It's easy to think a recession couldn't just happen so quickly; Easy to think the resession was "inherited".
Uh, it is not possible for it to be otherwise. It just isn't. First, we know the stock market crash over a year before the recession started, 10 months before Bush took office. Second, we know that jobs started being lost before Bush took office. Third, we know that none of Bush's policies took effect by then, and that few were even passed.
Blaming Bush for the recession is pure fancy. You'd have more luck convincing me Disney staged the moon landing. It's not reasonable at all, and completely discredits anything you have to say on the subject.
The tech sector is unique, in that it had hundreds of thousands of employees it had no business hiring in the first place. Companies were too big, grew too fast, and as a result, hired too many people. Reality set in and, surprise, those jobs were lost and haven't come back.
I don't know what results you want: telling companies to hire people they neither need nor want? The private sector created the problem, and the private sector has fixed it. The tech industry right now is very healthy, and doing very well. It's smaller, as it should be, and those jobs are not going to come back, because the industry learned from its mistake.
The problem with the tech market is too many people got into it. In the late 90s, everyone got in the market, and we all know that many of them were not qualified. Some cab driver learns Word and Dreamweaver, gets a job, and then gets laid off because he never should have been hired in the first place, and he blames George Bush and people in India.
This isn't too complicated: the tech market had a huge boom in the late 90s, it crashed in 2000-2001, and companies cut way back in personnel to where they should have been in the first place, and many people got displaced. The simple fact of the matter is that there were just too many workers, and those jobs are not coming back, because the market cannot support them, and therefore should not support them.
We have more jobs now than we had when the recession -- that Bush did not create -- ended in November 2001, by almost 1 million. To blame Bush for the net job loss is to say he is to blame for the recession, which does not make any sense at all.
You're also forgetting this election could very well be decided by one electoral vote.
No, I am not. But if you can spend $10m in Pennsylvania to get 21 votes or $10m in Colorado to get one, you choose PA.
It has rarely gone republican, as you've illustrated
No, I illustrated it went GOP 3 of the last 7 elections.
It hasn't gotten us much attention, but it's gotten us more than we usually get.
Because it doesn't cost anything. Maine is a small state, and even assuming only one vote is up for grabs, the investment is small. Colorado is a much bigger state and to get that one additional vote would cost a lot more money.
Courts allow power to be proxied out like this all the time (witness regulatory powers granted to e.g. the FCC). I really think this is a boring question. What if the state legislature authors the initiative? Then is it Constitutional for the people to vote on it? And if so -- as I think it clearly is -- how is this different from the state legislature opening it up more and allowing other people to write it? The power still belongs to the state legislature.
It does expose problems with the initiative process, but that's a matter for the states to contend with. I suppose one could make the argument that the legislatures don't have the right to proxy this power out to the people, but I think that's a silly argument, and I could just as easily counter with the argument that the federal government doesn't strictly define state legislatures, and that the initiative process is a de facto broadening of the legislative function to the voters. I wouldn't want to make that argument, but I swear I will I have to!:-)
Statewide it's not likely that maine will go republican in this election, at least AFAIK southern maine is strongly liberal and has a much larger population than northern maine.
How does this argue against what I said? My point is that Colorado's situation is different than Maine's in key ways that hurts Colorado, compared to Maine. This was in response to someone using Maine as an example of why Colorado's system might not hurt Colorado.
This is only an interesting reply if Maine's proportional system was the result of a voter initiative instead of direct action by the state legislature. But no, Maine's state legislature made the change, in 1969. So your reply is not interesting.:-)
does a state constitution that allows voter initiatives effectively make every voter in the state a member of the state's legislature?
No, but the initiative process was approved of by the state legislature, which is good enough. That is, the state legislature granted the voters the power to do it.
The real legal challenge here will be whether changing the rules after the fact is legal. They can make this change for next election, but my guess is not for this one, which is what they are trying to do.
However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.
Maine is different in two important ways. First, it's system is different than Colorado's proposal, in that the winner of each district wins that vote, and the statewide winner gets the other two, so you are fighting not for the one additional vote likely in Colorado, but 2 or 3 additional votes. Second, Maine is much smaller.
