CPAC hawks defeat ISIS with lots of angry hand-waving –

I watched the CPAC show last week and came to an epiphany……any credible candidate for the GOP will be emphasizing foreign policy……which is a good play for they have pretty much shown that they have NO real domestic policy that could improve this country.

The problem is those that are thumping their chests on foreign policy have NO idea what that policy is all about…..they basically have NO policy there either but ….defeat ISIS….but when asked how that can be accomplished…..they are at a loss for words……

None of the big dollar headliners have NO idea…..not Christie or Cruz or Rubio or Bush….etc etc……none have any foreign policy experience……so what is this magical strategy to defeat ISIS?

Chest thumping is a campaign strategy…..but it will win NO wars without knowledge and a plan…….

I will be honest….the Dems are just as pathetic as the GOP when it comes to an actual plan to fight ISIS…… unless someone on either side becomes a bit more knowledgeable then there will be NO substantial to fight much less win against ISIS……

Meanwhile….back to CPAC………


CPAC hawks defeat ISIS with lots of angry hand-waving –

Grow That Big Tent

CPAC is in full swing……I have listened to as many speeches as I could stomach…….and then yesterday that MORON Gohmert made a comment that I took exception to about the Vietnam War (see yesterday’s rant……”I Have Had Enough Of These Morons)…..but the one that made me chuckle (sorry to my conserv friends) was a statement by the head of CPAC……….

(Newser) – Chris Christie isn’t CPAC material, American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas said today, explaining why the New Jersey governor hadn’t gotten a spot in the annual conference that begins today. “I’m a firm believer that if the Republican Party’s going to have success, it’s going to do so by being a conservative party and not a home for ah, for everybody,” Cardenas told reporters, according to NBC News. “You grow your tent by convincing others, and persuading others, that yours is the way … not with a watered down version of who we ought to be.”  (Does this sound like the big tent they keep talking about for the next election?)

Addressing Christie specifically, Cardenas said that, “We felt like, ah, like he didn’t deserve to be on the all-star selection, ah, and, for decisions that he made.” (Hint, he probably means incidents like this.) “So hopefully next year he’s back on the right track and being a conservative.  (Sounds like a purity test to me and they have said they have NO purity test)

Personally, I want to see the conservs have a good party and a good substantial platform….but if this dude’s thinking is the future of the party…..then you guys are so screwed!  You lost the last election and you have yet to change much on your policy stances……and you somehow think it will be better next time around?

At what point to the conservs starting trying to build that big tent?  At what point do they realize that the last election was decided by their lack of substantial policies?

On this path they will have more to whine about after the 2016 election…….please pull your asses out of your collective butts…..fresh air smells good……

I Have Had Enough Of These Morons!

It is inevitable that I have this conversation when people learn that I fought in Vietnam……..someone always says we could have won that war if we were allowed to, right Chuk?  My first question to them is, “were you there”…..and almost everytime it is no…….and then I reply….then your opinion means NOTHING!

I bet you are wondering why I bring this up now?

To answer your question….I was reading Raw Story and came upon this piece of crap……

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Thursday asserted that the U.S. war in “Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!”

“One of the things that we’ve heard over and over again since Vietnam is, you know, we don’t want to get in another un-winnable war like Vietnam,” Gohmert told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “I’m not going to debate the merits of whether we should or should not have gone to Vietnam, but what I will tell you is, Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!”

“Folks, when you hear people talk about the lesson of Vietnam, it ought to be this: You don’t send American men or women to to harm’s way unless you’re going to give them the authority and what they need to win and then bring them home!”

This person is a MORON!  The American soldier did everything he was ordered to do in Vietnam…….we were fighting troops that would take a French 75 apart put it on bikes and walk them across mountains, reassemble and use……..we are talking about troops that would tie tree tops together on the Ho Chi Minh trail to form a tunnel to keep aircraft from spotting them……we were fighting troops that had 75 miles of tunnels that included R&r centers, hospitals, mess halls and ammo storage………we were fighting troops that would repair the Trail after b-52 runs in less than 24 hours…..we were fighting a committed enemy….and any moron that says different is lying!

