ME:I never said he didn't give them a lot to work with, but I do believe that they took a certain amount of joy in beating on Bush.
YOU:Only in a "aww, isn't he so funny when he's clumsy" way, not a "wtf is this incompetent warmonger doing" way.
Here you are admitting that the press beats up on Bush, but that they are doing it in an accepting way instead of an irate way. I never specified the tone of their beating, and you seem to believe that insufficient harshness constitutes a lack of any criticism which is just stupid.
as to this line
If the press "enjoyed beating" on Bush, he never would have been elected in the first place, much less re-elected.
Implies that the press choses the president, not the voters. Alternatively, it could imply that the voters are too stupid to chose the president on their own and let the Press tell them who to vote for. I prefer to believe that the Press exerts some influence on the election process, but that it is not so large as to prevent their preferred candidate from loosing. You can choose to be more pessimistic if you want. However, a higher degree of pessimism does not constitute BS on my part, just a difference of opinion. And a difference of opinion between me and you does not make me a "Revisionist Wingnut" (what you called me in your first post, just in case you wanted me to cite your own post again)
As to this BS
he didn't stick his cock in her.
you can't say "He stuck his cock in her mouth" without saying "He stuck his cock in her". That to me constitutes sex. If a divorce lawyer can take half of a mans property b/c he got a BJ while on a business trip and got caught, then the President ought to have to be measured by the same standard. Like I said before I could care less that she blew him, I only care that he lied about it under oath.
You can choose to have a different interpretation of events, a lot of people do, and quite frankly I don't really want to talk about the presidency of a philanderer that hasn't been in office in over 8 years.
Also, just because I don't think well of Clinton, and believe that the press enjoyed abusing the president doesn't mean I approve of the whole Scooter Libby thing. You can feel free to stop putting words in my mouth any time. Just because you are, apparently, an ideologue, doesn't mean that I am.
I so far haven't expressed an opinion of politics other than that I feel Clinton got off lighter than he should.
I never said that they press shouldn't beat up on the President, just that they enjoyed it. In fact I'm of the opinion that it is the presses job to beat up on the President and all other elected officials. It's their job to hold politicians feet to the fire since most Americans will never get the chance to ask the hard questions in person.
Just because I can play devils advocate and because I happen to disagree with you on an issues doesn't make me partisan, or a hack, or a revisionist. You really need to learn to play nice with others. You'll never change anyones mind, or if you prefer educate someone as to the error of their ways, by insulting them. (I never try, I just present my argument with the hope they'll eventually change their own mind, which happens next to never b/c politics is like religion or fandom to an athletic team. It's part of who someone is and can only be changed from within.)All that gets you is a defensive wall going up and increased certainty in their own correctness because you are so abrasive. While it may make you feel better about yourself and your opinion, it's counter productive in the long run.
That all being said, I'm done with you. I've taken more than enough insults from you to more than fill my quota for politely turning the other cheek. I've made my arguments, you can choose to actually think about them, or just turn them into fresh talking points
you admit that the press took joy in beating on Bush. You are only angry that they didn't do it with the same vehemence that you do.
Boo Frinkin' Hoo!
Some how my saying it without vehemence makes it revisionist BS? You need to look up the definition of the word Revision. It means to change. I never said he didn't do any of the things that they said he did, just that they enjoyed beating on him.
Feel free to think what you want about the war, but He couldn't have gotten us into the war, or funded it without the help of congressional dems and republicans. None of which have had to deal with the consequences of (at least initially) supporting the war. Hell, Hilary voted for the war, became against the war when it was politically convenient, and now she's the Secretary of State.
Bill Clinton took a lot of respect away from the office by lying under oath. I couldn't care less who blew him, but lying under oath would get my ass thrown in jail as it should have for him. Whether you believe that Bush lied or not (I'm assuming you do), he was never under oath when he did it so as distasteful as you may find him, he didn't break the law.
Besides, I never mention Clinton until you did. The press enjoyed beating up on him too, but that was definitely a case of "Aw look, he can't keep his johnson in his pants. Isn't he just so precious? Oh, and it was a fat girl! That is so funny!", instead of "WTF, this asshole lied under oath, in court and there was DNA evidence to prove it? Get Him!" I would have preferred the later, but I don't go insulting people that disagree with me about the appropriateness of the presses response. Get off of your sanctimonious high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.
Sounds like a very good way to increase accountability. Nothing like being able to walk down to the office and bitch about prices to someone that is either elected or appointed by someone that is elected.
Yes, but the government still owns the roads and highways. Whether they own a car or not, every american travels on those same roads.
There are always articles on this sight about how the US compares with the rest of the world as far as broadband adoption goes. What people fail to think about is that there was an article recently claiming, most people that don't have broadband don't actually want it.
If the government is going to leave the networks in the hands of private industry, then private industry should foot the bill of building out the networks. If the government is going to foot the bill, then they should own the fruits of our tax money.
