You Don't Screw With "The Man"

In a case that's more instructive in government power and control than most anything a liberal, or civil libertarian might opine upon, Wesley Snipes received the maximum sentence, 36 months in prison for not paying his taxes.

While I personally believe too much is made of alleged civil liberty encroachments under Bush and in the so-called war on terror - there is no greater threat to freedom in a capitalist society than that of the government to tax and regulate activity.

I'm not suggesting Snipes isn't guilty, or shouldn't go to jail, but you never hear a peep from the supposed freedom loving liberals when it comes to how government taxes and spends, thereby controlling our lives, as well as our livelihoods.

You can peace march all you want, try to persecute telco's for providing information to the government, and stage all the faux torture events you want in protest of government actions.

But what's perfectly clear in America today is one thing - you don't screw with the tax man. Never let it be said that our government doesn't know from whence its power springs.

It would be wise to consider that when debating hyper-regulative responses to issues like global warming and supporting politicians who love big government. It always comes with a price. And ultimately that price is freedom, just as much as it is dollars.

In relative terms, there will be little or no liberal hand-wringing over the Snipes conviction, which causes one to wonder if they really understand freedom at all. Snipes appears to be guilty, but he WAS striking Big Brother at its heart in a way few if any anti-war protesters ever do.

And the message is clear - Big Brother knows how to deal with threats to its collective heart when they really matter.

Issues like the above are why I genuinely question the motivations of liberals today. They claim to be championing liberty. Yet nearly everything they champion calls for more taxation and regulation. One can't do both and be intellectually consistent, or honest.

Comments

[an unrepentant kulak]

It seems to me that a number of respondents are reading an "any and all taxes are unjustified" extremism into Dan's post that I don't see in what he wrote. Certainly some amount of taxation is necessary, but how much is reasonable and how much is excessive? If any criticism of policy that consistently "calls for more taxation and regulation", without seeming to acknowledge any troubling implications for economic liberty therein, is sufficient to get one reflexively tarred and feathered as a misanthropic anarchist, it's hard to see how we as a country will ever be able to have a meaningful discussion of the subject.

[LOL]

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's?

You guys can't even live up to your own code. Patriots complaining about Wesley Snipes--you're breaking all your own rules it's hilarious

[Haseman]

This speaks to exactly why I've moved from the uninformed liberal I was in College, to the slightly more informed conservative I am today.
The other paradox that I struggle with is the union of social conservatives (We can legislate what you do in your bedrooms, marriages, and private life) with the notion of restrained government conservatism. Again, combining these two notions is inherently paradoxical and I struggle to explain to my less conservative peers how they can exist in the same party.
I suppose we must all have our hypocrisy.

[seekeronos]

"--- Give to Caesar what is Caesar's? ---"

I have no problem with that. It's a biblical command.

But unlike Imperial Rome, we here in the USA have some (limited) say as to what Caesar does with that money we give him.

Many of us would prefer not to see it squandered, laundered, or given to programs to assuage feeling of supposed "white guilt".

As for the SoCons seeking to control people's lives behind closed doors - well, that should be best left alone.

However, when you start to parade perversion around public and insist that the rest of us are bigots or support "hate crimes" for choosing not to celebrate your twisted sense of diversity, that is a different matter.

I see no reason for (my share) of the public treasury to support the pornography and vileness passed off as "art" or the marriage of homosexuals or the enforcement of abnormal familial constructs (Heather's two mommies or Dave's two daddies, or ployamory) as valid, against over 6,000 years of civilized society teaching us that male-female marriage is the proper way to form a family.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"Many of us would prefer not to see it squandered, laundered, or given to programs to assuage feeling of supposed "white guilt"."

Sure, and many of *us* understand that your constant mischaracterization of the intent of social programs is at best misguided and at worst dishonest. Many of *us* perfer that our tax dollars don't go toward never-ending follies in the desert, and to the GOP's elitist corporate cronies, airline bailouts, oil subsidies, farm subsidies, disasterous abstinence only education, bloated "faith based" initiatives, auto subsidies, telecom subsidies, steel subsidies, coal subsidies, corporate welfare, "missle defense" programs that continue to fail, a "virtual fence" that contines to fail, etc.

