Slashdot Mirror
Senator Arlen Specter Becomes a Democrat
Akido37 was one of many readers letting us know that US Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties to become a Democrat. This gives the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate, and 60 if and when Al Franken gets seated from Minnesota. However, Specter said in his announcement that he will not be an automatic 60th vote for breaking Republican filibusters. While the senator's move seems to have surprised many Republicans, it is understandable to moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who said, "You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us." Specter noted that in his home state of Pennsylvania, 200,000 formerly Republican voters switched party allegiance last year.
This does pose a dramatic shift in the balance of power. While a lot of votes do go on party lines, often most of what happens is self interest, with politicians doing what is most likely to keep them in office. Specter is just doing a better job of staying with the times rather than any real change in his personal convictions.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Specter noted that in his home state of Pennsylvania, 200,000 formerly Republican voters switched party allegiance last year.
So you switched your allegiance cuz it would give u better chance to keep getting elected, Mr. Specter, regardless of your actual political beliefs? (Not that I think either party is that different from the other)
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
While I may support Democrats more than the Republicans, I find the general principle of changing parties mid-term a disgusting and cowardly betrayal of trust.
You were elected as a Republican, for better or for worse. You should either finish your term as one, or if you can no longer consider yourself a Republican, resign. At the next election, feel free to run as a Democrat or whoever the hell you want. But for this term, you should act for the people who elected you. That's the principle of representative democracy.
I'd even accept the compromise of, when one leaves or is kicked out of the party, he/she should have the right to stay as an Independent member until the next election. But joining a party different from the one you were elected under, in the middle of your term, should be outright unconstitutional.
This just goes to show that the neo-cons have brought the Republican party to its knees. When are they going to learn. They now have the "fiscal conservative" religion, but there is a lot of doubt whether they can follow through with what they can say.
Fiscal policies aside, their doom was being so darn war driven. Not that the Dems aren't, but they took it to a new level.
Specter would have been smarter to have went independent. Does he really need a party? He has the name recognition.
The sooner this happens, the sooner an economic collapse could occur, and the sooner people might wake up to the idiocy of government intervention into the economy. Not likely, but a much better choice than this constant limping along that we get from bipartisanship and lip service to "freeing the market".
Nerds are citizens, therefore we have an interest in this. We aren't idiots, therefore we don't have an interest in celebrity news.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You know, this is a good move for Pennsylvania. Spector has been demonized by his own party for some time now. VERY wierd for a 30 year senator in a party that embraced Ted Stevens so fondly.
One of the important parts of all this is that Democrats agreed not to run a candidate against him in the primaries. The GOP has at least 3 candidates they wanted to run against him in the primaries before he made the switch.
The thing about the GOP that really sucks is that it eats it's own when it loses. Spector is not the only senator who has been castigated by his own party in a state that is becoming more progressive. Don't be surprised to see this happen again in the next 12 months.
M
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Remain calm! All is well!
To quote a smart man, "Gee - big surprise."
The GOP has shrunk a great deal in the last 4 years. Moderates and Independents left the party. Millions of them.
The result is a GOP that is far more conservative than it was as recently as the 2004 election.
BushCo drove so many sane people out of the GOP that the only people left are of the dyed-in-the-wool variety.
Such a party is not going to nominate a moderate. Specter knew that. Everybody knew that.
The people of PA have re-elected Specter many times. By switching parties he's preventing a small group of very conservative voters from restricting the people of PA from electing somebody they've supported over and over in the past.
This would all be moot if PA, like most states, had open primaries where registered dems and indies could vote in the GOP primary if they chose to do so.
Well you, or at least others on your side, wanted America to lose a war for the same reason just a few years ago.
So big whoop.
----(o)----
Republicrat or Democan, the only difference is where their pocket change comes from (and it doesn't come from We, the people).
Sure, sure, they each use different issues to trap you into voting against the other guy (who really votes *FOR* anyone these days?). But each side knows they need the other and that no matter who has the majority the "big" issues can't ever be completely done away with (what would they run on then?).
And they really didn't care how many Iraqis would die if we pulled out of Iraq.
The problem with wanting a collapse is that they'll somehow pin it on capitalism (ie freedom) and then proceed to reduce freedom.
The worst kind of slavery is the one you choose for yourself.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Nope. Nobody on 'my side' has ever wanted America to lose a war. Try again. Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
tl;dr version:
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I'm rich and i shouldn't have to have any responsibility for the things i do to others, the environment or economy! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! YOU'RE ALL POOR BECAUSE YOU ALL STINK!"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
You are basing your argument on the classical philosophy that a vote, when cast for a person, essentially places trust in that person to serve as he or she sees fit, for the duration of his term.
I call that position bullshit and reject it in principle. I refuse to place unconditional trust in a politician, or be so naive as to believe that he is indeed there to serve his constituency. Politicians will always do what is in their self interest (wow, just like the rest of us). That's why we have the party system, so we have an extra layer of protection. We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.
