He was still all for sending tons of money to Iraq. He just disagreed with the implementation. One bad implementation versus another. Still not seeing the good side to this.:)
I care what motivates people, because it has a direct correlation to how the take stands on future issues. Bad people can do good things on the way to fulfilling their agenda.
You really can stop arguing anti-Bush in this thread. I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you on that issue.:)
My point is that I can't support someone who is so clearly a dyed-in-the-wool politician, someone who is so firmly embedded in Washington culture that nothing coming out of his mouth can be trusted. He is first and foremost about his career, which includes catering to those who helped get him there. He's not beholden to the same few special interests as Bush, but he's still beholden, and that will be the direction he takes. The good that may come of his election will not outstrip the bad.
Where did I reverse a previously stated stand I made (to back-pedal)?
My conclusions were developed by delving into Kerry's records and listening to the words coming out of his mouth. I would have to have decided I didn't like him prior to getting to know his record and what he speaks about now for my opinion to be the result of a foregone conclusion.
The fact is, they're both spokesmodels. Kerry has just managed to accomplish more than Shrublet during the course of his career. That's not saying much though.
Apparently you missed the tide of public opinion he was swept up in regarding Vietnam. He wasn't going out on a limb there, he was going with public opinion.
Iran/Contra was about the limelight. He loved the political attention.
Kerry was hip-deep in BCCI. If you're going there, explain away David Paul. Kerry eventually did the right thing, but nobody knows whether it was for personal or political reasons.
Which $87B payment to Iran? That's a little vague, so if you have a bill title, or even better a bill number, I can comment on this. There are lots of no votes on appropriations. They're not out of the norm most of the time.
There aren't many others from what I've seen. Aside from his limelighting, he mostly hasn't accomplished anything but going with the flow (when he bothered to be on the floor to vote).
How do you work toward a different voting system while voting Republicrat? They have no reason to change it, being the majority, because the current system keeps them in power.
As for "throwing your vote away," you only do that when you vote for someone you don't believe in. That's the only vote that's thrown away. If it were true you were throwing away your vote we'd never have had Republicans or Democrats, we'd still have Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Given that, I'm completely in agreement that the voting system needs changing. Approval voting would be great. Unfortunately, it's going to almost definitely going to require a revolution, whether violent or peaceful, to accomplish that change.
Yes, I would put Hitler on the left. I actually don't know much about Mussolini's government programs (other than war), so I can't categorize him that way. Hitler, however, has much more in common with the left than the right.
Just because you're from Germany doesn't make me trust you opinion of German history any more than I trust an American's version of American history. What's your citizenship have to do with anything? There are people ignorant of their own history everywhere. Mostly, it's compounded by government-mandated "education," but I don't generaly trust someone's representation of their own country's history. It's usually very skewed.
I didn't go down the funded/unfunded mandate track, because it wasn't addressed earlier. It will only be better if they never actually fund it.
As a political trick, it's about throwing money at a problem. I never said who would be providing the money.:) Then again, the government only gets money from one place for these programs, so it's the individual who pays no matter which government must come up with the money (federal vs state vs county vs local).
Actually, teaching is as much art as science. If you don't have it, a classroom isn't going to do you any good at all. However, not even having basic skills in the field you're teaching is absolutely idiotic. I didn't say teaching wasn't a field of study, but that's like saying learning how to write is a final goal. You have to have skills in some other field to utilize the writing skill effectively. If all you can do is print all sorts of letters without knowing how they work together, what good is the skill of writing? Likewise, if you can teach, but have no other skills, you can't teach anything effectively. It's a skill that goes hand-in-hand with other skills.
I wasn't talking about myself, I was talking regulations. You didn't address the point that a Harvard professor would not be allowed to teach in public school.
I'm the first to tell you I'm not qualified to teach. That doesn't mean I'm not qualified to comment on something that's common bloody sense. That's like saying nobody but a lawyer should comment on whether a specific law is a bad idea. It affects everyone.
What specific actions has he ever taken that would make you think he wouldn't rubberstamp?
What truly "unpopular" position has he taken? Kerry is the ultimate "go-with-the-flow" politician. He won't veto anything. He might threaten, but he won't actually do it.
Since the President can't sponsor legislation, the trend in legislation won't change because of a new President. Because Kerry is as likely as Bush to sign everything that crosses his desk, whether it's a "Republican" or "Democrat" bill, the only thing that will produce change is in Congress.
There will be no more increase in popular representation under Kerry. Apparently you haven't heard that Bush has signed every single piece of legislation to cross his desk. Kerry will be no different. Hence, representation will remain where it has always been: in Congress, specifically the House.
