And you confirmed that you're the dirty old man who likes to flash kids at the playground ("get back here, you little runts! It's just natural!"). That was never up for debate, either, like most other ad hominems.
This is the 30-second news-bite generation. Could you see yourself reading volumes of material on the scale of the Federalist Papers (and opposing argumentative papers) just to decide who you want to be president?
Wow, I never expected to be taken seriously, but you know... you are supposed to put the sugar in while it's still piping hot. There have been occasions where a particular sweet tea I like to call "Hepzibah Tea" (named after the podunk Augusta satellite town it comes from) leaves the container coated in rock candy when you take it out of the fridge. That is the good stuff you can't get up north.
Yup. I remember reading about this thing DARPA was doing, where they would connect computing machines at various locations via a series of... "tubes," if you will... to transmit information to each other.
Yeah, and Mexico's ban on private capital investment in oil production is why Mexico imports 25% of its gas from the US, even though it's the world's 5th largest producer.
You're absolutely right about the constituencies; the Republican is not a solid, ideological monolith. It's more of a coalition of disparate (and sometimes contradictory) ideologies. The trick is that each faction (religious, fiscal, and military) compromises their platform for the sake of the party, and each faction, while not getting exactly what they want, at least gets something. That's how, for instance, the religious right gets controls on abortion (something they would never achieve if they refused to budge on a constitutional ban) even though the majority of Republicans do not support banning abortion. To some degree, the Republican party is a parliamentary government in microcosm.
Sometimes that means that, in order to best please all sides, you have to choose someone no one likes. This is very important, IMO. For instance, I am probably closer to what you call the "religious right," but I was somewhat dubious of GWB in '99. He pleased the religious right, but did not have a record of fiscal conservative. The end result was my worst fear: the rampant spending I had always equated with fiscal liberalism as the party plank of the GOP. This could have been mitigated if the religious right had compromised more with fiscal conservatives*.
That said; fighting climate change legislation is almost entirely the domain of fiscal conservatives who fear harming business. Religious conservatives have helped them out of party loyalty, but there are cracks in the armor. The concept of "environmental stewardship" is becoming more popular in church pews these days, and it's only a matter of time before the official GOP plank changes. This will accelerate once economically beneficial alternative fuels (like nuclear) become more abundant. It will be harder, though, now that Goldwater conservatives are leery of letting the religious conservatives have the reins on any issue.
Now, even given this incredibly divisive primary for Republicans, I am absolutely amazed at the level of vitriol the two camps of the democratic party have hurled at each other, even though they are ideologically more united than the Republican party has ever been. The GOP had five front-runners who varied wildly in their views, and yet I still think the supporters of all but one (the Libertarian Who Shall Not Be Named) will vote for McCain without hesitation.
*As an aside, I'll say I was a fiscal conservative years before my religious conversion, and while they are theologically consistent with me, I do not consider neo-con's "conservative" at all. I also think the proof is in the pudding. Neo-conservatism as an ideology is dead.
That's the problem with DKos logic: thinking you can get people to agree with you by calling them idiots. The only thing the "backlash" will do is harden the resolve of HRC democrats. You've already seen it during the primary.
One thing, though: climate change will not be an issue for Republicans. By and large (and I say this as a hard-core Republican, and I think I'm pretty representative), the core right constituency doesn't take issue with GW legislation, and even those who actively disbelieve GW put arguing the issue pretty far down the list. I think it's something the average Republican is willing to give ground on. Absolutely no one I know is going to sit out the election because McCain disagrees with the base on GW.
Now, if you ask me, my pipe dream is for the GOP to push for nuclear, and at least try to own the GW and oil price issues. That those issues have been completely surrendered to progressives (with "lalalala" and fingers-in-the-ear to boot) is befuddling and aggravating.
I'm not saying McCain will keep them. I am saying he has an opportunity. I think it's possible to give ground on other issues than RvW, keep the core right, and still appeal to HRC moderates.
Whether he accomplishes that or not remains to be seen. Reagan pulled off something akin to this in '80, so I don't think democrats should dismiss the possibility to easily.
most of her female supporters are eventually going to remember that McCain is staunchly pro-life and will come back to the Democratic Party. It would be a profound mistake for the democratic party to assume that women democrats are single-issue voters, IMO. Progressive web-sites have been harping on the pro-life aspect of McCain, waring women that Roe v. Wade will be overturned on his watch.
