Really? Ask historians about the 1960 Presidential elections in Illinois.
What about Nixon's alleged cheating would you be referring to? Wingnuts like to blather about suppositions of election fraud for JFK, without bothering to mention there were equal alleged shenanigans for Nixon.
Exactly. In this country, we investigate crimes, not people - unless your name is William Jefferson Clinton. The Republicans spent tens of millions of dollars investigating and re-investigating every inch of his life, looking for something they could prosecute. The best thing they could come up with was trying to manufacture a perjury case against him, because you can't even prove that he lied about "sexual relations".
If a former judge had unlimited resources to go over your life with a microscope, no probable cause or due process required, how good would you look?
Everything else has either failed (their attempts to take on Adobe) or lost money overall (Xbox). You could argue that IE was a success, but that's only because Microsoft leveraged their Windows monopoly, not because it succeeded on its own merits.
Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline. At all. The U.S. became an economic superpower because of the New Deal, not in spite of it. Republicans invented the trillion dollar national debt and Bush II is doing his level best to push it to $10 trillion by the time he leaves office. And when it comes to domestic and foreign policy, you'd rather be tough than effective. See: the war in Iraq and the War on Drugs.
The simple fact is that conservatism has failed wholesale on every issue. The most liberal person in the United States does a better job on conservative issues than conservatives do: defense (actually defending the country, not just having a larger military than the rest of the world combined), balancing budgets, fiscal policy, family values, "limited" government, and reducing crime.
The only thing conservatives are good at is slinging bullshit. But as far as doing better by the United States and it's people? You. Have. Utterly. Failed.
You forgot to mention that the.com burst happened during the Clinton administration
Your point being what? Having an entire industry with no business model is going to go bust sooner or later.
and the economy recovered during the Bush administration for big investors while everyone else got fucked in the ass by stagnant wages and exploding fuel, housing and health care costs
Though he's a Democrat, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does far more to accommodate Republicans in the Senate than he does Democrats. If it's a bill Democrats want to pass, the threshold needed to pass is 60 votes to end cloture. If it's a bill Republicans want to pass, only a simple majority is needed.
Oh, and he'll honor holds from nut job wingnuts like Tom Coburn, but not holds from members of his own party, like when he ignored Chris Dodd's hold on telecom immunity.
She has bargaining power and the presidency is all about ambition and power.
Hillary has a choice: work her ass off to get Obama elected, or flush the Clinton legacy down the drain. If she keeps up her prima donna act she'll be lucky to keep her Senate seat, much less become VP.
Face it, with Hillary, Barack hasn't a chance.
There, fixed that for you. Hard core Republicans don't like John McCain. He has the nomination locked up, all of his rivals have suspended their campaigns, and yet he consistently gets around 75% of the vote in Republican primaries. He managed to get over 80% in Oregon, which has been a good showing for him.
But these Republicans who don't like McCain will crawl across broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton. Picking her as VP brings precious little advantage to Obama, yet brings along all of the Clinton baggage. Hillary Clinton on the ticket would do for 2008 what gay marriage did for Republicans in 2004.
And this affects downticket races as well. Obama has serious coattails, as was proven when he campaigned for Democrats in recent special elections that won House seats held by Republicans for decades. With Obama and a complimentary VP candidate, the Democrats have a real chance of getting a filibuster proof, Lieberman proof majority by 2010. Hillary would nip that in the bud.
Obama hasn't gone off on Hillary because 1) her thin skinned supporters see sexism behind every tree, and 2) he doesn't want the media to start portraying him as an "angry" Democrat like when they trashed Howard Dean in 2004. Even more so since he's black, given the attention the media has paid to Rev. White (molehills) while ignoring the mountains of Ron Parsley (America was founded to oppose Islam) and John Hagee (Catholic Church is the Great Whore and will be devoured by the Antichrist).
I suppose you could see it that way, if you had been in a coma for the last three months and missed Rev. White and David Ayers being mentioned 1,000 times an hour on cable news. The reality is that while the press loves going after the Clintons, they love a horse race even more, if only to sell more ads. So they've spent the last three months trashing Obama while giving Hillary and McCain a free ride. They would have ignored Obama and trashed Clinton if she was leading the race, but she hasn't.
Nope. Just straight up bullshit, and pretty ballsy considering how far they've run the country and our affairs into the ground over the last 30 years. Any more questions?
I just wish for once a person would run on something other than a slew of social issues that they have no power to change.
That's where a large congressional majority comes in. FDR didn't campaign on transforming government. He was able to do that with huge majorities in Congress, which the Democrats will likely attain again over the next two elections. The recent special election losses shows that the GOP is at risk in even long term, hardcore Republican districts. If the Democrats don't get a filibuster proof, Lieberman proof majority this year, they should in 2010.
