A QUESTION ABOUT "THIS IS OUR MOMENT!"
Who is the "us" in "Our"?
posted by UMRBlog @ 05:44
32 comments
UMRBlog
The Upper Mississippi River Basin:Life, Worship, Sports, Transportation, Golf, Politics and other bizarre behaviors in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Quincy area has a history of tolerance. We seem to suffer fools gladly.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
About Me
- Name: UMRBlog
- Location: Upper Mississippi River Basin, Tri-State, United States
Christian, Father, Husband, Brother, Uncle, Veteran, Threat Assessor, Both Illini and Hawkeye Grad, Democrat, "Sticker", Friend, Neighbor, Cub Fan, Bear Fan, Outside the box thinker, Multitasker, Golfer, Believer in Civility and Good Manners until some butt makes it impossible, Throws Right, Bats Left, Good Power, Good Arm, Good Glove, Bad Speed, Hold Doors and Chairs for women,
Previous Posts
- HEARING OZZIE
- AWAKE DURING BRAIN SURGERY
- DEAR HILLARY AND MAGGIE: IF YOU BELIEVE, AS I DO, ...
- EARLY FATHERS' DAY THOUGHTS: THE NON-NUCLEAR FAMIL...
- PLAYLISTS
- IS OUR CHILDREN STUPIDER OR GETTING MORE SMARTER?
- THE OTHER BROTHERS (AND SISTERS)
- WHIGGY WARNS US ABOUT THE INTERNET
- OLD POKER JOKE
- IN MEMORIAM: ADAMS COUNTY BOARD CHAIR LES KNOX
32 Comments:
You could help us determine who the us is if you could tell us who said it, and what the context was.
BHO said it last night and got all the reporters excited. They apparently did not get that he had been saying it at every stump speech since Houston.
Sorry, I honestly didn't think there was anybody out there who hadn't heard either the speech, the outtakes or the commentary on this line.
TYFCB
How are you going to justify yourself unifying behind this empty suit?
Just for starters, I'm going to ask myself three questions:
1. Who do I want appointing the next four Supreme Court Justices?
2. Who is less likely to dispatch my brothers and sisters in arms into ill-advised, optional military adventures?
3. (Pardon my being parochial here)Who is more likely to release the funds for the bi-partisan Mississippi River Restoration (Unlike McFlightSuit)?
I've got more but I'll hold 'em for now.
I don't know that I'd call him "empty". I'll give you "vague" however.
TYFCB
When it comes to judges, are you talking about the same judges who determined that the unborn have no rights?
When it comes to ill-advised wars, are you talking about the 50,000 plus men and women who were sent to Viet Nam under Mr. Kennedy & President Johnson and then surrendered. Keep in mind their have been no more attacks on US soil since 911 because the cowardly muslin extremist are hoarding in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting the American devils instead of the US. If and when we surrender again and the enemey comes here will you stand up and admit you were wrong or will you be one of those democrats denying Americans the right to bear arms against the intruders?
I got more too, but you french democrats piss me off. You nominate a total loser without any regard for this country and it security.
1019
I knew you were going to, just wondered how you were going to get there. Pretty weak. This should be a hoot.
Bushwhacked,
No, actually, I'm talking about the judges who might correctly oppose the next Gonzo listening to to your phone calls and reading your emails without probable cause. And perhaps Judges who will require Americans arrested in the U.S. be accorded the right to counsel. Just little constitutional guarantees.
You left off Eisenhower and your argument is a non-sequitur anyhow.
Notice you didn't have a position on the River Upgrade. No talking points issued on that one. Call Kit Bond and ask him what the GOP party line is there. Bush vetoed the money. That much is pretty clear.
You call democrats "french" then accuse democrats of starting intemperate wars. Ya gotta pick your poison which is it? To dovish or too hawkish?
You don't have "more". To have "more" you had to start with "some".
TYFCB
I told you it would be a hoot. Guys like you must sacrifice your intellectual integrity to stick to the party line. Change we can believe in.