Partisanism has lots of problems, but I firmly believe that the extra layer of safeguarding against do-what-I-fuckin-like politicians makes it worthwhile. We don't place unlimited trust in the guy, we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
If someone WANTS to run under the platform of "unlimited trust", he should run as Independent. There's a reason why almost nobody gets elected as one.
I had to laugh when I read, "they're becoming more conservative" because that's what Bush was for the last 8 years. It's a little late to be saying you don't like it. He might as well come on the record and say we shouldn't invade Iraq....oops, late on that one too. Switching primaries is an interesting approach. I guess his voting record can or will sink him.
Bush was a conservative? Compared to Stalin, sure, Bush was a conservative. On social issues, sure, Bush was a conservative. But on the economy? No. Conservatives don't grow the government. Bush did.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Being a libertarian, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I think that most politicians are crooks. But do you have any idea how irrational & childish you sound?
There is a huge difference between wanting your country out of a war & wanting your country to *lose* a war.
There is a war going on for your mind.
>90% of Americans think that way. It's funny to sit on the outside and see Democrats fear monger about the Patriot act being a horrible piece of legislation that the Republicans put into place, then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Anecdotes are not evidence. And oddly enough, everyone who is against universal health care has an anecdote just like yours. You guys must all be well traveled!
I have an anecdote too. My wife broke her ankle recently. She spent eight hours waiting in the emergency room. Her primary care physician is so booked up, she couldn't get in for a month, even with a broken ankle. And we HAVE health care coverage.
The fact is, we pay four times the amount of the next most expensive health care system in the world. And measured by life expectancy, child mortality rates, and so on, our health care system provides outcomes similar to a third world country.
Your 'friend' in England must not have realized he can get top quality private health care there, and that it costs less because the hospitals bill directly. Maybe you can tell him?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And the debunked point hits again! Republicans are the only ones who actually want anything to fail. Find any Democrat of any national significance who has actually made a statement about wanting a collapse, please.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
I know a few Canadians who would disagree with you.
Here's an example: a good friend of is a Canadian, and he and I chat 3-4 times a week regularly for the last 4-5 years. He's pretty liberal leaning, and while I think I'm more moderate most of you would probably describe me as more conservative leaning. A lot of times our conversations turn to politics, healthcare in particular so for several years he's been just absolutely sure that Canada's healthcare system is better no matter how much I argued and tried to persuade him it wasn't.
Anyway, xmas 2008 and he takes his family down to Florida for some vacation in the sun, and his son gets hurt and has to go to the emergency room, doctors, dentists, maxio-facial specialists, etc... - basically spent the entire vacation in Florida caring for his son.
So a couple weeks later he gets back and he just can't stop raving about how well his son was treated in the United States, how fast he got his treatment, how quickly he could see a specialist, etc.. And even though he had to pay some out of pocket, it was not nearly so much as he had thought it would be.
All I could say was "See - I told you so", and he finally admits that I was right - you do get better quality of care in the United States than you do in Canada.
When was the last time someone left the United States and went to Canada for treatment ?
Anyway, there is basically no point in debating that the quality of care if you can afford it is better in the United States - all the people from other countries that come here just for healthcare is proof of that.
The correct term is universal health bureaucracy, there is no care involved.
Says the guy who obviously hasn't yet had to face a serious health problem without coverage or with inadequate health insurance. I know, you shouldn't be made to suffer just because of the poor choices made by others to have genetic disorders, evil employers or the lack of foresight to grow older.
If you think having government administered health coverage vs. private coverage will result in more bureaucracy, then you just haven't had to deal with your health insurance provider yet.
I am not a crackpot.
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"In other words, if you're not near death, you can't see someone who can actually help you"
Last year I had an earache. I knew I wasn't dying but it was a bit annoying. I phoned the doctor's surgery, they gave me an appointment that evening. I went to see the doc and he checked my ear, gave me a prescription for ear drops which I took to the chemist and it sorted out my minor infection.
Parent's poster is wrong. You don't need to be near death to see somebody who can help you.
Oh these Americans, so over dramatic.
Perhaps that was the problem, I wonder if the American friend went to the local doc and explained "OH MY GOD DOC! I've been sharing a house with a SMOKER, for TWO WHOLE DAYS, I think I've got CANCER, and I AM DYING!". I can imagine a British doc saying "yes yes well calm down, have you had any extreme symptoms? No? well, let me do a check... everything seems in order. How about you ask your friend to stop smoking in the house or perhaps you move to another flat. Get out and take up a little exercise as well."
I think the doctor would be sitting there thinking that if the problem was the guy was living with a smoker, why didn't he move and so solve his problem?
As another poster has noted, we have public health services in the UK but also private doctors, nobody stops you going to a private doctor if you want to pay.
(ok I've been a little jolly in this post and apologies I am sure your friend was in distress and I wish them well... but you did set me up a bit there. You suggest that "health care is something to be earned and not a right" and then complain your friend who'd been living in the UK for only one year couldn't get free specialist treatment. Why didn't he go and pay for a private specialist?).
Rather than "Republican in Name Only" or "Democrat in Name Only", we should call them "Human Beings". The rest might as well be robots programmed to agree with party leadership.