Don't you get tired of throwing out the bullshit that has been the standard GOP attack line for decades? That the Democrat is an elitist liberal who will raise your taxes for the sake of raising taxes, take away your guns, sell us out to the UN, and a godless flipflopper.
It's been 40 years since Nixon won the White House. You'd think you could come up with something new.
The governor of the state has tremendous influence over the industry of not just developers but publishers and distributors.
How so?
The Governor is also the highest profile individual they could get, so combine those two factors and it is an easy choice.
He doesn't make video games. He doesn't make video games. He doesn't make video games. As I said, he signed legislation to help develop video games. So, go ahead have have him as a guest speaker, but to give him the keynote makes no damn sense.
Having a politician give a keynote speech at a gaming convention makes as much sense as a game developer giving the keynote address at a brain surgeon's convention. Or a blues guitarist making a keynote speech at a convention for criminal lawyers. Or Willie Nelson giving a keynote for the DEA.
I know the governor signed a law to provide incentives to game developers, and sure, let him make a speech at the E3. Knock yourselves out. But to give the keynote address when he's not in the industry makes no goddamn sense, as does your blathering about "discrimination".
Collapse Iraq right when their government is finally getting some traction and cohesiveness?
You mean as they're about to receive presents from the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause?
You'll throw anarchy stright into the middle of the middle east, creating refugee crises, and breeding terrorists, as well as completely discrediting the US as an ally for anyone - completely untrustworthy.
Wow. You just gave me a flashback to that scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil plans on destroying the ozone layer and making up an affair that Prince Charles was having on Princess Diana - and his henchmen have to explain that those things already happened. EQ, we have thrown anarchy straight into the middle east, we have created an enormous refugee crisis, we have gotten far more people to hate us now than hated us in 2000, and our reputation is already in the toilet.
Now apply the same logic to anything propped up by the government and you will join us libertarians.
No thanks. Because with all things Libertarian, the cure is worse than the disease.
People complain that public schools suck, but they think the only answer is to spend more money on them.
Because when you pay $25,000 a year, you should be surprised when you fail to attract the best and brightest. And do you honestly think private schools cost less money? Have more accountability?
If you only knew how poorly school funds are handled- it only gets worse with the bureaucracy mandating how they must spend their money.
Which is why we need private schools. So instead of "wasteful" public schools, you'll have "wasteful" private schools, only instead of a superintendent getting paid $200,000, you'll have a CEO that gets paid $2,000,000 a year.
Pull out of Iraq
Yup.
allow citizens to opt out of social security
Disaster. It's called Social Security instead of Social Stock Trading for a reason.
and eliminate the federal income tax
Which is only the fairest tax ever devised, so naturally for Libertarians it makes sense to eliminate it.
We can make this country a lot better by removing the tax money that people bicker over
It would be possible to dismantle the military-industrial complex without sinking into anarchy in the process. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
...is that they need to cut unprofitable lines so they can make money and get off government subsidies. But the senators from the states with unprofitable lines insist that they remain open as a condition of funding. So Amtrak is unprofitable, and needs subsidies to keep running, and....
But it's funny you should mention trains, since McCain was an early critic of Iraq
No, he wasn't. He was up there saying the war would be short and sweet with the rest of the neocons.
and a backer of a plan (the surge) that actually put it back on the right track
Um, what? The surged failed by Bush's own benchmarks. What little progress was made was done diplomatically, not militarily. But if you continue to stick by your (baseless) opinion, I have some sweet shares in select New York bridges that I would love to sell you...
Don't think so? Try showing up at a McCain rally with a "Support the Troops Retreat from Iraq Now" t-shirt, or a "Support the Troops Win the Iraq War" placard at an Obama rally. (Figure to be equally offensive to both sides).
The Joe Lieberman who on foreign policy is as much of a crazy neocon as Dick Cheney? The Joe Lieberman that constantly goes on Fox News to trash other Democrats? The Joe Lieberman that lied through his teeth in 2006 by saying "no one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do" to win re-election? The Joe Lieberman that is attacking Obama right now (even though Obama campaigned for him two years ago) while campaigning with John McCain?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Ask historians about the 1960 Presidential elections in Illinois.
What about Nixon's alleged cheating would you be referring to? Wingnuts like to blather about suppositions of election fraud for JFK, without bothering to mention there were equal alleged shenanigans for Nixon.
Um, Clinton? There you go.
