"Notes in desks or affixed to filing cabinets allegedly left by Clinton staffers reading "GET OUT," "Hail to the thief" and "W happens" were shown to investigators but were not included in the report"
But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story!
You must conveniently forget that he specifically created and tasked an office under his control to produce that bad intelligence at all costs.
Source? The foremost investigative reporter, Bob Woodward, reported in his book Plan of Attack of how Bush challenged CIA Director George Tenet (a holdover Clinton appointee) that he needed to be absolutely sure about WMD before he asks the American people to support an invasion. Tenet said, "It's a slam dunk."
And of course every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD. In fact the UN passed a unanimous resolution giving Saddam "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." Did Bush control all the world's intelligence agencies or the UN Security Council? China and Russia?
You also must conveniently disregard the thousands of african americans who were wrongfully purged from voting registrations in Florida in 2000. As the recount came within under 500 votes difference, the recount was called off by the voting authority in charge (can't remember the c--- name), who also happened to be a major member of the Bush election party.
I conveniently disregarded that bogus claim because it was an unsubstantiated urban legend, the old "blacks were intimidated" myth. Silly claims made by Al Gore's lawyers or partisan Democrats.
Once again, every news organization (did they work on Bush's campaign?) that did a recount afterward found Gore would not have won by any metric, even the cherry-picked Dem-friendly districts Gore wanted. And the media was never able to find a single black vote that was wrongfully discarded, let alone 5,000.
And let's not forget the shameless attempt by Bill Beckel to disqualify 1000's of overseas military ballots because they were delivered too slowly. Beckel went on TV and defended that one, so it's not like it was even disputed.
The way that Bush did it is unprecedented, because only certain Attorneys were fired. Clinton, for example, fired ALL 90-something of them.
You are joking, right? You are actually a Republican being sarcastic. You aren't seriously defending the practice of Clinton firing 90 of Bush 41's US Attorneys, and packing all 90 openings with lawyers who pass Clinton's litmus test - you know, the guy who fired the White House Travel Office and packed it with cronies from Arkansas? - and Criticizing Bush for firing 8 AND RETAINING 82 of Clinton's appointees. Bush is the bad guy. Amazing. Just another example of "the rules are different for Republicans."
These are POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS. They are MEANT TO BE POLITICAL. Elections have consequences, one of them being is that the person who wins the presidential election, to some degree, gets to define the executive in his image. In areas that are to be shielded from politics and patronage, (99.9 percent of government employees), they get civil service protections. US Attorneys do not have that protection for a reason - they serve at the pleasure of the president.
I love this "don't politicize" line. The US government is a political system, politics being the process by which policy is made - and implemented.
I can only hope the Democrats are dumb enough to burn political capital on investigating Bush for something he has the full right to do. Unfortunately, I believe Obama is way too smart for this, and will stop the likes Pelosi and Reid from such idiocy.
The nitpick isn't that he was running late, but that he got the Constitutionally-mandated wording wrong.
Obama flubbed too. I don't think it's really fair to start nitpicking this early, especially on the most exciting day of a man's life; but it is kind of funny that the rap on Bush (fairly) was that he couldn't talk, and of course Obama is oh-so-articulate. But it was Obama, not Bush who flubbed his oath.
Excuse me if I think for myself for a second, instead of relying on an article some random dude wrote. Every president in history stocks his adminstration full of his supporters and true believers, those who agree with his views. That's why we have elections, and they have consequesnces. Just like Clinton and every president before Bush did, Bush picked law enforcement guys who see eye-to-eye with the chief law enforcement officer in the country.
There is a reason US Attorneys are POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS rather than civil service jobs. The system is purposely set up for the president to appoint people who will execute the laws as he sees fit, since he (and the VP) is the one guy in the whole branch who is actually elected! But suddenly, for the first time in 200+ years, political appointments are not supposed to be political. I guess you would want a bunch of Bush appointees who disagree with Obama's vision of justice to not be fired? Should Obama also keep all of Bush's other appointees too? Maybe hire Karl Rove, lest he be considered "political?"
I am continually amazed at the staying power of right wing nutbar myths.
Right, and "Bush lied", rather than operated in good faith on bad intelligence, or Bush "stole the election" (even though not a single recount by the media has ever shown Gore, even with his cherry-picking of votes, would have been the winner), the latter being repeated by Bob Shrum two days ago. Or that firing US Attorneys is something that only Bush did and it is unprecedented.
The 20th Amendment makes it clear that the outgoing president's term ends at 12:00 noon. The oath is required at some point, but no political scientist in the country would say that we had no president at the stroke of 12.
And nice nitpick on Roberts. The guy is running late so all of a sudden he is a judicial activist. Uh, OK.
I agree that XP SP2 (after years of beta, known as XP and XP SP1), is a pretty good OS (please no semantic arguments abut what an OS is).
And I don't think Vista is shitty. The problem is 1) if you have XP already, as (almost anyone who runs Wintel already does) there is absolutely no reason to change unless something much better comes along (which of course Vista is not) and 2) When you do upgrade, it should make your life better, not worse. Vista "breaks" a lot of things people are used to in XP (you know, minor things like applications and drivers).
The fact is that Vista is not shitty if it's your first OS or are upgrading from Win 98. But for the average XP user, it is simply a case of MS desperately needing its pre-existing users to buy something new every few years. MS is no longer a growth company since they have assimilated 90-plus percent of the world. So it can't have people just sitting on their pre-installed products. They need you to buy buy buy new ones!