Moreover, *your* money doesn't go in any significant way to same sex marriage, just like *your* money doesn't go to heterosexual marriage; and it doesn't go to promote "abnormal family constructs" whatever that means, and you know it. Moreover, if you want a government that always spends according to your delicate sensibilities and values, move to a theocracy. The government doesn't exist to validate your preening superstitions. Get over yourself.

On the other hand, many of *us" would prefer to use tax money to keep *our* country from slipping into the dark ages.

[templar knight]

"On the other hand, many of *us" would prefer to use tax money to keep *our* country from slipping into the dark ages."

Uh-huh, and that's the reason you support the savages in the ME who are trying to do just that, primitize the World. What a fuc.... hypocrite.

And drop that misnomer you use. You're about as conservative as Teddy Kennedy, and about as obnoxious as well.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Many of us would prefer not to see it squandered, laundered, or given to programs to assuage feeling of supposed "white guilt". --"

You keep tossing out this term "white guilt" like its a deciding factor in modern legislation. Equal protection under law dictates that - in instances like the Lily Ledbetter case - people should have the right to confront wrongdoing and address grievances fairly. When the SCOTUS steps in and demands that only upper management - people with access to the information necessary to know they are being discriminated against - have the right to sue for sex or race discrimination, they are denying millions of Americans the civil liberties afforded to their tenured neighbors. When the GOP legislators step in to uphold this travesty, they're basically abusing the intent of the law. This has nothing to do with "guilt" and everything to do with constructing a sound legal system.

Likewise, when states pass laws against crimes and raise the penalty if it is particularly racial or sexual in nature, we are not taking a stand based on our native race. Crimes of a racial or sexual nature are considered particularly heinous in our society. You wouldn't approve of a judicial system that labeled rape as just another form of physical assault. You wouldn't approve of a judicial system that labeled pre-meditated murder as just another form of homicide. Why would you consider a burning cross in the yard of a black civic leader just another form of vandalism?

And after billions lost in highway scandals (Bridge to Nowhere), and pedophilia scandals (DHS officials caught with pre-teen porn), and contractor scandals (KBR raping overseas employees, the GAO exposed $285 billion Defense Department overage) to talk about how Democrats can't spend responsibly is absolutely laughable. If you care about wasteful government spending, you only seem to protest when a Democrat does it. Republican wasteful spending will not raise your ire and change your vote.

"-- As for the SoCons seeking to control people's lives behind closed doors - well, that should be best left alone. --"

Except that it isn't. Time and again you vote for "true Christian" conservatives at the forefront of the culture war as they try to ban this Harry Potter book or shield employers from laying off that group of gay employees or pass another ridiculous "illegal sex acts" ordinance that tries to legislate how far from the missionary position a couple is allowed to deviate from in the bedroom.

Your votes mark you as a liar, Seek. You talk a good talk and make a great deal of sensible, moderate noises, then run off and vote for the most radical, corrupt, and invasive political platforms on the menu. You're like a declared vegan that only orders red meat. And its completely transparent.

If you don't like the Bush Admin policies, stop voting for them. If you don't want to be wire tapped or have your tax money squandered, quit throwing support behind the same old crooks. Find an alternative candidate - in a primary or in the general - and quit coming back to the Bush/McCain policies because they're a protest vote against "white guilt".

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Uh-huh, and that's the reason you support the savages in the ME who are trying to do just that, primitize the World. --"

Dumbass. Have you even seen pictures of Middle Eastern cities? Al-Jazera is trying to primitize the world? The mini-malls of Kuwait are "savage"? Satellite dishes on half the houses in Iraq are out of the dark ages? Dubai much?

This is why you're losing your little war. You don't even know who you're fighting against. Running off to fight a new generation of Crusades against a bunch of otherwise amiable Muslim farmers and blue collars and office workers who just want you to stop dropping bombs on their heads and driving tanks through their streets.

