdad in 2003 and his party out of power in 2006. Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh appear quite willing to auger in as many times as it takes to reduce the GOP’s base to Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and the Gulf states.
Last sad thing: that today’s GOP apparently cannot glimpse that on this Memorial Day of 2009 we are very likely celebrating the past vigor of a once grand old party as well as those who served in our nation’s military.
American_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 7:36 am | Permalink
Colin Powell is not a republican
—
I”m sure Ronald Reagan must be literally spinning in his grave this morning.
“Memorial Day of 2009 we are very likely celebrating”
Not so sure celebrating is the right word for Memorial Day. We are honoring the dead who gave their all. You might say we are celebrating their lives, as in an Irish Wake. I think what we do today is remember that they gave their lives for us.
Probably tripping over mouse turds on this one.
“Blacks on the back of the bus”
I think Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee dispels that notion.
Great propaganda from the left. Nice buzz phrase. That is part of the republicans problem.
The RNC lets the left define them. Republicans need a major advertising campaign to get
their message out. They also need a few good leaders. As long as republicans are passive
and not aggressively promoting the party – the longer they will remain on the defensive.
Lot’s of talk over the republicans re-evaluating themselves. Coming up with a “new”
platform. I disagree with this approach You either are – or are not republican. The drift
over the last two decades to try and be everything to everyone; Christian Right, Pro Life,
social conservatism, etc.. has resulted in a blend that is closer to democrat than republican.
They lost their identity be trying to change it to conform with the social democrats. If republicans try to “redefine” themselves to something other than original, hard core conservative values,then they really aren’t republican anymore. Personally, I think a new party is in order. It may consist Of former republicans – but it cannot be molded or shaped by the republican party.
I disagree with the post that blacks are on the back of the bus. Most Amerians now days are
not racists and it is wrong for you to infer an entire organization – led by blacks is racist. I do agree blacks are few in number in the republican party, and the party should think about why that is, and see if the parties values can be stressed to attract more minorities.
“Blacks on the back of the bus”
I think Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee dispels that notion.
I don’t know – Rush sure put Steele in HIS place when he dared speak any ill of Rush! “Keep quiet Steele – window dressing doesn’t talk”
One other thing about the GOP ca2009. Not only are they irresponsible in the minority, but in the majority their ideology — to shrink government to a size small enough to drag it to the bathtub and drown it — makes them unfit to lead.
After all, why would any rational American vote such a party into government power? I guarantee that a party that doesn’t believe in government won’t govern well. For example, see George W Bush, terms one and two.
Cheney is more of this dysfunctional ideology. General Powell represents a return to responsibility for the minority GOP, a stance that could result in a leadership role for the party once again. Cheney, not so much.
Powell has been ticked off ever since H. Norman Schwarzkopf, stole his thunder in the first Gulf War.
In “the Bear’s” words, he describes what leadership is:
Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy.
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 8:33 am | Permalink
One other thing about the GOP ca2009. Not only are they irresponsible in the minority, but in the majority their ideology — to shrink government to a size small enough to drag it to the bathtub and drown it — makes them unfit to lead.
———–
Ah Pedant, if only there were some truth to that. But as evidenced by the George Bush administration, it is anything but. Hopefully the party will get back to its roots as the advocates of limited government.
outlander
Posted May 25, 2009 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 8:33 am | Permalink
One other thing about the GOP ca2009. Not only are they irresponsible in the minority, but in the majority their ideology — to shrink government to a size small enough to drag it to the bathtub and drown it — makes them unfit to lead.
———–
Ah Pedant, if only there were some truth to that.
—
At your service:
But that presumes that we’ll be able, as a political matter, to act responsibly. The example of California shows that this is by no means guaranteed. And the political problems that have plagued California for years are now increasingly apparent at a national level.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html
The “genius” of our American political system is that our political parties spring up from the grass roots. How does that work in real life?
It works because all of the country is divided into precincts. These precincts have the opportunity to elect precinct committeemen and an equal number of precinct committeewomen from each political party, even from minority parties if they choose to participate.
Here in Sedgwick County, I believe some 250 precinct committeemen and 250 precinct committeewomen are elected by the Republicans for example. And an equal number of Democratic precinct people are elected. They are elected in the PRIMARY elections in August so they are ready to get our and work hard to get their political candidates elected in the November political elections.
Of course, the downside is lots of people are apathetic and do not participate adequately. And many precinct committee people do not attend meetings. They don’t go out to pass out political literature door to door. They might not offer political contributions to their candidates (its not illegal!) and so forth.
Theoretically, precinct people are elected at the bottom from their precincts. These, in turn, elect their officers on the city level, who in turn elect their officers on the congressional district level, who in turn elect their officers at the state level. Then all of these people tend to establish their agendas and platforms to guide their officers and candidates.
Yes, its a flawed system but it tends to work to create two main parties and several strong minority parties to compete with each other to elect their candidates and promote their platforms.
The alternative is dictatorship, or a king, or a church led government, or a government led by Rush Limbaugh!
So, next time the August primary approaches, go to the downtown election office in the Courthouse and file for precinct committee person from your precinct. Then get out and work to get elected in your neighborhood. Then attend meetings and work for your candidates.
That’s how politics springs up from the bottom in the United States.
Toe the line republicons, there is no room for moderates in the Republicon party. No room for dissent, no room for opinion that differs from the fundy-led hatemongers. Toe the line cons.
Not sure, Pedant why you would post Krugman on California. It is because it it the state that Democrats are taking right down the tubes and which would be prime target for a GOP resurgence?
Note the recent overwhelming defeat of the proposed tax increase. People are getting fed up.
Cheney/Limbaugh: Now there’s a combo that will appeal to mainstream America!