It seems clear that Hillary has no intention of giving up just because Obama has clinched the delegate count.
She's become the Rasputin of politics. She seems to survive death blows and just keeps coming. But Rasputin eventually died and eventually the Clintons will be off the political stage.
Meanwhile, she makes noises about how she'd be willing to accept the vice presidential nod from Barack Obama. That would be the worse mistake he could make. As soon as he picked her, he would lose all aura of being the candidate of change and new politics. She would bring with her all that baggage that helped drag her down among Democratic voters plus she would revitalize dragging Republican motivations to vote for McCain. I've never thought that he'd pick her. I believe that the personal animus is too strong against her among the Obama folk. And they certainly don't want the ghost of Bill Clinton hanging around their campaign.
Hillary might be resisting her ouster from what she regarded as her inherited right to the nomination, but she's done. And for ending the Clinton hold on the public spotlight, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Barack Obama
Re: the surge in Iraq. Where would we be had we followed the advice of Obama?
1019,
At this point, I don't love either party's nominee. I've been pretty clear about where I think BHO is strong and where I think he's weak. We're down to two, now. My preferred candidate is or might as well be out of play.
I've gotta choose between a somewhat undefined, but decent intellectual and a temperamental self-styled maverick with huge mood swings who won his party's nomination by being the least of all evils. I'll take the smart guy I know over the guy with the history of mood swings and position switches on important issues.
As Mick has said many times "Ya cain't always get what you want...."
Oops, my error. Last one was for 1423.
1521,
"Guys like (me)?" What the heck does that mean? Veterans? Guys with advanced degrees? Church-goers? Guys who have been married to the same girl for more than forty years?
Or have you just set up one of those typical Republican attack tautologies? "You don't agree with me. Everybody knows my view is the One True Faith. Therefore you know my view is the correct one. Therefore, you are intellectually dishonest"
Can't you see that this is a dog chasing it's own tail?
It's not like I didn't know this was coming. I've opposed BHO in the primary and I've said everything I could reasonably say about why HRC would make a better candidate in the general and a better president. Never have I said anything that would suggest I would bolt for McCain. But I knew conclusionary mouth-breathers would jump up and say it was somehow dishonest to support someone who wasn't HRC. It's the process.
I didn't get my way in '04 but I damn sure wasn't voting for McFlightSuit. I really don't know what is so "fun" or surprising about my position now. I've never told any other story.
TYFCB
1551,
I'm going to post about the VP slot later. The most interesting thing about your comment is the glee with which you report "The Clintons" will be gone from the public eye.
Get over it. Even RMS, author of the Arkansas Project has finally graduated. Flip the tassel over to the other side. All she did was run for office. I thought all this time time that public service and civic affairs were the highest of Jeffersonian values.
TYFCB
You conveniently skipped Obama's piss poor judgment on the surge. It's a pretty big deal don't you think?
1600,
We'd have balance on the Iraq/Iran border and still no terrorists in Iraq if we had followed BHO's initial position. We'd also be about a trillion and a half less in debt.
TYFCB
The Basin Supported the surge. Took lots of crap for it too.
There were basically two choice, given that were THERE, go big or go home. Big made more sense.
Just like on health care, I disagree with BHO. That's one in a row for McCain.
And you still didn't answer the question.
We'd be out of the occupation business and into the border patrol business. Who knows whether that would be any good or not?
And, for whoever the anon is who loves to say "and we haven't been attacked since", From 1958-1975 we were never once attacked by NVA or VC forces. That didn't make the vietnam war a good idea.
TYFCB
You do realize we were attacked in 2001 don't you? We haven't been since. He was wrong on the surge. That's a pretty big deal. So you believe we haven't been attacked since, because they haven't tried, like the VC? List the top five issues in the election. If the river pork is one, then list six.
Hold on, there, Pilgrim. I answered 1010's question, which was personal to me. I never said the River Upgrade was even a top tenner nationwide. But if you really believe it's pork, then you don't believe in interstate highways, either, because that's what the river improvement is about.