Maybe if the US tax policy wasn't insanely out of line with the rest of the world, we wouldn't have this problem. Can you blame these companies for getting away?
Absolutely, and this ludicrous, greedy policy (and regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley) are really helping to kill the US economy. Now a majority of the top IPOs every year occur in other countries. It used to be like 23 of the top 25 IPOs would always be in the US. Last year, it was like 2 of 25.
Other countries charge income tax based on income earned in that country. The US charges income tax for income earned in any country. Where would you set up your company?
Absolutely. I have three friends who got MBAs in the past 5 years. All three have separately joined or founded corporations in Ireland. Born and bred US MBAs, taking their business elsewhere. This tax policy is killing the US. And the remedy the Democrats want? Better enforcement! Right out in the open (failing) US companies are showing Congress, "look, we can't make it here, so we move our operations elsewhere." And the answer is to continue this policy, rather than, "hey, maybe we have made America business-unfriendly, and we should make the US more competitive to do business." Nope, the answer is to tighten the noose. Unbelievable.
Same thing is happening in California. Millionaires and business are fleeing. And all the want to do in Sacramento is spend more and tax more. Prescription for disaster. Oh well, they'll just spend spend spend, then blame Ahnold.
I really get frustrated when doublespeak is acceptable. It's like the question, "Are prisoners in Guantanamo being tortured?" If they weren't being tortured, they would be in New York state, sitting in the same jail cells we use for other suspected murderers. The fact that anyone is asking the question is mind-boggling.
In addition to being a totally off-topic thread hijack, tell me when, in the history of warfare, have POW's/detainees ever gotten civil jails and courts? I thought in war, enemies went to POW camps until the war is over, like the US did with the Nazi's, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Confederate soldiers, the British, etc. The point being, we don't want the enemy coming back and shooting us again, as 61 released prisoners have done to date.
But now, because terrists flout all rules of war and Geneva, they should be treated better than POWs? I thought the point of Geneva was that you had to earn its protections by complying with its rules, carrot and stick. Think of the moral hazard. Now countries will actually be encouraged to foment terror, as terrorists will be treated better than POWs. And they can clog up our criminal courts with 100's even 1000's of them! Fun fun fun for Iran.
And now we have dropped the "torture" bar even lower. First it was waterboarding 4 people. But now torture is not getting the right jail? Have you ever seen a city or county jail? I assure you, Camp Delta is the nicest jail in the world. I saw a special on GB and I got hungry after I saw what they feed the detainees. So now torture isn't getting the right jail cell? And anyone who disagrees with that entirely new definition of torture is doublespeaking? Wow, just wow.
Sorry bub, but if you voted for Republicans in any presidential election, I'll vote for Obama in 2012. But I am not worried that I will have to do that.
I was happy to make actual arguments until you dragged it into the gutter and used every third word to insult me (or Bush or Cheney). Republicans simply don't talk that way, even the ones who disagree with Bush. And characterizing my only argument as "bleating liberal" in a thread where I had already posted three comments and didn't even mention the word "liberal" until you came along and crapped on the thread is disingenuous, or suggests bad reading comp skills on your SATs.
Liberals, especially the hard-left, do talk that way, at least from reading the two iconic left-wing Websites. So I assumed you were a liberal. And reading your praise of center-left European countries (which by American political standards are socialist) in your other comments, I think calling you a liberal, based on your own description of your politics, is accurate, and hardly "ad hominem." I mean come on, people in a right-wing system are "slaves of the elite?" You couldn't sound more Marxist without actually quoting him. And America, which spends 60% of its $3T budget on entitlements (redistribution of wealth), and regulates every aspect of business endeavor - including minimum wage laws and allowing labor to collude but not business - and where freedom of contract has been replaced by the Nanny State is hardly Classically Liberal! 2009 America is a lot of good things, but laissez-faire and small government it is decidedly not. And with Obama as POTUS and 58 or 59 senators and a majority in the House on his side, I doubt it's going to get more Classically Liberal any time soon.
Calling someone stupid and saying they have bad parents and being anti-American and a scumbag - merely because they have the nerve to disagree with you - that, Sparky, is ad hominem. And in my experience, liberals tend to do that more than conservatives. Conservatives think liberals (and sometimes Bush) are wrong and misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil. So you can see why I'd think you are a liberal.
If you don't believe me, go read redstate.org's or NRO.com's forums.
Then go read moveon.org's and huffingtonpost.com's forums and read the vitriol.
And this "anti-American" is done with you and your ad hominem attacks. And I believe that 90% of the people on/. with mod points would mod you down, assuming you were brave enough to post this invective in an active discussion. Considering 3 of your 5 moderated comments were modded flamebait, apparently that assumption is correct. And considering that everyone in this thread was debating cheerfully and was modded insightful - until you came along, suddenly flamebaiting the discussion, I think that speaks louder than any other argument. Nice job!
Go to the Huffington Post or moveon.org and you will be well-received. They might even make you a columnist.
Good luck with that "debating" style. I'm done with it.
on libertarian and constitutional grounds (i.e., constitutions are meant to define and limit government power, not limit citizen rights), I do think gays have been their own worst enemies on this. I am old enough to remember when the gays argued, "what I do on my own bedroom is my own business." And this made sense to me, just don't shove it in my face and ask me to approve. I don't know what my parents do in bed, and I still love them. Why do I need to know what you do in bed?
