Err, that ideal died in 1997 or so when Congress basically said "oh, he only committed perjury about a blowjob - everyone does that..."
You can't prove that Clinton lied during testimony. But even if he did lie, he still didn't commit perjury, since a lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Monica and Bill was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for Bill to have committed perjury on the subject.
And seriously, you're putting a non-lie about a blowjob on the same playing field as torture, spying on American citizens in America without warrants, and holding people in jail indefinitely without trials? Were you born without a sense of proportion?
Who was the guy who had a few quid worth of bribes in his freezer again?
...compared to dozens of Republicans either in jail or under investigation for corruption.
Who was the last president to get impeached?
Pure witch hunt. In this country, we're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. Republicans investigated Bill Clinton in the 90's. With Bush we know for a fact that there are High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and that's with what they've deigned to tell us.
Who signed executive order 9066 and jailed 110,000 law-abiding Americans?
No argument there. But he's been dead for over 60 years now. Bush is violating the Constitution right now and will continue to do so until he's out of office.
So can we cut the bullshit now? Bush has violated habeas corpus, four Constitutional Amendments, international treaties and who knows how many laws. If we don't impeach this president for the crimes we know he's committed, what the fuck do we have impeachment for, anyway?
Stork, if want to blather about Democrats, you could try doing it on a subject remotely related to telecom immunity. The House Majority Leader, Steney Hoyer, has been claiming that it's Democrats in the House that are pressuring him to put forward a bill with immunity. This is a flat-out lie.
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T
Sigh. Would it kill you to not bullshit for two seconds? The primary litigants in the NSA wiretapping scandal are the ALCU and the EFF, organizations formed to protect our rights, not make big bucks off a lawsuit. Besides, even if they were, why would you want to save money for fascists that have violated your Constitutional rights?
I would expect 10.6 to still support G5 possessors, based on Apple's history of supporting OS updates for machines for about six years. But G4 systems would probably be limited to Leopard, and PPC support would probably disappear in 10.7.
The success of the Wii owes much to Nintendo's brave (but wise) decision to persue a completely new customer base and leave the adolescent male (of all ages) market to MS and Sony.
Don't be a snob. There's another a better description than "adolescent male" or "hardcore gamer" for this market: dedicated, repeat customers, something to be treasured by any business. It is possible to keep your existing customer base happy while pursuing new ones, and Nintendo is doing it.
I think people tend to see their biases reflected back at them.
And some people blindly romanticize the dead no matter how flawed the individual was. The press has utterly failed Americans these last eight years by failing to question Bush's policies, and Tim Russert was right in the middle of that.
Bill Moyers did a piece a while back called "buying the war", on how the press served as the mouthpiece for the Bush Administration rather than questioning it. One segment in particular was very damning for Russert:
BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.
TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.
My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.
BILL MOYERS: BOB SIMON DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE PHONE TO RING.
BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to?
BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers, and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start.
BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 MINUTES?
BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called.
BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone?
BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone.
BILL MOYERS: Talked to them?
BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras.
The idea some states would move more towards corniholing and others more towards freedom, and citizens would vote with their feet.
So the "freedom loving Libertarians" would get rid of the FDA (safe food) and OSHA (safe workplaces) but have no problem with states mandating school prayer and re-banning interracial marriage? That doesn't make any damned sense at all.
This isn't about liking or not liking, you incompetent boob. This is about flat out, undeniable High Crimes and Misdemeanors that people such as yourself take about as seriously as jaywalking.
But if he is impeached no action will occur until after he is out of office, so he'll be able to "continue to trash the Constitution until he leaves office." Impeaching him won't get us out of Iraq, stop illegal wiretaps, suspend torture, or anything else.
Um, yeah it would, because he could be out of office this week as opposed to half a year from now. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Some people argue that Bush has violated civil rights, some argue otherwise.
Some people think the Holocaust didn't happen and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We have a word for such people: morons. But the Bush Administration has gone way beyond that because they've admitted to spying on Americans without warrants, holding suspects with no trials, torture, the whole nine yards. There's no way you can read the Constitution and not see that these are blatant violations of said Constitution, unless you are a tool.
