Troop reductions? Or just a change in tactics?

So, the US Government has decided on a troop pullout.
Or has it?
Follow the following link, and see what's really in store.
From The New Yorker ...

Congressmen injured in Iraq

Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, were both injured while on an inspection tour of Iraq. Thei vehicle was hit by an oncoming truck. This was not considered a terrorist attack.
Ike Skelton has partial paralysis of his arms from polio. What is HE doing in a war zone? Aren't there any politicians out there with full use of their limbs?
Note that I am not calling Mr. Skelton's intelligence, or courage into question. But let's get the political correctness out of the way. The man is in a situation where your life depends on doing the right thing quickly, and although I applaud his triumph over a crippling disease, he is STILL not the man to send into a war zone. Why is he there?

Abolish Democracy NOW!

Top 10 Reasons we should abolish democracy in the United States.

10: The large group, growing larger, that believes that drunk driving is the fault of the liquor companies, shootings are the fault of the gun salesmen, and drug crimes are the fault of some cabal in Columbia.
"We is all jus' pore white folks, wit fif' grade ejucatons, an' we don't know nuttin 'bout things, 'cept how to call our lawyer when we is hurt or sumpin', an' we couldn'ta even have dun that witout him programmin' the speed dialler 'for us." Too many voters believe that they are not responsible for anything, and that no matter what happens in life, there is somebody to be sued. Somebody should sue them. And keep them away from anything important, like the running of a country. After all, they aren't responsible people.

9: The rise of the anti intellectuals, especially the astrologists, creationists, UFOlogists, and conspiracy theorists - anyone who thinks that their beliefs are more important than the facts.
Your brain does not dictate reality. You are not that important, and I don't think egoists like you should be allowed to control a country.
Besides, you'd just give the place away to the Martians.

8: People who think their leaders should be "one of them". That's just what we need - a self-deluded, ignorant truck driver who can't get laid, leading the country.

7: The voter turnout. When we get to the stage where a 50% turnout is good, it's time to relieve all those poor, set-upon citizens of that nasty old vote.

6: The growing belief that God created an entire class of people for you to prove your faith against. This includes those who beat gays to death, shoot abortionists, and pilot airplanes into office buildings. God saved all those you kill, even the aborted. You're just sending yourself to hell. Also, who'd give any sort of responsibility to someone who thinks that a life of killing women who have sex out of wedlock, is going to win them seventy-odd virgins? Do you really think they're going to put out for you? You'd kill them!
Given the many examples from the 20th Century of what happens when people who believe in killing fellow citizens for "wrong" behavior get into power, it's best they not get a vote.

5: The cult of celebrity. I have great doubts about any voter who pays attention to the political views of someone who plays Make-Believe for a living. Not that it's dirty or anything, it's just that spending all that time learning lines leaves them little time to consider the ramifications of the SALT treaties.
I also have serious doubts about anyone who can't find Iraq on a map, but knows who Jennifer is dating now. And who knows who I mean by "Jennifer" without mentioning a last name.

4: The Great Christian Meltdown. This includes, but is not limited to. . .
- The people who think that because WalMart no longer says "Merry Christmas!", that Christianity is in danger, even though Christianity survived Nero and his lions.
- The people who listen to Pat Robertson, or for that matter any Christian leader who believes that the embodiment of peace and forgiveness wants certain people to burn in hell.
- Those who believe that the agnostics of our generation are so important to God that he will be willing to suspend natural laws, unleash the AntiChrist, and destroy the entire world, just to win them over - unlike the agnostics of, say, 1932. They can go to hell.

3: The rise of Multiculturalism, and the belief that our careful designed culture, polished over 8,000 years, influenced by everything from Hammurabi to Sun Tzu to Napoleon, is no more moral than some stone age tribe that ate raw monkeys and killed their daughters.
Look, the many cultures that have graced this world have contributed thousands of good ideas. Fire. Tea. Rubber. Dancing.
They have also contributed more than their fair share of bad ideas.
Mutilation. Abuse. Murder by decree.
There is a growing number of people who think that multiculturalism goes beyond contributing a new china pattern, to become an excuse for committing any sort of behavior, on the grounds that sometime, somewhere, one of your ancestors thought is was proper.
Your ancestors were barbarians, and I don't want you running things.