I never said he didn't give them a lot to work with, but I do believe that they took a certain amount of joy in beating on Bush.
Please, do us all a favor. Take a valium before posting on Slashdot. We should all be able to have conversations without resorting to name calling. (I know, I know... "are you new here?")
I don't believe that everyone in the press was beating up on Bush b/c they are partisan, although I do believe a lot of them are. For example, Helen Thomas admitted in an interview [2:40-3:25] that she was not only a liberal, but that she believes that all reporters have not choice to be anything other than liberal because of what they see, and the access that they have to the "Truth".
Ignoring the commentary of the blowhards that flank the interview, I still find it disconcerting that this woman has been reporting on every president since Kennedy, and feels no need to try and stay objective. If a reporter made the same claims, but as a conservative, they'd be crucified by the rest of the media.
How about spending that money on infrastructure that actually belongs to the government. Roads, bridges, etc.
The 2 main bridges in my home town were build with money from the New Deal. Both have been needing replacement for the last 3 decades. We've finaly replaced one and are still 3 years away from opening the replacement bridge for the other. Every town I've ever lived in has at least a couple of old bridges from the same era that need to be replaced. That's the kind of infrastructure that lasts entire generations.
Paying to build out network infrastructure and then handing over the reigns to private industry will just mean that the industry makes major proifts off of the backs of the tax payers.
Now you see the difference between political Rhetoric and political Reality. They were only opposed to the spending b/c it was not being spent on their pet projects, and it was politically convenient to seem opposed to large expenditures, since it was going to happen anyway.
my post was in response to the rating of the comment I was responding to at the time. It was rated funny and I thought it was not the appropriate rating. When the RNC and Yahoo shit broke, everyone assumed (correctly) that there were nefarious deeds afoot. This story is admittedly less obviously ominous, but that doesn't make the OP I was responding to Funny.
It's been my experience that when a Conservative/Republican screws up, or does something that smacks of the potential for abuse, then he's presumed guilty and hung by his toenails. If a Liberal/Democrat does something similar, it's somehow more understandable/Laughable and easier to accept and move on.
For example, sex scandals. How many Republicans in congress lost their positions, or resigned after being caught out in the years around the Clinton scandal, yet clinton walked away relatively unscathed.
Or more importantly (b/c I could care less about who they are sleeping with) the example of illegal possession of classified FBI documents. There are men from the Nixon administration that are still in jail for the possession of a single FBI file they were not supposed to have despite being members of the FBI. Hillary Clinton had an entire BOX of FBI files while she was First Lady that she never returned and is now the F'ing Secretary of State. How's that for a double standard.
I'll admit that the email situation is not the same, and maybe I've got an over developed sensitivity toward perceived imbalanced application of what is ok and what's not that doesn't really apply to this case in particular.
As to what info they may have. They probably have access to more info than they provide to the press so that they know what to say about delicate issues without actually lying, while still being able to spin the truth. That is generally the job of anyone in an organizations press office.
By the way, isn't a majority endorsing the Democrat position an accurate reflection of opinion in the USA as a whole?
There is a world of difference between being, or endorsing a Democrat, and willingly letting one side slide for doing the same thing you slam the opponents for.
As I said in my post, I'm a Republican and I was furious with the Bush Administration for hiding official communications behind RNC email address. Regardless of you party affiliation, you should have certain lines that divide "ok" from "not ok" and they should apply equally to everyone. Obviously there is room for grey area and interpretation. the previous administration hid the fact that they were using outside email addresses while the current administration is apparently announcing it. that implies that they have more noble intentions, but is not a guarantee.
I'm not even saying that I believe the current administration will abuse these google accounts. I don't, but I found it a little repellent that the current administration doing something eerily similar to something that gave the last administration a black eye is considered "funny" here on slashdot, instead of mildly unsettling at the very least.
The Bush staff had government accounts and chose to use RNC ones specifically to avoid oversight. And they did it for YEARS
did you skip this line when reading my post?
As a Republican I was just as upset about the Bush administration trying to hide official communications behind RNC email addresses, as the rest of the people on this site.
How is this funny? It's more informative. It's highlighting the doublestandard that exists on this site for Bush v. Obama, or more generally Republicans v. Democrats. As a Republican I was just as upset about the Bush administration trying to hide official communications behind RNC email addresses, as the rest of the people on this site.
I'll grant that potentially the Obama team is only going to use these until they get white house addresses and then move all the emails they sent or received into their new accounts, which is the right thing to do. However, there is no guarantee that they would have if this wasn't being reported, or that they will even now.
You can choose to believe that Obama is some how different from every other politician in washington if you so choose, but it is pure ignorance to assume that EVERYONE in his administration, from Cabinet members to secretary's for the secretary's secretary are just as noble.