My point (and I was keeping it non-partisan) was that Kucinich is perceived as a nutjob, and unless he has someone with him who isn't perceived as a nutjob, it's not going anywhere.
And Ron Parsons thinks the United States was founded to oppose Islam. Doesn't make either one a reasonable position.
Wishful revisionist history. The real problem conservatives have with Bush is that he's unpopular, because they backed him to the hilt in 2000, 2004 and the congressional elections in between. Another problem for conservatives is if Bush actually had slashed all social spending, he'd be even more unpopular than he is now.
There is no such thing as a bad conservative. "Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals. Get used to the hearing about how the Republicans failed because they weren't true conservatives. Conservatism can never fail. It can only be failed by weak-minded souls who refuse to properly follow its tenets. It's a lot like communism that way.
Conservatives support limited government - under Bush's watch it's increased vastly. Conservatives support fiscal responsibility
Marketing slogans for "cutting spending we don't like" - i.e. social spending and regulation. Democrats of course also fund the things they like and cut things they don't, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites on the issue.
And as far as Democrats' supposed policy superiority - they certainly have no such superiority on economics.
Yes they do, actually. The middle class does twice as well under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, and the working poor do six times as well. When Reagan ousted Carter from the White House, the national debt was less than a trillion dollars. After Reagan and the Bushes it's going to be 10 trillion. We had one break in the middle, and a president managed to not only balance the budget, but produce a surplus. Who was that again?
red states have been gaining jobs at a far greater pace than the blue states. There's a reason for that, and it's inferior economic policy on the part of the Democrats.
Too bad reality has a well-known liberal bias. The "jobs" you see growing in red states are because they have Right To Be Expendable laws so they can pay workers less money. The facts are that states that have raised minimum wage (blue states) have created jobsfaster than states that haven't (red states), and unionized workers earn considerably more money.
*shrugs* partisans often see enemies where there aren't any.
Yawn. And really stupid people ignore facts when placed right in front of their face. If Dick Cheney loves going on your show because he knows he can control the message, that's a giant cluebat to the head that you aren't the tough, even handed questioner you make yourself out to be.
Compare their actual promises, not their rhetoric.
Yes, you should get on that, because you still haven't shown a single issue where they are on the same page.
Chances are, at the end of the day, what we do in Iraq will be the same with both,
McCain wants to leave troops in. Obama wants them out.
what we do in Iran will be the same
Are you on crack? Iran has replaced Saddam as the new boogyman for the Republican party, not for Obama.
both will close Guantanamo (because the Supreme Court just took away its purpose),
Obama would close Guantanamo because it's wrong. McCain would only close it because he was forced to; did you not hear him call the Supreme Court decision one of the worst in our history?
both will try to manage the recession in similar ways (leave it up to the Fed),
No. Obama wants large middle class tax cuts while ending the Bush cuts. McCain wants more corporate and capital gains tax cuts that would only benefit the wealthy while adding trillions to our national debt.
both will fail at fixing health care
Working class Americans want health care. Businesses want health care so they can stop dealing with providing employee insurance. Obama is going to have a large Democratic majority in both the Senate and the House. We have a better chance at fixing it now than at any time in our history.
both will attempt to salvage the 'No Child Left Behind' program, and both will continue to use the US Army as the world's police instead of as a defense force, both will continue to operate the hundreds of US military bases around the world at a huge financial cost to our country.
And your basis for this is, what exactly. You're grasping at straws.
When we compare to a truly different candidate such as Ron Paul
Ron Paul would be a disaster. He is completely opposed to federal regulation or oversight, but is just fine with states sticking their noses as far into your business as they please.
My vote will not be going to either of them. Obama talks a decent game of lip service to libertarians, but I'm not stupid enough to think that he's even on the same page.
Not liking a candidate that doesn't support your pet issues is perfectly understandable. But how much do you really want to be in Iraq for another four years? How about a war with Iran? Do you really want another few trillion dollars added to our national debt, debt with Libertarians are every bit as liable for as Democrats and Republicans? Do you want to see our currency lose half it's value again?