2: The state of Modern Education. I don't mind that a functional illiterate can get a B.A. by examining the effects of Lesbian Vampires upon Japanese anime. I just don't think these people should be allowed to vote. They may decide to elect a lesbian vampire, and then where would we all be?

1: The continued dominance of Me-ism. Anyone who thinks that nothing in the country exists that is more important than their own personal comfort should be safely ensconced in a secure little facility, where they can be taken care of while real people run things.

Name Droppers

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.

I will discuss ideas and events on this blog.
Not people.
Every conservative blog I've turned to today has had the word Murtha in the title.
Forget Murtha. If you want to discuss the struggle in Iraq, fine. But I will not discuss the man.
Murtha is not dissing MY ideas. Or me. I will not diss him.

Merry Whatever

Christmastime is here again. A time of joy, a time of cheer.
A time for the most bent members of the Religious Right to get even more twisted.
Christianity is under attack - because schools and stores say "Happy Holidays" and insist on restricting nativity scenes.
I guess the message of peace and joy has nothing to do with Christmas. It's all about the slogans.
Listen guys - the stores say "Happy Holidays" because they want the Hannukah crowd to come in during December, too. Why is the wisdom of the marketplace trusted in every other instance, but not THIS instance?
The schools practice religious-neutral activities because if they didn't, they'd be sued. Ours is the most lawsuit-happy culture in history. The political-correctness issue, the zero-tolerance issue, and the no-nativity scene issue all stem from a bunch of cranks willing to file a $10 million suit if their child "perceives an inappropriate idea" in a public place.

Get over it guys. Before someone sues you.

Why Johnnie can't fight

Despite its current reputation, the American army has never done well with tactics. Battles they have won have, for the most part, been grinding affairs, with heavy casualties.

The Revolutionary War started out very poorly for the Americans, with loss after loss. They were almost ready to throw in the towel at Valley Forge. Other than a few bright spots, such as the battle of Cowpens, American generals produced no great victories during the war. Meanwhile, the British, who declared war on France, will also face Spain, who will declare war in 1779 as an ally of France, and the Dutch, who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to America, the British will fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas, while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French. In 1782, Parliament, tired of all the fighting, and demoralized by the loss at Yorktown, decides not to pursue the war any longer.

The War of 1812 was a non-starter. After a few naval actions, the Continental Army invaded over the Niagara River, met the Canadians at Lundy's Lane, and the two sides shot each other to pieces.

Then there was the Civil War. America's one great shining light, Robert E. Lee, along with a more than competent staff, kept the South in the game years longer than they should have been able to. They were helped in no small measure by the Generals of the Union, and it helps us in our understanding of the mindset of the the American general to look at them. McClellan, who was loved by the troops - on both sides, since he was an overcautious tactician. Burnside, one of the worst generals in human history. Sherman, master of the Army Ant School of warfare, whose only tactical innovation was the willingness to kill and burn everything in his path. Many later US generals would take a page from his book. Grant, the old drunk who was able to finally make use of his army's numerical and material advantages to bring the war to an end.

The pattern was set, and has been followed ever since. Casualties be damned, finesse be damned. Git there fastest with the mostest. Use numerical and material superiority to grind your opponent into the dirt.
Every war the US Army has ever fought has been fought the same way. And when that basic tactic hasn't worked, the US Army hasn't won.

There was WW1. After sitting as a neutral for three years, presumably getting reports on the fighting, the United States entered the war in 1917. They had no aircraft; they bought French planes. One year after Cambrai, they had no tanks. Two years after the Somme, their first battle had them go over the top into German machine gun fire, causing them to join the stalemate. One year later, a fed-up German army essentially went on strike, and the war ended.

WW2. Again, the US sat out the fight until the Japanese convinced them of the folly of isolationism - a lesson that the US would have to relearn 60 years later. Again, the US went to war with no modern tanks or aircraft. They won their early victories by overwhelming their German opponents - and defeated the Japanese by technical innovation. There was no tactical innovation by the Americans in this war. Patton read Rommel's book; Nimitz copied what the Japanese were doing, and beat them at their own game. The Sherman tank beat the Tigers by numbers, sacrificing 3 out of 4 tanks to kill their opponent, and counting on the fact that they had 5 Shermans for every Tiger the Germans had.