And anyone especially someone that is suppose to be a statesman that makes comments like Gohmert is a worthless lump of crap!   And anyone who believes his crap is a stupid lump of crap who NEVER served but has all the answers….and that makes him less than worthless!

You may pass on to Mr. Gohmert what I think of him…..I WILL!

Slaughter The Sacred Cows

Soon, March 14-16,  the start of the annual meeting of our conserv friends…..the CPAC…….and this year their slogan is “New Challenges, Timeless Principles”.   A March first was the kicking in of the sequestration that we have all heard so much about in the media……talking head after talking head has given their take on what it is, what will happen and who will be at fault……by now you, my reader, have formed your opinion with the help of your favorite talking head and I would wager that you would defend your opinion to the end……but I feel that I need to point out a few things that may have been overlooked…….

What is the time worn principles that the conservs in Congress have stood by for decades now?  (pause here for reflection)……..

First, tax cuts, not tax increases are the only way to save the economy and second, the military-industrial complex was sacred and not to be cut less we weaken our national defense and security……am I right?

The problem is that they abandoned their principle of no tax increases in the fiscal cliff debacle…..of course they could argue that it was not an increase but just letting Bush tax cuts expire……but call it what you may….it was a tax increase.

Then there is the sanctity of the defense spending…..but voila!  Now that the sequestration (who gives a damn whose idea it was?) kicking in there will be heavy cuts in defense spending…..and there is no better way to defend this……they would not come to any agreement and now the DOD will be hit and hit hard.

So, two of the sacred pillars of conservatism have been slaughtered in the name of partisan crap………I find it a bit silly to say that they are timeless principles…….principles that have been sacrificed on the alter of politics.

Let’s not forget the small government plank……..I mean look at the massive bureaucracy that GW created and he was a conserv….we could always try to defend it and say that 9/11 had something to do with the expansion…..but an expansion is an expansion….just another sacred cow that the GOP has slaughtered.

I guess conservs will try to salvage what they can by signing on to some damn silly immigration bill that they can use as one liners during the next round of elections in 2014.  But sorry sports fans……too late…..they have compromised their principles…..what’s next?

I am sure that tax cuts will still be on the agenda…..but their argument that cuts will create jobs is not playing well…..the working stiff, middle class if you will have seen their pay decline almost yearly for 20 years and corporations making billions by using those job creating tax cuts……if the GOP wants to win ever again they must find a way to connect with the middle class and I do not believe they can sell the tax cut con much longer…….

Of there is more!  The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)……….this was a game.  The House voted on a bill that they knew that they could not get past the Senate and then this deal was hammered out and passed…….and will be signed.  The finally vote was not at all unanimous…..but when asked during interviews they can say that they voted for the VAWA……which will be a deception……true they voted for the one that could not get passed in the Senate…..just a game to try and not alienate women voters……keep an eye on this for 2014 it will be a talking point.

Addendum:  My point was proven…..on Saturday a GOP rep from Virginia was asked why he voted against VAWA and his response was….”I voted for the House version but their was a constitutional question on the final version……”  He then went on to say that he voted in favor of it twice……and that is how the game is played.

Will Saying It Make It So?

College of Political Knowledge

If you we around and interested in the recent meeting of the GOP, the CPAC, you got an hear full of “Obama Sucks” rhetoric….but there was one speech that caught my attention… was from the “frontrunner” he made a 26 minute speech and used the word “conservative” 26 times….to me it was a bit over kill but there is a precedent for this type of speech……

Mitt was employing an old logic technique….ad argumentum populum……

In Logic, a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, “If many believe so, it is so.

The argumentum ad populum is a “Red herring (fallacy)”. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, for if opinion did determine truth, there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

Thanx to wiki for the above definition.

The Mitt-ster seems to believe that if he calls himself a conservative that the base will sooner or later believe he is on of them….I think after looking at the most recent polls…..that he has got to try harder…..NO one is buy the crap he is shoveling.

But he does have one thing going in his favor…….the American people……they have fallen pray to bullsh*t in the past…..