There's healthy skepticism, and then there's just being thick. Of course we should expect journalists to have personal biases, but we should also expect them not to be hacks.
I think that you consider him a biased hack because you disagreed with him.
I think you need to read up more on Tim Russert. If an incompetent fascist repeatedly goes on your show because he knows he can "control message", that's a giant clue that you aren't remotely near the tough, even handed interviewer you set yourself out to be.
The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders
Yes, under the Articles of Confederation, and it was an absolute disaster at a time when most people lived on farms and travel was limited to horseback. Going back to that after 200 years of population growth and technical advancements would be a clusterfuck of biblical proportions.
I don't know if you've noticed, but we've kinda given up any hope of only defending our own borders
Defending our borders from what army? We have peaceful, friendly nations on two sides and the world's two largest oceans on the other two sides. Our actually defense needs are pretty damn minuscule.
Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't.
No dice. I don't want to drive my girlfriend to Florida for a vacation and get arrested in Kentucky because they've decided to re-ban interracial dating. Somethings have to mandated at the federal level because the states just wont do things that need to be done, or be prevented from sticking their noses where they don't belong.
The civil war wasn't about the Union trying to tell the South that it couldn't secede
Yes, it absolutely was. We had a civil war to prevent the South from leaving the Union, and the #1 reason the South left was slavery.
And now this gov't wants to give me an economic stimulus when my economy is going down the shitter? Oh great.
The problem isn't that the government is trying to do something about the ecomony. The problem is that cutting "stimulus checks" that just ad to the national debt is about the dumbest way you could go about it. The problem is that the middle class doesn't have any damn money. Slash taxes on the working class, raise it on the wealthy, repeal Taft-Hartley, raise minimum wage, and taking all the money going to Iraq and spend it on fixing our infrastructure would go a looooong way to putting us back on track.
There are three words that would have saved you all that typing: Supreme Court appointments. Combine just one Ron Paul appointee with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (who are against human rights in general) and bye bye Bill of Rights.
As a voter, I don't feel that either of these two bozos (Obama or McCain) represent me at all, and because of that, I will not vote for either. I'm not sure yet whether I'll write in Ron Paul, or vote for Bob Barr or that other guy, but it sure as hell isn't going to be Obama and McCain. I heard enough about that stupid "don't throw your vote away" garbage in the last several elections, and I've had it. I really don't care whether Obama or McCain wins.
Interesting. So you don't care if your share of the national debt goes up another $5,000? How about $10,000? Do you think the U.S. government should be in the business of torture? How about spying on you with no probable cause or even suspicion?
Being disgruntled that there isn't a candidate more to your liking is a perfectly reasonable position. But sitting with your thumb up your ass come November is stupid, given the fact that this election will have a HUGE impact on your life, regardless of how much you like or dislike the candidates.
Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?"
Why didn't you just go with the 2004 slogan and spare yourself the time of coming up with something new? Only this time the media is talking about "who shares your values". Same bullshit, different meme. Drop the self-centered BS and ask yourself if having your share of the national debt go up another $5,000+, much of it going to Iraq, is something that interests you.
In the Democratic primary, the media couldn't find enough differences between Hillary and Obama, even though they're on the same page on most of the issues. Now it's all about how similar Obama and McCain are, even though the only thing they have in common now is kissing Israel's ass.
that being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table
Can you name a single issue, other than ass-kissing devotion to Israel, where Obama and McCain are on the same page? Iraq, taxes, abortion, torture, spying, regulation, lobbying, veterans, diplomacy...not only are these two not on the same page, they're not on the same planet.
Bush talked the "small government" talk, too, and he's done fuck-all to back it up.
Actually they've done a lot to privatize government services and operations. They've outsourced guarding officials in Iraq (Blackwater) and vast amounts of intelligence processing.
In fact, the entire Republican party has basically abandoned its stance on limited government
"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan in the first place; really it means "cut spending on stuff we don't like". Democrats do the same thing of course, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites on the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, that ideal died in 1997 or so when Congress basically said "oh, he only committed perjury about a blowjob - everyone does that..."