1. Obama tried to get legislation passed and Congress failed to come to a consensus on the legislation that the President felt he could sign. That would constitute a failure to convince Congress that his ideas are good. or 2. He tried to get a certain person appointed to an important office (judge, cabinet, etc.) and Congress filibustered until the Appointee withdrew, or they were able get enough "no" votes. That would constitute a failure to appoint individuals qualified enough to pass congressional muster. or Obama get's some legislation passed and the Courts determine it to be unconstitutional and revoke it. That would constitute a major failure to perform his duties within the bounds of current constitutional interpretation.
I'm sure you can find examples of all 3 instances during the Bush administration that you approved of.
You are using a narrow definition of the world "Fail" because it enables you to feel sanctimonious in your desire to tarr and feather Rush, instead of just feeling confident that Rush is wrong and ignoring him.
He believes he is right. The problem is he doesn't know for a fact that he is.
That can be said of both men. And THAT is my point. I agree that the testicle example was stupid. That was why I made it. I think it highly illustrative that someone is willing to sacrifice his Left Testicle on the Alter of Obama without any rational justification required. Just because it's Obama's turn at the helm does NOT mean Rush should hope every wish of Obama's comes true. The Dems never supported every decision of Bush's, and that's how things are SUPPOSED to be. Rush doesn't support Obama's plans, big surprise. You Liberals are just going to have to get used to the fact that your new Golden Boy is going to facing the same kind of scrutiny as the last president.
But if Obama's policies succeed on making America better then he is wrong.
That is a big IF right there. You need to put Rush's comments in context. If Rush is correct (an assumption we all make about our own views most of the time), then he is correct in hoping that Obama's fails to get his policies innacted. Rush does NOT want the country to fail. You seem to be drinking the same kool-aid as the guy who responded to one of my other posts. I gave a ridiculous example of bad policy that wouldn't hurt american if it failed (all men over 16 have to have their left testicle removed). He was WILLING to let Obama take his left testicle based on the Assumptions that obama was right and that it would help America, without requiring Obama to actually give any reasons. I want the implementation of any bad policy to fail, no matter who is the president. The president does not have the only possible source of "Truth" at his disposal. OBAMA IS NOT THE SECOND COMING! He is human and fallible, and most definitely wrong on about SOMETHING.
You, my friend sound more like a Libertarian than a Democrat. It's currently the new Whipping-boy as far as political philosophies go (still not as bad as the green party), but you may want to look into it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, only I probably would have put a little more or less emphasis on the importance of certain points.
Sincerely,
Former Democrat turned Republican, even though I've always been a Libertarian at heart
Of course, if he cancels dinner it could be for some other reason. On the other hand, he may not cancel dinner because he wants to see his family for a little while before he goes back to his office and pulls an all nighter.
I do see your point, but the Chinese are free to interpret his actions anyway they want, as long as they also don't have corroboration of their interpretation from compromised official documents or communications.
Saying he hoped Obama failed was both criticism and marketing in one short sentence. The criticism became constructive when he elaborated on what, specifically he wanted Obama to fail at, and why. The fact that no one on this page really wants to put that sentence in context doesn't change the value of the original statement
Trotting out Hillary claiming she wants debate is one thing. Everyone in the room when she said that is of similar political leaning, so debate will all still fall within the range of accepted Democratic thought. It's not like half of her staff are Republicans or anything.
I agree that the Bush administration didn't appear to support debate in the office staff, but there was a lot of debate between cabinet members. Bush just did a decent job of keeping the internal dialogue from becoming part of the news.
The reason why these types of discussions tend to segue into the problems Bush presented is that at least one legitimate discussion tack is how Obama plans to try to undo some of what Bush did.
Bush is out of office, but his policies and the consequences are going to be relevant for a while yet, and for the moment, they're at least as relevant as Obama's potential choices.
both valid points. However, none of the crap I've seen on MSNBC or any TV news channel other than Fox has spent any real time talking about solutions. All they've talked about is how the sky is falling, it's bush's fault (No mention of congress), and not a single mention of what anyone in the new administration is going to do about any of them.
Fox was busy (Sean Hanity) going off on how much of a socialist Obama is, and how bad it'll be for the economy when he lets his true colors show (no pun intended) and tries to fix the problems we are facing by making us all Socialists.
The only news that refrained from Bush or Obama bashing was NPR for christs sake. They found other stuff to talk about while we let the Obama team settle in. Why can't the rest of the media.
Obviously it's still to early to for anyone to do much of anything, everyone is still settling into their new offices, but Jesus Christ! Quit patting yourselves on the back for electing the 1st black president and get on with fixing things already. Until you've got something useful to tell use, please STFU!
Not really, criticizing foolish decisions the President is planning to make, before they actually implement them, is far preferable to allowing him to make them and then saying "I told you so" while all of American is paying for the Presidents mistakes.
Regardless of my opinion on the matter, many people believe that the Iraq war was a mistake. The WMD's weren't there, you apparently can't give democracy away (It really needs to be taken), and it's distracted most Americans from the real war with Al-Queda which is in Afghanistan. I would much prefer it if the Dems that are now against the war had voted against the war initially (I'm looking at you Hillary), and save us all the blood and money we are spending over there. Saddam would still be in power, but my brother would most likely not have PTSD, and things would probably be going better in Afghanistan. Hell, we might of even caught Ossama by now.
