Frankly, I don't see much short term benefit in having Obama over McCain. Obama has shown us that when the going gets tough, he votes Republican.
Huh? Cause of the FISA vote? That one vote, and he's now totally indistinguishable from a Republican for you? Despite the wide gulf between him on lots of other issues, like actually talking to other countries as opposed to just bombing the shit out of them, or privatizing Social Security, or about giving tax cuts to rich people vs. saner fiscal policy?
The guy isn't perfect, but he's way better than the other realistic choice. If you want to throw a hissyfit, fine, that's your right. But if McCain becomes president, he's gonna make shit worse.
As for changing the party from within, we tried that. We voted for change in 2006, we got nothing.
Your reason for abandoning change from within is because you tried voting for it exactly once and it didn't work out?
It does actually take time to change things, as well as a fair amount of effort and frequently some failures along the way.
Though I see where you're coming from, I disagree. I think you can change the party from within, and can do that by donating to better candidates and supporting primary challenges against those who have repeatedly shown their contempt for your values.
As for "selling out the future for a marginal short term benefit," let me respond by saying that, you're unwilling to take anything short of a perfect solution to everything, completely forsaking any short term benefit, as well as likely screwing yourself in the future.
Look, I'd love to have a viable set of 3rd parties in America, really.
But we don't. And notwithstanding the fact that I and others continue to vote for the major parties, there are structural issues in America (related to voting, incumbency power, redistricting, money, etc, etc, etc.) which make it very hard for a 3rd party to take root and become viable. And, sure, if everyone in one or both of the major parties fled the party for smaller ones, then we'd have a different situation. But that's not a realistic scenario in the near term, if at all.
I'm a realist. Right now, and for this election, one of Obama and McCain will be come president. My best interests are served by helping to ensure that McCain doesn't become president. Sure, there's other people I'd rather have running the country, but they're not gonna win. So I take the best of what I've got to work with.
You can call my reasoning into question or think it cowardly. That's fine, and your right as a human. Personally, I find your attitude to be childish and unrealistic, but whatever. I used to think that way, and then I got older and lost my idealism and came to realize that sometimes you have to go for the better of two options than the best imaginable one.
Yes, the FISA vote was bad. I can't defend it. The retroactive immunity was offensive, as were numerous provisions of the actual legislation itself.
However, given that one of these two guys will run your country, do you opt to not participate in picking one? Do you stamp your feet and refuse to examine anything about them besides a single issue? 3rd parties aren't viable in the US, at least right now, so your choice is between the guy with the D after his name and the guy with the R.
Me, I hated the FISA vote - it was stupid, unnecessary, and undemocratic (small d). I'm also a grown up, and will vote for the one of the two guys who I think will do a better job. And that's unquestionably Obama.
The "surge" was intended to promote political reconciliation in Iraq, and that hasn't happened - things in the Iraqi government are as bad or worse now than they were at the beginning.
Leaving aside the fact that a very real argument can be made that the improvement in the security situation wasn't primarily driven by an escalation in US troop levels, the surge hasn't been a success because it hasn't achieved it's goal - a stable Iraqi government.
This isn't nitpicking - it's a significant issue. The problem the surge was intended to address is no better now than it was before. That's not success.
He tried to prevent the war, but there's only so much he could do.
Really? Did he quit his job and say "Bush and the rest of the administration is trying to get us into a war, and they're overselling the evidence they have?"
No? Or did you mean that there was only so much he could do that wouldn't have required him to give up his job? And don't give me the "he thought he could do more good inside than out," bullshit.
Flip-Flopping is saying that you strongly support public campaign financing during the primaries to get votes and then changing to say you want private financing after you receive those votes
Yeah, I hate the way McCain flip-flopped on public financing - first he was for it and agreed to it, then decided to unilaterally withdraw (a move that the Republican appointed head of the FEC said was against the rules and is probably illegal) from it when it became convenient.