You can't prove that Clinton lied during testimony. But even if he did lie, he still didn't commit perjury, since a lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Monica and Bill was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for Bill to have committed perjury on the subject.
And seriously, you're putting a non-lie about a blowjob on the same playing field as torture, spying on American citizens in America without warrants, and holding people in jail indefinitely without trials? Were you born without a sense of proportion?
Straw man.
Who was the guy who had a few quid worth of bribes in his freezer again?
...compared to dozens of Republicans either in jail or under investigation for corruption.
Who was the last president to get impeached?
Pure witch hunt. In this country, we're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. Republicans investigated Bill Clinton in the 90's. With Bush we know for a fact that there are High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and that's with what they've deigned to tell us.
Who signed executive order 9066 and jailed 110,000 law-abiding Americans?
No argument there. But he's been dead for over 60 years now. Bush is violating the Constitution right now and will continue to do so until he's out of office.
So can we cut the bullshit now? Bush has violated habeas corpus, four Constitutional Amendments, international treaties and who knows how many laws. If we don't impeach this president for the crimes we know he's committed, what the fuck do we have impeachment for, anyway?
Stork, if want to blather about Democrats, you could try doing it on a subject remotely related to telecom immunity. The House Majority Leader, Steney Hoyer, has been claiming that it's Democrats in the House that are pressuring him to put forward a bill with immunity. This is a flat-out lie.
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T
Sigh. Would it kill you to not bullshit for two seconds? The primary litigants in the NSA wiretapping scandal are the ALCU and the EFF, organizations formed to protect our rights, not make big bucks off a lawsuit. Besides, even if they were, why would you want to save money for fascists that have violated your Constitutional rights?
Have you tried MACFuse for NTFS? Never used it myself so I don't know how well it works, though.
I would expect 10.6 to still support G5 possessors, based on Apple's history of supporting OS updates for machines for about six years. But G4 systems would probably be limited to Leopard, and PPC support would probably disappear in 10.7.
You'd have a great point there if you weren't able to run the latest operating system on 6 year old hardware, but you can.
The success of the Wii owes much to Nintendo's brave (but wise) decision to persue a completely new customer base and leave the adolescent male (of all ages) market to MS and Sony.
Don't be a snob. There's another a better description than "adolescent male" or "hardcore gamer" for this market: dedicated, repeat customers, something to be treasured by any business. It is possible to keep your existing customer base happy while pursuing new ones, and Nintendo is doing it.
If someone isn't smart enough to figure out the Finder, they probably shouldn't be using a computer.
And some people blindly romanticize the dead no matter how flawed the individual was. The press has utterly failed Americans these last eight years by failing to question Bush's policies, and Tim Russert was right in the middle of that.
Bill Moyers did a piece a while back called "buying the war", on how the press served as the mouthpiece for the Bush Administration rather than questioning it. One segment in particular was very damning for Russert:
The idea some states would move more towards corniholing and others more towards freedom, and citizens would vote with their feet.
So the "freedom loving Libertarians" would get rid of the FDA (safe food) and OSHA (safe workplaces) but have no problem with states mandating school prayer and re-banning interracial marriage? That doesn't make any damned sense at all.
You don't like Bush. I get it.
This isn't about liking or not liking, you incompetent boob. This is about flat out, undeniable High Crimes and Misdemeanors that people such as yourself take about as seriously as jaywalking.
But if he is impeached no action will occur until after he is out of office, so he'll be able to "continue to trash the Constitution until he leaves office." Impeaching him won't get us out of Iraq, stop illegal wiretaps, suspend torture, or anything else.
Um, yeah it would, because he could be out of office this week as opposed to half a year from now. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
...and look what's happening now.
Looks like you're making a ludicrous false comparison, that's what.
Some people argue that Bush has violated civil rights, some argue otherwise.