If the Republican Party want to become relevant again, they will kick those two to the curb and start over with leaders like Steele and Gov. Mark Sanford of SC.
The days of fear/hate based politics are over. America soundly rejected that approach in the last two election cycles.
We need (at least) a two party political system. The Republicans proved that having a single dominate party is bad for America. We need a healthy debate on the issues, but the Cheney/Limbaugh model rejects any debate or any compromise.
American_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 8:24 am | Permalink
“Blacks on the back of the bus”
I think Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee dispels that notion.
============================================
Then your thinking is suspect. Do you think for one second if Obama was not president, Steele would be the chairman of the RNC? You gotta be joking.
outlander
Posted May 25, 2009 at 9:07 am | Permalink
Not sure, Pedant why you would post Krugman on California.
—
Because the topic was the national GOP acting irresponsibly in the minority. Krugman’s point is that all our Federal fiscal woes could be solved by a “moderate” tax increase. Given what we’ve been through since 2001, a moderate Federal tax increase would be both responsible and justified.
Would Dick Cheney’s GOP agree? No, he and the Limbaugh-led base of the party are not fit for leadership when our fiscal policy clearly calls for a moderate tax increase.
That’s Krugman’s point in a nutshell: the ideology of the Limbaugh/Cheney half of the GOP will never ever support a tax increase, even when one is justified.
In other words, that half of the party — as evidenced in California — is unfit to lead.
By the way, the “your comments are awaiting moderation” is getting old. I think I’ve had 7 posts blocked here today.
Happy Memorial Day everybody. Life beckons.
“I think Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee dispels that notion.
============================================
“Then your thinking is suspect. ”
Regardless of how or why he got there – he is there and your statement on back of the bus in not correct. You should be praising the promotion of blacks within the republican party. Your prejudice is showing.
” I guarantee that a party that doesn’t believe in government won’t govern well. ”
You must not be talking about republicans. Conservatives and republicans believe in government. Responsible government and as small as possible – but government nevertheless.
And republicans have been governing well since Abraham Lincoln founded the party. So much for your guarantee.
I think you only look at the former “left coast” to see “rational Americans” vote down big government and the tax hikes which are the dominate demcorat creed.
I think you are getting your facts mixed up in your rush to label the evil republicans.
American_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 9:58 am | Permalink
I think you only look at the former “left coast” to see “rational Americans” vote down big government and the tax hikes which are the dominate demcorat creed.
—
Get back to us when you’ve read Krugman’s piece.
FYI —
There is no President O’bama…
There IS President Obama…
“Get back to us when you’ve read Krugman’s piece.”
Krugman’s piece assumes “responsible” government is a government prepared to increase taxes – in all forms to resolve red ink budgets.
That assumption is that the cost of government must and can only go up as more and more services and redistribution of wealth takes place.
That assumption ignores the alternative which is to drastically cut spending, and the size of government.
The message from California voters, and tax protestors nation wide – is enough is enough. We are tired of having our taxes raised – to support your bloated government overflowing with social programs.
It is not an “anti” government reaction. It is not revolutionary (albeit to libs cuts in spending are sacrilege), although libs try to paint republicans and protestors (and now CA voters) that way.
You ignore the obvious. Cut spending.
Contrary to what Krugman may think, when 77 million babyboomers join the breadline, and Obama’s annual 1.8 trillion spending result in China and Japan also saying enough: The young Americans still working are NOT going to stand by and let libs tax 75% of their earnings.
“That assumption ignores the alternative which is to drastically cut spending, and the size of government.”
What do you want to cut – include dollar values?
merican_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink
“Get back to us when you’ve read Krugman’s piece.”
Krugman’s piece assumes “responsible” government is a government prepared to increase taxes – in all forms to resolve red ink budgets.
…You ignore the obvious. Cut spending.
—
Not true. For example, I can think of a big fat cost-cutting target, one waaaay overripe for some revenue-letting: the DoD.
My guess is that your, and the GOP’s ideology, won’t even allow the biggest fattest target for cost-cutting into the conversation.
I think the USAF could just go away, and two things would happen. One, we’d never know it happened because two, we’d never see a reduction in our national security.
“He’s for more spending. He’s for higher taxes. He’s against raising the social issues. He’s for affirmative action. He’s for amnesty for illegals. He endorsed Obama.” He’s a democrat and doesn’t know it yet.
Honor our troops on this Memorial Day. Never forget that they paid a price for the freedom we enjoy today.
“The young Americans still working are NOT going to stand by and let libs tax 75% of their earnings.”
Nor should they.
Also, nobody except American-Way has proposed a tax rate even approaching 75%, not now nor in the future.
You offer fear mongering in place of fiscal policy.
Again: who can be surprised that the party which doesn’t believe in government offers fear instead of responsible action?
“I think the USAF could just go away, and two things would happen.”
Think over 700 foreign military bases – start the cuts there.
I don’t entirely disagree with the cuts of overseas bases.
Let’s start in NATO – cut them all to zero commitment or bare representation. Let Euros pay for Europe’s own defense.
Of course, doing away with the USAF entirely means no free rides for O’Bama on Air Force One or luxury rides for Pelosi to San Fransisco.
We’d have to send troops to war zones via tourist cruise ships as there would no longer be sufficient aircraft to fly them over. (shades of WWI)
Then we’d have to knock out the USAF’s Space command, which means no more satellites and early warning from external attacks.
We also could see into other countries via satellite, so we’d be left blind in future battles.
There would be no more command and control for the land and sea forces via AWAC’s and Joint Stars battlefield airborne facilities. We could just let the soldiers, sailors and marines probe around using binoculars and compasses.
The Air Force Academy would be of course done away.