Or were you referring to Obama, who said that he'd work to come to an agreement with the McCain campaign on them both taking public financing, and that they subsequently didn't come to an agreement? Oh, wait - that's not a flip flop, that's just something not working out.
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message e-mailed to supporters. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."
Earlier, Obama had said he would participate in public financing if his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, did the same.
Huh. So, he said that he supports for public financing, but that it's broken as is, and that he'd participate in public financing if McCain did the same. Which McCain did at first, till he decided to withdraw, which the FEC chairman says he's not allowed to do.
I'm not going to continue because I trust in your ability to decipher several other flip-flops.
I have no trust in your ability to do so, particularly given your fondness for bold assertions given no evidence.
You don't have to apologize for saying something bad about Obama. I hated that decision and I thought it was typical weak Democratic waffling.
I'm still going to vote for him in November, because basically it's him or McCain. And McCain would be at best an extension of the Bush years, and we frankly just don't need that.
Leaving aside questions about whether or not it was the US troop escalation that lowered violence in Iraq (there's a convincing argument to be made that is not the most significant factor in the decrease in violence), the entire point of "the surge" was political reconciliation in the Iraqi government.
And this hasn't happened at all.
You only get to call it a success when it succeeds, and it hasnt.
Why is changing what you have to say a bad thing? If you have a different set of facts or a change in thought, why is it bad to change your opinions?
And are the edits that the Obama campaign making really significant? I had a look at the differences highlighted in the linked Wired article, and they didn't really look like a significant change in substance.
So fucking what? Are we really this stupid in our politics that it's now a game of crying "flip-flopper" when you just say more or less the same thing, maybe with a different emphasis?
It's not just (or probably even mostly) about the kiddie porn - it's the software, video, and music that gets shared in the alt.* hierarchy, too. And the ISPs probably don't mind not providing a service that doesn't do much but cost them extra for bandwidth and storage.
If you don't like the terms, attempt to change them. If they don't, don't buy. And if you do get in to one, especially a cell phone contract, you can always find a way to get out of it without paying a termination fee.
Have you ever gotten contract phone service in the US before? 1) you can't negotiate terms, 2) there is no carrier (that I'm aware of) that will break the contract without requiring a termination fee, unless you're ending the contract to go into another one with the same carrier.
McCain hasn't showed for a vote in months. His abstention is purely accidental.
Obama voted that way because he made the calculation that he would cause less damage to his presidential campaign this way. Because basically, if he didn't vote for the FISA extension, you'd get a bunch of bullshit ads from the GOP calling him weak on terror for not supporting a shitty bill. Because basically that's how we do politics in America, though simple minded sound-bite bullshit. And the media would do exactly nothing to explain the complexities of the issues because that wouldn't actually help with ratings.
No, what you actually know from this is that people who are running for office and want to actually win have to do shitty stuff to win, because however nice it'd be to live in a country where people actually knew something about the laws that get a passed, that ain't where you live.
I dunno, places where you make an account and agree to a eula to me are public places. Anyone can sign up, there's no defined user base and there's no boundaries.
Sounds to be you're talking about a gated park that allows anyone to enter as long as they follow established easy to understand rules like, "no dogs, no alcohol, park closes at sundown" type of thing.
You sort of give away your private property status when you invite anyone to join.
They still own the site and provide the service, and the fact that membership is open to all has nothing to do with it.
When you sign up, you agree to abide by the terms of service, are invited to read those terms, and informed that they may change. If you don't agree to abide by the terms of service, you can't use the service. If you do, you can.
If not, i guess i'll start a barbershop, and whenever i see an asian person come in i'll tell them they're not welcome there. I guess that works under private property, right?
Sure, why not? You might run afoul of discrimination laws, though.
But instead, let's pick an analogy that's actually something like the original issue in the article. Say that you start a barbershop and when someone comes in drunk, you tell them they're not welcome there. Or something more familiar in the real world, like those "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs you see in convenience stores. That works under private property, right? Or are you saying that stores and businesses don't have a right to refuse service to people for reasons of their own?
Slashdot Mirror
What a grave insult to the intelligence of elephants.