But now, they want public ratification of their relationships; no longer are they arguing the bedroom thing (since Lawrence v Texas). And since civil unions are about giving gays the same legal rights, is this really about equal rights, or is it a symbolic thing about forcing the world to accept them and their agenda? Is this simply more tedious identity politics, "look and me, I am (fill in appropriate victocrat group)"?
I can also fully understand Christians, as much as I think they have hijacked my Republican Party, and as much as I think they use pretextual arguments about this (i.e., "protecting marriage"); I do see how they might be concerned that they might be forced to accept gays as priests, rent rooms to them, etc, or be sued for discrimination. Even the article submitter expects the Christian Microsoft employee to abandon his beliefs and adopt submitter's views. Uh, mainstream Christians think homosexuality is a sin, like it or not. That's how it works in America, people can disagree with you. Once again, I keep hearing the Left say they are about dissent - until you dissent with them.
Compare: Western Europe, where Christians can be tried for civil rights violations for calling homosexuality a sin. Which system do you prefer, liberty-minded Slashdotters?
For the record, as a "small-l" libertarian, I think gays should be able to marry, or better yet, that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, other than recording it to prevent stealth polygamy by one party. But as a libertarian, I think Christians should be able to deny gays from renting if they disprove of that lifestyle. Liberty for gays, liberty for Christians. It's actually one of those weird, anachronistic rights that nobody likes to emphasize, you know, the First Amendment, freedom of association?
And anyone against granting them a right that never existed in the first place is a apparently homophobe. O rly? So I have to agree with your agenda or I hate you? I have to change thousands of years of tradition overnight or I hate gays? Nonsense.
I do believe that gays have alienated a lot of people in a generally liberal state (funny how a majority of blacks and Hispanics were pro-Prop 8 - strange bedfellows there, Dems) who might be for them otherwise. But yelling at people that they must adopt your position is not winning hearts and minds. Neither is declaring a right by judicial fiat. You'd think they would have learned from 2004, when the Mass Supremes legalized gay marriage, and then 8 states adopted gay marriage bans in response - and GWB got reelected largely on a family values platform (a plurality of Bush voters in 2004 said this in exit polls). Yeah, that really helped the gay cause.
The gays have acted horribly after this vote, whining, stomping their feet, refusing to respect the voters' decision, almost making me regret my vote. But I won't compromise my principles even if they are annoying as hell.
As Nietzsche said, "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
The sad thing is, Cali is a liberal state. If the gays waited 5 or 10 years, instead of trying to bypass the democratic process through the courts, Californians would have probably have legalized gay marriage on their own. But the People don't like having key decisions made for them by unelected elites - the exact point that pro-choice, SCOTUS swing vote Sandra Day O'Connor made about Roe v. Wade.
Argue with a liberal, he eventually will 1) call you names (dumb, racist, sexist, homophobe, greedy), or 2) walk away indignantly.
You libs just have to make a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you. So now I am a "extremely partisan nutter" for having the temerity to stand up for someone who has served his country as an elected representative. I am sorry you are so cynical that you think all politicians are evil, but I think Cheney has tried to do the best he can to protect this country
And take your supercilious "sic" and stick it up your ass. That was obviously a typo, Mr. High and Mighty, Oh-so-smart lib. Seriously, get over yourself.
But even his specific case aside, a lifelong leech on the public tit is a bad thing,
Right, a guy who was making millions in the private sector and comes back into government to make $175K is a leech. No, I think he came into government to help America. And oh by the way, the Cheneys donated millions to charity, including that $175K salary. The mainstream media's eight years of character assassination notwithstanding, yes I do believe he is a decent man who tried to do the right thing.
And I guess you'd prefer that presidents with little or no national experience (Bush, Obama) not seek the assistance of seasoned Washington insiders to counsel them (Cheney, Biden). Yep, we need inexperienced noobies (oh no, sic!) running the country.
What the hell is wrong with your parents, your educational institutions and yourself that you never managed to figure out such a simple basic fact?
Wow, nice ad hominem attack, so typical of a lib. You manage to attack my parents, UCLA, my law school, and my character all in one sentence. Audacious even for a liberal. I guess this is what Obama meant by the Audacity of Hope?
Just once, I'd like to meet and debate with a liberal who won't run to the gutter and make personal attacks, and could just disagree without being disagreeable. Just once.
As I just told my GF the other day as she argued the Gaza conflict with libs on Facebook, when you argue with a lib, sooner or later they either 1) call you a name or 2) walk away indignantly.
Take your ball and go home when someone is beating you in an argument. So typical.
You defended a horrific practice and violation of American law based the cultural practice of another country.
Please leave
I posted in this thread a full day before you did. I was here first. You leave and take your moral relativism with you.
and take your straw man with you.
No, a strawman misstates your argument. Your argument was that we should respect archaic, barbaric cultural traditions like that of arranged marriages and dowry and that children involved in said arrangements are not "sad.". Did I misrepresent your argument? If not, then 1) you are a lunatic and 2) do we respect all cultures barbaric practices, or just this one? Seems to me I got your premise correct, and the logical outcome of it. Where did I go wrong? Where did I misrepresent your argument?
If you had botherd to RTFA in the link I provided, you would have seen that this story has been highly sensationalized. In reality, it's a rather mundane case of a man who reneged on paying his dowry.