Where would you send your ad dollars? A small state -- meaning much less expense -- to attempt to get 2-3 more votes, or a large state -- meaning much more expense -- to attempt to get 1 more vote? This will drive ad dollars away from Colorado, and even Maine would become more attractive by comparison.
Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?
Not hard in one sense: just amend the Constitution. The problem is that you need three fourths of states to ratify that change, and more than 1/4 of the states benefit from the existing system.
There are many arguments against a popular vote, but for me, the most compelling is that the President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of the United States of America, but the leader of the United States of America. I know that many people don't see any difference between those two things, but there used to be, and I think it's a distinction worth supporting.
I think we have gone too far. I think there should be no votes for electors. I think electors should be chosen by state legislatures, like they used to be. This would put the focus of elections where it really belongs: on the state governments. You would think a hell of a lot more about who you were voting for in the state Senate and House races if those were the people selecting your electoral votes.
Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote?
The two are completely unrelated.
Also, it is very likely this initiative, if passed, would be illegal to apply to the current election. But don't worry: the Democrats are simultaneously supporting the initiative, and preparing a legal attack to subvert it, should Kerry win the state's popular vote.
Easy for you to characterize people who are interfered with, and invaded, and meddled with as simply blaming others, and easy for you to tell people to fix their problems.
No, it's not easy. But I feel a need to intervene because I see no other choice, and you've not lessened my concerns any except to assert it is not my concern, when I believe that it is.
I am sad to see that among educated professionals who are in a position to know better, there is this neo-con mentality of the a "white man's burden" to 'civilize the savages' or 'save the heathen'.
You're not seeing any of that in what I am saying, except what you choose to put there. For some people there is, surely, but not for me.
What you might be seeing in what I say is my belief that people in the Middle East are largely poor and in many ways oppressed, and that many of them feel like their culture and religion are being subverted and supplanted by the West, and that these factors are all contributing to terrorism. But this is not a belief unique to conservatives or liberals, or even the West. I hear it all the time from people in the Middle East, and I think you hinted at them as well.
Bottom line: I am not out to civilize or save anyone, I am out to give them opportunities to make their own way in this world, because the primary impetus for terrorism is the lack of such options.
Not only me. You are the one who described Muslims as wallowing in misery, and wretched people.
No, I did not. "Wallowing in misery" was not referring to Muslims, but to people like you who would rather blame other people for their problems instead of fixing them. And I did not use the word "wretched" or imply anything remotely similar at all . You're lying, which means this discussion is over.
If you apologize, I will consider replying again, but life is too short to bother with people who are this dishonest.
Clinton and the democrats safely contained these crazy dictators.
So when North Korea unilaterally backed out of the bilateral freeze agreement Clinton got, that was safely contained? And when Clinton got a second agreement, during which apparently Pakistan was selling secrets to North Korea, that was safely contained?
What we had under Clinton was an agreement framework that a. did not have any lasting effects since it only froze and did not permanently dismantle, b. had no significant means for enforcement. These are not really mere opinions, since we know that North Korea is now picking up where it left off before, and that we were unable to enforce the decade-long freeze.
That is not safe containment, by any definition I can think of. And it is why Bush and Powell have insisted on changing "bilateral" to "multilateral" (which makes the agreement far more enforcable), and "freeze" to "CVID" (complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement).
The problem is that we don't have reporters in North Korea. We have reporters all over the world, so when something happens, it takes maybe a couple of hours tops to get a camera on it. Not so in North Korea. It's essentially a blackout. It took days IIRC to get some closeup video of the explosion in North Korea in April, and it was very limited.
It is easy for you to dismiss me (and most Arabs and Muslims) as hypocrites
No, only you. And yes, it is easy, because you were accusing me of the same thing you were guilty of. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and that you displayed it so clearly made it very easy for me to call you on it.
and accusing me of wallowing in misery, and failing to change our part of the world.
That's not easy, but I stand by it. Terrorists are created because of their circumstances, and their circumstances are primarily the result of their own people and leaders. No doubt the US and Russia and others have contributed to it, but these problems did not begin in the wake of World War II. They are far older.
How about the poor Libyans living under him for 30+ years? Did they get the freedom and democracy you neo-cons preach?