Huh? Cause of the FISA vote? That one vote, and he's now totally indistinguishable from a Republican for you? Despite the wide gulf between him on lots of other issues, like actually talking to other countries as opposed to just bombing the shit out of them, or privatizing Social Security, or about giving tax cuts to rich people vs. saner fiscal policy?
The guy isn't perfect, but he's way better than the other realistic choice. If you want to throw a hissyfit, fine, that's your right. But if McCain becomes president, he's gonna make shit worse.
Your reason for abandoning change from within is because you tried voting for it exactly once and it didn't work out?
It does actually take time to change things, as well as a fair amount of effort and frequently some failures along the way.
Bear in mind that Clinton still isn't able to acknowledge that her war vote was a mistake.
For a screwup like that, when you change positions, you do have to say "yeah, that was a bad decision and i learned a lesson."
Dunno; has Obama substantively changed his position on an issue without acknowledging that change? Can you cite a specific example?
Though I see where you're coming from, I disagree. I think you can change the party from within, and can do that by donating to better candidates and supporting primary challenges against those who have repeatedly shown their contempt for your values.
As for "selling out the future for a marginal short term benefit," let me respond by saying that, you're unwilling to take anything short of a perfect solution to everything, completely forsaking any short term benefit, as well as likely screwing yourself in the future.
Look, I'd love to have a viable set of 3rd parties in America, really.
But we don't. And notwithstanding the fact that I and others continue to vote for the major parties, there are structural issues in America (related to voting, incumbency power, redistricting, money, etc, etc, etc.) which make it very hard for a 3rd party to take root and become viable. And, sure, if everyone in one or both of the major parties fled the party for smaller ones, then we'd have a different situation. But that's not a realistic scenario in the near term, if at all.
I'm a realist. Right now, and for this election, one of Obama and McCain will be come president. My best interests are served by helping to ensure that McCain doesn't become president. Sure, there's other people I'd rather have running the country, but they're not gonna win. So I take the best of what I've got to work with.
You can call my reasoning into question or think it cowardly. That's fine, and your right as a human. Personally, I find your attitude to be childish and unrealistic, but whatever. I used to think that way, and then I got older and lost my idealism and came to realize that sometimes you have to go for the better of two options than the best imaginable one.
Yes, the FISA vote was bad. I can't defend it. The retroactive immunity was offensive, as were numerous provisions of the actual legislation itself.
However, given that one of these two guys will run your country, do you opt to not participate in picking one? Do you stamp your feet and refuse to examine anything about them besides a single issue? 3rd parties aren't viable in the US, at least right now, so your choice is between the guy with the D after his name and the guy with the R.
Me, I hated the FISA vote - it was stupid, unnecessary, and undemocratic (small d). I'm also a grown up, and will vote for the one of the two guys who I think will do a better job. And that's unquestionably Obama.
The "surge" was intended to promote political reconciliation in Iraq, and that hasn't happened - things in the Iraqi government are as bad or worse now than they were at the beginning.
Leaving aside the fact that a very real argument can be made that the improvement in the security situation wasn't primarily driven by an escalation in US troop levels, the surge hasn't been a success because it hasn't achieved it's goal - a stable Iraqi government.
This isn't nitpicking - it's a significant issue. The problem the surge was intended to address is no better now than it was before. That's not success.
Yes, absolutely he's going to be a better choice - your cynicism aside, McCain is a demonstrably worse candidate than Obama on a variety of issues.
Really? Did he quit his job and say "Bush and the rest of the administration is trying to get us into a war, and they're overselling the evidence they have?"
No? Or did you mean that there was only so much he could do that wouldn't have required him to give up his job? And don't give me the "he thought he could do more good inside than out," bullshit.
You don't even have the balls to mod me as "flamebait" or "troll?"
How is that an endorsement of the man's qualifications as a leader for the country?
If he had misgivings and soldiered on anyway, particularly given something that big, it makes him seem worse, not better.
