Where did I imply that they were buddies? In fact, where did I even mention John McCain in the post that you replied to?
Apparently you think every Republican is some belligerent religious radical
I'd be real interested to know why you've drawn that conclusion, seeing as how I never made any such comment.
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks anything you post could possibly be based in fact with this kind of malicious, misleading rant.
What "malicious, misleading rant"? Are you sure you didn't mean to reply to the GP? I wasn't ranting -- I was providing contrast to his rants. He ranted about Dailykos/Moveon but somehow neglected to mention Fox, Drudge and Limbaugh. He ranted about Rev. Wright's intolerant comments but somehow forgot to mention Jerry Falwells. He pointed out an old white Democratic Senator from West Virgina who used to be a racist but didn't think of the old white former racist Republican Senator from South Carolina.
My post had no other purpose then to encourage a dialog and provide the left-wing point of view. You are the one who made a connection to John McCain that wasn't there. You are the one who drew a conclusion that I was somehow attacking "every Republican". You are the one who called my comment 'malicious'. I think my words speak for themselves and you are clearly more interested in encouraging an argument then any constructive dialog.
or indirectly by staying home or voting for a spoiler candidate like Nader
Your wrong to label a third-party person as a 'spoiler'. I used to think that way but lately I've changed mind on that issue -- if he wants to run then all the power to him. If someone wants to vote for him then they shouldn't be scared away from doing so by a major party candidate. Hell, in the specific case of Nader, he wouldn't even be running if the Democratic Party gave more then lip service to his issues.
The 3am election ad is hardly evidence that Hillary's "just like Bush"
Why not? It's an appeal to fear.
it's actually a perfectly legitimate ad asking perfectly legitimate questions
If she wanted to ask those questions she could have done so in one of the 50,000 debates. The moderators of the last two gave her many chances to ask this question -- and she backed away from each one. If she doesn't have the guts to make that claim (I'm a better Commander in Chief) in a forum where Obama can respond then why should I assume it's anything more substantial then an appeal to fear?
The candidate you're happy to see win if Obama doesn't get the nomination, you know
You can keep putting words in my mouth but it doesn't change where I actually stand -- I do not want to see John McCain win the election. Nor do I want to see Hillary win it. Put the two of them on the ballot and I'll vote for neither of them. I've been pretty clear about this point so I don't know where you are getting this idea that I'd be happy to see John McCain win. Because I'm not going to fall in line behind Hillary if she wins the nomination?
Your final comments appear to be directed at the concept that we should support a man of principle, no matter what those principles are, above a woman whose principles on many key issues appear to be absent.
I didn't say we should support him. I said that I can respect him for taking those positions. Which is more than I can say about her.
I don't believe Clinton is without principles, I believe that she's unable to work out how to do the right things when they're unpopular
Great! So she isn't unprincipled, she's spineless! That's so much better. Where do I sign up to volunteer with the campaign?
She believes, as many politicians do, that stay in power is part of the battle, and that you can't win any battles if you're out of power
Ah, so the ends justify the means? Take your sentence and replace "She" with "Karl Rove" and you'll start to see where I have a problem with her.
Clinton lacks those abilities so she will not appear to be out of step with the public on issues she's being scrutinized on.
Sounds a lot like John Kerry. He couldn't even defeat GWB. Do you really think Hillary stands a chance in hell against John McCain? More to the point, do you have a better reason for supporting her than "McCain is worse"?
and she'll keep steering the good-ship in the right direction even if she occasionally makes a stupid detour
Occasionally?
John McCain is the enemy
'Enemy' is an interesting word to apply to a decorated war-hero that suffered in the Hanoi Hilton for his country. It's interesting that you are encouraging reconciliation between Obama and Hillary supporters while simultaneously doing your best to encourage the divide between Republicans and Democrats. John McCain is no enemy of mine. I don't agree with him on very much but I won't call him the 'enemy'.
and to pull down the imperfect candidate
"Imperfect" is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about HRC.
ultimately, an act of treason, a betrayal of a nation of people, of your neighbors and fr
I don't see a whole lot of Democrats calling Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Air America, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so one what they truly are
I honestly don't have a clue what Code Pink or ANSWER are, but I'd really love to hear why MoveOn/Daily Kos are anything besides left-leaning blogs that have their fair share of counterparts on the right? And Air America? Is Air America even still relevant? And why mention all of those things but not Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc, etc? Is the left-leaning elements of the media/blogosphere somehow doing more damage to meaningful dialog then the right-leaning media/blogosphere? Both share the blame for inflaming passions and reducing politics to a shouting match of soundbites.