The very idea that a "primitive" people are going to travel half way around the world to bring down western civilization is perhaps the height of absurdity. A thousand 9/11s wouldn't be enough to primitize the United States. But it only took one for us to through away our civil liberties and piss away our tax dollars on scandal and fraud. That nefarious Osama bin Laden tricked us into voting Republican. He got us good.

[LOL]

There is more than one way to "assuage white guilt"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_bias

[seekeronos]

"--- Sure, and many of *us* understand that your constant mischaracterization of the intent of social programs is at best misguided and at worst dishonest. ---"

Indeed? But some of you liberals would rather pump even more money into them, in a self-righteous attempt to play Robin Hood, by stealing from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. Encourage people and give them the tools to become producers, yes. But multi-generation welfare programs are a shame to the recipients, and a drag on our economy; "affirmative action" denies access to those whose talents and efforts might have otherwise made major contributions to society whilst keeping a particular group of Americans beholden to party interests.

"--- Many of *us* perfer that our tax dollars don't go toward never-ending follies in the desert... ---"

As do I. But we are already there, albeit unconstitutionally so. We need to set some closed-ended, time-sensitive goals that are both reasonable and reachable, and bring those troops home. Sooner better than later. And while we are at it, reduce our commitments of troops to over 130 other countries to a total of perhaps just South Korea, Japan and our overseas possessions in order to be able to defend against the rising Red Chinese menace.

"--- and to the GOP's elitist corporate cronies, ... ---"

If by that you mean no-bid contracts and appropriation of funds by the DHS for john-boats and pallet-loads of "dog booties" for drug/bomb-sniffing dogs, among other such things, then yes, you're right.

"--- airline bailouts, ... ---"

Disagreeable, yes... but how else might we maintain air travel in this country? I hope you don't propose nationalizing the airline industry (at least for domestic carriers). Or better yet, let people take trains (oops! that would mean pumping money in the national rail franchise, AMTRAK) or rental cars (more taxes to keep the roads from falling apart). I for one am a fan of the Japanese shinkansen (bullet trains) that go 500kph for considerably less energy per person than an airplane or a car, but that's just me.

Perhaps a tax rebate for frequent air travelers from a pool commensurate with existing subsidies, with a commensurate increase in airfares to let the people subsidize their own air travel? Or perhaps coming up with a better model for air travel to be determined by the market.

"--- oil subsidies, ... ---"

A necessary evil, given the rarity of the stuff. Or do you want to imitate your idol Hugo Chavez, and nationalize the oil industry too?

"--- farm subsidies, ... ---"

The ethanol boondoggle will certain starve us - or put most of us in the poorhouse for our food bill - if somebody doesn't wake up.

"--- disasterous (sic) abstinence only education, ... ---"

The failure here is long reaching. It began with the destabilizing influence of godless atheists who demanded that any notion of moral absolutes (much less the teaching of God's Word in schools) be thrown out in the 1960's.

That raised a generation of kids, now parents (and some of that generation now on the cusp of being grandparents) of kids growing up now who have know knowledge of God, no knowledge of proper roles and behaviour for young men and women.

Abstinence education fails not because of the content, but because of the lack of moral fiber and backbone once cherished by our forefathers -- and most importantly, a lack of knowing Jesus Christ.

The best solution would be two-pronged:

Churches need to teach the spiritual basis on WHY abstinence is important;

Parents and schools need to teach that abstinence is the ONLY safe and guaranteed method of preventing transmission of STDs and unplanned pregnancies. They also need to discuss the biomechanics of reproduction with their children frankly, to INCLUDE knowledge about contraception/STD prevention, with emphasis put on the destructive affects of pre-marital (or at least pre-adult) casual sex.

Just giving kids contraceptives and telling them to "play safe" is nothing more but an endorsement of (pre)teen sex. And before you turn my arguments for liberty against me as touching "children's liberty", I will say to you that children (minors) have no liberty in the adult sense of self-determination: they are under the dominion and authority of their parents and legal guardians.

Likewise, parent and guardians who neglect to use their authority to correctly discipline their children in a sound and godly way are guaranteed to raise bad, brutish children who will have great likelihood of becoming burdens, if not menaces, to society.

