William F Buckley - The Waning of the GOP

[DCsportsfan53]

A way of life.

Point being, in the examples I posted, the people were WRONG. We should have wanted to break away from England. We should have prepared better for both WWI and WWII, but the people didn't want to. In both the case of the Revolutionary War and WWII, it was only the vision of the presidents at the time that allowed us to come out victorious

There are times the governmemt should listen to the people. Illegal immigration comes to mind. But honestly, sometimes the people are just too stupid or apathetic to know what needs to be done

And how, exactly, do you go about choosing when the governement does and doesn't have to answer to the people for their decisions?

What I'm getting is, when there's a possibility we should go to war, the gov't should ignore the people and just do it. When it comes to keeping the foreigners away, they should listen to the people and give them the boot. Sounds a little convenient to your position, doesn't it? Does that really seem realistic to you? What about the fact that the differing opinions on this issues extend to the elected officials and aren't just property of the people?

[Sarge]

Sarge, as you already outlined, that portion of the population always has and always will exist. Like Henry pointed out, when resolve is called for, it's there. Does it take longer to get there than for a hawk such as yourself? Of course. You really don't think the fact that we've essentially given up hunting for Osama and gone into a war this administration was ITCHING for a reason to get into even before 9/11 has anything to do with the public's sentiments towards the war? Do you really believe that? So far as I can remember, I don't recall anyone, liberal or otherwise, calling for us to withdrawl from Afghanistan, quit fighting terrorism or give up looking for Osama. In fact, that's what the public wants and INSTEAD, we basically have withdrawn from Afghanistan, given up looking for Osama and severely compromised the fight against terrorism so we could fight Bush's pet war. :2cents:

Honestly, I don't know what the hell we're doing in Afghanstan. Were I in charge I'd pull the rug right out from under pakistan and yell "BOMBS AWAY" and take out both ****holes

But again, what does average Joe American know about either place or what goes on there? Same question can be asked of Iraq or the region there.

Do they know enough to make an informed decision?

You and I both know the answer is mostly "No"

[Sarge]

And how, exactly, do you go about choosing when the governement does and doesn't have to answer to the people for their decisions?

What I'm getting is, when there's a possibility we should go to war, the gov't should ignore the people and just do it. When it comes to keeping the foreigners away, they should listen to the people and give them the boot. Sounds a little convenient to your position, doesn't it? Does that really seem realistic to you? What about the fact that the differing opinions on this issues extend to the elected officials and aren't just property of the people?

This is why you need me as a benevolent dictator. I'll straighten the place out in less than a year

[Sarge]

The US military is to small in terms of the actual number of troops to meet all the normal requirements and Iraq and Afghanastan. That's not something most people want to be told.

Especailly not Klinton in the 90's

[DCsportsfan53]

This is why you need me as a benevolent dictator. I'll straighten the place out in less than a year

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Somehow I knew that was the ultimate answer :laugh:

[DCsportsfan53]

Honestly, I don't know what the hell we're doing in Afghanstan. Were I in charge I'd pull the rug right out from under pakistan and yell "BOMBS AWAY" and take out both ****holes

But again, what does average Joe American know about either place or what goes on there? Same question can be asked of Iraq or the region there.

Do they know enough to make an informed decision?

You and I both know the answer is mostly "No"

Of course the answer is no. However, the public has obviously caught on to the notion that Bin Laden's over here and our troops are over there. Taliban and the terrorists in one spot, our troops in another. I think that's a pretty big bane to supporting the Iraqi war.

[mardi gras skin]

And how, exactly, do you go about choosing when the governement does and doesn't have to answer to the people for their decisions?

The government always has to answer to the people for decisions, eventually. I don't want to government to do whatever the population wants at any given time. There is a point in having leadership. We elect them, they lead. If we like the way they lead, we elect them again. If not, we elect someone else. That's as much answering as I want my government to do.

[Sarge]

The government always has to answer to the people for decisions, eventually. I don't want to government to do whatever the population wants at any given time. There is a point in having leadership. We elect them, they lead. If we like the way they lead, we elect them again. If not, we elect someone else. That's as much answering as I want my government to do.

Bingo

[Henry]

A way of life.

What a pithy little phrase. Care to elaborate?