I see Obama's preacher of 20 years saying that the US brought on 9-11 itself
And I see Jerry Falwell blame 9-11 on lesbians, abortionists, the ACLU and secularists.
and that the white led US gov't started AIDS to kill black people
And that comment was disgusting and was rightfully condemned by just about everybody I can think of, including Senator Obama.
Democrats, on the other hand, have a real life Klansman [wikipedia.org] in their party as a respected senior senator from West Virginia.
Yeah, good thing the Republicans never had some barely still alive formerly racist old white guy as a US Senator. I don't know that I would vote for Byrd if I lived in West Virgina (I get leery of politicians that have been in office long enough to become institutions in-of themselves and he certainly qualifies), but bringing up viewpoints from his past that he has denounced serves what purpose exactly? Do you think he's still a Klansman? Do you think he still holds those views?
and the sooner the "I'll vote for McCain rather than vote for my party's nominee because my party's nominee called my prefer candidate a poopy-head" Democrats GROW UP and face reality
And where did I say that I'll vote for John McCain?
and face the fact that your little tantrum is going to help destroy this country
"My little tantrum"? That's the way to convince me that your point of view is the correct one. Did it occur to you that there's a bit more of a difference between Hillary and Obama then one calling the other one a 'poopy-head'? I see little difference between the tactics of HRC and those of George W. Bush. Hillary's entire campaign since Super Tuesday has consisted of FUD. Fear (who do you want answering the phone at 3AM?), uncertainty (he won't survive the Republican attack machine) and doubt (he hasn't been vetted). Her stated goal is to throw the "kitchen sink" at him and hopefully create enough doubt in the minds of the superdelegates that she can overturn the will of the voters.
The best part of it all is that she has no one to blame for it besides herself. If she hadn't started drinking the "inevitability" kool-aid then she might have realized that she'd actually have to compete beyond Super Tuesday. Instead, Obama somehow managed to squeeze out a near-draw on Super Tuesday and proceeded to run away with the next 11 contests because Hillary had no plan to win them and no orginization on the ground. She didn't take any of her follow Democrats seriously enough to make the effort to win the nomination until after Super Tuesday and by then the damage had been done. Her own arrogance is directly responsible for the position she's in.
you'd have thought after losing two Presidential elections because you thought your guy wasn't any different to their guy, you'd have learned this by now. "Gore and Bush are exactly the same, I'm going to stay home", "Kerry voted for the war, so even though he has a history of liberalism, and now opposes the war, I'm going to pretend he's exactly the same and stay home."
Your painting with a pretty broad brush here. Personally, I voted for Gore and Kerry. I've spoken out against people who claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. That doesn't change how I feel about HRC though. Gore and Kerry didn't run their campaigns the way she has -- I could find things to like and respect about both of them. Try as I might I can't say the same about HRC.
Clinton is not McCain
Your right. She's not. John McCain is capable of taking a principled stand for something even if his own party disagrees with him (torture) or even the majority of the electorate (Iraq -- his quote was "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war"). Hillary doesn't seem to be capable of moving much past the latest focus group or opinion poll. And since the Iraq War seems to be a major issue for you, you do know that she voted to authorize it, right? That was her chance to take a principled stand (23 other US Senators had the backbone to oppose the war) and she made the wrong decision.
She's not the enemy here. Don't fuck up for a third time.
As far as I'm concerned the only way people can "fuck up" is if they allow themselves to be scared into voting for someone they wouldn't otherwise vote for. I won't vote for HRC. I won't vote for John McCain. If Obama doesn't get the nomination then I honestly don't know what I'll do -- probably give Nader a good long look. But I won't be scared into voting for Hillary.
The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea
Which ones are you talking to? When I was in Korea I didn't see any hostility towards our troops and the few people that I talked to were either supportive of us or neutral about it. I didn't meet anybody that seemed anxious for us to leave.
The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa
Maybe that's why we are planning on leaving Okinawa and moving our forces there to Guam? We aren't occupying them -- it was a basing agreement that they signed willingly back in the day.
soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that
"Habitually"? I can think of three cases in the last 15 years. That's "habitually"?
I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away
Think again. Our forces in Germany are a great economic benefit for those areas where they are stationed. A lot of Germans (in and out of Government) were disappointed when we announced that we'd be pulling upwards of 50% of them out of the country.