"--- bloated "faith based" initiatives, ... ---"

I don't see so many of them, but the idea of it seems sound -- to allow churches and charitable organizations to pick up some of the burden of caring for the poor and widows and orphans.

"--- auto subsidies, ... ---"

If left to themselves, as they should have been under a market economy, the Big Three automakers should have folded or been bought out by the superior Japanese and German makers decades ago... or better still, allowed for new American car makers to arise with new innovations, such as the Aptera car, or compressed air cars.

"--- telecom subsidies, steel subsidies, coal subsidies, corporate welfare, ... ---"

Some good, some bad. One could argue that the commodities and service crucial to our security and infrastructure are as equally - if not more important - than questionable social programs or supersizing the government.

I suspect though, that you like "Ma Bell monopolism", or worse, Marxist style command economics much better. Such things can be much more stifling to innovation and creativity as well as freedom-limiting; and when we boil it down to its essence, modern liberalism is much more about hating individual freedom and maximizing state control. You Marxists have attempted to supplant God with the "state", and are too stupidly sheeplike to realize that it has failed every single time.

"--- missle (sic) defense programs that continue to fail, a virtual fence that contines (sic) to fail, etc. ---"

I recall the Patriot Missile system and its successors worked rather well; but the virtual wall will never do as well as a physical wall patrolled by armed defenders with the will and ability to punish transgressors.

"--- Moreover, *your* money doesn't go in any significant way to same sex marriage, just like *your* money doesn't go to heterosexual marriage; and it doesn't go to promote "abnormal family constructs" whatever that means, and you know it. ---"

Oh, no! Are you ignorant, or do you really work hard at being stupid? *My* money gets pooled into a big fat general account, just like yours does. But my taxes - just like yours - gets to be divvied up into such nice bits of legislation that I don't assent to. Typically, you liberals like to push the gay agenda as they are a particularly loud constituency that betrays their small numbers...

... and since we are all banking on a sweeping Dem victory in both houses of Congress and the presidency, that means come 20 Jan. 2009, you'll not be able to tell me otherwise that your government will use public funds to support all sorts of wicked agendas which rise as an unholy stench to Jehovah God's nostrils.

"--- Moreover, if you want a government that always spends according to your delicate sensibilities and values, move to a theocracy. The government doesn't exist to validate your preening superstitions. Get over yourself. ---"

I'll turn that around, you knavish bumpkin, and tell you that if you want a government that wants to suppress individual liberties and "mandate" how everyone does everything during every waking moment, then move to a Marxist nation like Red China or North Korea or Cuba. Or if that doesn't suit your fancy, there are socres of European Social Democratcies. Better hurry and file for your immigration visas though, I'm giving "Eurabia" another ten years before it is completely Islamized... in which case your liberal sensibilities and vain, and overbearing paternalism won't matter a whit as a dhimmi.

[Rich Rostrom]

Snipes deserves every minute of that sentence. Unless one believes that all taxation is immoral, Snipes is unquestionably a criminal.

He didn't just fail to file a few documents on time, or underpay by a small amount. He is a very wealthy man who systematically tried to evade the tax obligations his wealth incurred. In this effort he resorted to blatantly fraudulent methods and compelled the tax authorities to expend large sums just to collect what he should have paid in the first place. He was a committed, systematic, and habltual evader. Yes, his tax obligations were large - but still only a fraction of his enormous income. That income was possible because the U.S. is what it is, including all the things government does, such as law enforcement and national defense.

Many rich people want to evade taxation; and because they are rich, they can afford to employ the sort of complicated schemes that Snipes did. The poor and middle class can't pay $50,000 for a bogus investment loss. To say that Snipes should get off is to say that rich people should be allowed to evade taxation at will.

Snipes should go to jail pour encourager les autres.

[seekeronos]

"--- Crimes of a racial or sexual nature are considered particularly heinous in our society. You wouldn't approve of a judicial system that labeled rape as just another form of physical assault. You wouldn't approve of a judicial system that labeled pre-meditated murder as just another form of homicide. Why would you consider a burning cross in the yard of a black civic leader just another form of vandalism? ---"

I wouldn't. I would call it "aggravated vandalism with an intent to intimidate", and that act would no longer be considered free speech.

