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.
...nothing of value was lost or gained.
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 was a Republican to begin with?
Gee - big surprise. This news comes just a weekend after news that his primary challenger, Pat Toomey, is showing a commanding lead in the polls.
I can see the fnords!
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.
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
It's not a principled stand; it's politics.
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.
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
1. his presence will serve as a brake on more progressive legislation.
2. being a Democrat will prevent the Dems from offering up a more progressive candidate to oppose him had he stayed Republican.
3. He'll likely vote as a "liberal" Republican, ie: with the interests of capital in economics, in the interests of no one in particular (i.e. who ever pays his bills) in social issues.
Good:
1. He'll likely vote with the Dems about 60% of the time.
2. This will force the Republican party (now the property of ignorance and corruption) to be more considerate and thoughtful of their positions.
3. This could lead to someone like Snowe defecting as well, which would really bury the Republican part, possibly for good, as it could split between the Bible Thumping retard faction and the neocon fascist faction, which would work to the benefit of the Democrats.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Well, to be fair, he has always described himself as a moderate republican; elected in the 80's when the 'Big Tent' philosophy was strong in the Republican party. If 200,000 people left the Republican party for the Democratic party, you can bet that it was the moderates that were leaving, shifting the party farther to the right and making it impossible for him to win the primary as a self described moderate.
If he is more likely to win the primary in the democratic party than the republican party, he is almost by definition a democrat. If he isn't a democrat, he will lose badly in his first primary and everything will be exactly as it would be if he had stayed as a republican.
It's a joke. Who cares? Specter was pretty much a lock on most votes for the Democrats anyway. He was just a way for them to get a Republican to vote with them and then scream about how great they are at "bipartisanship." LOOK! A REPUBLICAN SUPPORTS US! Ignore all the others that stand by their principles. He's been pretty much a schmuck who basically votes to please Philly and Pittsburgh. The rest of us he thinks can all go hang.
He's 79. Have you ever noticed politicians all want you and me to retire by 72 at the latest? But they're supposed to keep getting into office until they're dead? And in some cases afterward? We need to have an age limit on politicians and judges. Over 70 and they should ALL be forced out of office. That's a law that really needs to be passed.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
First I am a conservative though not a Republican. I am all for this.
I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question. While there are good people on both sides of the aisle as a whole I think the entire Congress stinks.
Their actions have become the best reason for term limits. Too many of them think themselves as kings and queens, benevolent in their view because they know better and they are better - in their own minds. They game the system ensuring two party rule and the American people are more enamored with American idol personalities and similar : see Obama.
Now we just need Snowe to flip. She is nothing more than a RINO as well. Make them honest - if you vote one way consistently then be willing to take up the mantle of the party you align with. That way when it comes time to swap parties in power you can get outed. The tragedy is that most won't. They have so many connections and so much power from their office that unseating them takes serious criminal acts and even that is not a guarantee they don't get back in.
Its a great day. Now the Democrats have their "majority" and the hot seat is all theirs. The question becomes, do they do to Obama what they did to Clinton? See the flip side is that when one group has a real majority they don't answer to anyone - including the President. After all they no longer need them. It also leads to internal factions which happened to them in the early nineties. That majority benefits and hurts them.
But the key is, they cannot escape the responsibility for the spending spree or legislation. It will give Obama a convincing excuse too for what he signs off. So he can claim its not what he really wants "but the reality of the situation..."
So, awesome, and lol. Can't wait to see all the excuses for doing stuff that people would eviscerate Republicans for doing.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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
Actually, that was a right-wing projection. Democrats never wanted us to lose the war, they wanted the U.S. to stop pursuing the policies that were failing. Republicans, in their typically hyperaggressive way, screamed themselves red in the face that this was wanting America to lose. Put another way, Rush Limbaugh explicitly has said he wants President Obama to fail. Not his policies. Not his programs. His entire presidency. No Democrat of any significance actually made any statement calling for the war to be lost.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
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.
For those that are not aware:
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.
Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
I came here for a good argument
>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.