I am no neo-con, as I said at the outset. I agree with them on some things, but only someone who does not understand neoconservatism (or, perhaps, does not understand other brands of conservatism) would call me that. I don't consider it an insult or anything, it just weakens your case by being so imprecise.
That said, yes, the hope is that they will get this freedom. You want it to happen today or tomorrow? You can want that, but to complain about it in reference to my perspective is fruitless, since I am taking the long view. My view is that democracy for the Middle East is something that will come about over the next few decades, not next few days or weeks or months.
Another point, if we do not change our mind (and most of the world agrees wit us on US foreign policy being bad), and 'wallow in our misery' as you say, then this only affects us, and no one else.
See, that's the problem: it's not remotely true. When your miserable people come and kill other people in Russia, Spain, Southeast Asia, America, etc.... sorry. That is why I referenced 9/11. I would have perhaps believed that years ago. I don't believe it anymore. It does affect us, it is our business.
But your foreign policy affects the rest of the world and future generations negatively.
That is a personal prediction of the future. It is not a fact, it is an opinion. And I disagree with it.
Well, I guess we are going in circles, and your opinion is made up already.
And yours isn't?
I don't think you are willing to reconsider your views
And you are?
Jeez. Could you be less obvious about how hypocritical you are?
The world will be a darker, sadder, more dangerous place in the future for my children, because a maniac was able to drag a superpower into overreacting...
Only if you allow your children to wallow in misery instead of going out to make it a better place for them. If that is what most Arab Muslims do, then yes, the world will be a darker, sadder, place. Stop whining and get off your ass and change your part of the world for the better.
No doubt it was troubling. But that is not the issue we are discussing at all. We are discussing how on earth does this justify interventionism, invasion,...etc.
But it is the issue, in regard to how my views changed. I used to think we could be isolationist, should be isolationist. Now I see that doesn't work.
Don't understand. Disagreed with interventionism? Or isolationism?
I disagreed with both. Now I still disagree with interventionism as I did before -- only for the sake of national security -- but not with isolationism.
You got it wrong.
No, I certainly did not.
When there was hope for the Palestinians for a settlement, there was no terrorism.
Arafat had a chance for a settlement, and he rejected the offer and called for the intifada instead. There was a chance for settlement, and Arafat chose terror.
Suddenly Sharon made his infamous visit to Al Aqsa mosque, and the second intifada broke lose
It's quite clear that the intifada was ready to go before this, and would have happened without it, and that Arafat walked away before this happened anyway. With Arafat walking away, a renewal of violence from the Palestinians was inevitable.
And even if none of that is true, come on, you think Sharon going into a mosque during visiting hours justifies terrorist attacks in response? I don't think so.
Put it into perspective and you will see it as it is.
Funny, I was going to tell you the same thing.
Think about it in another way.
No. If you use terror, then I have absolutely no interest in trying to see things any other way. Look, if you punch me in the face because you are hungry, you think I am going to want to give you a slice of bread? No. Sorry, I just won't care. Stop using terror, and I might care. That's the way it is.
Suppose a minority (say Native Americans or African Americans) start to agitate. They are citizens of the USA. How would Whites react if the US governemnt starts sending missiles in choppers to kill the leaders?
If "to agitate" means "intentionally killing hundreds of innocent citizens, including women and children, with suicide bombs," then I imagine most people in the US would support it. I would.
Also wait till Musharaff turns into the next Noriega or Saddam or Bin Laden, though this time he has nukes and his arch enemy has them too.
Yes, that is a danger, though an unlikely possibility. But do you have an alternative? Didn't think so. We had to go into Afghanistan; we needed Pakistan's support. Forget about what happened before, the last 30 years, for a moment. Regardless of the past, we must deal with the present when it happens.
And the results on the ground say otherwise.
No, they do not. Results are to be interpreted, they don't say anything themselves.
Wake up and see it for what it is, and not for what you want it to be.
Back at you.
Even the sanctions against Saddam did not do the desired effect, and hurt the people who now loath you more and more because of their dead children, then an invasion.
So you're... agreeing with me? We tried other means first, despite you saying force was our primary means. Those means failed miserably -- I agree entirely -- and so we used force. And now Iraq is struggling, but poised for a great victory as it transforms itself into a democracy.