Getting supplies overseas would be problematic as the logistical support provided by USAF aircraft is integrated entirely with mission success to the other services. Waiting a few weeks or months for their supplies wouldn’t hurt anyone would it? :)
Why would anybody named O’bama ride on Air Force One??
Re: American_Way >>>>
F.U.D.
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink
—
Good points, that we only need the USAF in the event of a world war.
Since the prospects of a world war in today’s world are minimal, why not just reassign essential functions to the various branches? (we could always revive the USAF in the event of a world war).
The entire staff of the USAF, plus its academy, could be cut. What’s not to like? Ahem, if you’re committed to cutting spending, that is? :)
By the way, has any graduate of the USAF Academy ever led the US in a world war? Or even a smaller war? Been elected to POTUS or even Joint Chief of Staff?
I really think the USAF is merely a logistics function with a wholly unnecessary command and control structure attached at the head, totally superfluous. The logistics function itself could be integrated into the USN & US Army with no loss to national security and at considerable savings to the US Treasury.
If we’re all going to roll up our sleeves and cut some dadgum fat from the budget, why not start with the USAF?
#
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:12 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink
—
Good points, that we only need the USAF in the event of a world war.
Since the prospects of a world war in today’s world are minimal, why not just reassign essential functions to the various branches? (we could always revive the USAF in the event of a world war).
The entire staff of the USAF, plus its academy, could be cut. What’s not to like? Ahem, if you’re committed to cutting spending, that is? :)
==========================================
Actually, readiness is an integral part of any defense system.
If one was to ‘gut’ the USAF and hope that there would be sufficient time before the start of a world war to re-tool and manufacture sufficient number of aircraft, then one gets into the business of waiting for the flood waters to rise and strike your home, even though one lives near the river.
It is not practical nor wise.
Sound compelling, but it isn’t either or folks. As in any large DIVERSE group, all have their place and their influence on the makeup and positions of the party. And all are entitled. In fact, as a Republican now, you have a bigger voice
That’s the problem Outlander, you are speaking of the party over a decade ago. Now if you speak a different view than you will suffer the insults of being a liberal, anti-American, un-patriotic.
“you have a bigger voice”, really so where are those voices? If heard at all then they are not real Republicans,
“you have already left the party” or “you should leave the Republican party!”.
Powell is pragmatic, addressing problems not on ideological dogma but on a real view of the problem and possible solutions. There is a real battle ahead, who will win is in question those blinded by the ideological and those blinded by the pragmatic. Mixed in there are those blinded by partisanship and which side they will see as the real GOP. The average Republican is not as in-depth as some of us, they do not even know there is a real struggle within the party. Their opinion will be based on who they hear about, the Limbaugh’s or the Powell’s.
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink
If one was to ‘gut’ the USAF and hope that there would be sufficient time before the start of a world war to re-tool and manufacture sufficient number of aircraft, then one gets into the business of [no idea what this means, but let's say it's something bad].
It is not practical nor wise.
—
Again, let’s not forget that we’re looking at cost cutting targets.
There are absolutely no prospects for world war anywhere on the horizon. Why should US taxpayers ignore a wholly unnecessary and giant military organization like the USAF when it comes time to cut spending?
#
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink
By the way, has any graduate of the USAF Academy ever led the US in a world war? Or even a smaller war? Been elected to POTUS or even Joint Chief of Staff?
I really think the USAF is merely a logistics function with a wholly unnecessary command and control structure attached at the head, totally superfluous. The logistics function itself could be integrated into the USN & US Army with no loss to national security and at considerable savings to the US Treasury.
If we’re all going to roll up our sleeves and cut some dadgum fat from the budget, why not start with the USAF?
==========================================
The concept of the “Purple Uniform” (merging of Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force) was discussed heavily in the 1970s and 1980s.
It first started out with they expected separate service turf wars, but later graduated into more serious realization that technology and methods of defense have required specialization of forces.
One of the most significant problems lays within the concept of ‘logistical kitting.’ This ‘kitting’ requires weapon and logistical systems managers to be highly specialized in their utilization of force structure to handle:
-Manpower
-Machines
-Control
-Directing
Each requires a ’span of control’ at every decreasing manager levels to handle subsystems in an efficient manner. i.e., Look at what happened to New Orleans when Department of Homeland Security swallowed up FEMA.
FEMA had a separate function, authority and mission. To have a higher agency interfering with its function, FEMA became straw in a wind storm – completely ineffective and unable to respond.
What the separate Armed Services provide is what is called the ‘Unity of Command.’ To be succinct, this involves that force structure be handled at its lowest level and with separate identity in order to be the most efficient implementer of mission success.
Almost makes ya sorry for the cons.
Almost.
The whole future of their party is riding with the mental health (or rather the lack thereof) of the ego maniacal Rush Limbaugh.
What they don’t seem to know, is that Rush is about Rush and now considers himself BIGGER than the GOP.
Writer I think the voters in California, one of if not the bluest states in the union, spoke when they said ‘NO NEW TAXES’ last week.
Powell is out of touch with the nation. He is in touch with the Obamas of the world who want more government and higher taxes.
You are ignoring the obvious. Limbaugh is a radio commentator with not vote when it comes to raising taxes and making the gov bigger.
“FEMA had a separate function, authority and mission. To have a higher agency interfering with its function, FEMA became straw in a wind storm – completely ineffective and unable to respond.”
—
Again, there is no prospect of world war anywhere on the horizon. There is plenty of time for the USN and Army to absorb the logistics function of the USAF (Katrina struck NOLA just a few months after FEMA had been absorbed by DHS).
Let me repeat: plenty of time to prevent the logistics function of the USAF from becoming a lost straw.
If we’re examining fat in the budget, why not take advantage of this situation? Will there ever be a better time to do so? (ANS: probably not)
“Limbaugh is a radio commentator ”
Uh huh.