The kind of "Trust in the President, No Matter What" that Bush was benefitting from early after 9/11, and that Obama has been getting since before he even won the damn Democratic nomination is just BS. There is nothing inherently wrong with some people being more like sheep and following the herd, but those people should not be running for office.
Rush obviously isn't one of those sheep. Right or wrong, he's saying what he believes now instead of after the fact. Kudos, to him.
So in a way I still would want the policy to succeed.
WTF? are you so blinded by Obama lust that you'd be willing to sacrifice your left testicle. I never said he'd have a good justification, just that he'd want to do it. What if the reason was as you say, but there was no reliable evidence that it would work? would you still be ok with being partial emasculated?
Even if he think Obama is implementing, in his opinion, some horribly detrimental policies. If these policies surpass his expectations and succeed,
And if they don't then he would have been right to hope that the Execution of his policy to fail, saving the US from having more problems piled on top of the ones we are already dealing with. Once again I must ask if you are so blinded by Obama's cult of personality that you can't conceive of the possibility that he's wrong about something?
You are apparently willing to give him access to your left testicle purely on the assumption that he both, has a good idea, and that it'll work as planed. I expect my politicians to make an effort to present evidence for why their plans will work at the very least. Preferably, they'll have evidence of similar action working in similar situations. This "I'm Obama, Trust In Me" BS is ludicrous, but apparently you've been drinking the kool-aid (whether you realize it or not)
There is no guarantee that anything Obama tries will help as opposed to hurt the economy. Historically there is a lot of evidence that FDR's New Deal actually made things worse, and prolonged the Depression. Healthy debate by politicians and pundits is the best mechanism for identifying ideological BS from all sides of the political spectrum.
Hey, feel free to believe what you want. I wasn't trying to say that Bush or Rush were right or wrong. It's interesting that you now appear to agree with me that balking the desires of the President or wishing that he fail, doesn't necessarily mean you don't have the best interests of the country at heart.
As to the closing of Gitmo, that's really not a limiting of the Presidents power, but of the CIA's power. IIRC, the CIA head may be appointed by the Pres, but the agency has to answer to Congress as well as the Pres. Besides, how do you know there aren't other secret prisons no one found out about that Obama isn't closing (I don't believe it, but it's possible).
I've never said that Obama doesn't have some good ideas, I'm just annoyed with the persistent belief that he's the ONLY one with good ideas.
If a policy fails, regardless if it's a good policy or a bad policy, it still has a negative effect on society
If Obama's policy were to take all men over the age of 15 and cut out their left testicle, that wouldn't be a good policy, and desiring him to fail would not be bad for Society.
If you thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea, I bet you wanted Bushes pre-war maneuvering to get us into Iraq would fail. He doesn't want Socialism to fail, he believes that'll happen all on its own (which is the corollary to your example of the war itself), he want's the push by Obama to make us more Socialistic (is that a word) to fail (which is the corollary to my example in trying to keep us out of Iraq in the first place). Important distinction.
besides this is all about what Rush thinks Obama is going to try to do. If Obama turns around and starts trying to revive the economy using methods that Rush is espousing, then he'll wish Obama all the success in the world implementing his plans.
Nevertheless, we didn't hope he would fail. We didn't go and say, "Well, I sure hope his tax cut policy fails. That'll show him and those crazy conservatives that cutting taxes by itself doesn't solve life's problems."
You may not have, but I'm sure some did.
You are free to think what ever you want about Rush's view on politics. I don't agree with him a lot of the time either, I just don't believe that makes him a bad guy, just wrong.
As to WWII pulling us out of the great depression. It wasn't the Socialism, but the money that the government was pouring into the economy by way of manufacturing contracts for ware materials (guns, tanks, uniforms, bullets, k-rations, etc). A lot of that money went into the building of new iron working plants, opening of new coal mines, and new textile mills. After the war was over we had a lot of infrastructure that we didn't have before, which enabled us to start selling our goods overseas, thereby pulling us out of the depression and starting us on our unprecedented economic growth post WWII. At least, that's my opinion on history.
I hope that the US economy recovers, but I don't believe that it is solely the responsibility of the US government (or the president for that matter) to make that happen. There job is not to create new jobs, by expanding government, but to create the conditions by which the market recovers and creates new jobs on its own. There is an important distinction there. Rush believes that Obama plans on doing the former and wants that to fail. I agree with Rush that expanding Government is a bad idea, I am undecided as to whether that is what Obama is planning to do. If he's not, then I hope Obama succeeds, but if he is then I hope Congress get's in his way (yeah right) and causes that action to fail. At no point to I not have the US's best interests at heart.
Slashdot Mirror
ME:I never said he didn't give them a lot to work with, but I do believe that they took a certain amount of joy in beating on Bush.