Hey, it's nice to see somebody stand up and defend the guy. I'm a lil tired of seeing us use that quote too -- how is beating McCain to death over that quote any different from going after Gore for "inventing" the internet or swift-boating John Kerry? I do take issue with one thing you said though:
Typical of the left
Why was that even necessary and what positive thing do you contribute to the conservation by taking that sort of swipe at "the left" (as if "the left" is one monolithic entity with a single agenda and battle-plan)? I think we'd all be a lot better off if the people on both sides of the political divide could at least respect each other and avoid taking those kinds of pot-shots at each other.
I didn't even finish the rest of your McCain rant
I can't speak for the GP, but my rant about John McCain doesn't have much to do with Iraq. I disagree with him completely on Iraq but I can at least respect him for his viewpoint and acknowledge the fact that he was one of the few Republican voices that questioned the Administration on Iraq (he called for more troops long before the surge became fashionable). My rant with John McCain is how he effectively sold out his own positions to kiss the ass of the base in order to secure the nomination. He went from having the courage to stand up to the likes of Jerry Falwell to kissing his ass four years later. That cost him a lot of respect in my eyes -- he got some of it back by speaking out against torture, but still.....
I miss the John McCain from 2000. If that guy was running he'd have a decent shot at getting my vote. Hell, if that guy had won in 2000 I think we'd be a lot better off -- he wouldn't have made Afghanistan into a side-show while outsourcing the job of catching Osama to local warloads of questionable loyalty. He wouldn't have run his administration from the extreme far-right while further dividing this country. He wouldn't have cost us our creditability on human rights by torturing prisoners. He wouldn't have stopped talking about Osama until he was "dead or alive".
Karl Rove has done his country a lot of disservices in the last eight years -- but as far as I'm concerned his biggest disservice was using his gutter politics against John McCain in South Carolina's 2000 Republican Primary.
He's said he's comfortable with the occupation of Iraq lasting "100 more years"
With respect, it annoys me when I see sound bites taken out of context and used against someone, even if that person is someone whom I'm opposing (and I am opposed to McCain winning, FYI). He was attempting to put Iraq into perspective -- consider the fact that we've been in Japan and Germany for over 60 years -- Korea for almost as long.
We can oppose him for his views on the war but trying to beat him to death using that single quote is no better then beating Al Gore to death for "inventing" the internet or swift-boating John Kerry. Can't we have an intellectual debate that doesn't resolve around sound bites and feigned outrage?
Obama supporters: Clinton isn't ideal, but she's not the enemy
I believed that before the voting started. I continued to believe that through Super Tuesday and in spite of the various comments (mostly from Bill) that aimed to diminish Obama's campaign. After watching how Hillary has run this campaign though I can no longer support her. She's gotten the short end of the stick at times (especially from the media) but that doesn't excuse her tactics. Saying that Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know", claiming that he isn't ready to be Commander in Chief (and then backing away from that assertion during the debates) and flat out lying about her past (sniper-gate) have all served to convince me that Hillary is not fit to be President. If she manages to somehow win the nomination then I'll be voting for Nader.
y'know Bill wasn't ideologically that great either but somehow the government didn't turn to crap under his Presidency.
No, it turned into crap immediately after his Presidency. Remember the recession of 2001? You can't blame that on GWB, he was only in office for a few months and hadn't enacted any of his platform yet. And the Clintons? Forget all the scandals of the 90s and think about the legislation that he signed -- remember the Telecommunications Act of 96 that gutted regulation and set the stage for the telcos and cablecos to crave up this country into a duopoly? Remember the Communications Decency Act and the blatant attempts to censor the internet? Remember the relaxation of media ownership rules that encouraged the consolidation of the newspaper and radio industries? Remember who signed the DMCA into law? Remember whose failed health care plan and Federal tax increase set the stage for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994?
The Clinton years weren't all they were cracked up to be. They moved the Democratic Party so far to the center that it might as well have been 'Republican-lite'. Their pro-business DLC platform and obsessive focus on big-donor fundraising (something Hillary continues to rely on today) gave the impression (right or wrong) that the Democratic Party was just as subservient to big business as the Republican Party.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that I should vote for Hillary because of John McCain. I've come to realize in recent weeks just how much I disagree with him (gods, remember the John McCain from 2000? This wouldn't even be a contest if he was still around), but that doesn't mean that Hillary deserves to be our President as the 'lesser of two evils'. I don't think she's morally fit to be President and I have serious issues with some of the positions (*cough* censorship *cough*) that she has advocated in the past. I won't even be voting for her for her Senate seat again, assuming she remains in the Senate.