You try telling HIM that.
He’s the Don and you kiss his ring AND his butt if you want to amount to ANYTHING in the no party.
The GOP that lost in 06 and 08 was not the party of the Conservatives.
THAT is why they lost.
If the GOP thinks they will be more successful acting like Powell and the other DemoRats, they will continue to lose.
And if you think Either party represents you, then you deceive yourself. They represent themselves, and their own quest for money and power.
Vote em all out.
I’m beginning to think that the GOP is less interested cutting spending than it is in political posturing, based on this USAF conversation.
Where’s all that principle yall brag on? Rational cuts in spending, that’s what’s on the table, right? (ANS: probably not)
WSClark
Posted May 25, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
The days of fear/hate based politics are over.
We need a healthy debate on the issues, but the Cheney/Limbaugh model rejects any debate or any compromise.
—————————————-
Really? Pass the Bailout Bill Now! Don’t have time to read it, just pass it, or the world will end! Pass the ‘Stimulous’ Bill now, or else the world will end! Pass Health Care now! Or else the World will end!
Where was the debate on the ‘Stimulous’ Bill? Where was the transparency? Who could read it before it was made into law?
And the latest Bill on Cap and Tax, where’s the transparency and debate on that?
Yeah, let’s have some debate.
JimJohnson
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink
The GOP that lost in 06 and 08 was not the party of the Conservatives.
THAT is why they lost.
If the GOP thinks they will be more successful acting like Powell and the other DemoRats, they will continue to lose.
—
This analysis is also why the GOP lost, and will continue to lose.
Your argument is that the GOP can win only if it becomes everything the Democrats are not. The problem for the GOP, then, is that the Democrats have moved steadily to the center since 1992. This leaves you guys running hard and fast into lala land.
Congratulations, you’ve arrived. You won’t govern again until you leave, of course, but yall did look spiffy running there.
re: JIMJOHNSON >>>>
F.U.D.
If Colin Powell is wrong about the status of the GOP then why are there now only 22% of people claiming to be Republican?
Not everyone voted for Obama simply because he is black – but that sounds good to the angry, white men who are the base of Rush’s audience.
I agree with Colin Powell when he said we need two healthy parties. So the GOP has their chance to either burrow further down that narrow path of Radical Right extremism or they can open that big tent.
Will history repeat itself with another Whig Party gone bye-bye?
#
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Again, there is no prospect of world war anywhere on the horizon. There is plenty of time for the USN and Army to absorb the logistics function of the USAF (Katrina struck NOLA just a few months after FEMA had been absorbed by DHS).
Let me repeat: plenty of time to prevent the logistics function of the USAF from becoming a lost straw.
If we’re examining fat in the budget, why not take advantage of this situation? Will there ever be a better time to do so? (ANS: probably not)
——————————————–
The reasons are is what I described before.
-Unity of Command
-Span of Control
What you are pointing out, I believe is a desire for “cross functional team” which incorporates a mix of information technology and thin management layers.
The problem with “cross functional team” concept is that it invokes complacency, incompetent and unqualified managers.
Take Sebelius for example:
Wouldn’t it make sense to have a qualified manager/physician at the helm of the national Health Care bureaucracy, rather than a career politician?
The physician requires specialized training and would be tested at the basic units of his profession.
So too, the Air Force Academy is the analog of physician training. It creates ready and compliant managers who know the basics to the very complex matters of aviation management.
JimJohnson – did Bush and Henry Paulson pass out their stimulus bill before Congress got a chance to read it when their Wall Street buddies called in their order for the money on the phone over the weekend?
Regular shows off with >>>
D.D.D.
Pendant, little government for many of us means a limited powered Government that follows the restriction place by the Constitution. For far too long the Government has used a “a-round-Murphy’s barn” approach.
Loosely associating their power granted by the Constitution to areas where there is none.
I use this example, The desire is to control blue lighters, but blue lighter may not have anything to do with national defense, interstate commerce or taxation. SO it goes the sky is blue and the sky goes between one state line and another. Therefore blue is interstate commerce and blue lighters are governed by the Federal government. In part Roe V wade touches on this argument Federal rights verse State rights. Through the aspect of privacy rights the Federal government did step in to the issue and as much decide it and left the States out of the issue.
This maybe one of the differences between big government Conservatives and Republicans.
Big government Conservatives see it as it is wrong and therefore I have the right to interfere with people’s private rights and privileges i.e. Abortion, Gay marriage.
Republicans see it as the Government should not have a right to dictate every aspect of private rights and privileges. So the attempt to effect abortion and Gay marriage is against the very core beliefs of the party.
It’s on the other hand we should assure that citizens private rights and privileges be protected from Government intrusions. Such as with the second amendment and taxation.
Regular – who really cares as long as they keep those supplies of pencils coming in – right?
Let’s assume that American attitudes about government are normally distributed. If true, then roughly 70% of voters are within one standard deviation of the mean. (ok, let’s assume we can arrive at an aggregated mean of all political ideas).
My point is that the Democrats have moved steadily to the very center of the bell. As a strategy, the GOP is moving to the right. The part of the bell they’re moving to accounts for roughly 20% of all American attitudes (again, assuming a normal distribution).
If the GOP strategy can be summed up in “we’re everything the Democrats are not,” then, the GOP will lose. In fact, they can’t win unless the mean moves right as well.
The mean is pretty stable, as it turns out. This accounts for all the fear mongering by the right, though. Gotta move the mean, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
#
totoinks
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:53 am | Permalink
Regular – who really cares as long as they keep those supplies of pencils coming in – right?
———————————
Pencils are for those who make mistakes or those without computers with spell checkers and word processors. :)
GOP embodies >>>>
F.U.D.
