Pelosi wins....How does that make you feel luxury NYC RE: sellers

no american soldiers. and there is no risk to american citizens by our leaving afghanistan.

so...now that i've answered your question...how about mine.

are you going to fight? if not, how much are you willing to pay others to fight for you?

No cc, that is not what you said earlier. You said you supported military action after 9/11. Military action puts our soldiers at risk. So what was the number of soldiers you were willing to put at risk?
Thanks for showing everyone you are either dumb or a liar. Or both, given that I am not sure anyone can be stupid enough to think we would not be more at risk if we ran from Afghanistan.

81 coalition soldiers were killed in the first two years of combat in afghanistan. the mission began as finding and bringing to justice/killing osama and his henchmen.

as noted earlier, the bush administration bungled that effort not the least because of the absurd focus in iraq. having not completed that mission within two years nor having a credible plan to complete it in a reasonable time frame, we should have left.

just as there is no evidence whatsoever of a connection between iraq and al queda there is no evidence that our continued presence in afghanistan makes americans any safer in any way.

so once again---what about my question?

how much are you willing to contribute to keep this nonsense going? are you willing to enlist?

You have no idea what I do with my money or how I support our troops, so your questions are as dumb now as they were before.

So 81 is your number? You are ok with 81 soldiers killed, but no more than that regardless of the threat to the U.S.?

The initial mission was not just to find and kill Osama and his henchman. The mission also was to remove the Taliban and the safe haven for terrorist training and planning in Afghanistan. If you knew anything substantive about the tensions in the Middle East, you would know that the problems in Afghanistan are linked to problems and objectives in Pakistan and Pakistan's hostility with India.

You really have to be totally jaded politically or a complete idiot to say that our mission in Afghanistan in no way relates to the safety of Americans.

you're right i have no idea what you do with your money....that's why i keep asking. how much are you willing to pay to keep this going? what is our current mission in afghanistan? there is clearly disagreement in the government. joe biden would give you one answer and gates another one? how can we continue if we can't agree on the mission?

how can you say that the mission relates to the safety of americans if you cannot even articulate the mission. which particular americans are safer? its clear which americans are less safe.

have you read the press accounts of the afghani people's feelings about our occupation? were more or less afghani's killed as a result of our 9 years there? do you care?

http://www.pointoflaw.com/medicinelaw/

Interesting political maneuvering last week in the House Judiciary Committee over medical malpractice reform prior to the House debating H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

In late October, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the committee, introduced what's known as a "resolution of inquiry," a vehicle for seeking information from the executive branch, in this case the Department of Justice. H.Res.871 asked for...

copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication--

(1) received from the American Association for Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and any of its members, since January 20, 2009, that refers or relates to any recommendation regarding medical malpractice reform; or

(2) that references the American Association for Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, or any of its members, and refers or relates to any recommendation regarding medical malpractice reform, since January 20, 2009.

The resolution came before the committee's business meeting on November 4. Rather than prompt a lengthy discussion of the health care bill's lack of serious tort reform -- the primary reason for the resolution in the first place -- Chairman John Conyers let committee speedily vote it out with no recommendation, and the resolution was sent to Justice.

All that occurred on November 5. And on November 6, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded, reporting that "no such documents were found." (Copy of the DOJ letter here.)

Really? REALLY? Nobody from AAJ has written, e-mailed or otherwise communicated with the Department of Justice about medical malpractice reform? And the Department was able to determine the lack of correspondence in just a single day?

Astonishingly quick work. Curious result. It would be an interesting exercise for someone to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to DOJ seeking the same information.

http://www.shopfloor.org/wp-content/uploads/dojletterconyerssmith.pdf

You really think the Afghani people feel things were better with the Taliban in power?

Some people on these boards say the dumbest things . . .

The idea that Pelosi or Obama want health care reform in order to reduce costs and improve the quality of health care is a canard. They are doing this to increase government power and control in our society.
How can anyone say they are serious about health care reform while at the same time refuse to address medical malpractice reform?

I'd cited $500,000,000,000 a while back. Not a good guesser. The CBO estimated $752 billion as of nearly two years ago: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8971/02-11-WarCosts_Letter.pdf. The NYT estimated one trillion the other day. I can't even get my head around numbers like that, and would rather take my chances with the occasional stray terrorist. Like Europe in the '70s.

Its interesting how psychology works. I am sure more people are in danger by crossing train tracks in cars than by terrorists. We wont build car tunnels but we'll spend a trillion dollars on a groundless ground war in Iraq.

1. i think the afghani people are sick and tired of our string of broken promises dating back more than 20 yrs. we cannot take care of our own problems much less fix others. you don't seem to realize that our puppet president in afghanistan is just as bad as the taliban.

2. do you really think that barack obama set out to become the first black president of the united states in order to increase government control of our society? why would he or anyone else want that? does it occur to you that the policies of neglect have not worked?

Wow, just when I thought I understood the depths (heights?) of LICCs stupidity... I thought people this ignorant lived in other parts of the country. Thank god there is a river between us. You should all go over there. I hear there are plenty of condos and rentals available.

Maybe a condo in Kabul?