"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment 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"
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
The Repubs just want it to fail in a manor that wakes people up so it doesn't happen again.
Like, a country manor outside of Derbyshire? That's a nice play for anything, even failure! It's a bed and breakfast as well.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
FAIL.
The right-wing extremism report was initiated by George W. Bush's White House, as a counterpoint to the left-wing extremism report issued earlier this year. The right-wing extremism report further did not identify conservatives as extremists; it identified two major groups within right-wing extremists, those being hate extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and single-issue extremist groups like abortion-clinic bombers. Agreeing with any of the issues does not mean that they called you an extremist, only that extremists have been known to share that issue.
Some squirrels are male and some squirrels are female. You are in all likelihood either male or female. This does not, however, mean that you are necessarily a squirrel. It's the same argument, except with 'squirrel' in place of 'extremist,' 'male' in place of 'hate groups,' and 'female' in place of 'single-issue groups.'
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
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?).
"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
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.
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.
Not if it is unconstitutional for the government to do so, or if it is a thing better provided by a private organization.
Sure it sucks. You know what other things sucks? Rain, snow, and not getting laid. The fact that "something sucks" doesn't mean the government automatically has the responsibility to make it "not suck".
No, no one "has" to do it. Do not confuse objective necessity with your belief that something should be done about a problem. The problem is, when you step over the line from "believing something should be done," to "forcing everybody to do what I think must be done by making it a government program," I have a problem with that.
I'm sure I'll be modded down as troll and flamebait because I'm breaking with prevailing slashdot wisdom, but I don't mind burning karma to make this point. If you think that something more should be done about poverty, then by all means - Campaign your little heart out to raise private (VOLUNTARY) charitable donations to alleviate the problem. Take a vow of near-poverty yourself and donate all your earnings to the poor.
Hell, if you did that rather than try to seize control of the government to use it as a club to force me to donate to the programs you happen to think are "necessary," I'd write you a check to help educate, feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate the poor & homeless with a big smile - I donate my time & money already of my own free will, because I believe it's the right & moral thing to do.
If you want more to be done about all the problems, I'll respond with this simple challenge: You first. Do it on your own, voluntarily, lead by example. I may follow voluntarily, I may decide to go a different direction and donate to another cause that I think is more important. But either way, I will not hate you for presuming to know what is best for me and forcing me to fund programs that I do not support, and you will have proven that you do not hate your fellow human beings enough to think that the only way they will do the right thing is if they are forced to.
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.
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.
This is the beginning of the new realignment. If the GOP continues to alienate Snowe and Collins, they'll lose them too. If the Democrats get larger, they could reach a critical mass which results in more fiscally conservative Republicans, who could do without the religious-right's agenda of social issues, leaving their party for the Democrats. The end result would be the splitting of the Democratic party into the fiscal conservatives and the advocates for social services, with the social issues marginalized.
Social issues might come back into the spotlight, at which point the religious groups could reattach themselves to either side, but until the economy starts booming again, banning gay marriage or overturning Roe vs. Wade will not be high priorities.
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
You get someone who never forgets he's an ass.
No, I think Bush was a Fascist. Luckily public opinion and the Congress swung against him before the Unitarian Executive theory could get any further. But we still need to take a weed whacker to Presidential power and prune the crap out of that tree.
-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
This is going to get me flamed to hell, but I don't care, my karma is good, so here goes. Hate to break the news to you, but inside every Iraqi is NOT an American waiting to get out,okay? You are NEVER going to "win" there,got that? They WANT to live under their crazy Sharia law, and you are NOT going to get them to behave like little Americans. All you are doing is wasting time and lives. Just ask the Russians, they can tell you all about it from their time in Afghanistan.
So go right ahead and keep believing you can "win" this thing. You can't. You can't win this anymore than we could win Vietnam, hell probably have even less of a chance here. We could win WW2 because Germans and Japanese were basically functional before they got Hitler and the militant generals of Japan. Here you are trying to take dozens of tribes, many of whom HATE each other, and are happy to strap bombs to themselves and their kids because it gets them a free pass to Allah, and make them behave like they were just another country in the EU. It will NEVER EVER work. But keep believing that it will, while Haliburton and the other contractors laugh their way to the bank with your money.