Korea saw the Americans armed with WW2 weapons try to beat the Chinese. With the UN's help, America managed a draw. MacArthur's Inchon invasion stands out amidst a lackluster performance by American generals. However, the Chinese were too numerous to overwhelm, and America eventually just sealed off the border and went home.

Vietnam showed off America's weaknesses to the world. The US Army had learned nothing since The Battle of the Bulge. They fought a blitzkrieg in the jungle, and lost, unable to bring their enemy to bear. This was only a few years after the French had lost to the same army in the same way - and only a few years after the Australians had beaten a similar army using more practical tactics. Tactics that America failed to learn.

Finally, after years of Cold War, America was presented with the perfect conflict - the Gulf War. Textbook tank terrain, an opponent inferior in numbers, technology, and training, a noble cause, no outside allies for the enemy. Bush Senior's army rolled over the Republican Guard.

Then came the 21st Century, and the neo-chickenhawks. They had been chafing since Bush Sr. had left Saddam untouched. They decided to go over and do things right.
For a while, it was the Gulf War all over again. The precision missile strikes, the tank attacks.
Then the war changed, from blitzkrieg to guerilla. And the army faltered.
With tactics still unchanged from the streets of Berlin, 60 years ago, the men of the United States army now attempts to fight a 21st Century war. At the platoon level, the troops are first rate. Barring an ambush, they can take on all comers - and they can usually deal with ambushers, too.
It's at the staff level that it all breaks down. The generals cannot seem to get their head around the problem of an enemy that plants bombs along the road, or sends suicide bombers against their troops.
They say that they cannot leave until the job is done.
Then go back to their war of attrition.

We need a Guderian. A Napoleon. Someone to think of a whole new way of making war.
Something the United States has never had - a military genius. Robert E., where are you, now that we need you?

War/Pieces

Why is the army still in Iraq?
Think about it. The most powerful military machine in the world, for that matter the most powerful military machine of all time, is still fighting 4 years later against a 3rd world power. Less than that, since Saddam, his army, and his followers are toast.
Why?
Well, believe it or not, it's because of liberal ideas.
Since the Vietnam War, the idea of the army as peacekeeper has become standard. Soldiers are urged to "be all that you can be", and the weary dogface has become a policeman-at-arms. The new army stands tall, protecting the public and standing between harm and the innocent.
Sorry, Kofi.
The army is what it has always been - The Fourth Horseman incarnate. Its job is to break things - armies, countries, dictators. They shoot people. In any terrain, at any time, in all weather.
Unfortunately, in both Democratic and Republican circles, this image is verboten. The US invaded Iraq with the notion that the army was the perfect tool for rebuilding, policing, and reempowering the populace.
It wasn't. It isn't. Peace is NOT their profession. You want to run a war, they're your man. You want to run a peace, you call the Peace Corp.

The House was able to make $50 billion of reductions in the rate of growth of the budget over the next five years. Those cuts will affect poor and middle class families. At the same time, the Senate passed legislation granting $60 billion in tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, on Thursday.
Pardon me? Isn't this a little silly?
On second thought, strike the "little". And the "silly". This is insulting.

Muslims killing Muslims

The next time someone defends a Muslim extremist group by saying that they are striking back against America's injustices, ask a simple question.

"Name one Muslim terrorist organization that has never killed Muslims."

The most recent attacks in Iraq have been in mosques. The most recent Al-Qaida attack was in Jordan. Today, extremists threatened the King of Jordan, calling him a traitor.
Attacking Americans has almost become a sideline for these people. Apparently they want to purge the religion of any moderates before taking on the real enemy.
Which, I suppose, fits the extremist mindset very well.

I highly recommend this book: http://www.StellaAwards.com/book.html

The Great Divider

The one sure legacy of the Bush Government we can see, is that he will be known as the Great Divider. The man whose government turned American against American, liberal vs. Conservative, blue vs. red.
Oh, we can pass some of the blame onto the bloggers, the media, or the lunatic fringe. But not all of it. We can't even pass most of it.
Bloggers? The most widely read of them have an audience of only a few thousands. They aren't affecting the majority of citizens.
The media? There are few media personalities trusted the way America trusted say, Walter Cronkite. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh may have voiced the opinions, but their targets just responded with a few books and T-shirts. No divisiveness there.
The lunatic fringe we have always had, raving and frothing. But nobody ever paid attention to them before.