Regardless of what a liberal newspaper like SJMN quotes this illegal alien's shameless defense attorney as saying, in America, that is called human trafficking and pedophilia. Of a man's own daughter. This is a very serious case in America, at least with those who do not recognize ass-backward culture as a defense to felonies.
The whole reason we frown on conflicts of interest is that a person in a position to make public policy should not benefit financially from that policy, lest he might do what is best for himself rather than what is best for the public good (this is also known as "a member of Congress").
But Cheney simply does not make military contractor policy, something watched like a hawk by the congressional armed services committees and their friends in the military and private contractors (i.e., the Iron Triangle). You'd have an easier time stealing a wildebeest from a pack of lions than you would poaching a major military contract from the Iron Triangle.
If you want to see a conflict of interest, look at the members of congress with naval contractors in their districts and states. Or better yet, how much money Obama took from the dreaded entertainment industry and how he ends up serving the MPAA and the RIAA. Or how his Transportation Secretary nominee benefited donors with his earmarks.
But when we have a politician with no policy-making role that effects his pocketbook, then there is no conflict of interest. That's why it matters that Cheney did not and could not make policy that rewarded him through Haliburton. It isn't a conflict that someone inadvertently profits from a decision of government which he did not make!
you instead resort to accusing me of equating him to Darth Vader, being aware of the 9/11 plot, planning to invade Iraq.
Your powers of extrapolation are... astounding.
No, I have just read the repeated posts here, on Dailykos, on HuffPost, alleging just what I "extrapolated." Several posters in this very thread have made similar arguments.
And I find it hard to believe that you are some fair-minded guy concerned about government propriety, who isn't trying to besmirch a live-long public servant simply because of ideology. I find it hard to believe because in a thread about an Obama conflict of interest, rather than being outraged by it, you bring up a tenuous at best conflict from a war launched in 2003 - by a Republican.
I wonder if I looked back at your posting history, would you be one of those who criticized the "but...Clinton!" crowd defending Bush?
So you're suggesting that Obama's experience is equivalent or less than Palin's?
That's exactly what I am saying. As for REI's "nice post" - which never addresses my issue that Obama has zero executive experience, either foreign or domestic and his largest staff was 73 people - I submit to you a quote from William F. Buckley (since we are apparently using the wisdom of others to make our points.):
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
The same applies, even more so, to Columbia University.
Again, no executive experience. He is without a doubt the least-experienced person ever to be elected to the job. He was elected because he is likable and people feel good voting for a black guy, pure and simple. POTUS is not an entry level job.
i.e., lunatic. So by that insane troll logic, women who endure female circumcision are not "sad" because hacking off a woman's clitoris is part of a cultural tradition. Cultures which persecute homosexuals (like Iran, where eve teenage homsexuals are hung) are not sad, it is just a cultural difference. Cultures in which women have no political or legal rights and are essentially property are not sad, they are just different but equal cultures! No, I'm sure the girl was more than happy to be forced to fuck a stranger.
Bullshit! Some cultures are ass-backwards and barbaric, and I judge this by "progressive" standards that we would use in this country and any civilized nation. Funny how libs love to compare America to other countries for guidance (healthcare, war on terror, death penalty, etc), but we can't judge other cultures by the same standard?
What nonsense. You come to this country, or any other, you should learn and respect its culture and laws. Ignore them at your own peril. Assimilate or stay home. Being in America is not a right. This is why we should massively expand the naturalization test to include laws and traditions and mores, not just how many stars are on the flag.
So Cheney, who made millions at Haliburton, left the private sector for a $175K job simply to further enrich himself, at the expense of American blood and treasure (It's OK to make this devastating claim about Cheney, "but don't question a liberal's patriotism!!!!"). Not because, as a man who spent the vast majority of his life as a public servant, he wanted to help guide the country.
Nope, Darth Vader came to the VP office to make money. Let me get the chronology correct here.
1) Leave incredibly profitable private sector job to Become VP, knowing there would be a 9/11 leading to the concern over WMD and that Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions or IAEA inspections, that we would thus invade Iraq, and that Haliburton would become the military's main civilian infrastructure contractor.
2) Invade Iraq
3) ????
4) Haliburton chosen as main contractor by US military
5) Profit.
In other words, even if you impugn the man's character and motives, you still have to give him the foresight to predict all of this, as well as some shred of evidence that he actually influenced the contract selection process of the US Military. To date, there is no evidence - and a mound of contrary evidence - that Cheney had influence over Haliburton being chosen.
That President of the United States not be an entry-level job, and that the elect would actually have some executive experience to judge him on. Sarah Palin was too inexperienced having been a mayor of a small town and governor of a low-populated state (with an 80% approval rating).
Obama's executive experience in the public or private sector? The guy hasn't run a hot dog stand, let alone a major organization.
Hmm, a junior senator who hasn't even had a full term yet with a staff of 73 might not know how to run the most complex organization on earth with the most employees on earth? Who woulda thunk it?
Didn't actually investigate how Obama rose to power in such an environment. They were too busy being cheerleaders for Obama's coronation - and investigating Sarah Palin's 16-year-old daughter.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this informative? The Clinton staffers didn't do it at all. It was thoroughly debunked within a month of the allegations coming out.
Actually, the GAO found $15,000 in damage.
"Notes in desks or affixed to filing cabinets allegedly left by Clinton staffers reading "GET OUT," "Hail to the thief" and "W happens" were shown to investigators but were not included in the report"
But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story!