Yeah, I hate the way McCain flip-flopped on public financing - first he was for it and agreed to it, then decided to unilaterally withdraw (a move that the Republican appointed head of the FEC said was against the rules and is probably illegal) from it when it became convenient.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain.fec.ap/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141.html?hpid=topnews
That was terrible.
Or were you referring to Obama, who said that he'd work to come to an agreement with the McCain campaign on them both taking public financing, and that they subsequently didn't come to an agreement? Oh, wait - that's not a flip flop, that's just something not working out.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91703936
Ooh, here's a good quote from that one:
Huh. So, he said that he supports for public financing, but that it's broken as is, and that he'd participate in public financing if McCain did the same. Which McCain did at first, till he decided to withdraw, which the FEC chairman says he's not allowed to do.
I have no trust in your ability to do so, particularly given your fondness for bold assertions given no evidence.
You must be tired after thrashing at all that straw. Just be careful about open flame - you might burn yourself up.
You don't have to apologize for saying something bad about Obama. I hated that decision and I thought it was typical weak Democratic waffling.
I'm still going to vote for him in November, because basically it's him or McCain. And McCain would be at best an extension of the Bush years, and we frankly just don't need that.
Leaving aside questions about whether or not it was the US troop escalation that lowered violence in Iraq (there's a convincing argument to be made that is not the most significant factor in the decrease in violence), the entire point of "the surge" was political reconciliation in the Iraqi government.
And this hasn't happened at all.
You only get to call it a success when it succeeds, and it hasnt.
Ah, silly me - I've been trying not to breathe in teh Stupid that's washed over America.
Why is changing what you have to say a bad thing? If you have a different set of facts or a change in thought, why is it bad to change your opinions?
And are the edits that the Obama campaign making really significant? I had a look at the differences highlighted in the linked Wired article, and they didn't really look like a significant change in substance.
So fucking what? Are we really this stupid in our politics that it's now a game of crying "flip-flopper" when you just say more or less the same thing, maybe with a different emphasis?
It's not just (or probably even mostly) about the kiddie porn - it's the software, video, and music that gets shared in the alt.* hierarchy, too. And the ISPs probably don't mind not providing a service that doesn't do much but cost them extra for bandwidth and storage.
Still, Cuomo's an asshole.
Have you ever gotten contract phone service in the US before? 1) you can't negotiate terms, 2) there is no carrier (that I'm aware of) that will break the contract without requiring a termination fee, unless you're ending the contract to go into another one with the same carrier.
Deine Mutter ist eine Schlampe.
It's more expensive over the life of the contract than the previous model!
It's not just a plain cell phone!
It doesn't run Linux!
Cause it's true.
Jeez, what a simplistic dipshit you are.
Nah, you don't.
McCain hasn't showed for a vote in months. His abstention is purely accidental.
Obama voted that way because he made the calculation that he would cause less damage to his presidential campaign this way. Because basically, if he didn't vote for the FISA extension, you'd get a bunch of bullshit ads from the GOP calling him weak on terror for not supporting a shitty bill. Because basically that's how we do politics in America, though simple minded sound-bite bullshit. And the media would do exactly nothing to explain the complexities of the issues because that wouldn't actually help with ratings.
No, what you actually know from this is that people who are running for office and want to actually win have to do shitty stuff to win, because however nice it'd be to live in a country where people actually knew something about the laws that get a passed, that ain't where you live.
They still own the site and provide the service, and the fact that membership is open to all has nothing to do with it.
When you sign up, you agree to abide by the terms of service, are invited to read those terms, and informed that they may change. If you don't agree to abide by the terms of service, you can't use the service. If you do, you can.
Sure, why not? You might run afoul of discrimination laws, though.
But instead, let's pick an analogy that's actually something like the original issue in the article. Say that you start a barbershop and when someone comes in drunk, you tell them they're not welcome there. Or something more familiar in the real world, like those "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs you see in convenience stores. That works under private property, right? Or are you saying that stores and businesses don't have a right to refuse service to people for reasons of their own?