Point being, in the examples I posted, the people were WRONG. We should have wanted to break away from England. We should have prepared better for both WWI and WWII, but the people didn't want to. In both the case of the Revolutionary War and WWII, it was only the vision of the presidents at the time that allowed us to come out victorious

We didn't prepare well. We weren't 100% unified in our cause before the wars started. That's a weakness of living in a democratic republic.

We still won. We crushed dictatorships under the weight of our economy, industry and/or idealogy. That's a strength of living in a democratic republic.

Point being, in the examples you posed, the strength of our culture outwieghed it's weakness. Every. Time.

Apparently that's not good enough for you. You'd sacrifice American ideals to remove our weaknesses, but at the expense of our strength. A silly notion, to me, considering our track-record on the events you cite.

There are times the governmemt should listen to the people. Illegal immigration comes to mind. But honestly, sometimes the people are just too stupid or apathetic to know what needs to be done

The phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness means different things to different people. To some it means the luxury of not having to worry about the government, or care what it's doing. That might not be your thing, but we're not about to erase that phrase because it doesn't mesh with your personal worldveiw.

Noone's that cool Sarge. Not even you.

[Sarge]

What a pithy little phrase. Care to elaborate?

We didn't prepare well. We weren't 100% unified in our cause before the wars started. That's a weakness of living in a democratic republic.

We still won. We crushed dictatorships under the weight of our economy, industry and/or idealogy. That's a strength of living in a democratic republic.

Point being, in the examples you posed, the strength of our culture outwieghed it's weakness. Every. Time.

Apparently that's not good enough for you. You'd sacrifice American ideals to remove our weaknesses, but at the expense of our strength. A silly notion, to me, considering our track-record on the events you cite.

The phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness means different things to different people. To some it means the luxury of not having to worry about the government, or care what it's doing. That might not be your thing, but we're not about to erase that phrase because it doesn't mesh with your personal worldveiw.

Noone's that cool Sarge. Not even you.

You know, Truth, Justice and the American Way

Things even the last lame Superman movie were too PC to include

And again, those are just a few examples.

Most of the people hammered Seward for purchasing Alaska

Most of the people hammered Jefferson for the Louisianna Purchase

Converesly, the people did not want centralized banks in the mid 1850's, which led Andrew Jackson to crush the Bank of American I believe it was called. That led to a recession. Good thing he followed the wishes of the people, huh?

When you think about it, throughout our history, the people have been mostly WRONG. We're just a blessed nation that that we've managed to come out on top so far

Just like the current war. Most of the people have no idea of the strategic situation. All they know is ****ing Exxon is shafting us and ATM fees are too high and Manjyna got kicked off Idol.

No clue. So how can they seriously demand to be heard when most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about?

And the jury is still out on this war. I don't like the way it's being fought, I don't like the way the military is being handled. But I've been around those areas long enough to know a little about them and like to think I can speak to them intelligently.

Not so the hippie in San Franfreako

And not so the Dems. Their record on defense is spotty at best for the last 50 years. And they are of course, wrong

[Henry]

Thanks for explaining that The American Way is a way of life. That's really clears things up.

Sarge, the more you keep pointing out how this country suceeds despite 'public ignorance', the weaker your case for the need to do away with 'public ignorance' gets.

I'm sick of talking in circles. I'm going home.

God Bless America.

[DCsportsfan53]

Sarge, those are things you have to accept in a democratic republic. Yeah, sure, the people are often going to be wrong. I'd say, compared to the alternatives and compared to history, it's served us pretty damned well and we've ended up way on the plus side. It sounds to me like you're advocating an alternative to a democratic republic. Am I correct in thinking that?

[JMS]

The US military is to small in terms of the actual number of troops to meet all the normal requirements and Iraq and Afghanastan. That's not something most people want to be told.

The President had more than a year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. He could have doubled the size of the American military if he wanted to in that time. He chose to continue to shrink the size of the soldiers in order to buy more expensive toys. The size of the military is on him too. Rumsfeld's "Transformation" campagne is what shrunk the size of the military. And that was a George bush promoted policy.

Besides that. Bush is the one who was all anti UN prior to the war. If we had listened to our allies instead of trying to dictate to them we could have gone in with 150,000 more troops from our allies who largely remained on the sidelines... France, Canada, and Germany to name a few countries which were with us in Gulf war I and not because of Bush in Gulf war II.

[Predicto]

The military is not too small to kick the azz of anyone in the world several times over. Militarily.