Even Bush Sr. did not favor an invasion when he had the opportunity in 1991.
Because he was fooled into thinking that Hussein could be neutered by what you admit was a failed policy!
Bush would have invaded one or more of Iran/Syria/Sudan
That's entirely unrealistic, sorry. You expose a bit of ignorance here, because th
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Oops, yeah, I did.
Re:Remember this past Democratic Primary?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
if in four years you can't get more than 15% of people to care about you, maybe you aren't worth further attention.
If you are not getting high poll numbers, the media won't cover you, and you won't get high poll numbers. It's a catch-22, and saying that it invalidates your candidacy is very undemocratic. They got enough signatures to get on the ballots in enough states to win the Presidential election: that in itself demonstrates validity.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
None of the independent parties is even at 5%, and 15% sounds more than reasonable. To win you need 50%. 5% to 50% means increasing your support ten fold.
There's two problems with your argument.
First, Jesse Ventura in Minnesota had only 10% in the polls before the debates. He ended up winning the election. I know a Presidential race is different, but it is not as different as you think, because...
Second, you do not need 50 percent. You've been misinformed. The last President to get 50% of the so-called popular vote was George H. W. Bush in 1992. You need more than 50% of the electoral college votes to win the election outright, but that's not very interesting either, because that's not a requirement either: if no one gets more than 50% of the electoral college votes, then the House decides the winner from the top three (which is what happened with John Quincy Adams).
Ask yourself: if the top two candidates were all that mattered, why does the Constitution say they choose from the top three? If you're going to argue for a limited number of candidates, it seems the Constitution should guide us, and that the number should therefore be three, not two.
So anyway... we know that less than 15% is sufficient to get into the 30% range, that it's possible to get a bump like that. And, we know that the 30% range is enough to become President. So what was your point again?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
There are many ways to artificially create high demand other than cutting taxes or increasing subsidies.
Why would you WANT to artificially create a high demand? I see no good that can come of that. It's antithetical to free markets.
It's easy to think a recession couldn't just happen so quickly; Easy to think the resession was "inherited".
Uh, it is not possible for it to be otherwise. It just isn't. First, we know the stock market crash over a year before the recession started, 10 months before Bush took office. Second, we know that jobs started being lost before Bush took office. Third, we know that none of Bush's policies took effect by then, and that few were even passed.
Blaming Bush for the recession is pure fancy. You'd have more luck convincing me Disney staged the moon landing. It's not reasonable at all, and completely discredits anything you have to say on the subject.
The tech sector is unique, in that it had hundreds of thousands of employees it had no business hiring in the first place. Companies were too big, grew too fast, and as a result, hired too many people. Reality set in and, surprise, those jobs were lost and haven't come back.
I don't know what results you want: telling companies to hire people they neither need nor want? The private sector created the problem, and the private sector has fixed it. The tech industry right now is very healthy, and doing very well. It's smaller, as it should be, and those jobs are not going to come back, because the industry learned from its mistake.
The problem with the tech market is too many people got into it. In the late 90s, everyone got in the market, and we all know that many of them were not qualified. Some cab driver learns Word and Dreamweaver, gets a job, and then gets laid off because he never should have been hired in the first place, and he blames George Bush and people in India.
This isn't too complicated: the tech market had a huge boom in the late 90s, it crashed in 2000-2001, and companies cut way back in personnel to where they should have been in the first place, and many people got displaced. The simple fact of the matter is that there were just too many workers, and those jobs are not coming back, because the market cannot support them, and therefore should not support them.
We have more jobs now than we had when the recession -- that Bush did not create -- ended in November 2001, by almost 1 million. To blame Bush for the net job loss is to say he is to blame for the recession, which does not make any sense at all.
But with the electoral college, the President acts like the leader of the United States of Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
Only because the people are voting for the electors directly. That's part of why I want the legislatures to go back to selecting them.
You're also forgetting this election could very well be decided by one electoral vote.
No, I am not. But if you can spend $10m in Pennsylvania to get 21 votes or $10m in Colorado to get one, you choose PA.
It has rarely gone republican, as you've illustrated
No, I illustrated it went GOP 3 of the last 7 elections.
It hasn't gotten us much attention, but it's gotten us more than we usually get.