I'll give you a punchlist later. Not against that. But understand that I was expressing a personal view on something I've been close to.
TYFCB
So you consider the right to be free of phone call monitoring more important than the life of the unborn? Are you saying you have had your phone calls monitored? I doubt if you have the slightest notion of anyone who has been monitored. Just so must huffing and puffing!
You seem to take the typical lawyer approach, you don't give a damn about the consequences of what a terrorist might do so long as his constitutional rights are protected. Funny you don't profess that same indignation for the unborn. I'm always amazed by democrats who always side step the question of the unborn.
I'm especially amazed by catholic democrats who want it both ways!
As far as the river project is concerned, yes it is important but to put it at the same level as the security of this country show a lack of understanding of the dangers this country faces. Pretty much an Obama outlook on the world.
Actually, I consider each and every article and Amendment of the constitution stand-alone important. I'm disappointed you don't.
Never sidestepped anything but I don't enjoy one way discussions with psycho-abortion-single-issue-guy goes.
Hint: don't guess at things you don't understand. A fine, muslim client of mine just disappeared off the face of the earth. It took me two and a half years to find him, another year to get into the holding tank to see him and a year after that to get him out. While I was looking for him, I was tailed and monitored. YOUR Government deep sixed this guy and only a lawyer and a dedicated family could find him. No charges ever filed.
At the risk of ad hominem attack, on this score, you're a peanut. You don't know squat.
Don't know what your "catholic" comment means but, just so we're clear, I'm not catholic.
It's very interesting you minimize the river re-work. I guess you think ag. exports aren't very important to our balance of trade or that our balance of trade isn't important.
Just go hold your sign up on Roe day and try not to embarrass yourself on discussions of grownup public policy.
And, by all means, keep on believing YOUR government would never do anything nefarious to someone just because he happened to be a Muslim. Tinker Belle will along soon to amuse you.
TYFCB
You might want to mention this atrocity to the media. What's the guy's name?
So why did they say they apprehended this muslim friend?
I have a lot of Muslim friends but I don't recall saying this client/detainee was a friend. On the publicity side, well, that's the client's call, isn't it. He wanted to go back to his life and his neighbors in the Central United States and they welcomed him warmly. His take was they would have welcomed him less warmly with the satellite trucks parked outside on the cul-de-sac. His call.
Oh, the snatch was because of unspecified "positive terrorism indicators."
Guy lost his 300k a year job and 2.5 years of his life. All he got was "There will be no need for Habeas Corpus. You're free to go, sir."
Sometimes Ron Paul makes sense.
Lemme see,
The NVA never attacked us and the Iranians never attacked us. Hmmm, that sounds like a perfect parallel.
"the Iranians never attacked us" What do you call the IED's imported to Iraq from Iran? That's a lot more of an attack than Mr McNamra's Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Lemme do this again.
The NVA never attacked the USA in its sovereign boundaries. Neither did the VC. Neither did Iraq. Neither did Iran. So, whoever the nimrod up there was who said something like "we were attacked on 9/11/01?" is creating a parallel where none exists. Nobody's saying were were never attacked by Cambodes, Laotians Iranians and even Afghans in theater. That's what happens when you intitiate combat.
If were occupying Saudi Arabia, we could have a conversation about parallels....to Japan.
Sheesh, you guys have a hard time staying on one topic. I think it's a disease brought on by psycoabortionfixation.
There is no better illustration of why Democrats should not be in charge of national security than you.
1001,
First, that's just name-calling and takes no talent. Second, I've been employed by the Federal Government on two occasions in the area of National Security (Recruited by Republicans) and I'm currently certified in two areas of Homeland Security. I'm sure you're prepared to share your vast credentials with us.
You want to argue logically, you'll get logic. You want to namecall, you reap what you sew. As nearly as I can tell you're just dilletante talking points weenie who has not taken the trouble to educate himself. If you actually know something, time to prove it.
TYFCB
Wow! That's quite a resume for an assistant city attorney.
Post a Comment
<< Home