"Eh. Specter is an old school reagan-ish republican."
There is nothing even remotely "Reagan-ish" about Arlen Specter. The only principle Specter has ever had are the ones that keep Arlen Specter in power. Though it puts the GOP in a painful disadvantage in the Senate, I am well and truly glad to see him gone. Besides the shiny new (D) beside his name, the only difference in Specter is that now he'll have to stab the Republicans in the front.
And Democrats, while you're happy about your new supposedly filibuster proof majority, consider this; if history is any indication, sooner or later you'll need Specter's vote on something. And he'll screw you guys too. When a whore leaves her husband for another man, does she ever really stop being a whore?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Considering your own ideology to be more important than the wellbeing of everyone else is the hallmark of libertarianism.
What part of "News for nerds" is this? I could understand a lot of the Obama stuff because it's reporting the tech related things. But where's the tech angle here?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The Government has all business providing the things it provides.
Poverty sucks and until all of the hyper rich decide to transparently run the programs that would replace Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, etc, someone has to do it.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
So do you actually intend to trivialize the atrocities going on in one nation to make your own pet projects appear in greater need, or are you just putting on a very convincing illusion?
The morality of going into Iraq can be debated for hours on end, but in the end, what was done cannot be undone. It does, however, put a much more immediate responsibility on those who do it to fix the problem they caused, whatever the cost. This is not pleasant, but duty isn't always. Right now, we have more immediate responsibilities than Somalia. We are, thanks to our new President, abandoning them to an incompetent -dare I say, saboteur- government that spends a lot of time acting as though it actually wants the insurgency to take over.
This is what the liberals want. Loss may not be the first thing on their mind -I would certainly hope it isn't- but it is an inevitable and foreseeable consequence of what they want, and they appear to accept this. Why, then, do they act surprised when people believe that losing is in fact a desired goal, when it is clearly at the very least an acceptable cost?
You're bascially making the point that the Canadian system is better--it was the Canadian system that paid for everything except his out of pocket costs, and that they were low (as opposed to what they would have been with US employer-provided insurance) is due to Canadian copayer standards.
BTW, I somewhat agree with you--the best of both worlds is to be covered by Canada but be touristing in a wealthy part of the US when the emergency strikes--my dad had a similar experience.
Remain calm! All is well!
We have so many laws and regulations now...it is crippling, and all that having majority does, is bring on MORE laws and regulations. We need a 'reset' not more laws, but, that will never happen.
IMHO, the government governs best when it is in gridlock.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, Barry is in charge now.
Why aren't we in Somalia?
Why aren't we in Darfur?
Why did North Korea start up it's reactors again?
I suspect that many of Barry's supports will either be disappointed about the lack of intervention in their trendy causes or will be silent about it.
It's one thing to bitch about the other guy and another thing altogether to be in charge and make decisions and stand behind them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
While I agree with you in principle, I think your numbers might be a bit off. The ones I find indicate the U.S. is paying between 20% and 50% more than the next highest country (per capita). U.S. citizens pay about twice as much for health care as the average of all the other industrialized countries. However, it places second to last in terms of effectiveness among the industrialized nations, only beating New Zealand. World-wide the U.S. ranks 37th world-wide according to the WHO, and the only North American or European country it seems to beat in terms of health care results is Mexico.
So yeah, the U.S. system is a raw deal for U.S. citizens.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Why should we?
We should only do things that protect and spin things in the interests of our country. That is what our country is for, to protect and promote our interests, nothing more.
Anything we do, charity wise, while good....is just a plus, it is not the responsibility nor job description of our government.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If the ideology we're talking about is the unconstitutional, moderate socialism that we have now thanks to both parties, then certainly it's broken. Maybe we could try capitalism and the rule of law next?
Revive the Constitution.
"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment [nytimes.com] that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. ''What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,'' said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one's detention to the Magna Carta"
The amendment failed. And he voted for the bill anyways. Even though he said that without the amendment, it set back basic rights by 900 years. Please explain how your context shows he was being anything but a hypocrite.
I came here for a good argument
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power.
You'd think we would have learned by now not to keep putting new regimes in power, just to have them become our Mortal Enemies (TM) 10 years later.
This has everything to do with Arlen's political survival (aka pulling a Lieberman) as he was about to be voted out of office in the Republican primary there.
And I'm not sure that it's a clear cut win for Democrats... Arlen will be an uncertain ally at best, and negates the Democrats ability to run someone really far to the left against Toomey in PA which I'm sure they would have loved to do. So, a mixed bag. Arlen's effectively been a democrat (or at least not a republican) for many years now anyways, so while this is a PR blow to be sure it won't change much as far as senate politics are concerned.
As far as Arlen trying to say the GOP has moved right since Reagan's days? Hogwash, they've moved left and become indistinguishable from Democrats which is why they're being punished by the voters. Arlen's own appeal to Reaganism is offset by a quote from the man himself:
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It cannot compromise
its fundamental beliefs for political expediency, or simply to swell its
numbers. It is not a social club or fraternity engaged in intramural contests
to accumulate trophies on the mantel over the fireplace...No one can quarrel
with the idea that a political party hopes it can attract a wide following,
but does it do this by forsaking its basic beliefs? By blurring its own image
so as to be indistinguishable from the opposition party?"