Because it doesn't cost anything. Maine is a small state, and even assuming only one vote is up for grabs, the investment is small. Colorado is a much bigger state and to get that one additional vote would cost a lot more money.
That, I think, is what would end up in court.
:-)
Courts allow power to be proxied out like this all the time (witness regulatory powers granted to e.g. the FCC). I really think this is a boring question. What if the state legislature authors the initiative? Then is it Constitutional for the people to vote on it? And if so -- as I think it clearly is -- how is this different from the state legislature opening it up more and allowing other people to write it? The power still belongs to the state legislature.
It does expose problems with the initiative process, but that's a matter for the states to contend with. I suppose one could make the argument that the legislatures don't have the right to proxy this power out to the people, but I think that's a silly argument, and I could just as easily counter with the argument that the federal government doesn't strictly define state legislatures, and that the initiative process is a de facto broadening of the legislative function to the voters. I wouldn't want to make that argument, but I swear I will I have to!
As that district is split and the other is most assuredly not split, the statewide majority is fairly certain at this time.
I am not speaking to one particular election. Maine went to the GOP in 76, 84, and 88.
However they still have impetus to go for a few votes with a split-vote arrangement, no matter whether the state is evenly split or not.
Not if only one electoral vote is up for grabs, no. The investment is too high for the potential return.
Statewide it's not likely that maine will go republican in this election, at least AFAIK southern maine is strongly liberal and has a much larger population than northern maine.
How does this argue against what I said? My point is that Colorado's situation is different than Maine's in key ways that hurts Colorado, compared to Maine. This was in response to someone using Maine as an example of why Colorado's system might not hurt Colorado.
This is only an interesting reply if Maine's proportional system was the result of a voter initiative instead of direct action by the state legislature. But no, Maine's state legislature made the change, in 1969. So your reply is not interesting. :-)
does a state constitution that allows voter initiatives effectively make every voter in the state a member of the state's legislature?
No, but the initiative process was approved of by the state legislature, which is good enough. That is, the state legislature granted the voters the power to do it.
The real legal challenge here will be whether changing the rules after the fact is legal. They can make this change for next election, but my guess is not for this one, which is what they are trying to do.
However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.
Maine is different in two important ways. First, it's system is different than Colorado's proposal, in that the winner of each district wins that vote, and the statewide winner gets the other two, so you are fighting not for the one additional vote likely in Colorado, but 2 or 3 additional votes. Second, Maine is much smaller.
Where would you send your ad dollars? A small state -- meaning much less expense -- to attempt to get 2-3 more votes, or a large state -- meaning much more expense -- to attempt to get 1 more vote? This will drive ad dollars away from Colorado, and even Maine would become more attractive by comparison.
Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?
Not hard in one sense: just amend the Constitution. The problem is that you need three fourths of states to ratify that change, and more than 1/4 of the states benefit from the existing system.
There are many arguments against a popular vote, but for me, the most compelling is that the President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of the United States of America, but the leader of the United States of America. I know that many people don't see any difference between those two things, but there used to be, and I think it's a distinction worth supporting.
I think we have gone too far. I think there should be no votes for electors. I think electors should be chosen by state legislatures, like they used to be. This would put the focus of elections where it really belongs: on the state governments. You would think a hell of a lot more about who you were voting for in the state Senate and House races if those were the people selecting your electoral votes.
Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote?
The two are completely unrelated.
Also, it is very likely this initiative, if passed, would be illegal to apply to the current election. But don't worry: the Democrats are simultaneously supporting the initiative, and preparing a legal attack to subvert it, should Kerry win the state's popular vote.
I accept the apology.
Easy for you to characterize people who are interfered with, and invaded, and meddled with as simply blaming others, and easy for you to tell people to fix their problems.
No, it's not easy. But I feel a need to intervene because I see no other choice, and you've not lessened my concerns any except to assert it is not my concern, when I believe that it is.
I am sad to see that among educated professionals who are in a position to know better, there is this neo-con mentality of the a "white man's burden" to 'civilize the savages' or 'save the heathen'.
You're not seeing any of that in what I am saying, except what you choose to put there. For some people there is, surely, but not for me.