No. It has been the government's policies and statements, demonizing dissenters and championing an Us or Them state, that has separated the United States into two separate States.
I only wish I knew how this was going to end.

Intelligence

Perhaps there is a way for the Bush government to improve its analysis of intelligence.
Stop hiring oil executives to do it.
PFIAB, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, is a group of appointees who advise the President on all intelligence matters. They have access to ALL top security information, and are expected to give expert and objective advice concerning it, and how well the various agencies are giving it.
Oilman Ray Hunt, financier William DeWitt Jr., Netscape founder Jim Barksdale, and former Commerce secretary Donald Evans are all members of the current PFIAB. THESE are intelligence experts? These are the men Bush depends on to decide whether a CIA report is worth the paper it's written on?

Now What?

The Republicans have finally awakened to the fact that someday the troops are going to have to come home, and that if they intend to stay until the terrorists are all gone and the threat ended they had better import brides and start reproducing a new crop of privates.
I'm sure the Right will condemn all the traitors in the Senate who adopted this new measure. Some of them may even have a good reason for doing so , other than the fact that it contradicts the known wishes of George W. Deity.

Look.
Here's the scenerio.
Your mission is as follows. There is a nation of several hundred million people. 500 of them are terrorists. You must destroy the five hundred without greatly disturbing the lifestyles of the several hundred million others.
You may choose from the following force options:
a) A carrier task force and 3 armored divisions.
b) An impeccable intelligence agency and 10 SEAL teams.
c) A strategic nuclear arsenal.

The correct choice was (b). Too bad nobody chose it.
Now the US is stuck trying to crush cockroaches with a sledgehammer.
It's time to change. Time to lose the sledgehammer and bring out the bug traps.

This is not surrender. It is not retreat. It is strategy.
If only the loons could see this.

Profits

Can one of you nice connected people out there help the ol' Small town Hick with the answer to a question?
Haliburton has been in charge of supplying the Army in Iraq since the beginning, as well as running the reconstruction. Last I heard, ther had been overcharging for gasoline (something that seems to have dropped off the radar), and the troops were still having to provide their own body armor and hummer plates.
A Haliburton subsidiary has been in charge of the Katrina cleanup, and recently the news has been that KBR has been bringing in illegals and underpaying them for the work. I haven't been hearing any cheering from the bleachers about KBR keeping the price of the cleanup down, so I assume they've been billing the government for proper salaries, even if they haven't been paying them.
So, my question - does anybody have any idea, even an estimate, of how much money Haliburton has been paid by the government since the election of George W. Bush?
And how much of that is profit?

Losing Patience

I am losing patience.
Losing patience with the Bush government, with the conservative blogs, with the liberals, with everybody.

The White House has said "These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs."
The White House has said "More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
The question is, Is the White House giving bipartisan Senate investigations the same information that the House and Senate received during the buildup to war, ie. wrong information?

I am sick and tired of all the defenders of the "CIA should be able to torture" argument.
Even assuming - assuming - that the information acquired by torture can be trusted, ie. is not being made up on the spot just to stop the torture,
If the enemy knows we are torturing people, they will take countermeasures.
Torture is not new, and neither are the ways to circumvent torture. Giving out information on a need-to-know basis, giving false info to people likely to be captured, and so on.
Reliable intelligence is the kind the enemy doesn't know we are collecting - informants, hidden microphones, phone taps, and so on. Especially informants - nothing is better than someone on the inside who likes you more than them.
Unfortunately, you must be more likeable than they are. With all that's happened over the last few years, that isn't likely.
In fact, it is possible that the enemy is getting information from us. Lots of liberals hate Bush right now, including all the people in the intelligence departments who keep leaking damaging information to the press. Who's to say that one isn't leaking someting to Al-Qaida, too?

And now: Is WP a chemical weapon? No. It's an incendiary, like napalm.
OK. Technically, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. TNT is a chemical weapon, because TNT is a chemical. However, we don't classify TNT that way. There are explosive weapons, there are solid shot weapons.
And there are all the other weapons. White Phosphorus counts as one of those.
Is it inhumane? Does it cause a lot of suffering?
Yes. So is TNT and the spent uranium in the anti-tank shells.
Next question.

The Queen of England is now on the Al-Qaida hit list. Near the top, no less. Not bad for a figurehead with no legislative power.