YOU:Only in a "aww, isn't he so funny when he's clumsy" way, not a "wtf is this incompetent warmonger doing" way.
Here you are admitting that the press beats up on Bush, but that they are doing it in an accepting way instead of an irate way. I never specified the tone of their beating, and you seem to believe that insufficient harshness constitutes a lack of any criticism which is just stupid.
as to this line
If the press "enjoyed beating" on Bush, he never would have been elected in the first place, much less re-elected.
Implies that the press choses the president, not the voters. Alternatively, it could imply that the voters are too stupid to chose the president on their own and let the Press tell them who to vote for. I prefer to believe that the Press exerts some influence on the election process, but that it is not so large as to prevent their preferred candidate from loosing. You can choose to be more pessimistic if you want. However, a higher degree of pessimism does not constitute BS on my part, just a difference of opinion. And a difference of opinion between me and you does not make me a "Revisionist Wingnut" (what you called me in your first post, just in case you wanted me to cite your own post again)
As to this BS
he didn't stick his cock in her.
you can't say "He stuck his cock in her mouth" without saying "He stuck his cock in her". That to me constitutes sex. If a divorce lawyer can take half of a mans property b/c he got a BJ while on a business trip and got caught, then the President ought to have to be measured by the same standard. Like I said before I could care less that she blew him, I only care that he lied about it under oath.
You can choose to have a different interpretation of events, a lot of people do, and quite frankly I don't really want to talk about the presidency of a philanderer that hasn't been in office in over 8 years.
Also, just because I don't think well of Clinton, and believe that the press enjoyed abusing the president doesn't mean I approve of the whole Scooter Libby thing. You can feel free to stop putting words in my mouth any time. Just because you are, apparently, an ideologue, doesn't mean that I am.
I so far haven't expressed an opinion of politics other than that I feel Clinton got off lighter than he should.
I never said that they press shouldn't beat up on the President, just that they enjoyed it. In fact I'm of the opinion that it is the presses job to beat up on the President and all other elected officials. It's their job to hold politicians feet to the fire since most Americans will never get the chance to ask the hard questions in person.
Just because I can play devils advocate and because I happen to disagree with you on an issues doesn't make me partisan, or a hack, or a revisionist. You really need to learn to play nice with others. You'll never change anyones mind, or if you prefer educate someone as to the error of their ways, by insulting them. (I never try, I just present my argument with the hope they'll eventually change their own mind, which happens next to never b/c politics is like religion or fandom to an athletic team. It's part of who someone is and can only be changed from within.)All that gets you is a defensive wall going up and increased certainty in their own correctness because you are so abrasive. While it may make you feel better about yourself and your opinion, it's counter productive in the long run.
That all being said, I'm done with you. I've taken more than enough insults from you to more than fill my quota for politely turning the other cheek. I've made my arguments, you can choose to actually think about them, or just turn them into fresh talking points
you admit that the press took joy in beating on Bush. You are only angry that they didn't do it with the same vehemence that you do.
Boo Frinkin' Hoo!
Some how my saying it without vehemence makes it revisionist BS? You need to look up the definition of the word Revision. It means to change. I never said he didn't do any of the things that they said he did, just that they enjoyed beating on him.
Feel free to think what you want about the war, but He couldn't have gotten us into the war, or funded it without the help of congressional dems and republicans. None of which have had to deal with the consequences of (at least initially) supporting the war. Hell, Hilary voted for the war, became against the war when it was politically convenient, and now she's the Secretary of State.
Bill Clinton took a lot of respect away from the office by lying under oath. I couldn't care less who blew him, but lying under oath would get my ass thrown in jail as it should have for him. Whether you believe that Bush lied or not (I'm assuming you do), he was never under oath when he did it so as distasteful as you may find him, he didn't break the law.
Besides, I never mention Clinton until you did. The press enjoyed beating up on him too, but that was definitely a case of "Aw look, he can't keep his johnson in his pants. Isn't he just so precious? Oh, and it was a fat girl! That is so funny!", instead of "WTF, this asshole lied under oath, in court and there was DNA evidence to prove it? Get Him!" I would have preferred the later, but I don't go insulting people that disagree with me about the appropriateness of the presses response. Get off of your sanctimonious high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.
Sounds like a very good way to increase accountability. Nothing like being able to walk down to the office and bitch about prices to someone that is either elected or appointed by someone that is elected.
Yes, but the government still owns the roads and highways. Whether they own a car or not, every american travels on those same roads.
There are always articles on this sight about how the US compares with the rest of the world as far as broadband adoption goes. What people fail to think about is that there was an article recently claiming, most people that don't have broadband don't actually want it.
If the government is going to leave the networks in the hands of private industry, then private industry should foot the bill of building out the networks. If the government is going to foot the bill, then they should own the fruits of our tax money.
I never said he didn't give them a lot to work with, but I do believe that they took a certain amount of joy in beating on Bush.