It IS too small to effectively occupy two more more large and fractious conquered countries on the other side of the world for five years without assistance from the occuped countries themselves, their neighbors, NATO or the UN.

Totally different things.

[Sarge]

The President had a year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. He could have doubled the size of the American military if he wanted to in that time. He chose to continue to shrink the size of the soldiers in order to buy more expensive toys. The size of the military is on him too. Rumsfeld's "Transformation" campagne is what shrunk the size of the military. And that was a George bush promoted policy.

No, Bill Klinton cut the military too far. Bush inherited a military that had a serious problem with spare parts and bad morale that needed to be addressed before anything else. And you cannot just "Double the size of the military" in one year. Doesn't work that way.

Nice try at re-writing history though

[JMS]

The military is not too small to kick the azz of anyone in the world several times over. Militarily.

It IS too small to effectively occupy two more more large and fractious conquered countries on the other side of the world for five years without assistance from the occuped countries themselves, their neighbors, NATO or the UN.

Totally different things.

We're only even trying to occupy one country right now. Afghanistan is larger and more populous than Iraq, and we only have 16,000 troops in Afghanistan.

The army isn't large enough to effectively occupy any moderate sized country. Coarse with a military of more than 1.5 million you would think we could find more than 160,000 men if push came to shove and we had leadership and effective priorities down.

The real problem is in the leadership. That's at the very top. Secretary of Defense and President. We've only fixed one of the problems.

[JMS]

No, Bill Klinton cut the military too far. Bush inherited a military that had a serious problem with spare parts and bad morale that needed to be addressed before anything else. And you cannot just "Double the size of the military" in one year. Doesn't work that way.

Nice try at re-writing history though

HELLO!!!! THAT WAS in the 1990's. Bush had sufficient time to grow the military after 911 if he wanted too. Bush had the popular mandate. Bush decided not too.

FDR had a military about the size of Belgium prior to WWII. He grew it to 16 million within 18 months of December 7th. Bush chose his military. Don't try to blame Clinton for everything.

[KevinthePRF]

HELLO!!!! THAT WAS in the 1990's. Bush had sufficient time to grow the military after 911 if he wanted too. Bush had the popular mandate. Bush decided not too.

FDR had a military about the size of Belgium prior to WWII. He grew it to 16 million within 18 months of December 7th. Bush chose his military. Don't try to blame Clinton for everything.

Haven't been on this site too long, have you? If you did you would know that 9/11 and ALL foreign terrorism is the Clinton Aaministration's fault. Republican genius George Bush and his administration did everything they could when he took office, but unfortunately they could not overcome Clinton's complete denial of foreign terrorism. Administrative genius can only overcome so much. And that is what happened to the poor unsuspecting, but brilliant, Bush administration.

They should be faulted for little if anything at all, brainwashed yet?

[Johnny Punani]

Now only if the democrats would do the samething and move to minority status as well.

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

What is likely is that the neocons currently in power won't even listen to Buckley. As far as they are concerned, he is just another of the "enemy" now, and clearly hates America and our troops.

No one makes it into their bunker anymore except yes-men and campaign donors.

what I've heard from them is they think people like Buckley have lost touch with the party. The truth is the exact opposite though. It's going to take an election day embarassment for the RNC to wake up and get back to true paleo-Conservative ideology.

[techboy]

And the GOP loons, with the exception of those Baptist church freaks that protest funerals, are a little more in tune with America and American ideals

Oddly enough, Fred Phelps is a Democrat. There's an older 1999 piece on him in Mother Jones, before he really became famous, which talks about it.

He launched Westboro in 1955 after he and Margie moved to Topeka; in 1962, he earned a law degree from nearby Washburn University. That's when this icon of religious intolerance became a civil rights attorney. "I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he says. While this is clearly an overstatement, local officials confirm that he approached this earlier cause with customary zeal.

Phelps sees no difference between the cause he stood for then and the one he stands for now. Today, he says, the increasing acceptance of gays in America reflects a growing immorality to which much of society is turning a blind eye, just as it once did to racial discrimination. And considering how unpopular his cause as a civil rights attorney must have been in Kansas in the early 1960s, it's not surprising Phelps would link the two. Once again, it's Phelps against the world. And the world is wrong.