The only way the legislative record will change is with changes in Congress. The President, whomever that may be, will sign whatever crosses their desk.
You actually think they'll roll back laws? That doesn't happen unless those laws have sunset clauses, and they roll back automatically. How many laws have you heard of being repealed? Not very many, and almost never important ones. You have to actually have broad support to do that sort of thing, support that neither President will have. No, Kerry will do the same thing Bush would: increase government at as many levels as possible. Make it bigger, make it stronger, make it cost a hell of a lot more. Kerry won't be influenced by the public any more than Bush is now. They INFLUENCE the public, not the other way around. Kerry will do whatever his handlers (whoever they happen to be any given week) want. Same with Bush. None of their handlers are ordinary people, hence they will neither cater to the needs of ordinary people, except perhaps as a means to a political end.
People have been kidding themselves that "the next one will be better" for a long, long time. Guess what, government hasn't gotten better, just bigger and more costly. Kerry isn't about to change that trend.
In still other words, Kerry represents a fairly broad collection of interests, with access open as scenarios change. Bush represents a certain few interests, which never change, regardless of situation. Kerry is republican democrat, and Bush is just a republican - democracy need not apply.
I'd remove "fairly broad" from the first sentence. He represents a collection of interests, and can be bought when necessary. He has no loyalty, which, in a leader, is as bad as blind dogmatic loyalty (Bush). They both represent interests, rather than ideas or ideals, which makes them both scum from a political standpoint. Kerry is a political mercenary, Bush is a political fanatic. Neither have a conscience to speak of.
You can't have a republic without democracy. It's an extension of a broader idea. The distinction between republican democrat and republican is non-existent.
They're both from the same party, they just belong to different camps. Neither are interested in republican democracy, as far as the classical definition goes: all power stemming from the individual with strict confines upon what power the State can wield.
Neither Kerry nor Bush are republican in that they do not believe in constraints upon governmental power. A "republican" form of government is one where rights exist apart from and superior to the power of the government.
Neither Kerry nor Bush are democratic in that they support the perpetuation of the idea that power stems from the government, and all rights are beholden to the whim of that government. A "democratic" government derives its authority solely from the people, who may revoke that authority should they so choose.
Your second wasn't worthy of note, because you were replying in earnest (to all appearances) to a comment made in jest (we'll arrest/inform...).
I made concrete points about issues that affect a large number of individuals in the USA. You made a concrete point about something that was obviously a joke. Who's blathering?
Wait, wait, wait, history has been re-written, at least in the USA.
Fascism is on the RIGHT now. The Leftists decided they didn't want to be associated with that form of government any more, so they (quite successfully, I might add) foisted the term off on the right, quite some time ago.
Is it really idealism when it pertains to a history that never actually happened except in the minds of those who originally made it up? I don't know really... *shrug*
What I do know is that you are right on the money. It's alwys been minority rule in this country. Actually much less so when it was initially founded than now. Now, a President is elected if he gets 16% or so of the total possible votes. Political mandate my ass. 16% isn't a political mandate, it's a half-stifled yawn. It means that 14% of the politically active (by that I mean people who actually vote) don't want you, and the other 70% don't care enough to bother registering their opinion.
The USA's population hasn't gotten along on compromise, it's gotten along despite constant in-fighting.
Hey, it's worked out wonderfully for the politicians though...
Actually, in most national races there are politicians of integrity. Most often, they get zero press because they're minor party or independent. I blame those of voting age (most of thse who do vote) because most people stay uninformed and ignorant, or don't vote at all (the majority don't vote at all). The majority of those who do vote can't bring themselves to vote other than major party because of the lesser/greater evil issue. That means most of them are consciously supporting a candidate they don't like, and know will cause problems. There's almost no integrity left among members of the voting public, and only apathy among members of the non-voting (but eligible) public.
I agree with you regarding legislative drafting tactics, but that's a whole other ball of wax that likely won't be solved without another revolution (whether peaceful or violent).
It's an attempt to throw money at a problem to make it go away. That doesn't work. It also is designed to make sure teachers are qualified. How about having teachers hold a degree in an ACTUAL FIELD OF STUDY instead of a worthless teaching certificate.
You can hold a PhD and a professorship at Harvard, and you can't teach in public school.
The school system is fundamentally broken. Really, it always has been. It never should have been turned into a public institution. The USA turned out more highly capable inventors, scientists, writers, etc based on the level of educational progression at the time of its founding than it ever has. People could read at what is now a college level when graduating the 8th grade. Most 12th-graders would have a problem with the 8th-grade McGuffy Reader.
