I've been watching political commentary shows since the early 70's, well before Fox was anything but a movie studio. The quality of political discussion started tanking with "Point/Counterpoint" on "60 Minutes". It was due in part to the increase in partisan reporting from Watergate, and the feeling on "both sides" that their side was being sh*t on.
Shows like "Meet the Press" started fading, and "argument shows" like "The McLaughlin Group" and "Crossfire" started being produced. The whole point of the argument shows is not reasoned debate but the political discourse equivalent of professional wrestling. Stewart himself touched on that point a bit in his "Crossfire" appearance, but naturally they had to breeze over that.
I remember reading some years ago (pre-Fox) that one person who was invited on one of the shows, it may have been "Crossfire", kept getting told in his earpiece that he wasn't yelling and interrupting the other guest and the hosts enough. I remember that he was disgusted that the director's need for "conflict" trumped anything of substance the guy had to say.
Or scrape the algae off the top, cook it, fill barrels with it, bury it near subduction zones, and in a few million years the next species has "fossil fuels" of their own.
"Campaign finance" is a proxy for regulating speech. It's what the political class is using to stifle criticism. There are jail terms associated with broadcasting a political message that regulators do not approve of, now. The framers must be turning over in their graves.
Exactly. If you put up a web page that advocates voting for someone, that can be called an "ad" and your cost to put the page up counted as a "contribution" to the candidate you support. These contributions are strictly limited, and ad content explicitly controlled, as well as time-restricted, so if you have a "Vote XXXXXXX" anywhere on your page, better take it down or face the "Campaign Finance Reform Police".
- Animal tissue can't photosynthesize. We're not up to changing cell structure on that level yet. Therefore, you'd have to have some method of providing nutrition to any living garment.
Yeah, what if the thing decides you're pretty tasty, yourself?
It's not just greed that "drives everyone to fuck with everything they can."
Sometimes it's just the desire to see what happens when you tinker around with something. Sometimes you get penicillin, sometimes you get Sticky Notes(tm).
Check out a little movie called "Patton", that showed Patton landing in Sicily. MacArthur did it too, and I suppose Kerry thought he'd be in the same league eventually.
You are doing exactly what I am saying, you want a dream situation where the Republicans would win easily in 2008. This dream becomes so powerful that you start making up totally insane Democratic strategies so that you can believe it will happen.
You mistake apprehension for approval!:-)
No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than the Democrats, at least for the past 20 years or so. But, I don't see any Republican or Democratic candidate (with any credibility or electablility) that holds my conservative fiscal views. Since I know no one will represent me, I can look at "both sides" with an equally jaundiced eye.
The beauty of it is that he won't need the conservative base to be voting for him, they will be to busy voting against Hillary to notice who they are voting for. She will not win, and in no small part to her abrasive and "cold" attitude. Carville will never be president for the same reason (and Dole lost big on this too).
Don't mistake the conservative vote as being very cohesive. The Republicans are on the outs with a big chunk of conservatives, and they aren't likely to vote "against" someone, they're more likely to just "abstain." If voting against a candidate worked, then Clinton wouldn't have had a second term.
The average voter given a choice during relatively good times will pick the incumbent, and for the most part will vote sentiment rather than ideas when the incumbent leaves. GWB owes a lot of his appeal to his father, who owed a lot to Reagan. Gore had a lot of appeal from his association with Bill Clinton, and if he'd had more political instinct, he'd be in the White House now.
Hillary will also have the benefit of a whole lot of new voters in '08 who were kids when she was First Lady, and new voters especially in college tend to vote liberal and Democratic. They will subconsciously associate her with their pleasant childhood memories, too.
I've been following politics since I first voted for President in '76, and I've learned by observation and talking to people that don't live, eat, and breathe politics. It may seem irrational, and your arguments against a Hillary Clinton Presidency seem sound, but believe me, you'd better not bet against her! She'll be able to surmount a lot of the negatives, especially if she can make it look like the Republicans are "harrassing" and "browbeating" her.
Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience. Cheney won't run, Schwartzenegger can't run, Giuliani might run but won't have the conservative base behind him.
Hillary also has the "pleasant" memories of the first Clinton term in her favor, and what "progressive" wouldn't vote for the first woman candidate for President? (conveniently forgetting all the others through the years).
No, the '08 election is Hillary's to lose.
Re:Can you guys drop the Socialist moniker please?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
95% of the financial rewards of your hard work, come from the successfully, well organized, stable, nice organization of the country and society that others set up for you.
So, by your math, I "owe" 95% of my income as tax to pay for everyone else's "hard work?"
Remind me never to set up shop in Anonymous Cowardia...
Well, thanks to our absurd "open borders" policy, you can slip over the border from Canada or Mexico, get a driver's license and register to vote, and in a short time get your name on the rolls. Voila, you can vote! No citizenship required!
Of course, since the Democrats are the ones who "reformed" our voting policies to allow this, you would be expected to vote Democratic.
I do belive the US is the only major nuke power left with large amounts of warheads. or am i wrong?
According to the last treaty, the US and Russia have about the same number of warheads, around 3000 each, IIRC. Some of them are aging out of use, due to tritium decay, and aren't being replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
updates.mozilla.org is swamped, and all I wanted was to look for Firefox themes...
Because of a rare display of maturity on the Slashdot editor's part?
(not that there's anything wrong with that...)
I'm thinking of the days before Russert, when they had a panel of journalists who asked questions, without interrupting each other or the guest.