Please, do us all a favor. Take a valium before posting on Slashdot. We should all be able to have conversations without resorting to name calling. (I know, I know... "are you new here?")
I don't believe that everyone in the press was beating up on Bush b/c they are partisan, although I do believe a lot of them are. For example, Helen Thomas admitted in an interview [2:40-3:25] that she was not only a liberal, but that she believes that all reporters have not choice to be anything other than liberal because of what they see, and the access that they have to the "Truth".
Ignoring the commentary of the blowhards that flank the interview, I still find it disconcerting that this woman has been reporting on every president since Kennedy, and feels no need to try and stay objective. If a reporter made the same claims, but as a conservative, they'd be crucified by the rest of the media.
How about spending that money on infrastructure that actually belongs to the government. Roads, bridges, etc.
The 2 main bridges in my home town were build with money from the New Deal. Both have been needing replacement for the last 3 decades. We've finaly replaced one and are still 3 years away from opening the replacement bridge for the other. Every town I've ever lived in has at least a couple of old bridges from the same era that need to be replaced. That's the kind of infrastructure that lasts entire generations.
Paying to build out network infrastructure and then handing over the reigns to private industry will just mean that the industry makes major proifts off of the backs of the tax payers.
Now you see the difference between political Rhetoric and political Reality. They were only opposed to the spending b/c it was not being spent on their pet projects, and it was politically convenient to seem opposed to large expenditures, since it was going to happen anyway.
my post was in response to the rating of the comment I was responding to at the time. It was rated funny and I thought it was not the appropriate rating. When the RNC and Yahoo shit broke, everyone assumed (correctly) that there were nefarious deeds afoot. This story is admittedly less obviously ominous, but that doesn't make the OP I was responding to Funny.
It's been my experience that when a Conservative/Republican screws up, or does something that smacks of the potential for abuse, then he's presumed guilty and hung by his toenails. If a Liberal/Democrat does something similar, it's somehow more understandable/Laughable and easier to accept and move on.
For example, sex scandals. How many Republicans in congress lost their positions, or resigned after being caught out in the years around the Clinton scandal, yet clinton walked away relatively unscathed.
Or more importantly (b/c I could care less about who they are sleeping with) the example of illegal possession of classified FBI documents. There are men from the Nixon administration that are still in jail for the possession of a single FBI file they were not supposed to have despite being members of the FBI. Hillary Clinton had an entire BOX of FBI files while she was First Lady that she never returned and is now the F'ing Secretary of State. How's that for a double standard.
I'll admit that the email situation is not the same, and maybe I've got an over developed sensitivity toward perceived imbalanced application of what is ok and what's not that doesn't really apply to this case in particular.
As to what info they may have. They probably have access to more info than they provide to the press so that they know what to say about delicate issues without actually lying, while still being able to spin the truth. That is generally the job of anyone in an organizations press office.
By the way, isn't a majority endorsing the Democrat position an accurate reflection of opinion in the USA as a whole?
There is a world of difference between being, or endorsing a Democrat, and willingly letting one side slide for doing the same thing you slam the opponents for.
As I said in my post, I'm a Republican and I was furious with the Bush Administration for hiding official communications behind RNC email address. Regardless of you party affiliation, you should have certain lines that divide "ok" from "not ok" and they should apply equally to everyone. Obviously there is room for grey area and interpretation. the previous administration hid the fact that they were using outside email addresses while the current administration is apparently announcing it. that implies that they have more noble intentions, but is not a guarantee.
I'm not even saying that I believe the current administration will abuse these google accounts. I don't, but I found it a little repellent that the current administration doing something eerily similar to something that gave the last administration a black eye is considered "funny" here on slashdot, instead of mildly unsettling at the very least.
The Bush staff had government accounts and chose to use RNC ones specifically to avoid oversight. And they did it for YEARS
did you skip this line when reading my post?
As a Republican I was just as upset about the Bush administration trying to hide official communications behind RNC email addresses, as the rest of the people on this site.
How is this funny? It's more informative. It's highlighting the doublestandard that exists on this site for Bush v. Obama, or more generally Republicans v. Democrats. As a Republican I was just as upset about the Bush administration trying to hide official communications behind RNC email addresses, as the rest of the people on this site.
I'll grant that potentially the Obama team is only going to use these until they get white house addresses and then move all the emails they sent or received into their new accounts, which is the right thing to do. However, there is no guarantee that they would have if this wasn't being reported, or that they will even now.
You can choose to believe that Obama is some how different from every other politician in washington if you so choose, but it is pure ignorance to assume that EVERYONE in his administration, from Cabinet members to secretary's for the secretary's secretary are just as noble.