Thank you Taxachusetts for implementing mandatory Prussian-based schooling, which has taken over the educational system in this country like a plague.
It's no wonder home-schooling cooperatives modelled around the original one-room-scoolhouse mentality produce such excellent results. Get rid of public schools, disband the NEA, and lets get on with actually educating instead of turning out good little citizen-drones who are taught to sit down, shut up, and do what they're told.
The same Attorney General who lost a Congressional election to a man who had been dead long before the election? This isn't someone I have confidence in to do the right thing.
Like people used to know the sun revolved around the Earth? Come on, use some actual logic.
You only "know" that because you've been told by somebody else. (Assumption-->) You have probably not actually read any real laws. (Based on first assumption-->) Thus, your knowledge of the law is limited to the knowledge of those you learned from. If you have read this law in particular, please share what it is. If not, don't tell me it is a law, because you have no proof whatsoever. I've never read it, never seen it referenced, and know for a fact it did not exist as late as 4-5 years ago. Before then, it was simple airline company policy.
Law enforcement derives their authority from *gasp* THE LAW! He wanted to know which law they were basing this specific exertion of authority on. The nice thing about the law is that in order to be enforceable it must be published in the Federal Register. Now he's in court because they want to enforce a law without telling anyone which law they're enforcing.
If you're going to discuss the law, at least educate yourself first.
Nazi is an acronym that means "national socialist." Nazis were the darlings of the left until they started the mass killings. They nationalized industries under state control (something the left would love to do), they implemented gun bans (another favorite of the left), and furthered many other beloved leftist ideals. They really were far ahead of their time in Europe (except for the mass killings).
Anyway, what is the middle between conservative and liberal? The whole left-right scale is for people who can't think in more than 1 dimension.
Slashdot Mirror
He was still all for sending tons of money to Iraq. He just disagreed with the implementation. One bad implementation versus another. Still not seeing the good side to this. :)
:)
I care what motivates people, because it has a direct correlation to how the take stands on future issues. Bad people can do good things on the way to fulfilling their agenda.
You really can stop arguing anti-Bush in this thread. I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you on that issue.
My point is that I can't support someone who is so clearly a dyed-in-the-wool politician, someone who is so firmly embedded in Washington culture that nothing coming out of his mouth can be trusted. He is first and foremost about his career, which includes catering to those who helped get him there. He's not beholden to the same few special interests as Bush, but he's still beholden, and that will be the direction he takes. The good that may come of his election will not outstrip the bad.
Where did I reverse a previously stated stand I made (to back-pedal)?
My conclusions were developed by delving into Kerry's records and listening to the words coming out of his mouth. I would have to have decided I didn't like him prior to getting to know his record and what he speaks about now for my opinion to be the result of a foregone conclusion.
The fact is, they're both spokesmodels. Kerry has just managed to accomplish more than Shrublet during the course of his career. That's not saying much though.
Apparently you missed the tide of public opinion he was swept up in regarding Vietnam. He wasn't going out on a limb there, he was going with public opinion.
Iran/Contra was about the limelight. He loved the political attention.
Kerry was hip-deep in BCCI. If you're going there, explain away David Paul. Kerry eventually did the right thing, but nobody knows whether it was for personal or political reasons.
Which $87B payment to Iran? That's a little vague, so if you have a bill title, or even better a bill number, I can comment on this. There are lots of no votes on appropriations. They're not out of the norm most of the time.
There aren't many others from what I've seen. Aside from his limelighting, he mostly hasn't accomplished anything but going with the flow (when he bothered to be on the floor to vote).
How do you work toward a different voting system while voting Republicrat? They have no reason to change it, being the majority, because the current system keeps them in power.
As for "throwing your vote away," you only do that when you vote for someone you don't believe in. That's the only vote that's thrown away. If it were true you were throwing away your vote we'd never have had Republicans or Democrats, we'd still have Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Given that, I'm completely in agreement that the voting system needs changing. Approval voting would be great. Unfortunately, it's going to almost definitely going to require a revolution, whether violent or peaceful, to accomplish that change.
Yes, I would put Hitler on the left. I actually don't know much about Mussolini's government programs (other than war), so I can't categorize him that way. Hitler, however, has much more in common with the left than the right.
Just because you're from Germany doesn't make me trust you opinion of German history any more than I trust an American's version of American history. What's your citizenship have to do with anything? There are people ignorant of their own history everywhere. Mostly, it's compounded by government-mandated "education," but I don't generaly trust someone's representation of their own country's history. It's usually very skewed.