His career as a lawyer ended in 1979, when Phelps was disbarred by the state of Kansas for allegedly being too abusive to witnesses. Phelps seems to have compensated for being forced to leave the law by grooming his children to take up the profession: Eleven of his children now have law degrees.

Phelps remained prominent in state and local politics, working for years as a major organizer for the state's Democratic Party. (He still calls himself a Democrat, refusing to change just because his party has.) In 1988, Phelps housed campaign workers for Al Gore's first presidential run; in 1989, his eldest son, Fred Jr., hosted a fundraiser for Gore's Senate campaign at his home.

Phelps has frequently run for public office -- for governor in 1990, '94, and '98, for the Senate in '92 -- always losing the primaries by a landslide. Because of their years as loyal Democrats, the Phelpses have even been invited to -- and attended -- both of Clinton's inaugurations. They protested at the second one. But Phelps' campaign against homosexuality actually began in earnest just before the 1992 campaign, when politicians, especially Democrats, began to openly court gay voters.

It's an easy mistake to make, but Phelps is not GOP. There are plenty of out of touch with America GOP loons, though. May I suggest you start with David Duke?

[PeterMP]

The President had more than a year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. He could have doubled the size of the American military if he wanted to in that time. He chose to continue to shrink the size of the soldiers in order to buy more expensive toys. The size of the military is on him too. Rumsfeld's "Transformation" campagne is what shrunk the size of the military. And that was a George bush promoted policy.

Besides that. Bush is the one who was all anti UN prior to the war. If we had listened to our allies instead of trying to dictate to them we could have gone in with 150,000 more troops from our allies who largely remained on the sidelines... France, Canada, and Germany to name a few countries which were with us in Gulf war I and not because of Bush in Gulf war II.

There's no way that Bush could have practically doubled the size of the military. There just isn't enough wide spread support to do it. It would require more funds from Congress, and there is no way that would ever fly. That's why they pushed the new weapon systems; they can use technology to fight wars and no American have to die. That's a concept the general public likes.

There was no way that Germany or France were going to put troops into Iraq this time. They both said so, they essentially wanted unending inspections. The French promised to veto any resolution that specifically called for the use of force. W/o the French and Germans it is unlikely that the Canadians would have ever donated their troops. They knew that Iraq wasn't tied to 9-11, and at least the French, had economic reasons to keep Saddam in power.

Both of these things are irrelevant to my original point, most Americans don't want to be told that the military isn't big enough.

[Koolblue13]

The problem is that the perception is that the war is a republican war. A war which a majority of conservatives support

Make no mistakes here. This war is an AMERICAN WAR. It has nothing to do with being republican or democrate or any other term you want to throw at it. It is not a war on terror either, if anything it's for terror. Killing over 100k people can not make people less angry.

We are at a time when the right has proven to be wrong and the left has proven useless. We need to get back to whats important, being American. Figuring out where we went wrong and how do we as a united nation fix it. As united individuals working to be the best our country can be. We have plenty of problems in our own backyard that are going to be ignored as long as we find more importance in others. If anybody wants to point fingers, point them at yourself for allowing us to get so off track as a nation.

[Sarge]

HELLO!!!! THAT WAS in the 1990's. Bush had sufficient time to grow the military after 911 if he wanted too. Bush had the popular mandate. Bush decided not too.

FDR had a military about the size of Belgium prior to WWII. He grew it to 16 million within 18 months of December 7th. Bush chose his military. Don't try to blame Clinton for everything.

It took Klinton 8 years to gut the military. THink it was going to be rebuilt in a year and a half? :laugh:

Be nice to have some of this still around, wouldn't it?

[Burgold]

Following 9/11, there was a huge flow of patriotism and people willing to volunteer and serve. Had the decision been made then that we needed a much larger military, then large numbers could have been recruited. Almost six years later, we would have a much larger ready force. In 2007, all those who had upped in 2001 would certainly be battle ready, probably would have been in theater at least once, and having that larger force trained and in training may have changed the entire dynamic and mood concerning Iraq today.

I bet we could have upped our numbers considerably in Iraq had this strategy been acted upon by at least 2004 or 2005 maybe even as soon as 2003. It would have helped more than with Iraq too. It would have reduced national guard fatigue and therefore aided us in Katrina and other disasters and made us better able to deal with Iran.

Edit: Just saw your table, Sarge. Do you have one that shows the 2000's? It would be interesting to see change in troop and equip levels there. Might end the debate or at least change it.