Personally, I'm glad Arlen made his selling out official. Republicans may be down and out right now, but the path back does not involve selling out our principles.
K go ahead and mod me down now. :-)
> Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
Actually, no we aren't. If anything we are even more divided on the basic notions that should decide the basic course of political affairs than we were in the 1860s.
On one side you have the social democrats (Democratic Party) who want, being charitable, European Welfare Socialism and Big Sister. On teh other side are those who still think the Founding Fathers were on to something. And there isn't much room for compromise between worldviews so divergent. The Democrats have long understood and I think important elements of the Conservative movement (not the Republicans as of yet) now realize that we are fast approaching a 'there can be only one' point in history, where one side must finally confront and defeat the other.
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state. The other is a miracle where the Democrats, as they neared the moment of triumph overreach and are thrown down by an outraged population and we live happily ever after in a land of liberty with low taxes and regulation... for a time until a new generation must learn the same lessons again, that Freedom ain't Free and that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Democrat delenda est
LOl...I too wonder what you're smoking, or where you're from, but, your outlook and opinions certainly aren't of the majority of ANY group of people I've known.
If given enough money to live the rest of their lives comfy...like a major lottery win. I've venture to guess (and would put money on it) that the vast majority of them would not work in the sense of a job again.
Personally, I certainly wouldn't. I had a nice taste of it between contracts awhile back. I was off for 7 months...and I LOVED it. Aside from not having money coming in and having to watch some expenses...I found plenty to do with my time other than work or do anything remotely looking like a job.
I got up daily, walked the dog, jumped on my motorcycle, hit the gym for a couple hours...after than, I'd ride around town, figure out where to get a cold beer or two, and meet up with friends somewhere after they got off work. That was my general day...aside from some days with interviews, or tinkering with a fun project at home. That was it.
I can easily tell you, that if I took home something like $20M in a powerball winning, I'd put it back, live on the interest, and never have a job again. Easy life like listed above, mixed in with travel to fun places.
I applaud your for your apparent altruistic attitude and lifestyle, but, I can assure you....that is not what the majority of people feel.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Over the last couple of years, Sen. Specter has behaved in a manner that is against the core of the party, voting in favor of dozens of high-priced spending bills, in favor of the bailouts, etc
It's weird that Republicans still describe the policies of George W. Bush as "against the core of the party." Give it up, guys: we know you are the OTHER party of big government, big spending, big deficits.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I'm not sure if you are only counting government spending, or also private spending by individuals and companies.
Obviously, there would be more private spending on health care in the US than in other developed countries. But let's just look at government spending:
If you add up all the government spending on health care in the US and in Canada, including federal, state/provincial, and local/municipal governments, and then divide that total by the population of the respective countries, you'd see that government spending on health care, per-capita, is higher in the US than in Canada! In one sense, that means that the US is further down the path to socialism than Canada is (not that I think that either of those countries are very socialist in any practical sense). In theory, a switch in the US to Canadian-style health care systems should allow for lower government expenditures...
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
"It's popular therefore it's right". Thanks for the insight.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
No...BOTH can be corrupted very easily.
I'd just rather take my side on the free market. Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As they say around here -- good luck with that. And besides, you are probably dead by the time it goes to court. And, its cheaper for the (for profit) insurance company to pay out the 1 case that happens to sue and win and deny coverage to (your guess it) increase their profits.
BTW, those losers who are "wasting your retirement funds" -- you mean the ones in your 401(k). How good is the "free market" doing for those these days. Oh, sorry... I forgot, those were run by greedy overpaid bankers.
Um, if my health insurance provider screws me over, I can sue them. You can't sue the government.
Why not? British people occasionally sue the NHS (National Health Service). It doesn't make them very popular -- they're taking public money if they win -- but there's nothing to stop them suing, and sometimes they win.
Amtrack, Postal Service, Social Security... Nope, they all suck.
Because your right-wing governments don't fund them properly.
I don't want my health care decisions handed over to the same group of losers that are wasting my retirement funds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was the insurance companies and the banks that wasted all the money, and it's the insurance company that's deciding your health care.
okay, if we're going to play the "your side" game, you have to look at the other side as well.
The side you refer to 'thinking the Founding Fathers' were on to something also believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power, silencing those who dissent, torture, revoking habeous corpus, forced religion, racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
Read some of President Washington's work and tell me how ANYTHING from the last 8 years even remotely comes close to the Framer's vision!?!?
Face it, both sides are out of touch with the Founding Fathers. Both "sides" are corrupted abominations that offer little in the way of serious social stability with in the original frame work of our Constitution.
The Democrats have long understood and I think important elements of the Conservative movement (not the Republicans as of yet) now realize that we are fast approaching a 'there can be only one' point in history, where one side must finally confront and defeat the other.
Mean while I think the general population of the US is finally coming to the inevitable "there can not be only two" point in history.