Some people think the Holocaust didn't happen and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We have a word for such people: morons. But the Bush Administration has gone way beyond that because they've admitted to spying on Americans without warrants, holding suspects with no trials, torture, the whole nine yards. There's no way you can read the Constitution and not see that these are blatant violations of said Constitution, unless you are a tool.
My point (and I was keeping it non-partisan) was that Kucinich is perceived as a nutjob, and unless he has someone with him who isn't perceived as a nutjob, it's not going anywhere.
And Ron Parsons thinks the United States was founded to oppose Islam. Doesn't make either one a reasonable position.
Wishful revisionist history. The real problem conservatives have with Bush is that he's unpopular, because they backed him to the hilt in 2000, 2004 and the congressional elections in between. Another problem for conservatives is if Bush actually had slashed all social spending, he'd be even more unpopular than he is now.
Digby: Conservatives support limited government - under Bush's watch it's increased vastly. Conservatives support fiscal responsibility
Marketing slogans for "cutting spending we don't like" - i.e. social spending and regulation. Democrats of course also fund the things they like and cut things they don't, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites on the issue.
And as far as Democrats' supposed policy superiority - they certainly have no such superiority on economics.
Yes they do, actually. The middle class does twice as well under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, and the working poor do six times as well. When Reagan ousted Carter from the White House, the national debt was less than a trillion dollars. After Reagan and the Bushes it's going to be 10 trillion. We had one break in the middle, and a president managed to not only balance the budget, but produce a surplus. Who was that again?
red states have been gaining jobs at a far greater pace than the blue states. There's a reason for that, and it's inferior economic policy on the part of the Democrats.
Too bad reality has a well-known liberal bias. The "jobs" you see growing in red states are because they have Right To Be Expendable laws so they can pay workers less money. The facts are that states that have raised minimum wage (blue states) have created jobs faster than states that haven't (red states), and unionized workers earn considerably more money.
*shrugs* partisans often see enemies where there aren't any.
Yawn. And really stupid people ignore facts when placed right in front of their face. If Dick Cheney loves going on your show because he knows he can control the message, that's a giant cluebat to the head that you aren't the tough, even handed questioner you make yourself out to be.
Compare their actual promises, not their rhetoric.
Yes, you should get on that, because you still haven't shown a single issue where they are on the same page.
Chances are, at the end of the day, what we do in Iraq will be the same with both,
McCain wants to leave troops in. Obama wants them out.
what we do in Iran will be the same
Are you on crack? Iran has replaced Saddam as the new boogyman for the Republican party, not for Obama.
both will close Guantanamo (because the Supreme Court just took away its purpose),
Obama would close Guantanamo because it's wrong. McCain would only close it because he was forced to; did you not hear him call the Supreme Court decision one of the worst in our history?
both will try to manage the recession in similar ways (leave it up to the Fed),
No. Obama wants large middle class tax cuts while ending the Bush cuts. McCain wants more corporate and capital gains tax cuts that would only benefit the wealthy while adding trillions to our national debt.
both will fail at fixing health care
Working class Americans want health care. Businesses want health care so they can stop dealing with providing employee insurance. Obama is going to have a large Democratic majority in both the Senate and the House. We have a better chance at fixing it now than at any time in our history.
both will attempt to salvage the 'No Child Left Behind' program, and both will continue to use the US Army as the world's police instead of as a defense force, both will continue to operate the hundreds of US military bases around the world at a huge financial cost to our country.
And your basis for this is, what exactly. You're grasping at straws.
When we compare to a truly different candidate such as Ron Paul
Ron Paul would be a disaster. He is completely opposed to federal regulation or oversight, but is just fine with states sticking their noses as far into your business as they please.
My vote will not be going to either of them. Obama talks a decent game of lip service to libertarians, but I'm not stupid enough to think that he's even on the same page.
Not liking a candidate that doesn't support your pet issues is perfectly understandable. But how much do you really want to be in Iraq for another four years? How about a war with Iran? Do you really want another few trillion dollars added to our national debt, debt with Libertarians are every bit as liable for as Democrats and Republicans? Do you want to see our currency lose half it's value again?
As opposed to anyone else who is not??