Exactly. In this country, we investigate crimes, not people - unless your name is William Jefferson Clinton. The Republicans spent tens of millions of dollars investigating and re-investigating every inch of his life, looking for something they could prosecute. The best thing they could come up with was trying to manufacture a perjury case against him, because you can't even prove that he lied about "sexual relations".
If a former judge had unlimited resources to go over your life with a microscope, no probable cause or due process required, how good would you look?
Everything else has either failed (their attempts to take on Adobe) or lost money overall (Xbox). You could argue that IE was a success, but that's only because Microsoft leveraged their Windows monopoly, not because it succeeded on its own merits.
Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline. At all. The U.S. became an economic superpower because of the New Deal, not in spite of it. Republicans invented the trillion dollar national debt and Bush II is doing his level best to push it to $10 trillion by the time he leaves office. And when it comes to domestic and foreign policy, you'd rather be tough than effective. See: the war in Iraq and the War on Drugs.
The simple fact is that conservatism has failed wholesale on every issue. The most liberal person in the United States does a better job on conservative issues than conservatives do: defense (actually defending the country, not just having a larger military than the rest of the world combined), balancing budgets, fiscal policy, family values, "limited" government, and reducing crime.
The only thing conservatives are good at is slinging bullshit. But as far as doing better by the United States and it's people? You. Have. Utterly. Failed.
You forgot to mention that the .com burst happened during the Clinton administration
Your point being what? Having an entire industry with no business model is going to go bust sooner or later.
and the economy recovered during the Bush administration for big investors while everyone else got fucked in the ass by stagnant wages and exploding fuel, housing and health care costs
There, fixed that for you.
Sorry. It's gotten hard to tell what's sarcasm and what's actual Clintonball/wingnut reasoning these days.
Though he's a Democrat, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does far more to accommodate Republicans in the Senate than he does Democrats. If it's a bill Democrats want to pass, the threshold needed to pass is 60 votes to end cloture. If it's a bill Republicans want to pass, only a simple majority is needed.
Oh, and he'll honor holds from nut job wingnuts like Tom Coburn, but not holds from members of his own party, like when he ignored Chris Dodd's hold on telecom immunity.
She has bargaining power and the presidency is all about ambition and power.
Hillary has a choice: work her ass off to get Obama elected, or flush the Clinton legacy down the drain. If she keeps up her prima donna act she'll be lucky to keep her Senate seat, much less become VP.
Face it, with Hillary, Barack hasn't a chance.
There, fixed that for you. Hard core Republicans don't like John McCain. He has the nomination locked up, all of his rivals have suspended their campaigns, and yet he consistently gets around 75% of the vote in Republican primaries. He managed to get over 80% in Oregon, which has been a good showing for him.
But these Republicans who don't like McCain will crawl across broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton. Picking her as VP brings precious little advantage to Obama, yet brings along all of the Clinton baggage. Hillary Clinton on the ticket would do for 2008 what gay marriage did for Republicans in 2004.
And this affects downticket races as well. Obama has serious coattails, as was proven when he campaigned for Democrats in recent special elections that won House seats held by Republicans for decades. With Obama and a complimentary VP candidate, the Democrats have a real chance of getting a filibuster proof, Lieberman proof majority by 2010. Hillary would nip that in the bud.
Obama hasn't gone off on Hillary because 1) her thin skinned supporters see sexism behind every tree, and 2) he doesn't want the media to start portraying him as an "angry" Democrat like when they trashed Howard Dean in 2004. Even more so since he's black, given the attention the media has paid to Rev. White (molehills) while ignoring the mountains of Ron Parsley (America was founded to oppose Islam) and John Hagee (Catholic Church is the Great Whore and will be devoured by the Antichrist).
I suppose you could see it that way, if you had been in a coma for the last three months and missed Rev. White and David Ayers being mentioned 1,000 times an hour on cable news. The reality is that while the press loves going after the Clintons, they love a horse race even more, if only to sell more ads. So they've spent the last three months trashing Obama while giving Hillary and McCain a free ride. They would have ignored Obama and trashed Clinton if she was leading the race, but she hasn't.
Well maybe its true...
Nope. Just straight up bullshit, and pretty ballsy considering how far they've run the country and our affairs into the ground over the last 30 years. Any more questions?
I just wish for once a person would run on something other than a slew of social issues that they have no power to change.
That's where a large congressional majority comes in. FDR didn't campaign on transforming government. He was able to do that with huge majorities in Congress, which the Democrats will likely attain again over the next two elections. The recent special election losses shows that the GOP is at risk in even long term, hardcore Republican districts. If the Democrats don't get a filibuster proof, Lieberman proof majority this year, they should in 2010.
Dude, cut back on the coffee and cigarettes. Seriously.