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink
—
Your problem (the problem you’ve ignored so far) is that we’re nowhere near a world war. Your Sebelius model is as flawed as your Katrina model. After all, a move to national healthcare is imminent (just as FEMA was absorbed by DHS just months before Katrina).
In effect you’re arguing the the US can’t settle for anything less than prime rib on a hot dog budget (after all, we’re talking about cutting spending here).
If we all have to adjust to new Federal budget realities — and if a world war is nowhere on the horizon — then I believe calling the USAF to appear before the butcher’s knife is wholly justified.
#
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink
—
Your problem (the problem you’ve ignored so far) is that we’re nowhere near a world war. Your Sebelius model is as flawed as your Katrina model. After all, a move to national healthcare is imminent (just as FEMA was absorbed by DHS just months before Katrina).
In effect you’re arguing the the US can’t settle for anything less than prime rib on a hot dog budget (after all, we’re talking about cutting spending here).
If we all have to adjust to new Federal budget realities — and if a world war is nowhere on the horizon — then I believe calling the USAF to appear before the butcher’s knife is wholly justified.
—————————————-
I don’t think the concept of being unprepared for war by having a strong national defense is just my problem. :)
What would be an acceptable amount of loss to you in the event the decision was to ‘gut’ the USAF?
How much time is needed to prepare for a future war?
Would acceptance of an ICBM from N.Korea, China, Iran or some other country (Russia) exiting from space at thousands of miles an hour be acceptable for you to contemplate your error of judgment in national defense readiness?
Would you be able to re-tool and restructure an entire national Air Force in the few minutes it would take to respond to an ICBM to recognize, target and eliminate the threat?
Perhaps you were thinking of Star Trek ’shield generators’ that would envelope the U.S. from foe and UFO alike. :)
And Regular wants more soup. . .
We see it everyday on WE Blog.
As soon as a Republic Party member says anything contradictory to the pablum the Limbaugh-tomized Masses feed on, they declare the infidel a “RINO!”
The Republic Party has no appetite these days for intra-party squabbles. The CONs have taken over and they’re turning out anyone who doesn’t goose-step in formation.
We Democrats know all about intra-party squabbles. It’s in our political DNA.
We’re seeing into today’s Grand Old (white guys’) Party the same thing Democrats experienced in the 1970s and 80s.
But as far back as Will Rogers (”I don’t belong to any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”), we Democrats have always been aware there is a balance in governance.
The Republic Party has always been subject to the sway of ideologues and demagogues. It goes back to Wendell Wilke, through Robert Taft, Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, ’til Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan, who never once presented a balanced budget to Congress. Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes. Ronald Reagan, who doubled the National Debt. Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with terrorists. Ronald Reagan, who never once showed up at an anti-abortion event. Ronald Reagan, whose “family values” included not even recognizing his own son at a White House reception.
Go back to that, Republic Party.
Please.
“My guess is that your, and the GOP’s ideology, won’t even allow the biggest fattest target for cost-cutting into the conversation”
Actually, if you bone dig me – you will see I have proposed cutting the bloated DoD before. And Clark was on the day I posted – close all overseas bases.
All of them. Bring our boys home from everywhere.
Regarding my 75%, that was just a percent. It’s close to 60% now in places like New York. (CA folks said no). Boomers are retiring now and will be until around 2025. The bills from Obama’s first four years will have to be paid. 75% is not out of the ballpark. But that would be nickle and diming me and not focusing on the point of my post.
Interestingly, the social club proposes social healthcare – just when the largest population of Americans are retiring and will already fall under the medicare system.
“Powell is out of touch with the nation. He is in touch with the Obamas of the world who want more government and higher taxes.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…………… correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Barack Obama win the presidency in an electoral landslide?
I seem to remember reading something like that.
……………. and to correct once again, Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% and return the other 5% to 2001 tax rates.
Okobserver, As to Rush, Powell hit the nail on the head when he pointed out what seems the real power Rush has.
The elected head of the RNC makes a minor and not insulting comment that in fact Rush himself had made.
“He is just an entertainer”, within days Steele is prostrated on the floor begging for forgiveness from Rush.
I fully understand and agree with the principal of the stimulus package, I do not agree with the extent and largeness of it. To me it is like being on a sinking ship and the answer that was came up with was we need more water! The problem and the solution is not taxation, the problem is a lack of money flowing through the economic system. If your phone stops ringing with new and old customers wanting your services. Is the problem with your business that the taxes are too high?
Now raising taxes on the average person is not the answer either. My income has gone down I do not a added burden. But neither do I need for things to stay the way they are and wait for the economy to comeback. To do so means I would be in need of a nice cardboard box and a warm blanket to survive long enough for that to happen on its own. That is one of the most disappointing things about the GOP response to the down turn in the economy. There was no logical or realistic response it was “Oh…. Oh … Oh lower taxes on business!”. When the house is on fire the solution is not that the house needs to be painted.
But that is exactly as much sense as the Conservative suggested solution was.
In part we and the Government need money to spend, for the Government it’s the rock and the hard place.
Either they get it through taxes or borrow it from China either way its a Faustian deal.
taxes will or may need to be increased hopefully in a prudent and sensible way. Yes borrowing it leaves repaying it to our children and grandchildren. But hopefully the situation will be much better for them then us. If not then that means this country will have failed and it will be pointless.
“He’s for more spending. He’s for higher taxes. He’s against raising the social issues. He’s for affirmative action. He’s for amnesty for illegals. He endorsed Obama.”
Sorry Monkeyhawk – if the above are things Powell
said, he is not a republican. Sounds more like a democrat.
Republicans cannot turn their party into democrats in order to win. They’ve already tried that and lost their identity (see earlier post).
Powell is a liberal and Obama supporter.