There are way more issues than there are sides. Some of those issues the Democrats are more liberal, some of them Republicans are more liberal, hell some of them the Libertarians are more liberal on. Stop thinking of politics as a black and white game, all that type of thinking is doing is shrinking and isolating the once proud Republican movement. Learn to deal with nuance. Work to reform the party based on intellectual debate rather than 5 second sound bites of FUD and maybe we can see a healthy return of the Republican party.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist". We say "socialism" and you hear "communist dictatorship" which is something completely, completely different.
Sort of like how "liberal" is slanderous to you guys... so weird.
Stop thinking in black & white, flush the cold-war era propaganda from your mind, and you'll find there are some excellent lessons to be learned from a system not driven wholy by greed.
Jeremy
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job. They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access. They can pollute your land and kill you, then if you've got anyone left alive to sue them, they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone. Sheer incompetence that shows the Republicans couldn't rebuild New Orleans in the amount of time that it took to rebuild all of Europe after WWII.
Or how about a 'politically cleansed america' where if you do scientific research or have a charity that doesn't follow the narrow government sense or morals you lose your funding. Science books are removed from schools and replaced with religious dogma. Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity, yet a small swear word on tv results in government ordered fines and content sensorship.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Its the Republicans that need to wake up and change their attitude or get the hell out of the country before they destroy it.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I had several years where I didn't work and was free to do whatever I pleased. I volunteered with homeless advocacy groups and soup kitchens for 35 hours a week. It was some of the most fun I've had in my life.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
How is coming to the realization that we lost the same thing as wanting to lose? Did Japan's surrender that ended WWII before his entire country was destroyed mean that Emperor Hirohito wanted to lose? Did the fact that that James Madison signed a peace treaty with the British that under conditions that are equivalent to admitting that we've lost mean that he wanted America to lose the War of 1812?
I wish as much as the most hardcore right winger that we were accepted with open arms in Iraq and that Iraqi citizens were willing to work with us to rebuild their country, but that isn't what happened. No one wanted to (or wants to today, for that matter) lose the war. What the Democrats wanted to do was stop sending our boys off to die overseas just to prove that invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place.
Arlan isn't going to suddenly start voting with the Democratic party (yes, he's crossed the lines occasionally). This is all about his own electability in the 2010 campaign. His numbers were looking atrocious in an increasingly hard-right nomination fight. The only chance he had was to become a Democrat and hope that he can take down an incumbent while riding the moderate fence.
This is a similar tactic...in spirit...to what Joe Lieberman did. Screw party identity, use the convention battles to your advantage. Old Arlan doesn't have ME fooled.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I'm glad to see a proud America loving patriot like yourself is so keen on see to it that the best possible outcome is achieved for our country.
Oh wait, you're just acting like a spoiled prat.
There are true Patriots that will always be concerned about the country first and politics second. I am not claiming that Spector is such a person. But anyone like you who wishes ill to this country just to gain political power is a douche bag that can choke on a dick for all I care.
Feel free to "wait and see". Sit back and enjoy your freedom that so many have fought and died for. Enjoy your life style that generations have strived to make a norm. Enjoy the fruits of others labor. By all means, sit there like a turd on a stump and do nothing as good men and women work dauntlessly on what they each believe to be a way to improve our great nation.
Conservative, Liberal, Moderates, left, right, who cares, at least they are trying to make life better. Unlike whiny douches like you who would happily sit back and watch the country tear itself apart so you can pat yourself on the back.
Way to be a patriot, douche bag.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
New Orleans is squarely in Democrat hands, the Republicans haven't had anything to do with it. The fact that you don't know that just goes to show how good the media is at covering for them.
Really, though, I think jmorris was talking about CONSERVATIVES, which Republicans ain't. Which is why they lost so big in the last election cycle, their own "right wing" base won't support them.
Actually, Conservatives believe in not giving any charities government funding, regardless of belief.
As far as Scientific Funding.... Who was the first US President to dedicate Federal funds to embryonic stem cell research?
Actually that sounds pretty awesome. :)
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that? I don't think so. Hell, I'd be surprised if you came up with an example of a Conservative Republican, period.
Ahh there's that tolerance everyone on the left said was missing during the Bush years. I feel so accepted for my differing viewpoints. Really.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Amtrack, Postal Service, Social Security... Nope, they all suck.
Because your right-wing governments don't fund them properly.
While your general point stands, I just want to point out 2 things: Amtrack sucks, but it's not for a lack of funding - it's the direction, priorities and technologies of Amtrack that make it sucky.
And the second thing I'd like to point out: USPS is an excellent company, looking at the end product, and that is delivered letters and parcels. USPS is cheaper than UPS but they won't destroy the contents of your package (while UPS, for some odd reason, just seems to enjoy to make some, at least little, damage to your shipment/parcel). And USPS is the only postal service that has proven to be 100% reliable - and I have received more than a thousand parcels through them. My opinion of the Finnish post is good, but not as good. Canadian Post resulted to be awful. Egyptian postal service is pure scam - you'll be lucky if every third parcel gets through, fucking bunch of criminals. Croatian post is halfway decent, actually (on par with Deutsche Post/DHL), but nothing like USPS or Finnish post. Royal Mail: too little experience to make a judgement, but their ParcelForce is expensive like hell. For that money they should wrap every parcel in gold foil.