And the Iowa activists have announced that anyone who opposes Alito's nomination can forget about running for president next time. Oh, this is RICH!
1) The people who will be opposing Alito will be running for SENATE. And only two of those will be affected by an Iowa vote. Plus, with the current mood of the country, the Iowa activists may turn out to be 1% of the vote.
2) Anyone who hitches his wagon to the Bush star can probably forget about being president next time. The record of the current government - scandal, cronyism, overspending, incompetence - means that thre next conservative who runs against the neo-conservatives is likely to run them out of town.

Iran may have nuclear weapons. We need to do something about it.
Too bad our troops are conmmitted to a job they shouldn't have to be doing, isn't it?

I've had enough for one post.

I want to know.

I want to get to the bottom of this.
Blogs for Bush says that there isn't a grain of truth in the anti-war arguments, and that they are aiding the enemy.
Well, the enemy is in retreat, and there are still a lot of questions that even I want to know.

I want to know where the WMDs are. There are 4 possibilities.
1) They exist, and the US found them. If this is true, then the Bush government should be publishing photos, instead of letting all this speculation go on.
2) They exist, but we never found them. If so, then why did we call off the search? Are we just going to let enriched uranium sit under the sands somewhere until somebody accidentally finds it?
3) They exist, but they're no longer in Iraq. If so, then somebody's got a LOT of explaining to do. We went to war to destroy the WMD. If Al-Qaida got away with them, and perhaps also looted one of Saddam's arsenals (unsecured at the time by US troops.), then the war is a bust.
4) They don't exist. Supported, if by nothing else, by the changing explaination for the war - was WMD, then was Remove Saddam - this would be a horrible crime to have perpetrated upon the United States Armed Forces and their families.
I want proof. One way or the other.

Second, I want to know who's lying in the Plame case.
The case is not a farce, as some on the right have said. The evidence may be a farce - the case is deadly serious. An intelligence system in disarray, trying to bring down a sitting president - this is NOT a farce.

Third, I want to know what's being done about Al-Qaida.
Bin Ladin's still out there. Agents are still blowing things up.
Fighting the terrorists who don't happen to be in Iraq is a matter for US intelligence. Which may want to bring down the government more than it wants to save the country.
The police will not help us against terrorists. We ALL have to be involved. We all have to know what we're dealing with, and what to look for.
We're not being told.
This is total war, people, against an enemy that strikes from the shadows, and looks like the kids from the tenaments. England and France have both been struck, not by Iraqi, but by people who have lived in those countries all their lives.
They live in New York, too. And Los Angeles.

I want to know these things.
So do you. Whether you say so or not.

Australia

There you go.
You get a pro-democracy, anti-terrorist population together, and you get informants willing to rat out terrorist cells.
As soon as the Iraqi learn this, Iraq will settle down.

Who's Right?

Whatever you think of George W. Bush, he is a second term president. He will not be re-elected.
Who should be the next Republican candidate for President of the United States?

I just watched West Wing, and I was very impressed by Alan Alda's performance. I wouldn't mind voting for the character he portrayed. However, seeing as Vinnick is fictional, we need to ask ourselves whether we can elect someone like him. In other words, how close can we come?
We need someone with the right mix of morals, integrity, force, and intelligence to lead the US out of what is going to be a rough decade. The current scandals, like it or not, pretty much exclude Bush's inner circle.
Any suggestions? The floor is open.

France

Nobody has a national identity more distinct than the French.
From language to cooking to history, French culture is legendary.
That may be the problem.
You see, French arrogance is also a byword. To a frenchman, the world is divided into the French and the barbarians. The French voted down the EU constitution mainly because it would have forced the French to treat other Europeans as though they were French - intolerable!
And now we have riots..
They say it's the rise of the Muslims. Hogwash. It's the rise of the Africans. It's the Watts Riots, moved to Europe. No clansman, no redneck sheriff, was ever more intolerant of non-whites than the French. It's taken an extra 40 years, but desegregation is finally coming to France.
Too bad there was no French Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King to speak out for non-violent change. Or maybe there was, and we English speakers never heard them.
Well, it's done now. The French have two choices - integration, or a "final solution".
And despite what a lot of my colleagues have said about surrender monkeys in the past, they may choose the latter this time.

No Torture

U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney asked Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions from a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody.
Mr. Cheney told his audience the United States doesn't engage in torture, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

Dear Mr. Cheney.
No.