It was a more civilized time, before the "gotcha" type of "journalism" reared out of the mire...
I've been watching political commentary shows since the early 70's, well before Fox was anything but a movie studio. The quality of political discussion started tanking with "Point/Counterpoint" on "60 Minutes". It was due in part to the increase in partisan reporting from Watergate, and the feeling on "both sides" that their side was being sh*t on.
Shows like "Meet the Press" started fading, and "argument shows" like "The McLaughlin Group" and "Crossfire" started being produced. The whole point of the argument shows is not reasoned debate but the political discourse equivalent of professional wrestling. Stewart himself touched on that point a bit in his "Crossfire" appearance, but naturally they had to breeze over that.
I remember reading some years ago (pre-Fox) that one person who was invited on one of the shows, it may have been "Crossfire", kept getting told in his earpiece that he wasn't yelling and interrupting the other guest and the hosts enough. I remember that he was disgusted that the director's need for "conflict" trumped anything of substance the guy had to say.
So, what do you replace corporations with?
I'd hate to have to do onsite service on *that* rack...
"Um, could you cycle the power?"
"It's solar powered, what do you want me to do, cycle the sun?"
"If you would, thanks!"
Etc.
Not to mention we get a lot of "insourcing" from places like Nissan, Toyota, and BMW.
Or are those plants in Smyrna TN, Georgetown KY and Spartanburg SC just imaginary?
Or scrape the algae off the top, cook it, fill barrels with it, bury it near subduction zones, and in a few million years the next species has "fossil fuels" of their own.
Let people give as much as they want, but make the candidates publish the names of all donors giving more than $10.
That way we know who's paying for whom...
Oh yeah? $1,000,000 will let you say more to more people than $10.
Who pays for the servers, net connection, bandwidth, support etc. for the blogs and chat rooms?
Those are "contributions" if the FEC sees fit to call them that.
Or if you put up an entry in your blog, for that matter.
Or put "Vote for John Kerry for President in 2004" on some public forum...
Exactly. If you put up a web page that advocates voting for someone, that can be called an "ad" and your cost to put the page up counted as a "contribution" to the candidate you support. These contributions are strictly limited, and ad content explicitly controlled, as well as time-restricted, so if you have a "Vote XXXXXXX" anywhere on your page, better take it down or face the "Campaign Finance Reform Police".
Your money has no place in elections.
Yeah, what if the thing decides you're pretty tasty, yourself?
Ick.
(cue Twilight Zone/Outer Limits/X-Files theme)
It's not just greed that "drives everyone to fuck with everything they can."
Sometimes it's just the desire to see what happens when you tinker around with something. Sometimes you get penicillin, sometimes you get Sticky Notes(tm).
Check out a little movie called "Patton", that showed Patton landing in Sicily. MacArthur did it too, and I suppose Kerry thought he'd be in the same league eventually.
You mistake apprehension for approval!
No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than the Democrats, at least for the past 20 years or so. But, I don't see any Republican or Democratic candidate (with any credibility or electablility) that holds my conservative fiscal views. Since I know no one will represent me, I can look at "both sides" with an equally jaundiced eye.
Effectively, I don't have a dog in this fight!
Don't mistake the conservative vote as being very cohesive. The Republicans are on the outs with a big chunk of conservatives, and they aren't likely to vote "against" someone, they're more likely to just "abstain." If voting against a candidate worked, then Clinton wouldn't have had a second term.
The average voter given a choice during relatively good times will pick the incumbent, and for the most part will vote sentiment rather than ideas when the incumbent leaves. GWB owes a lot of his appeal to his father, who owed a lot to Reagan. Gore had a lot of appeal from his association with Bill Clinton, and if he'd had more political instinct, he'd be in the White House now.
Hillary will also have the benefit of a whole lot of new voters in '08 who were kids when she was First Lady, and new voters especially in college tend to vote liberal and Democratic. They will subconsciously associate her with their pleasant childhood memories, too.
I've been following politics since I first voted for President in '76, and I've learned by observation and talking to people that don't live, eat, and breathe politics. It may seem irrational, and your arguments against a Hillary Clinton Presidency seem sound, but believe me, you'd better not bet against her! She'll be able to surmount a lot of the negatives, especially if she can make it look like the Republicans are "harrassing" and "browbeating" her.
Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience. Cheney won't run, Schwartzenegger can't run, Giuliani might run but won't have the conservative base behind him.
Hillary also has the "pleasant" memories of the first Clinton term in her favor, and what "progressive" wouldn't vote for the first woman candidate for President? (conveniently forgetting all the others through the years).
No, the '08 election is Hillary's to lose.
So, by your math, I "owe" 95% of my income as tax to pay for everyone else's "hard work?"
Remind me never to set up shop in Anonymous Cowardia...
But only for members, apparently
Maybe Philadelphia is taking after Chicago, and opening up graveyard precincts?
After all, the dead paid their taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
Well, thanks to our absurd "open borders" policy, you can slip over the border from Canada or Mexico, get a driver's license and register to vote, and in a short time get your name on the rolls. Voila, you can vote! No citizenship required!
Of course, since the Democrats are the ones who "reformed" our voting policies to allow this, you would be expected to vote Democratic.
According to the last treaty, the US and Russia have about the same number of warheads, around 3000 each, IIRC. Some of them are aging out of use, due to tritium decay, and aren't being replaced.