So, anyhow, you can tell I'm a big fan of USPS.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one. Let me guess - you've never had a long term condition, injury or illness that required extensive use of your medical insurance? Believe me - if this ever happens to you, your perception of the issue will change pretty damn fast.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Like this really matters? democrat or republican, yawn, same thing wearing different colors with the same end game. They get the money and we get hosed. Does anyone truly believe there is a difference between the two? Both parties represent Big Government. I don't want to hear all the hot air saying otherwise. WE get taxed to no end to pay for whatever debacle they are funding. With money being siphoned off to cronies and friendly corporations. Specter turning Demcocrat is a non-issue. Fox news was covering it like it was some news worthy event. He is just another politician thats been playing the game for how many years? Pulling down six figures with a nice medical plan, plus a fat pension. Not to mention whatever monies he gets under the table from his corporate sponsers. It makes me laugh that these clowns come off like they are so respectable, so honourable. All I see is a lying sack of shit in a very nice suit. blech, its all bullshit.
Yes, I realize that. But the person he was responding to was talking about Conservatives, not "right wing Republicans"...
Yes, I believe I was the one making that very point.
If you'd of said Pat Buchanan, you may have had a point. But Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? You're saying RUSH LIMBAUGH wants a theocracy? He gets CONSTANT heat from the religious right over how areligious his show is! Next you're going to tell me Bill O'Reilly is a Conservative!
Damn, we started up the Inquisition again? Why wasn't I invited!? I loved the Pit and the Pendulum!
Seriously, though... Lately the only "Agree with us or die!" point of view I've been seeing espoused vis a vis scientific belief has all been coming from the Global Warming camp...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
And here we see the 'reality' the 'Reality Based' crowd lives in.
> ..believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power,
> silencing those who dissent, torture,revoking habeous corpus, forced religion,
> racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
So let me break down your pitiful rant and take it on a charge at a time.
Erosion of civil liberties? You mean the Patriot Act that Obama DIDN'T renounce once he was the one in the hot seat and would be responsible if something went FOOM!, is that what you are on about? The Patriot Act that DIDN'T actually do most of the things the crazies say it does?
Consolidation of executive power always happens during wartime. As someone who leans Libertarian I find it distasteful but can't see a way around the problem. The only solution is to push hard for a return to normal as soon as the Islamic threat is beat back. Of course this is the first war where the party out of power tried to convince itself we weren't actually at war so they could feel justified in continuing the usual politics of national destruction.
"Silencing those who dissent"? Are you insane or do you just believe if you repeat a lie enough it will become the Truth? Name one dissident who has been silenced. We suffered through eight long years of nothing but loud rancourous dissent that crossed the line to treason more than once. How many AMERICAN CITIZENS did BushHitler put in to gulags? You idiots like to preen and think you are brave patriots speaking truth (or at least truthiness) to power but you are wrong. Try it in a real dictatorship and you can earn some actual Karma. You know, places your type loves to proclaim your love of but never get around to relocating to. Say Cuba for one example, they have thousands locked up but I'm sure they could make room for you.
"torture,revoking habeous corpus"
I won't concede that waterboarding is torture, but even if it is we did it to three, yes three, very high value targets. This isn't like we were torturing POWs in WWII who were mostly just conscripts, these were high ranking officers. Furthermore they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions so we would have been perfectly within the laws of war to have simply executed them. And I really don't think you even know what a phrase like habeous corpus even means if you think we have been violating it.
"forced religion" Oh really. Example please? Or are you just regurgitating dailykos propaganda?
"racial profiling and exclusion" If only. Or are you suggesting it makes sense to consider a little old black lady travelling with her children as equally a risk as three twenty something middle eastern men two of which are named after their morally challenged prophet? No we shouldn't get too carried away with the racial profiling, but as a practical matter. For example the recent revelations about KSM's plan for an attack on LA was planned to use Asian (but Muslim) probably to avert suspiscion.
"warmongering" You guys have pretty much turned that phrase into a null, much like overuse has made 'bigot' and 'fascist' pretty empty. Especially since you idiots don't even know 'fascist' means you. Go read Goldberg's _Liberal Fascism_, it might just get ya to start questioning some of your assumptions about a great many things.
Democrat delenda est
You can't even bring yourself to type the name 'Barack.' Why should anyone take you seriously?
At least he didn't "Coulter" it calling him B. Hussein Obama to try to imply that he was related to Saddam or something. Or how about BO? That's a lovely one. I suppose after calling the last one Dubya or BushCo we should all expect this.
The same reason we always meddle, self interests. Its not really complex or difficult to figure out, nor are you particularly impressive to point it out.