We Democrats know all about intra-party squabbles. It’s in our political DNA.
And boy the more time I spend with those Democrats who discuss the world that is so true!
As was once said, I have seen less hatred in the eyes of those who are stone cold killers!
It is educational through….
” I have seen less hatred in the eyes of those who are stone cold killers!”
Seen a lot of those heh? Another nice one liner which means nothing.
“Pedant” –
The reason there’s a USAF is the pi$$ing match that started in the 20s over the importance of air power in war. Billy Mitchell was a prophet.
Today, air cover is generally acknowledged as essential in warfare. The Army, the Navy, the Marines all have pilots in their ranks.
So it seems a specified “Air” Force is redundant.
I dunno if there’s still an inherent passion for mules and caissons in the Army. Or if the Navy doesn’t understand its aircraft carriers are about the only-est thing that keeps ‘em in business.
I’m not sure there’s anything the Marines offer except they think of themselves as better than anyone. You probably need a batch of those types from time to time. But they still want Marine pilots leading them into battle.
The United States Air Force? Yeah, it probably shouldn’t be a separate branch of the military. Their mission is technology-guided… like the Army’s cavalry which evolved from horses to helicopters.
DOD spending is troublesome to me in that of a $600 hammer you can get from WAL-mart for $8.00!
While visiting my son at Bragg I was disgusted by there was a shop where the soldiers could get the better or best equipment that was far and away over the U.S, issued. OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET!
OMG what is next, a new and used Tank lot for the armor? USAF airmen can buy a F-15 from the Saudis if they want to fight for the United States?
Rumsfield be damned, it should never be a matter of you fight with the military you have! Taxpayer dollars are being spent and for the minim junk there is for our foot soldiers. AND at a price that would get the best and better for them.
Harry Truman got praise and damnation for taking a car and visit supply depots then coming back to Washington as a junior member and shouting out about the waste and inferior quality of the supplies.
Nothing seems to have changed since then…
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
I don’t think the concept of being unprepared for war by having a strong national defense is just my problem. :)
What would be an acceptable amount of loss to you in the event the decision was to ‘gut’ the USAF?
How much time is needed to prepare for a future war?
Would acceptance of an ICBM from N.Korea, China, Iran or some other country (Russia) exiting from space at thousands of miles an hour be acceptable for you to contemplate your error of judgment in national defense readiness?
Would you be able to re-tool and restructure an entire national Air Force in the few minutes it would take to respond to an ICBM to recognize, target and eliminate the threat?
Perhaps you were thinking of Star Trek ’shield generators’ that would envelope the U.S. from foe and UFO alike. :)
—
Let me get this straight. Are you arguing that the USAF is essential?
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 25, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
Today, air cover is generally acknowledged as essential in warfare.
—
Of course it’s essential. The Germans lost WWII due to their loss of the wehrmacht’s close air support in W Russia. We’d all probably be speaking German today if they’d have managed to keep the wehrmacht alive and strong. That said, I am not sure that an overall need for a luftwaffe exists, even in the US.
I am not arguing that the function of the USAF should go away. Instead I am arguing that the USAF itself is redundant.
I am not arguing that the combat function of the USAF should go away. Instead I am arguing that the USAF itself is redundant.
The only argument I can see for the USAF is as a kind of “first mile” logistics organization. Each branch can (and I believe does) perform the “last mile” of its respective supply logistics.
But do we need to fund an entire branch of the military for first-mile supply logistics?
After all, we’ll never see aerial dogfights again. Ever. And the B-52 is as obsolete as the idea of massing troops in open ground against the world’s sole super power. The last country to ever do that was Iraq in 1991. This kind of high altitude “dumb” bombing is a tactic of the past.
The USAF has no combat role to play in time of war, as far as I can make out. It has a logistics role to play, granted, but again do we need to fund an entier branch of the military — replete with dedicated academy for both line and staff pilots — just to fly the first mile of supply logistics?
Especially when we’re in the business of cutting Federal spending?
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Let me get this straight. Are you arguing that the USAF is essential?
Absolutely!
The ‘purple suit’ military force was argued extensively in the 1970s and 1980s. You are several decades behind. :)
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 2:08 pm | Permalink
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Let me get this straight. Are you arguing that the USAF is essential?
Absolutely!
—
Excellent.
Then I can assume you would support an increase in taxes, in order to fund this “essential” branch of the military?
Hey, Amway is this a clear enough explanation why GITMO should close?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top U.S. military officer on Sunday pushed for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison despite rising resistance in Congress, saying it serves as a “recruiting symbol” for America’s enemies.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, rallied behind President Barack Obama’s move to close the detention facility at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, which is operated by the U.S. military.
“Well, the concern I’ve had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol — and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. … That’s at the heart of the concern for Guantanamo’s continued existence,” Mullen said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Phantom
Posted May 25, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Excellent.
Then I can assume you would support an increase in taxes, in order to fund this “essential” branch of the military?
=====================================
Nope.
I think you misunderstood me. The purple suit concept was debated and it failed in every aspect.
Perhaps sometime in the future, when technology has increased so where air, land and sea are not obstacles that require specialization of forces.
The ultimate in craft – UFO style fighting vehicle, capable of any terrain, water, air or space mission capability.
It’s just not here yet. :)
The USAF has no combat role to play in time of war, as far as I can make out. It has a logistics role to play, granted, but again do we need to fund an entier branch of the military — replete with dedicated academy for both line and staff pilots — just to fly the first mile of supply logistics?
Especially when we’re in the business of cutting Federal spending?
———-
When did that start? I thought we were in the “spending like a drunken sailor hoping it will fix the economy” business.
Pedant
Posted May 25, 2009 at 9:19 am | Permalink
outlander
Posted May 25, 2009 at 9:07 am | Permalink
Not sure, Pedant why you would post Krugman on California.