Failure can also mean that
1. Obama tried to get legislation passed and Congress failed to come to a consensus on the legislation that the President felt he could sign. That would constitute a failure to convince Congress that his ideas are good.
or
2. He tried to get a certain person appointed to an important office (judge, cabinet, etc.) and Congress filibustered until the Appointee withdrew, or they were able get enough "no" votes. That would constitute a failure to appoint individuals qualified enough to pass congressional muster.
or
Obama get's some legislation passed and the Courts determine it to be unconstitutional and revoke it. That would constitute a major failure to perform his duties within the bounds of current constitutional interpretation.
I'm sure you can find examples of all 3 instances during the Bush administration that you approved of.
You are using a narrow definition of the world "Fail" because it enables you to feel sanctimonious in your desire to tarr and feather Rush, instead of just feeling confident that Rush is wrong and ignoring him.
He believes he is right. The problem is he doesn't know for a fact that he is.
That can be said of both men. And THAT is my point. I agree that the testicle example was stupid. That was why I made it. I think it highly illustrative that someone is willing to sacrifice his Left Testicle on the Alter of Obama without any rational justification required.
Just because it's Obama's turn at the helm does NOT mean Rush should hope every wish of Obama's comes true. The Dems never supported every decision of Bush's, and that's how things are SUPPOSED to be. Rush doesn't support Obama's plans, big surprise. You Liberals are just going to have to get used to the fact that your new Golden Boy is going to facing the same kind of scrutiny as the last president.
But if Obama's policies succeed on making America better then he is wrong.
That is a big IF right there. You need to put Rush's comments in context. If Rush is correct (an assumption we all make about our own views most of the time), then he is correct in hoping that Obama's fails to get his policies innacted. Rush does NOT want the country to fail. You seem to be drinking the same kool-aid as the guy who responded to one of my other posts. I gave a ridiculous example of bad policy that wouldn't hurt american if it failed (all men over 16 have to have their left testicle removed). He was WILLING to let Obama take his left testicle based on the Assumptions that obama was right and that it would help America, without requiring Obama to actually give any reasons. I want the implementation of any bad policy to fail, no matter who is the president. The president does not have the only possible source of "Truth" at his disposal. OBAMA IS NOT THE SECOND COMING! He is human and fallible, and most definitely wrong on about SOMETHING.
You, my friend sound more like a Libertarian than a Democrat. It's currently the new Whipping-boy as far as political philosophies go (still not as bad as the green party), but you may want to look into it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, only I probably would have put a little more or less emphasis on the importance of certain points. Sincerely, Former Democrat turned Republican, even though I've always been a Libertarian at heart
Of course, if he cancels dinner it could be for some other reason. On the other hand, he may not cancel dinner because he wants to see his family for a little while before he goes back to his office and pulls an all nighter.
I do see your point, but the Chinese are free to interpret his actions anyway they want, as long as they also don't have corroboration of their interpretation from compromised official documents or communications.
at least I'm not the only one that noticed.
Saying he hoped Obama failed was both criticism and marketing in one short sentence. The criticism became constructive when he elaborated on what, specifically he wanted Obama to fail at, and why. The fact that no one on this page really wants to put that sentence in context doesn't change the value of the original statement
Trotting out Hillary claiming she wants debate is one thing. Everyone in the room when she said that is of similar political leaning, so debate will all still fall within the range of accepted Democratic thought. It's not like half of her staff are Republicans or anything.
I agree that the Bush administration didn't appear to support debate in the office staff, but there was a lot of debate between cabinet members. Bush just did a decent job of keeping the internal dialogue from becoming part of the news.
The reason why these types of discussions tend to segue into the problems Bush presented is that at least one legitimate discussion tack is how Obama plans to try to undo some of what Bush did.
Bush is out of office, but his policies and the consequences are going to be relevant for a while yet, and for the moment, they're at least as relevant as Obama's potential choices.
both valid points. However, none of the crap I've seen on MSNBC or any TV news channel other than Fox has spent any real time talking about solutions. All they've talked about is how the sky is falling, it's bush's fault (No mention of congress), and not a single mention of what anyone in the new administration is going to do about any of them.
Fox was busy (Sean Hanity) going off on how much of a socialist Obama is, and how bad it'll be for the economy when he lets his true colors show (no pun intended) and tries to fix the problems we are facing by making us all Socialists.
The only news that refrained from Bush or Obama bashing was NPR for christs sake. They found other stuff to talk about while we let the Obama team settle in. Why can't the rest of the media.
Obviously it's still to early to for anyone to do much of anything, everyone is still settling into their new offices, but Jesus Christ! Quit patting yourselves on the back for electing the 1st black president and get on with fixing things already. Until you've got something useful to tell use, please STFU!
would you mind elaborating? We are talking about the danger of someone hacking the presidents personal PDA. What are you talking about?
Not really, criticizing foolish decisions the President is planning to make, before they actually implement them, is far preferable to allowing him to make them and then saying "I told you so" while all of American is paying for the Presidents mistakes.