As for rapists and sex offenders - especially those who sexually assault children, I believe that they should face a mandatory sentence: the death penalty.

And that goes the same for murder-1 convicts:

"---- ...so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. -----"

(Deuteronomy 21:21b-23, KJV)

[Diego]

What really bothers me about Snipes's sentence is that he got 3 years for 3 misdemeanor convictions. FOR MISDEMEANORS !!!!! It appears crystal clear to me that what happened here is that the US Attorney's office, and apparently the judge, were pissed off that the jury acquitted him of the felonies and they decided to show those jurors who is really in charge and give Snipes a felony level sentence. Seriously, who gets 3 years on a misdemeanor? That is a felony sentence. So basically we have a US Attorney and a US District Judge overruling a jury. They completely ignored the fact that the jury acquitted Snipes of the felony charges and gave him as close to the felony sentence as they could.
No doubt the US Attorney disgreed with the jury's verdict. However, the decision was the jury's to make, not the prosecutor's. I assert that by handing down a 3 year sentence that is generally only seen in felony cases the judge violated Snipes's right to a trial by jury.
Here we have a glaring example of the federal government abusing a citizen. I have trouble even typing out the word 'citizen' considering how our government treats us like 'subjects', not 'citizens'.

[seekeronos]

"--- Your votes mark you as a liar, Seek. You talk a good talk and make a great deal of sensible, moderate noises, then run off and vote for the most radical, corrupt, and invasive political platforms on the menu. You're like a declared vegan that only orders red meat. And its completely transparent.

If you don't like the Bush Admin policies, stop voting for them. ---"

You'd probably be surprised to learn that I supported and voted for a Democrat - actually two of them - in 2006. And they had positions that were opposed to what the GOP consensus was on the war (if you read my blog, you'd know that I've been fairly consistent against the *unconstitutionality* of this war, though the only way I can possibly find support for it in terms of relieving the suffering of the Iraqis under the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein)

And do I support resisting the advance of Islamification? I do, but have come to the conclusion that it will be the duty of the host nations involved (speaking primarily of "Eurabia"). Yet our fight to resist being overtaken by radical Islam should better be taken on our own shores.

Thanks for assuming!

Anywho, I will most likely support the Constitutionalist candidate (depending upon who he/she is) or the libertarians (Bob Barr).

I can't see myself supporting any of the three knuckleheads currently occupying the media spotlight. They all support positions I cannot abide by in part or in whole.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Seriously, who gets 3 years on a misdemeanor? That is a felony sentence. So basically we have a US Attorney and a US District Judge overruling a jury. They completely ignored the fact that the jury acquitted Snipes of the felony charges and gave him as close to the felony sentence as they could. --"

They threw the maximum sentence available to them. How is maxing out a sentence the same as dismissing a jury. He was convicted on three counts and punished for three counts. And he wasn't evading a few hundred bucks. He wasn't evading a few grand. He was evading for millions of dollars. The US Government threw the book at him because he threw the book at the US Government. He was totally unrepentant and convicted as charged. If he'd gotten convicted of a felony and they maxed out his sentence then, would you be complaining that they're charging him with a higher level felony than he'd been charged with?

Snipes will have plenty of opportunities to appeal his conviction. If the sentence was overly harsh, I'm confident he'll have it overturned. He clearly doesn't mind spending millions on lawyers, even if he objects to spending millions on taxes.

[seekeronos]

Fact of the matter is, that those millions will get spent regardless. Sadly, it will go into the hands of lawyers rather than paying for cost of running government.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Anywho, I will most likely support the Constitutionalist candidate (depending upon who he/she is) or the libertarians (Bob Barr).