Hey, no problem. I get carried away sometimes too. :)
Hmm, I never really considered it the worst evil. There are a lot of things worse than hypocrisy. It's just more annoying than anything else.
I didn't go down the funded/unfunded mandate track, because it wasn't addressed earlier. It will only be better if they never actually fund it.
:) Then again, the government only gets money from one place for these programs, so it's the individual who pays no matter which government must come up with the money (federal vs state vs county vs local).
As a political trick, it's about throwing money at a problem. I never said who would be providing the money.
Actually, teaching is as much art as science. If you don't have it, a classroom isn't going to do you any good at all. However, not even having basic skills in the field you're teaching is absolutely idiotic. I didn't say teaching wasn't a field of study, but that's like saying learning how to write is a final goal. You have to have skills in some other field to utilize the writing skill effectively. If all you can do is print all sorts of letters without knowing how they work together, what good is the skill of writing? Likewise, if you can teach, but have no other skills, you can't teach anything effectively. It's a skill that goes hand-in-hand with other skills.
I wasn't talking about myself, I was talking regulations. You didn't address the point that a Harvard professor would not be allowed to teach in public school.
I'm the first to tell you I'm not qualified to teach. That doesn't mean I'm not qualified to comment on something that's common bloody sense. That's like saying nobody but a lawyer should comment on whether a specific law is a bad idea. It affects everyone.
What specific actions has he ever taken that would make you think he wouldn't rubberstamp?
What truly "unpopular" position has he taken? Kerry is the ultimate "go-with-the-flow" politician. He won't veto anything. He might threaten, but he won't actually do it.
Since the President can't sponsor legislation, the trend in legislation won't change because of a new President. Because Kerry is as likely as Bush to sign everything that crosses his desk, whether it's a "Republican" or "Democrat" bill, the only thing that will produce change is in Congress.
We're talking about the President, not Congress.
There will be no more increase in popular representation under Kerry. Apparently you haven't heard that Bush has signed every single piece of legislation to cross his desk. Kerry will be no different. Hence, representation will remain where it has always been: in Congress, specifically the House.
The only way the legislative record will change is with changes in Congress. The President, whomever that may be, will sign whatever crosses their desk.
You actually think they'll roll back laws? That doesn't happen unless those laws have sunset clauses, and they roll back automatically. How many laws have you heard of being repealed? Not very many, and almost never important ones. You have to actually have broad support to do that sort of thing, support that neither President will have. No, Kerry will do the same thing Bush would: increase government at as many levels as possible. Make it bigger, make it stronger, make it cost a hell of a lot more. Kerry won't be influenced by the public any more than Bush is now. They INFLUENCE the public, not the other way around. Kerry will do whatever his handlers (whoever they happen to be any given week) want. Same with Bush. None of their handlers are ordinary people, hence they will neither cater to the needs of ordinary people, except perhaps as a means to a political end.
People have been kidding themselves that "the next one will be better" for a long, long time. Guess what, government hasn't gotten better, just bigger and more costly. Kerry isn't about to change that trend.
Well, it fit more along the lines of the Southpark commentary to say it that way.
:)
Yours is certainly far superior in general though.
In still other words, Kerry represents a fairly broad collection of interests, with access open as scenarios change. Bush represents a certain few interests, which never change, regardless of situation. Kerry is republican democrat, and Bush is just a republican - democracy need not apply.
I'd remove "fairly broad" from the first sentence. He represents a collection of interests, and can be bought when necessary. He has no loyalty, which, in a leader, is as bad as blind dogmatic loyalty (Bush). They both represent interests, rather than ideas or ideals, which makes them both scum from a political standpoint. Kerry is a political mercenary, Bush is a political fanatic. Neither have a conscience to speak of.
You can't have a republic without democracy. It's an extension of a broader idea. The distinction between republican democrat and republican is non-existent.
They're both from the same party, they just belong to different camps. Neither are interested in republican democracy, as far as the classical definition goes: all power stemming from the individual with strict confines upon what power the State can wield.
Neither Kerry nor Bush are republican in that they do not believe in constraints upon governmental power. A "republican" form of government is one where rights exist apart from and superior to the power of the government.
Neither Kerry nor Bush are democratic in that they support the perpetuation of the idea that power stems from the government, and all rights are beholden to the whim of that government. A "democratic" government derives its authority solely from the people, who may revoke that authority should they so choose.
It was a reply to your first sentence.