What you might be seeing in what I say is my belief that people in the Middle East are largely poor and in many ways oppressed, and that many of them feel like their culture and religion are being subverted and supplanted by the West, and that these factors are all contributing to terrorism. But this is not a belief unique to conservatives or liberals, or even the West. I hear it all the time from people in the Middle East, and I think you hinted at them as well.
Bottom line: I am not out to civilize or save anyone, I am out to give them opportunities to make their own way in this world, because the primary impetus for terrorism is the lack of such options.
Not only me. You are the one who described Muslims as wallowing in misery, and wretched people.
No, I did not. "Wallowing in misery" was not referring to Muslims, but to people like you who would rather blame other people for their problems instead of fixing them. And I did not use the word "wretched" or imply anything remotely similar at all . You're lying, which means this discussion is over.
If you apologize, I will consider replying again, but life is too short to bother with people who are this dishonest.
Clinton and the democrats safely contained these crazy dictators.
So when North Korea unilaterally backed out of the bilateral freeze agreement Clinton got, that was safely contained? And when Clinton got a second agreement, during which apparently Pakistan was selling secrets to North Korea, that was safely contained?
What we had under Clinton was an agreement framework that a. did not have any lasting effects since it only froze and did not permanently dismantle, b. had no significant means for enforcement. These are not really mere opinions, since we know that North Korea is now picking up where it left off before, and that we were unable to enforce the decade-long freeze.
That is not safe containment, by any definition I can think of. And it is why Bush and Powell have insisted on changing "bilateral" to "multilateral" (which makes the agreement far more enforcable), and "freeze" to "CVID" (complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement).
The problem is that we don't have reporters in North Korea. We have reporters all over the world, so when something happens, it takes maybe a couple of hours tops to get a camera on it. Not so in North Korea. It's essentially a blackout. It took days IIRC to get some closeup video of the explosion in North Korea in April, and it was very limited.
It is easy for you to dismiss me (and most Arabs and Muslims) as hypocrites
... sorry. That is why I referenced 9/11. I would have perhaps believed that years ago. I don't believe it anymore. It does affect us, it is our business.
No, only you. And yes, it is easy, because you were accusing me of the same thing you were guilty of. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and that you displayed it so clearly made it very easy for me to call you on it.
and accusing me of wallowing in misery, and failing to change our part of the world.
That's not easy, but I stand by it. Terrorists are created because of their circumstances, and their circumstances are primarily the result of their own people and leaders. No doubt the US and Russia and others have contributed to it, but these problems did not begin in the wake of World War II. They are far older.
How about the poor Libyans living under him for 30+ years? Did they get the freedom and democracy you neo-cons preach?
I am no neo-con, as I said at the outset. I agree with them on some things, but only someone who does not understand neoconservatism (or, perhaps, does not understand other brands of conservatism) would call me that. I don't consider it an insult or anything, it just weakens your case by being so imprecise.
That said, yes, the hope is that they will get this freedom. You want it to happen today or tomorrow? You can want that, but to complain about it in reference to my perspective is fruitless, since I am taking the long view. My view is that democracy for the Middle East is something that will come about over the next few decades, not next few days or weeks or months.
Another point, if we do not change our mind (and most of the world agrees wit us on US foreign policy being bad), and 'wallow in our misery' as you say, then this only affects us, and no one else.
See, that's the problem: it's not remotely true. When your miserable people come and kill other people in Russia, Spain, Southeast Asia, America, etc.
But your foreign policy affects the rest of the world and future generations negatively.
That is a personal prediction of the future. It is not a fact, it is an opinion. And I disagree with it.
Well, I guess we are going in circles, and your opinion is made up already.
...
And yours isn't?
I don't think you are willing to reconsider your views
And you are?
Jeez. Could you be less obvious about how hypocritical you are?
The world will be a darker, sadder, more dangerous place in the future for my children, because a maniac was able to drag a superpower into overreacting
Only if you allow your children to wallow in misery instead of going out to make it a better place for them. If that is what most Arab Muslims do, then yes, the world will be a darker, sadder, place. Stop whining and get off your ass and change your part of the world for the better.
No doubt it was troubling. But that is not the issue we are discussing at all. We are discussing how on earth does this justify interventionism, invasion, ...etc.