What I hear is, "here's abortion; now shut up and pull the lever." It's condescending, and I have heard more than one HRC supporter say it isn't enough anymore.
Also consider that Obama's biggest primary victories were in red states that won't go his way in the general election, and his biggest losses were in blue states.
It depends on how many disaffected Hillary voters still lurk there. DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst. Most Hillary supporters have left the site, but it's worth putting forth a modicum of effort to find them there, nonetheless.
I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.
The oil companies are now selling gas at $120/barrel instead of $40/barrel
Correction: the oil companies are now buying oil from OPEC at $120/barrel instead of $40/barrel. The vast profits they make from percentage markup is pocket change to what OPEC is making off of the increased oil prices, which represents the lion's share of what you pay at the pump.
This argument has significant merit, except for the China comment: though we are political and ideological foes, our economies are inextricably linked (because of our preferential trade agreements), and I don't think we would ever try to sabotage China's economy. Replace China with, say, N. Korea, and you're cooking with grease.
Oil is a fungible resource. It doesn't matter where we get it from; the oil output of Iran, though we don't buy from them, still affects the price of the oil we buy from others. And yes, we do in fact get a significant portion of our oil from Venezuela: 14-15%, the fourth largest supplier to the US.
Are you arguing that oil prices aren't higher, that high prices are not benefitting Bush & Co, or that the sky isn't blue?
In order: 1) No. 2) No.* 3) No.
*If I was arguing this, though, I would mention that Bush is leaving office with significantly less wealth than he had entering it. The largest portion of his current wealth is tied up in his Crawford ranch. It did not, however, have any part in my previous post.
Most of the largest oil producers in the world are only nominal allies, with some being openly antagonistic of the US. Saudi Arabia alone is not enough of a reason to motivate a war that, according to your logic, empowers many of our biggest enemies right now.
Iraq was about oil from day zero, and only die-hard idiots ever thought or think otherwise.
Oh, really? Where are the mega-bucks coming from our new oil colony? Where's our massive new oil supply? Why are we still so concerned with OPEC decisions?
The money from Iraq's oil production goes to the provisional government, not to the US. The facts do not square with your theory.
Slashdot Mirror
And you confirmed that you're the dirty old man who likes to flash kids at the playground ("get back here, you little runts! It's just natural!"). That was never up for debate, either, like most other ad hominems.
This is the 30-second news-bite generation. Could you see yourself reading volumes of material on the scale of the Federalist Papers (and opposing argumentative papers) just to decide who you want to be president?
I'm rather ashamed to admit I probably could not.
Wow, I never expected to be taken seriously, but you know... you are supposed to put the sugar in while it's still piping hot. There have been occasions where a particular sweet tea I like to call "Hepzibah Tea" (named after the podunk Augusta satellite town it comes from) leaves the container coated in rock candy when you take it out of the fridge. That is the good stuff you can't get up north.
You will pry my Georgia sweet tea (kept ice cold so it can be super-saturated with sugar) from my cold, dead fin-- *urk* *THUD*
Celsius is based on water temperature, and Fahrenheit is based on alcohol temperature. Ergo, Fahrenheit is WAY better than Celsius. QED.
Yup. I remember reading about this thing DARPA was doing, where they would connect computing machines at various locations via a series of... "tubes," if you will... to transmit information to each other.
It was a complete "pipe dream."
Yeah, and Mexico's ban on private capital investment in oil production is why Mexico imports 25% of its gas from the US, even though it's the world's 5th largest producer.
You know why?
Economics 101: Price controls create shortages. Every. Time.
This isn't the Drudge Report. Different site, different owner. The name is a play on the Drudge Report.
You're absolutely right about the constituencies; the Republican is not a solid, ideological monolith. It's more of a coalition of disparate (and sometimes contradictory) ideologies. The trick is that each faction (religious, fiscal, and military) compromises their platform for the sake of the party, and each faction, while not getting exactly what they want, at least gets something. That's how, for instance, the religious right gets controls on abortion (something they would never achieve if they refused to budge on a constitutional ban) even though the majority of Republicans do not support banning abortion. To some degree, the Republican party is a parliamentary government in microcosm.