I found the current BSG boring, meandering, and nihilist. I didn't watch it enough to hear the preaching.
I was a fan of the original series. And I preferred the original Starbuck.
You must conveniently forget that he specifically created and tasked an office under his control to produce that bad intelligence at all costs.
Source? The foremost investigative reporter, Bob Woodward, reported in his book Plan of Attack of how Bush challenged CIA Director George Tenet (a holdover Clinton appointee) that he needed to be absolutely sure about WMD before he asks the American people to support an invasion. Tenet said, "It's a slam dunk."
And of course every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD. In fact the UN passed a unanimous resolution giving Saddam "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." Did Bush control all the world's intelligence agencies or the UN Security Council? China and Russia?
You also must conveniently disregard the thousands of african americans who were wrongfully purged from voting registrations in Florida in 2000. As the recount came within under 500 votes difference, the recount was called off by the voting authority in charge (can't remember the c--- name), who also happened to be a major member of the Bush election party.
I conveniently disregarded that bogus claim because it was an unsubstantiated urban legend, the old "blacks were intimidated" myth. Silly claims made by Al Gore's lawyers or partisan Democrats.
Once again, every news organization (did they work on Bush's campaign?) that did a recount afterward found Gore would not have won by any metric, even the cherry-picked Dem-friendly districts Gore wanted. And the media was never able to find a single black vote that was wrongfully discarded, let alone 5,000.
And let's not forget the shameless attempt by Bill Beckel to disqualify 1000's of overseas military ballots because they were delivered too slowly. Beckel went on TV and defended that one, so it's not like it was even disputed.
The way that Bush did it is unprecedented, because only certain Attorneys were fired. Clinton, for example, fired ALL 90-something of them.
You are joking, right? You are actually a Republican being sarcastic. You aren't seriously defending the practice of Clinton firing 90 of Bush 41's US Attorneys, and packing all 90 openings with lawyers who pass Clinton's litmus test - you know, the guy who fired the White House Travel Office and packed it with cronies from Arkansas? - and Criticizing Bush for firing 8 AND RETAINING 82 of Clinton's appointees. Bush is the bad guy. Amazing. Just another example of "the rules are different for Republicans."
These are POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS. They are MEANT TO BE POLITICAL. Elections have consequences, one of them being is that the person who wins the presidential election, to some degree, gets to define the executive in his image. In areas that are to be shielded from politics and patronage, (99.9 percent of government employees), they get civil service protections. US Attorneys do not have that protection for a reason - they serve at the pleasure of the president.
I love this "don't politicize" line. The US government is a political system, politics being the process by which policy is made - and implemented.
I can only hope the Democrats are dumb enough to burn political capital on investigating Bush for something he has the full right to do. Unfortunately, I believe Obama is way too smart for this, and will stop the likes Pelosi and Reid from such idiocy.
The nitpick isn't that he was running late, but that he got the Constitutionally-mandated wording wrong.
Obama flubbed too. I don't think it's really fair to start nitpicking this early, especially on the most exciting day of a man's life; but it is kind of funny that the rap on Bush (fairly) was that he couldn't talk, and of course Obama is oh-so-articulate. But it was Obama, not Bush who flubbed his oath.
Excuse me if I think for myself for a second, instead of relying on an article some random dude wrote. Every president in history stocks his adminstration full of his supporters and true believers, those who agree with his views. That's why we have elections, and they have consequesnces. Just like Clinton and every president before Bush did, Bush picked law enforcement guys who see eye-to-eye with the chief law enforcement officer in the country.
There is a reason US Attorneys are POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS rather than civil service jobs. The system is purposely set up for the president to appoint people who will execute the laws as he sees fit, since he (and the VP) is the one guy in the whole branch who is actually elected! But suddenly, for the first time in 200+ years, political appointments are not supposed to be political. I guess you would want a bunch of Bush appointees who disagree with Obama's vision of justice to not be fired? Should Obama also keep all of Bush's other appointees too? Maybe hire Karl Rove, lest he be considered "political?"
"Change has (already) come to America."
That was fast! I was skeptical at this change business, but now that it has happened, I have to admit I was wrong, and now I am a believer.
I am continually amazed at the staying power of right wing nutbar myths.
Right, and "Bush lied", rather than operated in good faith on bad intelligence, or Bush "stole the election" (even though not a single recount by the media has ever shown Gore, even with his cherry-picking of votes, would have been the winner), the latter being repeated by Bob Shrum two days ago. Or that firing US Attorneys is something that only Bush did and it is unprecedented.
Glad those left-wing myths have no staying power!
The 20th Amendment makes it clear that the outgoing president's term ends at 12:00 noon. The oath is required at some point, but no political scientist in the country would say that we had no president at the stroke of 12.
And nice nitpick on Roberts. The guy is running late so all of a sudden he is a judicial activist. Uh, OK.
I agree that XP SP2 (after years of beta, known as XP and XP SP1), is a pretty good OS (please no semantic arguments abut what an OS is). And I don't think Vista is shitty. The problem is 1) if you have XP already, as (almost anyone who runs Wintel already does) there is absolutely no reason to change unless something much better comes along (which of course Vista is not) and 2) When you do upgrade, it should make your life better, not worse. Vista "breaks" a lot of things people are used to in XP (you know, minor things like applications and drivers).