... agreeing with me? We tried other means first, despite you saying force was our primary means. Those means failed miserably -- I agree entirely -- and so we used force. And now Iraq is struggling, but poised for a great victory as it transforms itself into a democracy.
But it is the issue, in regard to how my views changed. I used to think we could be isolationist, should be isolationist. Now I see that doesn't work.
Don't understand. Disagreed with interventionism? Or isolationism?
I disagreed with both. Now I still disagree with interventionism as I did before -- only for the sake of national security -- but not with isolationism.
You got it wrong.
No, I certainly did not.
When there was hope for the Palestinians for a settlement, there was no terrorism.
Arafat had a chance for a settlement, and he rejected the offer and called for the intifada instead. There was a chance for settlement, and Arafat chose terror.
Suddenly Sharon made his infamous visit to Al Aqsa mosque, and the second intifada broke lose
It's quite clear that the intifada was ready to go before this, and would have happened without it, and that Arafat walked away before this happened anyway. With Arafat walking away, a renewal of violence from the Palestinians was inevitable.
And even if none of that is true, come on, you think Sharon going into a mosque during visiting hours justifies terrorist attacks in response? I don't think so.
Put it into perspective and you will see it as it is.
Funny, I was going to tell you the same thing.
Think about it in another way.
No. If you use terror, then I have absolutely no interest in trying to see things any other way. Look, if you punch me in the face because you are hungry, you think I am going to want to give you a slice of bread? No. Sorry, I just won't care. Stop using terror, and I might care. That's the way it is.
Suppose a minority (say Native Americans or African Americans) start to agitate. They are citizens of the USA. How would Whites react if the US governemnt starts sending missiles in choppers to kill the leaders?
If "to agitate" means "intentionally killing hundreds of innocent citizens, including women and children, with suicide bombs," then I imagine most people in the US would support it. I would.
Also wait till Musharaff turns into the next Noriega or Saddam or Bin Laden, though this time he has nukes and his arch enemy has them too.
Yes, that is a danger, though an unlikely possibility. But do you have an alternative? Didn't think so. We had to go into Afghanistan; we needed Pakistan's support. Forget about what happened before, the last 30 years, for a moment. Regardless of the past, we must deal with the present when it happens.
And the results on the ground say otherwise.
No, they do not. Results are to be interpreted, they don't say anything themselves.
Wake up and see it for what it is, and not for what you want it to be.
Back at you.
Even the sanctions against Saddam did not do the desired effect, and hurt the people who now loath you more and more because of their dead children, then an invasion.
So you're
Even Bush Sr. did not favor an invasion when he had the opportunity in 1991.
Because he was fooled into thinking that Hussein could be neutered by what you admit was a failed policy!
Bush would have invaded one or more of Iran/Syria/Sudan
That's entirely unrealistic, sorry. You expose a bit of ignorance here, because th
Oops, yeah, I did.
if in four years you can't get more than 15% of people to care about you, maybe you aren't worth further attention.
If you are not getting high poll numbers, the media won't cover you, and you won't get high poll numbers. It's a catch-22, and saying that it invalidates your candidacy is very undemocratic. They got enough signatures to get on the ballots in enough states to win the Presidential election: that in itself demonstrates validity.
None of the independent parties is even at 5%, and 15% sounds more than reasonable. To win you need 50%. 5% to 50% means increasing your support ten fold.
...
... we know that less than 15% is sufficient to get into the 30% range, that it's possible to get a bump like that. And, we know that the 30% range is enough to become President. So what was your point again? :-)
There's two problems with your argument.
First, Jesse Ventura in Minnesota had only 10% in the polls before the debates. He ended up winning the election. I know a Presidential race is different, but it is not as different as you think, because
Second, you do not need 50 percent. You've been misinformed. The last President to get 50% of the so-called popular vote was George H. W. Bush in 1992. You need more than 50% of the electoral college votes to win the election outright, but that's not very interesting either, because that's not a requirement either: if no one gets more than 50% of the electoral college votes, then the House decides the winner from the top three (which is what happened with John Quincy Adams).
Ask yourself: if the top two candidates were all that mattered, why does the Constitution say they choose from the top three? If you're going to argue for a limited number of candidates, it seems the Constitution should guide us, and that the number should therefore be three, not two.
So anyway