I can't see myself supporting any of the three knuckleheads currently occupying the media spotlight. They all support positions I cannot abide by in part or in whole. --"

Sorry if I'm browbeating you. I'm just tired of seeing the same old "boo hoo Ross Perot" game played time and again. I would have been about as happy to see Perot getting the nod as Clinton back in '92. Neither of them had spotless records, but they were both better than more of the same. Then I saw the entire libertarian movement collapse because the GOP beat them up over losing. So all the libertarian voters I knew started voting for these ridiculous big-government, tax-cut-and-spend, fiscally irresponsible SoCons who'd managed to combine all the porking of Beltway Dems with a nanny-state social agenda that made me sick. Lieberman and Clinton and - to a lesser degree - Al Gore weren't any better on the bullshit "micro-issues" like regulating rap music and pokemon cards. I'm sick of the entire social agenda, and I'm tired of people who also complain about the social agenda voting for the same old social tyrants because this one promises medicare and that one promises tax cuts.

Ron Paul promised tax cuts without taking a moral crusade down your pants. Obama has plans for net neutrality that don't involve cracking down on bit torrent or prying through people's email. Social libertarians exist in the political sphere - I don't know much about Bob Barr, but I'll look him up - and they should be getting a bigger share of the vote. :p

So, after '92, I'm really skeptical of the "libertarian" when he runs off and votes for DeLay or Dolittle or Santorum or Jeb Bush. Call me cynical like that. But if you're honestly voting Constitution Party, you've got my vote Seek.

[Sigh Young]

You're a dumbass, Riehl, but your faithful commenters are every bit as dumb as you. None of you clowns are worth a damn.

[jlo]

Boy, you nailed this one Dan.

From the pen of that mighty conservative icon Henry David Thoreau to your keyboard!

[BlackRedneck]

Does anybody know if the sentence is consecutive or concurrent?

[bobInStamford]

I see that you patriots are each getting $600 from your brave leader. What will you buy with it? Yellow ribbon magnets? 87 octane gas? Nascar collectibles?

Thank you for your service!

[Fred Beloit]

Moe (IslamoLlama) is an unrepentant purveyor of the Big Lies. His/her comments come with several embedded, or at least one. Here is one for your examination:

"This is why you're [He means the USA Republican Administration. This is not a trivial mistake but another outright falsehood, because the Congress, even with a Democraticic majority, has continued to vote to support the war] losing your little war."

It is a little war compared with some we have had. But the fact is we are winning it.

[templar knight]

Actually, Fred, the war is won, and it's about time to come home. I hate to agree with some of these libs, but we've seen the Iraqi Army handle JAM pretty well over the past three weeks. We should leave our air assets and some advisors, but the bulk of the troops should be on the way home within the next year. The Iraqis need to stand on their on two feet, and realize that they can accomplish more together than they ever can fighting each other. Of course, Iran wants to get in the mix, but we can shift some troops to the border with Iran and stop most of the mischief from the Iranians.

[templar knight]

"Dumbass, have you seen pictures of the ME cities?"

I guess being called a dumbass by you should be considered a compliment, given that most of what you say can be interpreted by someone with common sense to be just the opposite. Anyway, let me be more concise.

The Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, the entire nation of Afghanistan, and large parts of Iraq, which are the places we currently are fighting in, are very primitive. Much of the primitization in these areas(parts of Iraq and almost all of Afghanistan) has either been caused by radical Islam(sharia law, if you will), or radical Islam prevents the normal development of these areas. For instance, these Islamic fighters and leaders prevent such things as vaccinations for children, the playing of music, celebrations of any kind, women's rights, and a host of other things I don't have time to write about just now, but I would be glad to expound on in a later post, if you don't get the message.

As for some of the other places in the ME, yes, there has been tremendous development, but I was not referring to these places. I should have made my comment a little more clear, I suppose, but I thought most educated people would know we were not fighting in Dubai, the UAE, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

[seekeronos]

FWIW, the only reason why Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE, et al. are as advanced as they are has nothing at all to do with the virulently anti-modern and anti-civilizing influences of the radical forms of Islam held by a great majority of those peoples.

It has everything to do with all that shiny black goo buried under thousands of feet of sand that they happen to rule over, which everyone wants.

Were it not for that, you can rest assured that they would be materially in the seventh century as much as they are spiritually.

[bobInStamford]

"Actually, Fred, the war is won, and it's about time to come home."

Hahaha!! When there are no more other options, declare victory and cut and run!! Hahahaha!!! Thank you for your service, oil baron/troop-breeder!!!