The fact is that Vista is not shitty if it's your first OS or are upgrading from Win 98. But for the average XP user, it is simply a case of MS desperately needing its pre-existing users to buy something new every few years. MS is no longer a growth company since they have assimilated 90-plus percent of the world. So it can't have people just sitting on their pre-installed products. They need you to buy buy buy new ones!
You don't need Vista. MS needs you to buy Vista.
Maybe if the US tax policy wasn't insanely out of line with the rest of the world, we wouldn't have this problem. Can you blame these companies for getting away?
Absolutely, and this ludicrous, greedy policy (and regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley) are really helping to kill the US economy. Now a majority of the top IPOs every year occur in other countries. It used to be like 23 of the top 25 IPOs would always be in the US. Last year, it was like 2 of 25.
Other countries charge income tax based on income earned in that country. The US charges income tax for income earned in any country. Where would you set up your company?
Absolutely. I have three friends who got MBAs in the past 5 years. All three have separately joined or founded corporations in Ireland. Born and bred US MBAs, taking their business elsewhere. This tax policy is killing the US. And the remedy the Democrats want? Better enforcement! Right out in the open (failing) US companies are showing Congress, "look, we can't make it here, so we move our operations elsewhere." And the answer is to continue this policy, rather than, "hey, maybe we have made America business-unfriendly, and we should make the US more competitive to do business." Nope, the answer is to tighten the noose. Unbelievable.
Same thing is happening in California. Millionaires and business are fleeing. And all the want to do in Sacramento is spend more and tax more. Prescription for disaster. Oh well, they'll just spend spend spend, then blame Ahnold.
I really get frustrated when doublespeak is acceptable. It's like the question, "Are prisoners in Guantanamo being tortured?" If they weren't being tortured, they would be in New York state, sitting in the same jail cells we use for other suspected murderers. The fact that anyone is asking the question is mind-boggling.
In addition to being a totally off-topic thread hijack, tell me when, in the history of warfare, have POW's/detainees ever gotten civil jails and courts? I thought in war, enemies went to POW camps until the war is over, like the US did with the Nazi's, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Confederate soldiers, the British, etc. The point being, we don't want the enemy coming back and shooting us again, as 61 released prisoners have done to date.
But now, because terrists flout all rules of war and Geneva, they should be treated better than POWs? I thought the point of Geneva was that you had to earn its protections by complying with its rules, carrot and stick. Think of the moral hazard. Now countries will actually be encouraged to foment terror, as terrorists will be treated better than POWs. And they can clog up our criminal courts with 100's even 1000's of them! Fun fun fun for Iran.
And now we have dropped the "torture" bar even lower. First it was waterboarding 4 people. But now torture is not getting the right jail? Have you ever seen a city or county jail? I assure you, Camp Delta is the nicest jail in the world. I saw a special on GB and I got hungry after I saw what they feed the detainees. So now torture isn't getting the right jail cell? And anyone who disagrees with that entirely new definition of torture is doublespeaking? Wow, just wow.
Sorry bub, but if you voted for Republicans in any presidential election, I'll vote for Obama in 2012. But I am not worried that I will have to do that.
/. with mod points would mod you down, assuming you were brave enough to post this invective in an active discussion. Considering 3 of your 5 moderated comments were modded flamebait, apparently that assumption is correct. And considering that everyone in this thread was debating cheerfully and was modded insightful - until you came along, suddenly flamebaiting the discussion, I think that speaks louder than any other argument. Nice job!
I was happy to make actual arguments until you dragged it into the gutter and used every third word to insult me (or Bush or Cheney). Republicans simply don't talk that way, even the ones who disagree with Bush. And characterizing my only argument as "bleating liberal" in a thread where I had already posted three comments and didn't even mention the word "liberal" until you came along and crapped on the thread is disingenuous, or suggests bad reading comp skills on your SATs.
Liberals, especially the hard-left, do talk that way, at least from reading the two iconic left-wing Websites. So I assumed you were a liberal. And reading your praise of center-left European countries (which by American political standards are socialist) in your other comments, I think calling you a liberal, based on your own description of your politics, is accurate, and hardly "ad hominem." I mean come on, people in a right-wing system are "slaves of the elite?" You couldn't sound more Marxist without actually quoting him. And America, which spends 60% of its $3T budget on entitlements (redistribution of wealth), and regulates every aspect of business endeavor - including minimum wage laws and allowing labor to collude but not business - and where freedom of contract has been replaced by the Nanny State is hardly Classically Liberal! 2009 America is a lot of good things, but laissez-faire and small government it is decidedly not. And with Obama as POTUS and 58 or 59 senators and a majority in the House on his side, I doubt it's going to get more Classically Liberal any time soon.
Calling someone stupid and saying they have bad parents and being anti-American and a scumbag - merely because they have the nerve to disagree with you - that, Sparky, is ad hominem. And in my experience, liberals tend to do that more than conservatives. Conservatives think liberals (and sometimes Bush) are wrong and misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil. So you can see why I'd think you are a liberal.
If you don't believe me, go read redstate.org's or NRO.com's forums.
Then go read moveon.org's and huffingtonpost.com's forums and read the vitriol.
And this "anti-American" is done with you and your ad hominem attacks. And I believe that 90% of the people on
Go to the Huffington Post or moveon.org and you will be well-received. They might even make you a columnist.