Thats not to say that helping others is a bad idea, it serves your self interest as well. I don't mind helping others, but its done knowing full well may eventually serve to help me. All people, religious or otherwise do things only to serve themselves. You don't feed the starving children because its the right thing to do, you feed the starving children because it gives you warm fuzzies or helps you justify some other bad shit you've done.
All animals do things for self interest or die out. Sometimes the things they do for self interest are wrong and they die out anyway. Most humans like to lie about it to themselves and others and pretend they are being selfless. They aren't, they are just liars or in denial. Religious people who 'help others' typically do so because they think it'll help them in Gods eyes, not because they are actually selfless, regardless of what they may tell others or have convinced themselves.
To pretend that anything any animal does isn't for self interest is just total ignorance or stupidity, take you pick.
Back to the point, we're concerned about places in the Middle East more than places like Somalia because RIGHT NOW and in the near future Oil and instability in the middle east is more important to those in power than the problems in Somalia.
Lie to yourself however you want, denial is a great thing, but it changes nothing. We're all animals and we all do things for the same reason, regardless of what we call it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You have a very odd interpretation of socialism. Very few sensible people these days argue that, say, the socialist programs of the New Deal were not extraordinarily helpful in bringing the US economy out of the Great Depression. The existence of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid has been a net benefit to the economy because people no longer need to be regularly (as) worried about dying of starvation or easily-treatable medical conditions. The Eisenhower Interstate System was a major socialist program, albeit one with military application as well, and there are very few people who pine for the days when the only way to cross the country was by an interminable morass of town roads.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
I'm a social anarchist. Libertarians pervert anarchy, and hide their selfishness behind a guise of liberty. What you don't say is that you want the liberty to take away the liberty of those you deem inferior, through economic means. Either that, or you are utterly deluded as to the consequences of your proposals.
As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Libertarians want to reduce government to nothing more than the security of property. All they care about is the defense of the 'superior' rich against the rightful rage of the 'inferior' poor.
It is just so precious that you quote Havelock Vetinari of all fictional characters. The despot of Ankh-Morpork, the Machiavelli of Discworld, and the man that all libertarians truly strive to be.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Who said anything about taking what is yours? But since you brought it up, who decided what was yours to begin with? By what right do you exclude others, whom you have no contract with, from using things that you yourself aren't currently using?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The GOP's advocacy of an extremist form of corporate capitalism has finally caught up with what is now all that's left of the GOP, right wing extremists.
The "socialism" those right wing extremists keep screaming about is defined by the rest of the world as a MIXED economy. A form of capitalism in which the appetite of corporations to prey on and swallow up small businesses is controlled by social controls established in the form anti-trust legislation, and the worst abuses of employees is controlled by government regulation.
As we have found out the hard way, the only people actually freed by freeing the markets of government intervention/regulation are the thieves who prey on idiots like you, Brian, to let them steal away their money. Con artists will always find marks like you, Brian. Suckers always allow their greed to get them in places con men like ENRON, WorldCom, and Bernie Madoff feed on.
There are no reasonable solutions to be found anywhere in dogmatic extremism.
I think Rush and the Republicans do a fine job of that on their own. There may be some amount of artful framing, such as acknowledging that Rush is a de facto leader (in that people who deviate from his narrative are demonized and later apologize to him), but the real liability in people like Rush doesn't need outside provocation.
Personalities like Rush are in fact fueling fracturing of the party by radicalization of the base with rhetoric about RINOs and how conservatism has never really been tried because the conservatives we've been electing weren't real conservatives or something.
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job. They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access. They can pollute your land and kill you, then if you've got anyone left alive to sue them, they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
Wow, are you kidding me?
#1 History has shown governments absolutely can take your life, your freedom, your money (hello TAXES!?!) without good reason. Regardless, your political viewpoint, if you disagree with how tax money is being spent your government is taking that money without good reason (in your view).
#2 It's funny that you mention that private industry can prevent you getting a job, can buy your land, etc etc. All of these things are possible through government/private corruption. If government actually got out of the way and did NOT intervene then market forces would prevent all of this. Think of it this way, if government politicians couldn't be bought off either monetarily or by votes why would a private company waste their time fooling with them?
The founding fathers were right, you need balance of powers... and right now that just simply doesn't exist.
There is simply NO WAY to win this, your money and your planes and your bombs will NEVER EVER make these people quit slaughtering each other.
Why not? Saddam was able to do it.
They WANT to live under their crazy Sharia law, and you are NOT going to get them to behave like little Americans
Some do, most don't. That's why they helped kick Al Qaeda out during the Anbar Awakening. They didn't like the strictness and harshness of Al Qaeda. Also, a lot of places in Iraq are secular.
All you are doing is giving them a common target to shoot at, because the only thing they agree on is they ALL hate us.
This is false for so many reasons. They are people, they know the feeling a good shower, a good night sleep after a hard day's work. They understand loss, and they understand pain, and they, like anyone else, are trying to find their own happiness in the world. We in the United States have reason to believe a good functioning democracy can help with that goal, and if they work together as a country, they will go farther and be happier than if they fight violently in tribal struggles. Do we have selfish reasons to try to teach them this? Yes, they were annoying us. But the underlying principle is true, and as soon as they understand it, they better it will be for them.