[templar knight]

Thank you, boob, thank you very much. Your support for your country and soldiers has overwhelmed me. And thank you for all your support over the past few months. I would love to thank you in person. I'll be in NYC the week of May 5-10. I'll buy you a drink at the Pierre Hotel, where I'll be staying.

[LOL]

"Much of the primitization in these areas(parts of Iraq and almost all of Afghanistan) has either been caused by radical Islam(sharia law, if you will)"

...

"but I thought most educated people would know we were not fighting in Dubai, the UAE, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia."

The irony is that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are more controlled by Sharia law than Iraq was under Hussein.

This once again proves that when a wingnut opens his mouth about the world outside, he usually has no idea what he's talking about.

[Fred Beloit]

Actually, Temp, a blogger, unfortunately I do not recall which one, recently pointed out that Iraq II is actually Iraqs II and III. Iraq II was against Saddam and his regime. That war has clearly been won. Saddam and his regime are history. Iraq III is the guerrilla war or insurgent war we are now winning but still fighting and rightly so. I don't think we at home are in any position to state it is time to come home. Only the military and civilian authorities on the ground should make that determination and submit it to the President for approval.

A short search showed this is the blog I referred to, The Jawa Report:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192340.php

[jharp]

"Iraq III is the guerrilla war or insurgent war we are now winning"

OK, Einstein.

Just who are these "guerrillas". And please tell me about other successful guerrilla wars.

Hint. The occupiers win every battle. Go broke, then go home defeated.

I figure we're at least half way home.

[templar knight]

"The irony is that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are more controlled by Sharia law than Iraq was under Hussein."

I doubt whether Kuwait was, but I'll give you Saudi Arabia. There were other reasons given for going into Iraq that had nothing to do with Sharia law, or the primitization of large parts of the ME. The fact that radicalization of Islam and primitization of large parts of the ME go hand in hand has quite escaped you. Imagine that.

And naturally, much of what you have said proves that when a nutroot opens his mouth, it's either to lie or to support our enemies, or in many cases both.

[Worst President Ever]

Disagreeing with stupid policies doesn't make you a supporter of the enemies of our country.

What's "primitization" mean?

The Iraq I/II/III argument simply proves the administration had no understanding of Iraq, it's history, or the consequences of removing Saddam from power.

[LOL]

rofl support our enemies? Kinda like how the Iraq war funding is giving money to people who are now or will shoot at us with the guns we gave them. But yeah, it's the liberals who support our enemy... wingnuts know nothing about how the world works.

Kuwait is ruled by Islamic law. Do some freaking research. They are modernizing somewhat--just gave women the right to vote, but are still one of the most religiously conservative countries in the world. It's funny how you wingnuts pick and choose your enemies based on who W days the evildoer du jour is. It's like you have no mind of your own, i mean, we're talking on the internet and you couldn't even research for yourself if Kuwait was controlled by Islamic Law. You can't even help yourself learn new things--truly a sign of how ignorant old wingnuts are on the internet.

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

try it someday old man, before you die

[LOL]

templarnut logic 101:

It's great that we invaded Iraq and liberated people from a primitive culture and sharia law.

--Actually Iraq was one of the most secular ME countries prior to our invasion, and will likely see an expansion of Islamic law regardless of what happens in the future.--

Well, um, er, It was still a good idea, because I like seeing dead muslims and you're emboldening our primitivizatived enemies by making me look like an idiot so SHUT UP

[templar knight]

nutroot logic 101:

When you can't defend the indefensible--LIE
When you have no idea what you're talking about--LIE.
And by all means, when you know nothing--LIE some more.

And by the way, your interpretation of what is said is just that--nutroot interpretation.

Nutroot interpretation 101a--build a straw man and knock it down, then proclaim yourself intelligent.
Nutroot interpretation 101b--make shit up, attribute it to whomever, and then argue with the nutroot interpretation.
Nutroot interpretation 101c--LIE.

LOL--nutroot.

[templar knight]

"try it someday old man, before you die"

Hahaha, I might just outlive you, boob. In any event, if statistics hold true, I'll be around another 40 or so years.

