To refer to withdrawing from an undeclared amd unust was as “surrender” is ironic, isn’t it? The American public wants this thing to end now.

“These are people so blinded by Bush Derangement Syndrome that they actually want things to go poorly in a war zone just to spite Bush.”

To make sush a claim, you have a pretty dim view of human beings, don’t you?

“And then, when things start to go well in said war zone, they try to move the goalposts and still say we should bring the troops home, or send them to Afghanistan where they should have been all along. This kind of thinking is naive, simplistic and dangerous.”

Why is this naive, simplistic and dangerous? What could be more naive, simplistic and dangerous than defending a morass that has caused nothing but misery abroad and at home and remains a pointless failure?

“Both parties have shifted quite a bit over time and I have never been a member of either party, so thus feel no need to do a knee-jerk defense of one over the other”

Same here.

My original comment: “History looks kindly on leaders like [McCain], while it looks dimly on surrender advocates like Obama and most of the Democratic Party,” seems to have been egregiously extrapolated.

Maybe this isn’t crystal clear, but I’m talking about surrender advocates in TODAY’s Democratic Party, of which there are many. These are people so blinded by Bush Derangement Syndrome that they actually want things to go poorly in a war zone just to spite Bush. And then, when things start to go well in said war zone, they try to move the goalposts and still say we should bring the troops home, or send them to Afghanistan where they should have been all along. This kind of thinking is naive, simplistic and dangerous.

Both parties have shifted quite a bit over time and I have never been a member of either party, so thus feel no need to do a knee-jerk defense of one over the other in general, and I will certainly admit that before McGovern Democrats had plenty of sac.

Miss Sonagi,

Damn, you want me to work, don’t you?

Oh, yeah, I want to make you put out, Won Joon.

In comment #55, were you referring to the same John Yoo who called Clinton an imperial president and criticized his uses of executive privilege? Isn’t John Yoo the guy who liked the Foreign Intelligence Services Act before he hated it?

You’ll get no argument from me that the strongest supporters of a strong executive are arch-conservatives, but there is a self-serving nature in their support, for conservatism has dominated since 1980. Even Clinton was a centrist, not a liberal in either the classical or modern sense of the word, and his candidate wife either has cut off her very liberal early roots or buried them from view. Conservative enthusiasm for a strong executive was tempered during the Clinton years.

As for the Unitary Executive Wiki entry, I had read that before. I noticed that GW Bush got a long write-up and Reagan and Bush Sr weren’t mentioned at all. Recall that I stated in an earlier comment that GWB had strived more than any president in modern history to legally expand executive powers.

It didn’t technically end with High school diploma, in a Sang Go, where students are expected to enter the work force.

He and 2mb are similar in that aspect.

No one who went to a korean university outside of Seoul would say
“I’m actually smarter than Roh Moo Hyun”

simply because Moo Hyun passed sabup goshi.

Obama is smart.

But, he’s misleading and stubborn.

He shows a true lack of understanding in matters when he says
1/ US will pull out of NAFTA.
2/ US will just leave Iraq.
3/ by using the rich people’s money, US will give govt jobs to survive the recession by building highways.

i wouldn’t be surprised if he was a dunce in these specific matters.

If I were him, I wouldn’t run with Jonathan Edwards as VP candidate.

Then, he seals it.

To lose.