—
Would Dick Cheney’s GOP agree? No, he and the Limbaugh-led base of the party are not fit for leadership when our fiscal policy clearly calls for a moderate tax increase.
That’s Krugman’s point in a nutshell: the ideology of the Limbaugh/Cheney half of the GOP will never ever support a tax increase, even when one is justified.
—
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
Then I can assume you would support an increase in taxes, in order to fund this “essential” branch of the military?
=====================================
Nope.
—
QED, outlander.
Or was it the “unconscionable burdening of future generations by spending so much they can’t afford the interest on the debt” business?
Well, one of them.
outlander
Posted May 25, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
Or was it the “unconscionable burdening of future generations by spending so much they can’t afford the interest on the debt” business?
Well, one of them.
—
The Democrats are in the business of the former, I believe.
The GOP is in the business of being 6 year olds, apparently.
In the strategic concept of the United States it is actually the USAF that is the apex of all branches.
It is the USA that for many is seen as a branch that has outlived it’s need. If Rumsfield had gotten his way,
he only seen a need for a light infantry to mop up after the USAF had done the main action.
Rumsfield had try to stop all new Tanks and to end all the upkeep measures on the existing ones.
Our future wars were to be fought with aircraft either manned or unmanned and stand off weapons such as the cruise missile. A need for a large Army and a good sized Marine force was the thoughts of flintlocks and sailing vessels. NOW, along came Iraq where the main fighting and actions come from ground pounders.
It showed our falsehoods in the thinking of the strategic concept, we needed ground troops and only had a limited force to use. Causing the multi tours and wearing down of our ability to wage war when the call was not for solely a USAF response. each branch has its own abilities and purpose that though each branch does have some aspect of the others. Marines and Army have their own air wings and boats, the Navy has their own special forces and armor and air wings. The Air force also has their own special forces, ground offensive troops and some boats (FYI anything that can fit on a Aircraft carrier is a boat not a ship).
“Hey, Amway is this a clear enough explanation why GITMO should close?”
Phantom, i’m glad to see someone has a reason to close GITMO. Too bad most libs don’t know one.
It may be a symbol – but the continued incarceration of the terrorists captured and retained ANYwhere holds the same issues.
You have only changed the scenery, and at an added cost and risk to Americans.
Interesting off-topic discussion on cutting the DoD. I believe this evolved from a discussion on spending cuts – instead of tax increases (the later is the lib solution to everything).
More interestingly, DoD was brought forward because it was assumed republicans would fight it. I don’t.
Now, lets see if libs have the balls to propose other cuts in other areas of federal government.
Should I hold my breath? :)
How about cuts in corporate welfare programs?
If only the less radical CONs had prevailed and McCain had run with Joe Lieberman, McCain would probably be president right now.
BUT NO! The Radical Right forced Sarah Palin down his throat and they went down in flames.
And who could forget Rush’s brilliant strategy of Operation Chaos, asking Republics to vote for Obama to stop Hillary because after all a black man is unelectable.
Remember how well that worked?
Keep it up, Rush! The people who support you don’t care about winning a majority, they just care about zeig heiling der Fuerer.
Oh, yeah . . . those idiot ditto-heads who changed party to sow conflict among the Democratic Party primaries?
Apparently they didn’t know that in a lot of states, you can’t change back to vote in the Republic Primary.
Yeah.
That’s just sad.
“you can’t change back to vote in the Republic Primary.”
The Kansas Caucuses sure were fun. I was only too glad to vote against Hillary. I know I contributed
to her defeat. I won! Had I been a girl, I’m sure I would have peed a little when I heard the outcome.
And folks nationwide should look and register back (if required) to their party of choice before 2010 arrives.
“corporate welfare programs”?
I’ll second that, and make the motion to cut all funding to the arts and public television.
Let’s hear the specifics of proposed spending cuts by the conservatives – no generalizing – but specific areas with hard numbers.
Cut spending? Fine. Where?
Air Force Gen. David C. Jones, retired, Former Chairman JCS
also
President Bush announced Aug. 24, 2001 his nominations of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers to become the 15th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chas
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink
re: JIMJOHNSON >>>>
F.U.D.
===========
Chas, this fits perfectly into your countless posts on defining trolls.
Congratulations, among other things, you be a troll.
totoinks
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:47 am | Permalink
If Colin Powell is wrong about the status of the GOP then why are there now only 22% of people claiming to be Republican?
=============
Source?
Your own imagination?
Chas
Posted May 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
GOP embodies >>>>
F.U.D.
=================
More troll posts.
Chas by your own definition, YOU be a TROLL.
WSClark
Posted May 25, 2009 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
……………. and to correct once again, Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% and return the other 5% to 2001 tax rates.
=====================
Right.
That is what he SAID, now lets see what he DOES.
(Hint…that was just another campaign LIE!)
American_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
Now, lets see if libs have the balls to propose other cuts in other areas of federal government.
Should I hold my breath? :)
================================
Right. We’ll see he11 freeze over first.
Didn’t Obama already cut $100 Million from his $3.6 Trillion budget which is a 20% increase over last year’s budget?
“Had I been a girl, I’m sure I would have peed a little ”
I’m sure you probably did anyway.
Obama proposes a 20% increase in the Federal Budget, before he proposes his 0.27% decrease in the Federal Budget.
That’s a net INCREASE of 19.73% in the Federal Budget.
But that is a budget cut, in ObamaSpeak.
” from his $3.6 Trillion budget which is a 20% increase over last year’s budget?”
20%? I thought I read that the Obama budgets already amount to FOUR TIMES THE HIGHEST BUSH budget.
Remember when the libs like CapnAmerica used to rant about the national debt and deficit?