Sometimes that means that, in order to best please all sides, you have to choose someone no one likes. This is very important, IMO. For instance, I am probably closer to what you call the "religious right," but I was somewhat dubious of GWB in '99. He pleased the religious right, but did not have a record of fiscal conservative. The end result was my worst fear: the rampant spending I had always equated with fiscal liberalism as the party plank of the GOP. This could have been mitigated if the religious right had compromised more with fiscal conservatives*.
That said; fighting climate change legislation is almost entirely the domain of fiscal conservatives who fear harming business. Religious conservatives have helped them out of party loyalty, but there are cracks in the armor. The concept of "environmental stewardship" is becoming more popular in church pews these days, and it's only a matter of time before the official GOP plank changes. This will accelerate once economically beneficial alternative fuels (like nuclear) become more abundant. It will be harder, though, now that Goldwater conservatives are leery of letting the religious conservatives have the reins on any issue.
Now, even given this incredibly divisive primary for Republicans, I am absolutely amazed at the level of vitriol the two camps of the democratic party have hurled at each other, even though they are ideologically more united than the Republican party has ever been. The GOP had five front-runners who varied wildly in their views, and yet I still think the supporters of all but one (the Libertarian Who Shall Not Be Named) will vote for McCain without hesitation.
*As an aside, I'll say I was a fiscal conservative years before my religious conversion, and while they are theologically consistent with me, I do not consider neo-con's "conservative" at all. I also think the proof is in the pudding. Neo-conservatism as an ideology is dead.
That's the problem with DKos logic: thinking you can get people to agree with you by calling them idiots. The only thing the "backlash" will do is harden the resolve of HRC democrats. You've already seen it during the primary.
Good points all around...
One thing, though: climate change will not be an issue for Republicans. By and large (and I say this as a hard-core Republican, and I think I'm pretty representative), the core right constituency doesn't take issue with GW legislation, and even those who actively disbelieve GW put arguing the issue pretty far down the list. I think it's something the average Republican is willing to give ground on. Absolutely no one I know is going to sit out the election because McCain disagrees with the base on GW.
Now, if you ask me, my pipe dream is for the GOP to push for nuclear, and at least try to own the GW and oil price issues. That those issues have been completely surrendered to progressives (with "lalalala" and fingers-in-the-ear to boot) is befuddling and aggravating.
I'm not saying McCain will keep them. I am saying he has an opportunity. I think it's possible to give ground on other issues than RvW, keep the core right, and still appeal to HRC moderates.
Whether he accomplishes that or not remains to be seen. Reagan pulled off something akin to this in '80, so I don't think democrats should dismiss the possibility to easily.
What I hear is, "here's abortion; now shut up and pull the lever." It's condescending, and I have heard more than one HRC supporter say it isn't enough anymore.
Also consider that Obama's biggest primary victories were in red states that won't go his way in the general election, and his biggest losses were in blue states.
It depends on how many disaffected Hillary voters still lurk there. DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst. Most Hillary supporters have left the site, but it's worth putting forth a modicum of effort to find them there, nonetheless.
I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.
I kan't wait to install koogle kadgets on my desktop.
Oh, wait. I forgot. I hate Google Gadgets, and I'm not interested in this at all. Never mind.
But at least it's good to see KDE get some lovin' from the big boys.
This argument has significant merit, except for the China comment: though we are political and ideological foes, our economies are inextricably linked (because of our preferential trade agreements), and I don't think we would ever try to sabotage China's economy. Replace China with, say, N. Korea, and you're cooking with grease.
1) No.
2) No.*
3) No.
*If I was arguing this, though, I would mention that Bush is leaving office with significantly less wealth than he had entering it. The largest portion of his current wealth is tied up in his Crawford ranch. It did not, however, have any part in my previous post.
Most of the largest oil producers in the world are only nominal allies, with some being openly antagonistic of the US. Saudi Arabia alone is not enough of a reason to motivate a war that, according to your logic, empowers many of our biggest enemies right now.
The money from Iraq's oil production goes to the provisional government, not to the US. The facts do not square with your theory.
Some of us like FOSS because of its capitalist and free market ideas.