There was a time Europe was also just a bunch of warring tribal warlords, and yet today they have become the countries of the European Union. There is no reason to believe Iraq will not make a similar transformation, and leave the dark ages.
Qxe4
Hahaha, oh I always love that fantasy world you live in. Fortunately for America, you are wrong, and we will do just fine. We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius. He will sweep the next presidential election in a landslide, and we will get Universal health care. This will do so much to restore American competitiveness that we will experience huge economic growth before he leaves office, ushering in even more socialism, as people realize it just plain works.
OK, now I can't tell which of you is trolling harder.
COME ON PEOPLE. There is not going to be some kind of dramatic, miraculous movement in any direction. God will not reach out of the heavens and give a sign indicating which way the United States of America should go -- largely because Americans ain't the Chosen People ;-). Stuff will be worked out to stop the recession/depression, and people will adopt it. Whoever invented it will see a fruitful political career, and their enemies will fall from power steadily. Life will go right back to normal. That is how reality works. Maybe we'll get universal health care, maybe we won't. It depends on who does what when in which context.
Learn some subtlety and nuance, ya partisan hacks!
Bush ran on "no nation-building," then proceeded to do exactly the opposite.
So...basically you're a Limbaugh Republican who wishes his country ill for your political gain. America First!
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Old Saddam kept order by gassing everyone that disagreed with him. I can't really see Americans dropping mustard gas, which is pretty much the ONLY way you are going to "win" there.
Saddam gassed people to keep them from revolting, because if they wanted to change something, they had to revolt. The democratic way is to give people a way to change things without violence. Of course, if they don't accept the non-violent way, America has shown it is not afraid to kill them: see Fallujah
It is about OIL, it has ALWAYS been about OIL
Come back when you understand what the Iraq war is actually about.
The petro dollar is pretty much the only damned thing we have left in the country.
Demonstrating once again your naivete. The United States produces more than any other country, and has a strong industrial base. The only reason you could say that "the petro dollar is the only thing we have left" is if you don't actually understand how the US economy works.
Let us look at the facts, okay? ..... FACT- Iraq is made up of THREE completely separate groups that frankly can't agree on shit. These are of course the Sunni, The Shia, and the Kurds.
Let's look at the real facts. The power structures in Iraq are divided along tribal lines, not along religious lines. In fact, most of Iraq is secular. The fact that you think the Sunni/Shia division is most important shows that you've gotten your information only in passing, not from a deep investigation of the matter. In essence you know nothing about Iraqi politics.
"Inside every gook.......while we make deals with China(true evil) is not only BS, it is kinda insulting,okay?
Oh nice, fortify your position of ignorance with racism. Smooth. Not only have you demonstrated your ignorance on politics and foreign affairs, you've also shown you lack the ability to understand other people at all. Racist. I can't believe it. What kind of idiot are you? Wake up and enter reality already.
And the hawks will blame the dems for not letting them "win" when the simple fact is you can NEVER win.
They won't. Obama is continuing the war. You seem to have not noticed.
In conclusion get some sense in your brain before opening your mouth and you will be a lot more intelligent. May sound harsh, but seriously, if you don't get over that racism, there's a special circle in hell for you. In this life too (more importantly).
Qxe4
Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.
It wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, if you remember we never started talking about those until we tried to justify it to the United Nations. When the administration was trying to justify it to the US public it was about terrorism. Before that, Bush talked about the axis of evil, part of which was Iraq. I think he actually believed Iraq was evil and was trying to clean up. There are reports that he had a revulsion towards Saddam and considered him truly evil.
Beyond that, the PNAC has been urging the US to do something in Iraq for a while. Here is a letter they sent Clinton. If you notice, some of the singers eventually ended up in the Bush administration, but not without reason, they have a lot of experience in foreign affairs. They were the advisers who essentially shaped foreign policy of the Bush administration.
The PNAC has the worldview that it is up to the US to keep the world safe (echoing the ideology of "making the world safe for democracy"), and what is good for America is good for the world. By invading Iraq, they intended to stabilize the region by removing one of the hostile actors, sending a message to the other hostile states that they better start behaving, and finally clean things up by showing what can happen in a democracy, and because a democratic, healthy nation is less likely to support terrorists. They chose Iraq because there was probable cause and because it was significantly easier than invading Iran.
Some of these goals have been reached. Syria has become a lot less hostile, and they've pulled out of Lebanon allowing the Lebanese to start building their nation on their own, however they can. Syria has also had peace talks with Israel, although the final result is far off. It may have actually protected America, since Al Qaeda did put a lot of effort into Iraq. Eventually Iraq can become a prosperous democratic nation, although it will not be as easy as PNAC seemed to think. If you are interested in PNAC thought, you should go to their website, they are rather public about their ideas.
Personally, while I think the ideals of stabilizing the region, making the world safe for democracy, and helping to bring Iraq out of the middle ages are all good goals, there were better ways to do it. An invasion is a blunt, bloody tool that is more of a regression into the middle ages than a push into the future.
Qxe4