Not so much anymore.
American_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
” from his $3.6 Trillion budget which is a 20% increase over last year’s budget?”
20%? I thought I read that the Obama budgets already amount to FOUR TIMES THE HIGHEST BUSH budget.
Remember when the libs like CapnAmerica used to rant about the national debt and deficit?
Not so much anymore.
=========================
It depends, on which budget you look at.
The last fiscal budget Obama submitted was $3.6 Trillion, 20% higher then the $3.0 Trillion Bush budget approved last year.
NOT INCLUDED in the $3.6 Trillion is:
$700 Billion in the Fall Stimulous (pushed for and voted for by Obama)
$1 Trillion in Fed Reserve assets found to be used for bailouts.
$700 Billion Spring Stimulous Spending.
So there is $2.4 Trillion, just off my recent short term memory.
And God knows how much other spending that was done that I forgot about.
(Hard to track the speed at which Obama is burning US money on bailouts and Socialist programs.)
American_Way
Posted May 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
.
Remember when the libs like CapnAmerica used to rant about the national debt and deficit?
Not so much anymore.
========================
Never, in fact.
“(Hard to track the speed at which Obama is burning US money on bailouts and Socialist programs.)”
You know Obama is spending money so fast, the printing presses cannot keep up. And borrowing 50 cents of every dollar he spends.
It might be easier on the US Mint if we just went ahead and adopted the Chinese yuan as our currency.
Whose GOP is it anyway?
By reading todays posts, you’d think it’s the libs GOP!
Hands down, it’s Rush’s GOP.(Got Oxycontin,People?)
Relax, Deficits Don’t Matter, Ronnie proved that.
The maniac right of the Republic Party seem hellbound to turn the GOP big tent into a pup tent.
re: JIMJOHNSON >>>>
F.U.D.
AGAIN…. STILL….
Good Night!!
“F.U.D.”
Female Urinary Device?
Well that’s kinky.
But “JimJohnson” probably has to pay the hooker extra for that service.
F.U.D.
Fear — Uncertainty — DEATH
That’s got plenty of backup… Google is our friend… :-)
Chas
Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
re: JIMJOHNSON >>>>
F.U.D.
AGAIN…. STILL….
Good Night!!
Chas
Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
F.U.D.
Fear — Uncertainty — DEATH
That’s got plenty of backup… Google is our friend… :-)
=================
More TROLL POSTS.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
“F.U.D.”
Female Urinary Device?
Well that’s kinky.
But “JimJohnson” probably has to pay the hooker extra for that service.
============================
Monkey, you want to know how I know you are gay?
Here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/05/open-thread-525-2/comment-page-3/#comment-580772
“JimJohnson” –
As with just about everything else, you’re wrong on the issue of my being gay.
But if I were? What of it?
It’s as if you were accusing me of being — horrors!!! — left-handed!
Meh.
Your hypocracy is showing again Monkey. Cover up.
You imply a Marine is gay, because he was primping while dressing for 20 minutes.
And you watched every minute of it.
So if it’s ok to be gay, then why are you so disparaging a US Marine?
Or were you complimenting him?
Hypocrite.
American_Way posted May 25, 2009 at 7:50 am
White belt still horizontal – parrall with deck, perfectly, while saluting. Front seam of Dress Blues blouse still straight up and down. Cover, slightly tilted, too much for my liking. But I’ll cut him some slack since the photographer angle may be making appearances misleading. Eagle, globe, and anchor gleams with appropriate shine on front.
“JimJohnson” –
I’d think it was complimentary.
As ZZ Top said, “Every girl’s crazy for a sharp dressed man.”
Except…
All those garters?
C’mon.
I admire a lot of contributions to the world that have come from gays.
I just never expected to see it in a public locker room displayed by a United States Marine.
It was
“I feel pretty!
Oh, so pretty!
I feel pretty,
and witty,
and wise!”
Seemed more appropriate than the Marine Hymn.
You got a point in there somewhere 11:22 PM Cosmos?
Monkey is jealous of the Marine he watched (or horny, I can’t tell for sure which).
And Monkey, next time you are watching a Marine get dressed, why don’t you take the time to ask him directly to his face if he is gay. Being a retired Marine, I am most certain any Marine would be more than happy to cordially answer your question. Particularly when asked in a private locker room while dressing. Mano a mano.
Not hiding on some blog.
Monkey was gawking for 20 minutes while the guy got dressed. (He’s too ashamed to out himself though.)
“American_Way” and “JimJohnson” have their garters in a wad pretty early this morning.
Monkey’s imagination is at work again, and he’s drueling over that picture in his head.
Monkeyhawk – you really spent twenty full minutes watching a man get dressed? I know Marines are good looking (if I do say so myself. No brag – just fact).
But usually it’s the girls doing the looking at us.
Come on Monkey, time to get out of that closet.
You said there was nothing wrong with being gay, so out yourself already!
“JimJohnson” –
You might as well as “American_Way,” too.
He’s the one wearing a garter belt.
Monkeyhawk it is O.K. these days to be homosexual.
That’s not MY point.
My point is regardless of your sexual orientation, it is rude to spend a full twenty minutes staring at a man getting dressed in a locker room.
Cross-dressing “American_Way” says –
“…it is O.K. these days to be homosexual.”
If it’s okay for you who am I to disagree?
Monkeyhawk, quit avoiding the question.
Even though you are homosexual, you should not spend 20 minutes starring at a man getting dressed.
That is not only rude, but perverted.
Why were you watching a man dress?
Cross-dressing “American_Way” asks the bi-curious question –
“Why were you watching a man dress?”
I pretty much answered that question last night at 11:28.
No you didn’t Monkeyhawk. But I’m ok with you being gay and will live with you being a peeping tom.