Don't you get tired of throwing out the bullshit that has been the standard GOP attack line for decades? That the Democrat is an elitist liberal who will raise your taxes for the sake of raising taxes, take away your guns, sell us out to the UN, and a godless flipflopper.
It's been 40 years since Nixon won the White House. You'd think you could come up with something new.
This does not make sense:
The governor of the state has tremendous influence over the industry of not just developers but publishers and distributors.
How so?
The Governor is also the highest profile individual they could get, so combine those two factors and it is an easy choice.
He doesn't make video games. He doesn't make video games. He doesn't make video games. As I said, he signed legislation to help develop video games. So, go ahead have have him as a guest speaker, but to give him the keynote makes no damn sense.
Having a politician give a keynote speech at a gaming convention makes as much sense as a game developer giving the keynote address at a brain surgeon's convention. Or a blues guitarist making a keynote speech at a convention for criminal lawyers. Or Willie Nelson giving a keynote for the DEA.
I know the governor signed a law to provide incentives to game developers, and sure, let him make a speech at the E3. Knock yourselves out. But to give the keynote address when he's not in the industry makes no goddamn sense, as does your blathering about "discrimination".
Not the main page. Just a liiiitle bit of a difference, especially considering that about five people will use that instead of www.yahoo.com.
Collapse Iraq right when their government is finally getting some traction and cohesiveness?
You mean as they're about to receive presents from the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause?
You'll throw anarchy stright into the middle of the middle east, creating refugee crises, and breeding terrorists, as well as completely discrediting the US as an ally for anyone - completely untrustworthy.
Wow. You just gave me a flashback to that scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil plans on destroying the ozone layer and making up an affair that Prince Charles was having on Princess Diana - and his henchmen have to explain that those things already happened. EQ, we have thrown anarchy straight into the middle east, we have created an enormous refugee crisis, we have gotten far more people to hate us now than hated us in 2000, and our reputation is already in the toilet.
Now apply the same logic to anything propped up by the government and you will join us libertarians.
No thanks. Because with all things Libertarian, the cure is worse than the disease.
People complain that public schools suck, but they think the only answer is to spend more money on them.
Because when you pay $25,000 a year, you should be surprised when you fail to attract the best and brightest. And do you honestly think private schools cost less money? Have more accountability?
If you only knew how poorly school funds are handled- it only gets worse with the bureaucracy mandating how they must spend their money.
Which is why we need private schools. So instead of "wasteful" public schools, you'll have "wasteful" private schools, only instead of a superintendent getting paid $200,000, you'll have a CEO that gets paid $2,000,000 a year.
Pull out of Iraq
Yup.
allow citizens to opt out of social security
Disaster. It's called Social Security instead of Social Stock Trading for a reason.
and eliminate the federal income tax
Which is only the fairest tax ever devised, so naturally for Libertarians it makes sense to eliminate it.
We can make this country a lot better by removing the tax money that people bicker over
It would be possible to dismantle the military-industrial complex without sinking into anarchy in the process. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
...is that they need to cut unprofitable lines so they can make money and get off government subsidies. But the senators from the states with unprofitable lines insist that they remain open as a condition of funding. So Amtrak is unprofitable, and needs subsidies to keep running, and....
But it's funny you should mention trains, since McCain was an early critic of Iraq
No, he wasn't. He was up there saying the war would be short and sweet with the rest of the neocons.
and a backer of a plan (the surge) that actually put it back on the right track
Um, what? The surged failed by Bush's own benchmarks. What little progress was made was done diplomatically, not militarily. But if you continue to stick by your (baseless) opinion, I have some sweet shares in select New York bridges that I would love to sell you...
At least with McCain you know what you are fighting against.
Do you? Try and find an issue that McCain hasn't flip flopped on.
But Ii will say that the cult of personality being built around Obama
Which cult would that be, exactly.
Don't think so? Try showing up at a McCain rally with a "Support the Troops Retreat from Iraq Now" t-shirt, or a "Support the Troops Win the Iraq War" placard at an Obama rally. (Figure to be equally offensive to both sides).
Bullshit false equivalency, straight up.
Just look at what happened to Joe Lieberman.
The Joe Lieberman who on foreign policy is as much of a crazy neocon as Dick Cheney? The Joe Lieberman that constantly goes on Fox News to trash other Democrats? The Joe Lieberman that lied through his teeth in 2006 by saying "no one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do" to win re-election? The Joe Lieberman that is attacking Obama right now (even though Obama campaigned for him two years ago) while campaigning with John McCain?
That Joe Lieberman? What about him?
No Apple laptop or screen looks like that on the back (4" strip of light grey on top and dark grey on the rest). I call Photoshoped.