Kabul has less price downside than Long Island City.

But it does have the benefit of distance.

cc, do you live in a cave somewhere? Obama basically campaigned on the premise of bigger government and more government involvement in everything.

Rhino - haven't you figured out yet that you are a joke on this board. Say something backed by logic or data and then we'll possibly take you seriously.

aboutready, I see you are still spewing insults against other people's neighborhoods and homes from your apartment in . . . Peter Cooper Village. (chuckle)

you never answer a question do you?

to review:

1.have you read the press accounts of the afghani people's feelings about our occupation? were more or less afghani's killed as a result of our 9 years there? do you care?

2. what is our mission?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question
Argument By Question:

asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?"

Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it.

Variants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

here's one for you: why don't you go away and stay away? do you have any idea how irritating you are? would you care if you knew?

The point is its easy to support a war that other people fight and die in. Is it really the best use of life and money to the end of protecting US citizens from terrorists? Almost certainly not. Further, should protection of US citizens from terrorists be as huge a monetary and humand life priority as it has been made?

and worst of all--is there any real evidence that our ongoing involvement in afghanistan does anything to suppress potential terrorists?

Ok to push back on you a little CC...could such evidence really ever be produced? Can we prove advertising works, yet we're pretty sure it does. Granted this is life at risk. I would accept the premise that an Al Quida free Afghanistan. I just like the idea of spending a few trillion training covert super soldiers to hunt terrorists under cover of darkness...rather than rolling tanks around.

that's precisely the problem i.e. rampant mistrust of our government from both republicans and democrats. if the evidence can't be produced, we shouldn't go forward. trust me has evaporated due in no small part to george bush and iraq. at this point, our government has become the boy who cried wolf.

Of course people who make intelligent, logically sound statements that make columbiacounty's comments look foolish would irritate her.

I'm glad that most people aren't as silly and reckless as you two when it comes to fighting against terrorists who plot to do mass harm to Americans.

how much are you willing to pay for this? who's fighting on your behalf? we know its not you.

Does it make you feel better to babble stupid questions over and over again? So according to you, a person is not allowed to have a view in favor of military action unless they are actually in the military in an active combat zone. Err, sure . . .

Military might is important. Diplomacy without leverage is begging and that does not work.

no...with a volunteer rather than general draft army, there has to be much more rigorous oversite of what is an acceptable mission and what is not. how long do you think the war in afghanistan or iraq would have lasted if soldiers were being drafted from the general population? this concept that we as a democratic country can somehow fight wars for this length of time without any change in the day to day lives of the majority of our citizens is dangerous and misguided.

war should be a serious complete committment. that's why i keep asking you how much you're willing to contribute to this war? and you never answer.

I am not willing to contribute myself, family or friends. nor am i willing to contribute any more money. but of course i have no (and according to you, luckily so) control over that.

are you willing for the united states to stay another 10 years or more at a cost of at least another trillion dollars and untold numbers of lives? why do you think the rest of the so called coalition is pulling out? because they're not as tough as you?

Iraq war was a mistake, the pretext proved false. There were no weapons despite it being reasonable to assume there was. Worse was the argument linking Hussein a secular dictator to a religious fundamentalist. The action in Afghanistan had a better argument, Al Qaeda clearly declared war on the U.S. and its better to fight that on foreign soil and where they are hiding as opposed to the World Trade Center. Plus one has only needs to look at a map to see what is also at stake. That said Gorbachev makes a valid point about the win-ability aspect of this. Not sure how I feel at the moment. What I do know is that there were two very sincere people before world war II(Neville Chamberlain & Winston Churchill). History has judged one more as being more correct than the other.

I have not read this whole blog... just opened it because it has been going on so long and I was curious. So please forgive me if this has already been said. If we took that money and built schools, and educated and trained people to make a living, there would be no way Al Qaeda would be the least bit attractive to the Afghani people. We are going about this completely wrong. Read Three Cups of Tea. We will not win the hearts of the Afghani people through war.

Religion....the root of all evil....only 2 options have ever existed that offer any chance of success

1. Ban all religion, especially the big ones...

2. Bomb them all and let God sort them out.

Its just a fucking shame how the atheists have been paying the price in money, loss of life and peace of mind because of all the dirty bastards the fall prey to religion.

an atheist wants to "bomb them all" and says religion is the root of all evil?
could not let that one go by

river;; you silly gooose.

Nobody said an atheist wants to bomb them all! Nor did I type that I am an atheist.

damn i thought riversider was a gas bag; now i discover the truth---a silly goose.

WTF are they thinking trying these terrorists in civilian courts?

Our jury system and system of civil rights is a privilege for Americans. Not for the whole world. Certainly not for people who attack America.

And the ACLU is supporting this. Why? What did the ACLU not understand about the A in its name?

But back to real estate. This zoo for the next ?? weeks in lower Manhattan is definitely going to create some problems downtown especially in the City Hall/Tribeca/LES areas.

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/11/16/cms-memo/

Was the other thread about these terrorist trials removed by SE?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."

...his objection is based on fiscal risk: "Once the government creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without limit," he says. "With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next 10 years...we've got to start saying no to some things like this."