Whether you pull out now or in 10 years you WILL pull out, the only questions are how many lives and how much money will be pissed down that rathole before we do. 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. 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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Unitary Executive, not Unitarian! If Bush were a Unitarian executive, he would be far more open minded ^_^.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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
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
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?
I have not said a word in defense of the Democrats or Obama. They are as complicit as the Republicans, IMO.
The only solution is to push hard for a return to normal as soon as the Islamic threat is beat back.
Islamic threat!?!? We are not at war with the Muslim religion, we are at war with extremists who use religion as a tool. The number of violent Muslims is insignificant compared to the number of socially respectable and respectful Muslims in the world. Claiming that the entire Islamic nation is terrorist is nothing short of bigoted drivel.
As someone who leans Libertarian I find it distasteful but can't see a way around the problem.
Here's a thought, how about not getting into unncesary foreign wars?!?!
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.
Joseph C. Wilson would be the obvious choice, since his story actually did make it public. There were many more smaller stories that did not gather the same level of press over the last 8 years, and with all likelihood many more that had been successfully supressed such that you nor I would never hear of them.
many AMERICAN CITIZENS did BushHitler put in to gulags?
I have never compared Bush to Hitler. Although oddly enough I have heard a few right wing talk show hosts make that comparison to Obama. And the answer is at least one, John Walker Lindh. On the other hand, he did make some huge investments in new prison and internment camps our west, there deffinately appeared to be a concern expressed by the Federal government that a significant number of people would need to be locked up in very short order.
Try it in a real dictatorship and you can earn some actual Karma.
When did I say anything about a dictatorship? I said Fascist. Two entirely different arangements. While they can overlap significantly, the two are not mutually inclusive. Not only that, but where they hell does this arguement come from? I'm specifically stating that I think President Bush did more to move the country in the direction of Fascism than any other President that I am aware of. I dislike the idea of Fascism AND dictatorship, so I will do all that is in my power to prevent the slide of the government in that direction. What Chaves and Castrol due is immaterial to my concern of the US government. Just because social norms in their country are even more unacceptable to me doesn't mean I should compromise my views of social norms here in the US.
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.
Habeous Corpus is a legal action through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself.
How is that not an exacting contradiction to what we are doing through GITMO detentions and black site holdings? Hell, some of the GITMO prisoners have been legally cleared of wrong doing, yet we are STILL detaining them. Even US citizens like José Padilla have been denieghed the right to Habeous Corpus.
I don't know what rock yuo have been living under, but come on out in to the light.
I won't concede that waterboarding is torture
So then you would be in favor of the US making reperations to the families of the Japanesse whom we executed after WWII for using waterboarding as a form of torture on US troops? You are also stating that it is there for acceptable to have any person any where, be it a member of our military, a citizen
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"I won't concede that waterboarding is torture"
Well that's big of you.
Perhaps you should go back to 1946 and tell that to the Allies before they hang 'innocent' (according to jmorris) Japanese officers for doing it. Also make sure you tell the US and Aussie POWs (especially the high ranking officers!) who were on the receiving end of it that you don't 'concede' that they were tortured.
Big fucking heros you American 'conservatives' are aren't ya.
Except when *your* on the receiving end of any of your bankrupt ideology.
"crossed the line to treason more than once"
Good god.
Was it treason when that fat fuck on Fox openly declared he hoped the navy rescue of that ships crew would fail? Or that your all critising Obama in *gasp* a time of war?!
Right.
Critising Bush = Treason.
Critising Obama = Patriot.
There's a reason your party is being completely dominated - You and your ilk and your muddled and *completely* morally bankrupt ideology ARE THAT REASON.
It's a shame too, because I bet you only make up a tiny fraction of the party. It's always the extremists who are the noisiest and ruin it for the reasonable majority unfortunately.
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.
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
Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court and the stewards of the Geneva Conventions disagree with you there. At a minimum, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provide a baseline of protections the United States must afford to every detainee.