Hey! Maybe Hillary and Obama can have a duel to settle the nomination once and for all. Anyone want to place any bets? Will the brother pop a cap into Hillary's ass? Or will Hillary dodge his shots as she did the sniper fire in Bosnia before taking him out? Or will they both have to duke it out with dull steak knifes because both are in favor of gun control?
Coming soon to a pay-per-view station near you! Don King is gonna make a fortune....;)
Porn? Pfft! I'd be downloading massive amounts of ware^WLinux ISOs with that connection.
As an aside, how the hell do you get 40Gbps to your workstation? Isn't 39 of that kinda overkill?;)
We further agreed that the federal government would NOT be allowed to do things like health care
Why is it that Conservatives are only too happy to adopt a minimalist reading of the Constitution when talking about health care (or education, or job training, blah, blah, blah) but not when discussing the War on Drugs, the erosion of our Civil Liberties or the ceding of power to the Executive Branch? What clause in the Constitution gives the Feds the power to outlaw pot (at least prohibition was done correctly, via the amendment process)? Where does it say that Congress can pass treaties without 2/3rds of the Senate (NAFTA)? Where does it say that the President should have a line-item veto (not an actual power yet but one often advocated for by Conservatives)?
I'm not saying that you personally support any of those things but perhaps you could explain to me why your Conservative friends do and how they rationalize them.
If you want to have a debate about the merits of going back to a minimalist interpretation of the Constitution, then fine. Tell the pro-lifers in the Republican Party that New York and California can legalize abortion just as easily as Texas and South Carolina can outlaw it (that's my reading of the 10th amendment). Tell them that Oregon's assisted suicide law is no business of the Federal Government. Tell the interventionist crowd that the Founding Fathers were leery of a large standing army and opposed to foreign entanglements. Tell the Rural Conservatives that those of us in the Blue States would like our Federal tax dollars back (most urban blue states pay out more than they take in). Tell the Law and Order crowd that the Feds have no business telling the states what the drinking age and/or BAC limit should be. Tell the Bush supporters that the Constitution says a state can allocate it's electoral votes however it wants and SCOTUS had no business overruling a Florida court's decision on state election law.
If you are a true Conservative then I suspect you'd agree with me on most of those points. I'd love to have an honest debate about the merits of a true Conservative platform vs a Liberal one. Unfortunately it seems that the Republican Party has been taken over by the religious right and big business, while the Democratic Party is too spineless to actually stand for anything. Would you join me in making a toast to the parties of old and the intellectual giants on both sides of the Conservative/Liberal debate?
If I were looking for a profession, I would not want to enter such a profession.
If that's the way you feel then don't go into that profession. Problem solved. But don't pretend that various professions don't come with some sort of reduction in your rights.
Police Officers/Soldiers don't generally have the right to abandon their posts during times of emergency. Doctors don't generally have the right to refuse to lend treatment during similar times. Lawyers can be forced to retain clients they might not otherwise wish to represent. Individual citizens don't generally have the right to refuse to serve on a Jury or refuse to testify.
I'll agree you have the "right" to eat, but you don't have the "right" to force me to serve you dinner
It's not about forcing "you" to serve "me" dinner. It's about society as a whole taking care of it's less fortunate members. By doing so we provide a benefit for society as a whole. Taking the things that you specifically mentioned:
and similarly foodstamps or daycare assistance or student financial aid
Daycare assistance enables more people to be productive members of the workforce. That in turn helps us to remain competitive in the global economy. Ditto for student financial aid -- an educated workforce is the only way that we will remain competitive (Wal-Mart and McDonalds aren't gonna do it). Food stamps are more of a purely humanitarian matter -- though one could make the argument that they have a fringe benefit to society (a starving person faces the choice of breaking the law to feed themselves or dying).
I think our economy will be MUCH better off without government involvement
The historical record and recent events suggest otherwise.
I am the type of conservative who puts principles of small government and liberty ahead of principles of actively helping the economy
Liberty != watching your child/sibling/spouse/parent/self die from a treatable disease because of your unfavorable socio-economic standing.
If it is your right
And why is health care any less of a right then living without fear of violence (crime prevention/national defense is a role for Government that most Conservatives would agree with)? Is dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford treatment somehow better then being murdered during an armed robbery? Both should outrage us and serve as motivation to do better.
that means I have to provide it
No, that means society has to provide it. Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back.