Regardless of my opinion on the matter, many people believe that the Iraq war was a mistake. The WMD's weren't there, you apparently can't give democracy away (It really needs to be taken), and it's distracted most Americans from the real war with Al-Queda which is in Afghanistan. I would much prefer it if the Dems that are now against the war had voted against the war initially (I'm looking at you Hillary), and save us all the blood and money we are spending over there. Saddam would still be in power, but my brother would most likely not have PTSD, and things would probably be going better in Afghanistan. Hell, we might of even caught Ossama by now.
The kind of "Trust in the President, No Matter What" that Bush was benefitting from early after 9/11, and that Obama has been getting since before he even won the damn Democratic nomination is just BS. There is nothing inherently wrong with some people being more like sheep and following the herd, but those people should not be running for office.
Rush obviously isn't one of those sheep. Right or wrong, he's saying what he believes now instead of after the fact. Kudos, to him.
So in a way I still would want the policy to succeed.
WTF? are you so blinded by Obama lust that you'd be willing to sacrifice your left testicle. I never said he'd have a good justification, just that he'd want to do it. What if the reason was as you say, but there was no reliable evidence that it would work? would you still be ok with being partial emasculated?
Even if he think Obama is implementing, in his opinion, some horribly detrimental policies. If these policies surpass his expectations and succeed,
And if they don't then he would have been right to hope that the Execution of his policy to fail, saving the US from having more problems piled on top of the ones we are already dealing with. Once again I must ask if you are so blinded by Obama's cult of personality that you can't conceive of the possibility that he's wrong about something?
You are apparently willing to give him access to your left testicle purely on the assumption that he both, has a good idea, and that it'll work as planed. I expect my politicians to make an effort to present evidence for why their plans will work at the very least. Preferably, they'll have evidence of similar action working in similar situations. This "I'm Obama, Trust In Me" BS is ludicrous, but apparently you've been drinking the kool-aid (whether you realize it or not)
There is no guarantee that anything Obama tries will help as opposed to hurt the economy. Historically there is a lot of evidence that FDR's New Deal actually made things worse, and prolonged the Depression. Healthy debate by politicians and pundits is the best mechanism for identifying ideological BS from all sides of the political spectrum.
Hey, feel free to believe what you want. I wasn't trying to say that Bush or Rush were right or wrong. It's interesting that you now appear to agree with me that balking the desires of the President or wishing that he fail, doesn't necessarily mean you don't have the best interests of the country at heart.
As to the closing of Gitmo, that's really not a limiting of the Presidents power, but of the CIA's power. IIRC, the CIA head may be appointed by the Pres, but the agency has to answer to Congress as well as the Pres. Besides, how do you know there aren't other secret prisons no one found out about that Obama isn't closing (I don't believe it, but it's possible).
I've never said that Obama doesn't have some good ideas, I'm just annoyed with the persistent belief that he's the ONLY one with good ideas.
If a policy fails, regardless if it's a good policy or a bad policy, it still has a negative effect on society
If Obama's policy were to take all men over the age of 15 and cut out their left testicle, that wouldn't be a good policy, and desiring him to fail would not be bad for Society.
If you thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea, I bet you wanted Bushes pre-war maneuvering to get us into Iraq would fail. He doesn't want Socialism to fail, he believes that'll happen all on its own (which is the corollary to your example of the war itself), he want's the push by Obama to make us more Socialistic (is that a word) to fail (which is the corollary to my example in trying to keep us out of Iraq in the first place). Important distinction.
besides this is all about what Rush thinks Obama is going to try to do. If Obama turns around and starts trying to revive the economy using methods that Rush is espousing, then he'll wish Obama all the success in the world implementing his plans.
Nevertheless, we didn't hope he would fail. We didn't go and say, "Well, I sure hope his tax cut policy fails. That'll show him and those crazy conservatives that cutting taxes by itself doesn't solve life's problems."
You may not have, but I'm sure some did.
You are free to think what ever you want about Rush's view on politics. I don't agree with him a lot of the time either, I just don't believe that makes him a bad guy, just wrong.
As to WWII pulling us out of the great depression. It wasn't the Socialism, but the money that the government was pouring into the economy by way of manufacturing contracts for ware materials (guns, tanks, uniforms, bullets, k-rations, etc). A lot of that money went into the building of new iron working plants, opening of new coal mines, and new textile mills. After the war was over we had a lot of infrastructure that we didn't have before, which enabled us to start selling our goods overseas, thereby pulling us out of the depression and starting us on our unprecedented economic growth post WWII. At least, that's my opinion on history.
I hope that the US economy recovers, but I don't believe that it is solely the responsibility of the US government (or the president for that matter) to make that happen. There job is not to create new jobs, by expanding government, but to create the conditions by which the market recovers and creates new jobs on its own. There is an important distinction there. Rush believes that Obama plans on doing the former and wants that to fail. I agree with Rush that expanding Government is a bad idea, I am undecided as to whether that is what Obama is planning to do. If he's not, then I hope Obama succeeds, but if he is then I hope Congress get's in his way (yeah right) and causes that action to fail. At no point to I not have the US's best interests at heart.