Good luck with that "debating" style. I'm done with it.
on libertarian and constitutional grounds (i.e., constitutions are meant to define and limit government power, not limit citizen rights), I do think gays have been their own worst enemies on this. I am old enough to remember when the gays argued, "what I do on my own bedroom is my own business." And this made sense to me, just don't shove it in my face and ask me to approve. I don't know what my parents do in bed, and I still love them. Why do I need to know what you do in bed?
But now, they want public ratification of their relationships; no longer are they arguing the bedroom thing (since Lawrence v Texas). And since civil unions are about giving gays the same legal rights, is this really about equal rights, or is it a symbolic thing about forcing the world to accept them and their agenda? Is this simply more tedious identity politics, "look and me, I am (fill in appropriate victocrat group)"?
I can also fully understand Christians, as much as I think they have hijacked my Republican Party, and as much as I think they use pretextual arguments about this (i.e., "protecting marriage"); I do see how they might be concerned that they might be forced to accept gays as priests, rent rooms to them, etc, or be sued for discrimination. Even the article submitter expects the Christian Microsoft employee to abandon his beliefs and adopt submitter's views. Uh, mainstream Christians think homosexuality is a sin, like it or not. That's how it works in America, people can disagree with you. Once again, I keep hearing the Left say they are about dissent - until you dissent with them.
Compare: Western Europe, where Christians can be tried for civil rights violations for calling homosexuality a sin. Which system do you prefer, liberty-minded Slashdotters?
For the record, as a "small-l" libertarian, I think gays should be able to marry, or better yet, that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, other than recording it to prevent stealth polygamy by one party. But as a libertarian, I think Christians should be able to deny gays from renting if they disprove of that lifestyle. Liberty for gays, liberty for Christians. It's actually one of those weird, anachronistic rights that nobody likes to emphasize, you know, the First Amendment, freedom of association?
And anyone against granting them a right that never existed in the first place is a apparently homophobe. O rly? So I have to agree with your agenda or I hate you? I have to change thousands of years of tradition overnight or I hate gays? Nonsense.
I do believe that gays have alienated a lot of people in a generally liberal state (funny how a majority of blacks and Hispanics were pro-Prop 8 - strange bedfellows there, Dems) who might be for them otherwise. But yelling at people that they must adopt your position is not winning hearts and minds. Neither is declaring a right by judicial fiat. You'd think they would have learned from 2004, when the Mass Supremes legalized gay marriage, and then 8 states adopted gay marriage bans in response - and GWB got reelected largely on a family values platform (a plurality of Bush voters in 2004 said this in exit polls). Yeah, that really helped the gay cause.
The gays have acted horribly after this vote, whining, stomping their feet, refusing to respect the voters' decision, almost making me regret my vote. But I won't compromise my principles even if they are annoying as hell.
As Nietzsche said, "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
The sad thing is, Cali is a liberal state. If the gays waited 5 or 10 years, instead of trying to bypass the democratic process through the courts, Californians would have probably have legalized gay marriage on their own. But the People don't like having key decisions made for them by unelected elites - the exact point that pro-choice, SCOTUS swing vote Sandra Day O'Connor made about Roe v. Wade.
Argue with a liberal, he eventually will 1) call you names (dumb, racist, sexist, homophobe, greedy), or 2) walk away indignantly.
You libs just have to make a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you. So now I am a "extremely partisan nutter" for having the temerity to stand up for someone who has served his country as an elected representative. I am sorry you are so cynical that you think all politicians are evil, but I think Cheney has tried to do the best he can to protect this country
And take your supercilious "sic" and stick it up your ass. That was obviously a typo, Mr. High and Mighty, Oh-so-smart lib. Seriously, get over yourself.
But even his specific case aside, a lifelong leech on the public tit is a bad thing,
Right, a guy who was making millions in the private sector and comes back into government to make $175K is a leech. No, I think he came into government to help America. And oh by the way, the Cheneys donated millions to charity, including that $175K salary. The mainstream media's eight years of character assassination notwithstanding, yes I do believe he is a decent man who tried to do the right thing.
And I guess you'd prefer that presidents with little or no national experience (Bush, Obama) not seek the assistance of seasoned Washington insiders to counsel them (Cheney, Biden). Yep, we need inexperienced noobies (oh no, sic!) running the country.
What the hell is wrong with your parents, your educational institutions and yourself that you never managed to figure out such a simple basic fact?
Wow, nice ad hominem attack, so typical of a lib. You manage to attack my parents, UCLA, my law school, and my character all in one sentence. Audacious even for a liberal. I guess this is what Obama meant by the Audacity of Hope?
Just once, I'd like to meet and debate with a liberal who won't run to the gutter and make personal attacks, and could just disagree without being disagreeable. Just once.
Typical liberal.
As I just told my GF the other day as she argued the Gaza conflict with libs on Facebook, when you argue with a lib, sooner or later they either 1) call you a name or 2) walk away indignantly.
Take your ball and go home when someone is beating you in an argument. So typical.
I never said that.
You defended a horrific practice and violation of American law based the cultural practice of another country.
Please leave
I posted in this thread a full day before you did. I was here first. You leave and take your moral relativism with you.
and take your straw man with you.
No, a strawman misstates your argument. Your argument was that we should respect archaic, barbaric cultural traditions like that of arranged marriages and dowry and that children involved in said arrangements are not "sad.". Did I misrepresent your argument? If not, then 1) you are a lunatic and 2) do we respect all cultures barbaric practices, or just this one? Seems to me I got your premise correct, and the logical outcome of it. Where did I go wrong? Where did I misrepresent your argument?