Your second wasn't worthy of note, because you were replying in earnest (to all appearances) to a comment made in jest (we'll arrest/inform...).
I made concrete points about issues that affect a large number of individuals in the USA. You made a concrete point about something that was obviously a joke. Who's blathering?
Yeah, but don't forget that they vote Democrat and Republican.
Wait, wait, wait, history has been re-written, at least in the USA.
Fascism is on the RIGHT now. The Leftists decided they didn't want to be associated with that form of government any more, so they (quite successfully, I might add) foisted the term off on the right, quite some time ago.
Is it really idealism when it pertains to a history that never actually happened except in the minds of those who originally made it up? I don't know really... *shrug*
What I do know is that you are right on the money. It's alwys been minority rule in this country. Actually much less so when it was initially founded than now. Now, a President is elected if he gets 16% or so of the total possible votes. Political mandate my ass. 16% isn't a political mandate, it's a half-stifled yawn. It means that 14% of the politically active (by that I mean people who actually vote) don't want you, and the other 70% don't care enough to bother registering their opinion.
The USA's population hasn't gotten along on compromise, it's gotten along despite constant in-fighting.
Hey, it's worked out wonderfully for the politicians though...
In other words, Bush sold his soul to the highest bidder.
Kerry, on the other hand, rents his out as the occasion demands.
W00t! Hypocrisy is strength!
Actually, in most national races there are politicians of integrity. Most often, they get zero press because they're minor party or independent. I blame those of voting age (most of thse who do vote) because most people stay uninformed and ignorant, or don't vote at all (the majority don't vote at all). The majority of those who do vote can't bring themselves to vote other than major party because of the lesser/greater evil issue. That means most of them are consciously supporting a candidate they don't like, and know will cause problems. There's almost no integrity left among members of the voting public, and only apathy among members of the non-voting (but eligible) public.
I agree with you regarding legislative drafting tactics, but that's a whole other ball of wax that likely won't be solved without another revolution (whether peaceful or violent).
I only proved the part of it that is (un)common sense.
Today, the phrase is almost always meant literally.
To use it literally is ignorant at best.
It's an attempt to throw money at a problem to make it go away. That doesn't work. It also is designed to make sure teachers are qualified. How about having teachers hold a degree in an ACTUAL FIELD OF STUDY instead of a worthless teaching certificate.
You can hold a PhD and a professorship at Harvard, and you can't teach in public school.
The school system is fundamentally broken. Really, it always has been. It never should have been turned into a public institution. The USA turned out more highly capable inventors, scientists, writers, etc based on the level of educational progression at the time of its founding than it ever has. People could read at what is now a college level when graduating the 8th grade. Most 12th-graders would have a problem with the 8th-grade McGuffy Reader.
Thank you Taxachusetts for implementing mandatory Prussian-based schooling, which has taken over the educational system in this country like a plague.
It's no wonder home-schooling cooperatives modelled around the original one-room-scoolhouse mentality produce such excellent results. Get rid of public schools, disband the NEA, and lets get on with actually educating instead of turning out good little citizen-drones who are taught to sit down, shut up, and do what they're told.
The same Attorney General who lost a Congressional election to a man who had been dead long before the election? This isn't someone I have confidence in to do the right thing.
How do you know? If the law is secret, you have no idea whether it's a criminal act or not to somehow make it onboard a plane without proper ID.
Like people used to know the sun revolved around the Earth? Come on, use some actual logic.
You only "know" that because you've been told by somebody else. (Assumption-->) You have probably not actually read any real laws. (Based on first assumption-->) Thus, your knowledge of the law is limited to the knowledge of those you learned from. If you have read this law in particular, please share what it is. If not, don't tell me it is a law, because you have no proof whatsoever. I've never read it, never seen it referenced, and know for a fact it did not exist as late as 4-5 years ago. Before then, it was simple airline company policy.
Law enforcement derives their authority from *gasp* THE LAW! He wanted to know which law they were basing this specific exertion of authority on. The nice thing about the law is that in order to be enforceable it must be published in the Federal Register. Now he's in court because they want to enforce a law without telling anyone which law they're enforcing.
If you're going to discuss the law, at least educate yourself first.
Nazi is an acronym that means "national socialist." Nazis were the darlings of the left until they started the mass killings. They nationalized industries under state control (something the left would love to do), they implemented gun bans (another favorite of the left), and furthered many other beloved leftist ideals. They really were far ahead of their time in Europe (except for the mass killings).
Anyway, what is the middle between conservative and liberal? The whole left-right scale is for people who can't think in more than 1 dimension.