[jharp]

templar,

It is quite simple to save face here.

1) Admit you were wrong
2) Admit the GOP has hoodwinked folks like into voting against their own best interest.
3) Vote the crooked lying bastards out of office.

Everyone will be happy and America will be a better place for all of us.

And safer too.

[templar knight]

"It is quite simple to save face here."

1)Wrong about what?
2)I don't vote the GOP on a straight ticket. I'm a registered independent, although I used to be a Democrat.
3)It will do no good to vote more crooked lying bastards like the Democrats are fielding into office, as it will just get worse.

Putting nutroots in charge will do nothing to make America safer or happier. You are deluded if you think so.

[jharp]

1)Wrong about what?

Sharia law and primitization.

3)It will do no good to vote more crooked lying bastards like the Democrats are fielding into office, as it will just get worse.

So I guess you're in favor of the 100 year war.

And continuing deficits?

And no health care care reform.

And you and I paying a higher tax rate rate than Warren Buffet?

You, my friend are voting against your own best interest.

[templar knight]

Where was I wrong about Sharia law and primitization? Show me where I was wrong, or will you go with the nutroot interpretations of what I said? Which will it be, what I said, or the nutroot interpretation of what I said? I'm beginning to think you're a nutroot yourself, jharp.

[jharp]

"Show me where I was wrong"

"I doubt whether Kuwait was"

Kuwait was and is.

Though that is not the most important issue.

What is though, is folks voting against their own best interest and I suspect you are one of them.

Though you might not be thrilled with the dems it is no contest as to whose policies are in the best interest of 95% of us.

[templar knight]

Hell, son, you said earlier that everyone would be happy, and now you're down to 95%, which is just something you pulled out of your ass. More nutroot numbers and interpretations. I have a gut feeling that whoever the nutroot candidate may be, he or she is not likely to get anywhere near that kind of vote. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way of nutroot interpretations.

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_cultural_jihadists.html

The above is a link to an excellent and inclusive summary of how Western educators, media executives, and politicians are betraying the values of Western liberty because they are afraid of...guess who...Islamo-terrorists.

[jharp]

templar,

You missed my point.

"policies are in the best interest of 95% of us."

Of course no one will get 95% of the vote.

[Worst President Ever]

"Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims."

[shaker o salt]

I just love it when people, meaning your commenters, try to define my or anyone's "liberalism" with their interpretation of it. That's rather disengenious not to mention flat out lazy thinking. Don't tell me what I believe as a liberal. I believe what I believe and my beliefs are my own. That being said, remember this: one of the facets of liberalism is "for the common good" and taxation is in that category. How else to pay for your fantastic occupation of Iraq? (Without borrowing from China that is!) That's why we're not crying over Snipes incarceration. He got what he deserved. Being black has nothing to do with it either, another indication of lazy thinking for those who want to interject what, exactly?

[jharp]

"Isn't it amazing how conservative economic policy always converges on some variant of "Give the rich more money," and ends with some version of, "And this will help the middle class and the poor." They just never get around to filling in that middle part with anything coherent. The clever cons know it's a scam. This is what a lot of grassroots conservatives, mostly the duller or more ignorant ones to be sure, really believe."

[jharp]

"policies are in the best interest of 95% of us."

Forgot to add that most of dullard conservatives actually believe they are in the top 5%.

One hell of a sales job. That, I must admit.

[templar knight]

"Isn't it amazing how conservative economic policy always converges on some variant of 'Give the rich more money', and ends with some version of, 'And this will help the middle class and the poor'."

What is amazing to me is that you, educated as you are, don't know that the government is not "giving" the rich more money. The money belongs to whomever, they worked for it, and the government is "taking" it from them. Hardly a gift, my boy.

Of course, no less a patronage than Winston Churchill said, "Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism is the equal sharing of misery". I always go with the blessings, there is enough misery in life without adding any extra.

[jharp]

templar,

If you subtract a negative, it is the same as adding.

And Mr. No Taxes. Just how do you propose we pay our bills?

Like the $4 trillion the current administration just pissed away.