If you had botherd to RTFA in the link I provided, you would have seen that this story has been highly sensationalized. In reality, it's a rather mundane case of a man who reneged on paying his dowry.
Regardless of what a liberal newspaper like SJMN quotes this illegal alien's shameless defense attorney as saying, in America, that is called human trafficking and pedophilia. Of a man's own daughter. This is a very serious case in America, at least with those who do not recognize ass-backward culture as a defense to felonies.
The whole reason we frown on conflicts of interest is that a person in a position to make public policy should not benefit financially from that policy, lest he might do what is best for himself rather than what is best for the public good (this is also known as "a member of Congress").
But Cheney simply does not make military contractor policy, something watched like a hawk by the congressional armed services committees and their friends in the military and private contractors (i.e., the Iron Triangle). You'd have an easier time stealing a wildebeest from a pack of lions than you would poaching a major military contract from the Iron Triangle.
If you want to see a conflict of interest, look at the members of congress with naval contractors in their districts and states. Or better yet, how much money Obama took from the dreaded entertainment industry and how he ends up serving the MPAA and the RIAA. Or how his Transportation Secretary nominee benefited donors with his earmarks.
But when we have a politician with no policy-making role that effects his pocketbook, then there is no conflict of interest. That's why it matters that Cheney did not and could not make policy that rewarded him through Haliburton. It isn't a conflict that someone inadvertently profits from a decision of government which he did not make!
you instead resort to accusing me of equating him to Darth Vader, being aware of the 9/11 plot, planning to invade Iraq.
Your powers of extrapolation are... astounding.
No, I have just read the repeated posts here, on Dailykos, on HuffPost, alleging just what I "extrapolated." Several posters in this very thread have made similar arguments.
And I find it hard to believe that you are some fair-minded guy concerned about government propriety, who isn't trying to besmirch a live-long public servant simply because of ideology. I find it hard to believe because in a thread about an Obama conflict of interest, rather than being outraged by it, you bring up a tenuous at best conflict from a war launched in 2003 - by a Republican.
I wonder if I looked back at your posting history, would you be one of those who criticized the "but...Clinton!" crowd defending Bush?
So you're suggesting that Obama's experience is equivalent or less than Palin's?
That's exactly what I am saying. As for REI's "nice post" - which never addresses my issue that Obama has zero executive experience, either foreign or domestic and his largest staff was 73 people - I submit to you a quote from William F. Buckley (since we are apparently using the wisdom of others to make our points.):
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
The same applies, even more so, to Columbia University.
Again, no executive experience. He is without a doubt the least-experienced person ever to be elected to the job. He was elected because he is likable and people feel good voting for a black guy, pure and simple. POTUS is not an entry level job.
i.e., lunatic. So by that insane troll logic, women who endure female circumcision are not "sad" because hacking off a woman's clitoris is part of a cultural tradition. Cultures which persecute homosexuals (like Iran, where eve teenage homsexuals are hung) are not sad, it is just a cultural difference. Cultures in which women have no political or legal rights and are essentially property are not sad, they are just different but equal cultures! No, I'm sure the girl was more than happy to be forced to fuck a stranger.
Bullshit! Some cultures are ass-backwards and barbaric, and I judge this by "progressive" standards that we would use in this country and any civilized nation. Funny how libs love to compare America to other countries for guidance (healthcare, war on terror, death penalty, etc), but we can't judge other cultures by the same standard?
What nonsense. You come to this country, or any other, you should learn and respect its culture and laws. Ignore them at your own peril. Assimilate or stay home. Being in America is not a right. This is why we should massively expand the naturalization test to include laws and traditions and mores, not just how many stars are on the flag.
He is a very bad man.
So Cheney, who made millions at Haliburton, left the private sector for a $175K job simply to further enrich himself, at the expense of American blood and treasure (It's OK to make this devastating claim about Cheney, "but don't question a liberal's patriotism!!!!"). Not because, as a man who spent the vast majority of his life as a public servant, he wanted to help guide the country.
Nope, Darth Vader came to the VP office to make money. Let me get the chronology correct here.
1) Leave incredibly profitable private sector job to Become VP, knowing there would be a 9/11 leading to the concern over WMD and that Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions or IAEA inspections, that we would thus invade Iraq, and that Haliburton would become the military's main civilian infrastructure contractor.
2) Invade Iraq
3) ????
4) Haliburton chosen as main contractor by US military
5) Profit.
In other words, even if you impugn the man's character and motives, you still have to give him the foresight to predict all of this, as well as some shred of evidence that he actually influenced the contract selection process of the US Military. To date, there is no evidence - and a mound of contrary evidence - that Cheney had influence over Haliburton being chosen.
That President of the United States not be an entry-level job, and that the elect would actually have some executive experience to judge him on. Sarah Palin was too inexperienced having been a mayor of a small town and governor of a low-populated state (with an 80% approval rating).
Obama's executive experience in the public or private sector? The guy hasn't run a hot dog stand, let alone a major organization.
Hmm, a junior senator who hasn't even had a full term yet with a staff of 73 might not know how to run the most complex organization on earth with the most employees on earth? Who woulda thunk it?
Didn't actually investigate how Obama rose to power in such an environment. They were too busy being cheerleaders for Obama's coronation - and investigating Sarah Palin's 16-year-old daughter.
Cheney didn't know he had these investments until CRS did the study. By then, Iraq had already been invaded. Nice try.