There's healthy skepticism, and then there's just being thick. Of course we should expect journalists to have personal biases, but we should also expect them not to be hacks.
I think that you consider him a biased hack because you disagreed with him.
I think you need to read up more on Tim Russert. If an incompetent fascist repeatedly goes on your show because he knows he can "control message", that's a giant clue that you aren't remotely near the tough, even handed interviewer you set yourself out to be.
Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate.
Only from the Feds. He doesn't have a problem with states cornholing citizens.
The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders
Yes, under the Articles of Confederation, and it was an absolute disaster at a time when most people lived on farms and travel was limited to horseback. Going back to that after 200 years of population growth and technical advancements would be a clusterfuck of biblical proportions.
I don't know if you've noticed, but we've kinda given up any hope of only defending our own borders
Defending our borders from what army? We have peaceful, friendly nations on two sides and the world's two largest oceans on the other two sides. Our actually defense needs are pretty damn minuscule.
Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't.
No dice. I don't want to drive my girlfriend to Florida for a vacation and get arrested in Kentucky because they've decided to re-ban interracial dating. Somethings have to mandated at the federal level because the states just wont do things that need to be done, or be prevented from sticking their noses where they don't belong.
The civil war wasn't about the Union trying to tell the South that it couldn't secede
Yes, it absolutely was. We had a civil war to prevent the South from leaving the Union, and the #1 reason the South left was slavery.
And now this gov't wants to give me an economic stimulus when my economy is going down the shitter? Oh great.
The problem isn't that the government is trying to do something about the ecomony. The problem is that cutting "stimulus checks" that just ad to the national debt is about the dumbest way you could go about it. The problem is that the middle class doesn't have any damn money. Slash taxes on the working class, raise it on the wealthy, repeal Taft-Hartley, raise minimum wage, and taking all the money going to Iraq and spend it on fixing our infrastructure would go a looooong way to putting us back on track.
There are three words that would have saved you all that typing: Supreme Court appointments. Combine just one Ron Paul appointee with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (who are against human rights in general) and bye bye Bill of Rights.
As a voter, I don't feel that either of these two bozos (Obama or McCain) represent me at all, and because of that, I will not vote for either. I'm not sure yet whether I'll write in Ron Paul, or vote for Bob Barr or that other guy, but it sure as hell isn't going to be Obama and McCain. I heard enough about that stupid "don't throw your vote away" garbage in the last several elections, and I've had it. I really don't care whether Obama or McCain wins.
Interesting. So you don't care if your share of the national debt goes up another $5,000? How about $10,000? Do you think the U.S. government should be in the business of torture? How about spying on you with no probable cause or even suspicion?
Being disgruntled that there isn't a candidate more to your liking is a perfectly reasonable position. But sitting with your thumb up your ass come November is stupid, given the fact that this election will have a HUGE impact on your life, regardless of how much you like or dislike the candidates.
Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?"
Why didn't you just go with the 2004 slogan and spare yourself the time of coming up with something new? Only this time the media is talking about "who shares your values". Same bullshit, different meme. Drop the self-centered BS and ask yourself if having your share of the national debt go up another $5,000+, much of it going to Iraq, is something that interests you.
In the Democratic primary, the media couldn't find enough differences between Hillary and Obama, even though they're on the same page on most of the issues. Now it's all about how similar Obama and McCain are, even though the only thing they have in common now is kissing Israel's ass.
that being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table
Can you name a single issue, other than ass-kissing devotion to Israel, where Obama and McCain are on the same page? Iraq, taxes, abortion, torture, spying, regulation, lobbying, veterans, diplomacy...not only are these two not on the same page, they're not on the same planet.
Bush talked the "small government" talk, too, and he's done fuck-all to back it up.
Actually they've done a lot to privatize government services and operations. They've outsourced guarding officials in Iraq (Blackwater) and vast amounts of intelligence processing.
In fact, the entire Republican party has basically abandoned its stance on limited government
"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan in the first place; really it means "cut spending on stuff we don't like". Democrats do the same thing of course, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites on the issue.