Torture is wrong. It is UnChristian, it is immoral, it is unethical.
I will not live under a system of government that condones torture.
Everything that my father fought for in WW2, and my grandfather in WW1, was to save us from having to live under a regime that condones things like torture.

We are not terrorists. We are not torturers.
Other nations have turned to terrorism and torture, both against others and against their own people. They do it because it is effective, they do it to maintain order, they do it to maintain their positions.
Their excuse has been that it keeps the trains running on time. Their excuse has been that they are trying to keep communists from destablizing their governments.
Their real excuse is that they are willing to do anything to keep themselves in power.

They are not us. I am willing to die rather than become a torturer. I WILL NOT support a government of sadists, of butchers, of gestapo. I will not support a policy that will destroy the dignity of this nation, or discard all that generations of good men have fought for.

Mr. Cheney, this country will survive with dignity, or not at all. We are members of the Republican party, not the Donner party. We do not do whatever it takes to survive. There are fates worse than death.

Bias

The latest argument against the nomination of Samuel Alito goes like this: His nomination would leave the Supreme Court with 7 white men, one woman, and one black.
OK. Help the ol' Small Town Hick out with this. A case comes up to the Supreme Court, and Justice "X" says "This is an interesting case. A pity my fellow justices cannot see the nuances that I can, seeing as I grew up in the ghetto."
Are not "nuances" in this case the same as "biases"? Are the things we are really looking for in minority nominees not a set of preconceptions that rich educated Americans do not have?
Are we saying that the Supreme Court rules, not by the law, but by deciding in favor of "their" group? And that what we want now is that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of "our" group?
If so, I am in favor of disbanding what has become just another battleground for liberals and conservatives, and let the elected figures fight it out.

By the way, if you'd like to see more of the kinds of legal reforms The Hick would like to see, go to this website.
http://www.StellaAwards.com

Bullets

The Newhouse News Service stated yesterday that U.S. troops are running out of .50-caliber ammunition -- "in some cases dusting off crates of World War II machine gun rounds and shipping them off to combat units."

I thought the country was on a war footing. I thought the country was at war. I haven't heard any news about a surrender or peace treaty, other than that "Mission Accomplished" banner.

So why aren't the munition plants running 24/7?
For that matter, why are the troops STILL waiting for hummer armor?

Every conservative website say "Support the Troops" on it somewhere. Where's the support?

20 million People.

That is how many will receive a flu vaccine under the current plan outlined by President Bush.
What is the current population, again?

Should America be moving towards a Canadian-style medical system?
That is, in essence, what is being contemplated when the Presdident states that Americans need to have vaccines against any flu that comes along, avian or otherwise.
After all, why stop there. Should we defend ourselves against influenza, only to die from the newest version of typhoid or cholera? Shouldn't the US stockpile, at government expense, agents against every disease, ready to give out should one develop into a pandemic?

Sounds expensive.

Feel Free to Disagree.

We're not so different, Liberals and Conservatives, Muslim and Christian.
We all want a good woman, a fat wallet, and the right to make everybody in the world think and act the way we want.

Yes, you too, liberals. Tell me you're willing to make conservation voluntary. Or gun control. Tell me you'd be willing to allow racist free speech.
You too, conservatives. Many of you are good this way, but there's still a few of you out there willing to start and end an argument with the word "moonbat".

I WELCOME free speech, especially the kind I don't like, don't agree with, and/or think is incorrect. The only way to fight bad ideas is with good ideas - and the only way to get bad ideas to fight is to get them out where everybody can see them.

Political correctness is incorrect.
Gun Control is useless. Untrained gun owners deserve to get killed.
Racial epithets are acceptable. By both sides. At least the hate is out in the open.
Bullies remain bullies whether you give them councelling or a smackdown.
A central government is good for a few things, but local government should handle the bulk of all governing.
Replace every sentence of a year in prison with a week of torture. Less expensive, easier to compensate the falsely convicted, and a "life sentence" becomes more of a deterrent.
Anything that happens in the house, stays in the house. If they bring it outside, THEN intervene.
Introduce sex at a young age. Include pictures. By the time they reach puberty, it won't look so desireable. Especially if the pictures are of real people, rather than airbrushed 15 year old Asians.

Feel free to disagree.
But include arguments. Simple objections will be ignored. I have the right to do so.