This is not what the Constitution stands for.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Indeed, we should not be subsidizing drug companies at all, including money for research
I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research. How many for-profit drug companies do you think would be willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into things like a vaccine for AIDS with no prospects of recouping that money for decades (if ever)?
Furthermore, isn't funding scientific research (in any field, not just pharmaceuticals) usually a good thing for the economy in the long run? At the end of the day the MBAs and Lawyers aren't going to keep us competitive with China and India -- the scientists and engineers will. We didn't beat the Soviet Union by producing more steel or pumping more oil -- we beat them by changing the economic paradigm towards technology and that's directly attributable to policies (Governmental and Corporate -- recall the Bell Labs of old) that promoted research, science and math.
Any research we DO subsidize should be public domain.
Amen to that. If Government-funded research uncovers some new breakthrough in any field it should be released into the public domain -- some outfit will find a way to make money off it.
Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care
For me, I ideologically believe that health care is a right of everyone and not a privilege for those that can afford it.
instead of addressing the actual problems of cost.
I don't see why one (addressing the problems of cost) precludes the other (making sure everyone has access to health care).
The Constitution is clear: the point of a patent is to encourage innovation. It is only worthwhile to the extent it does that, and patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal.
I think many businesses are being extremely short-sighted by trying to game the patent/copyright system. When a company (or industry) comes to rely on patents and lawyers more than innovation then something is seriously wrong. It might work for awhile to protect the bottom line but at the end of the day we can't compete in the global economy unless we get back to our innovative roots. All to often it seems like that takes a back seat to next quarters results or the stock price. Doesn't anybody invest and plan for the long term anymore?
Bush != government. He only is in charge of the executive branch
Which according to his minions can pretty much do whatever it wants without any Legislative or Judaical oversight.
The legislature is the branch charged with writing laws
Might wanna tell King George about that. He seems to have other ideas.
If you want free gigabit ethernet in your home, write your congresscritter.
I did but my check wasn't as big as at&t or Verizon's, apparently.....
(disclaimer: not only am I not a fan of Bush, well, I'm not going to get into what I think of him as the other day when I dared give my opinion of him the comment was modded up to +4 before it wound up as "0 flamebait". Some people equate bad opinions of Bush to bad opinions of the country.)
I love the United States and would gladly give my life to defend them. I also think GWB is a dimwitted moron who owes his success in life to his family name and Karl Rove. Let's see where I end up after the modding is done;)
I would go so far as to say the FCC has experienced regulatory capture at the hands of "The New AT&T"
Dude, you did it wrong. Haven't you seen the new logo? It's 'The new at&t'. See? Lowercase! Clearly less threatening and not like the old Ma Bell at all......
can you please elaborate on what ILEC FTTP and FTTN mean?
ILEC = Incumbent local exchange carrier, i.e: the phone company (Verizon or AT&T) that actually owns the lines in an area. Contrast to CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier) which is a third-party company that leases facilities from the ILEC to provision service (dial tone or DSL typically) for it's customers.
FTTP = Fiber to the premises
FTTN = Fiber to the neighborhood (most cable networks would qualify, being hybrid fiber-coax)
Read my other reply in this discussion. I've never suggested that criticism of the US can be ignored or dismissed. In fact I have spoken out against current policies of my Government (torture of prisoners being high on the list) alongside past injustices (internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2).
What I am suggesting is that the people who think the United States is in the same league as China get some perspective and consider recent events in China, Pakistan, Burma, or Saudi Arabia before they make sweeping generalizations that equate the United States with the aforementioned countries.
In times in the past when protests were viewed as not being safe to ignore the US government acted in essentially the same way as that of china.
The US Government? The Kent State shootings were conducted by the Ohio National Guard, operating under State (not Federal) authority. And while I find them abhorrent and won't defend them at all, I fail to see the relevance to a discussion about China. Do black marks in American history somehow excuse the actions of the Chinese Government? Do we need to be 100% perfect to point out injustice in the World?
I don't think anyone would argue with you there, but it still doesn't excuse the abuse of power. So to put up a strawman like that is essentially being an apologist.
I'm not being an apologist. I'm horrified at some of the actions undertaken by my Government in recent years. But anybody with any sense of objectivity can see that it's not nearly as bad as what's going on in China right now. Or Pakistan. Or Burma. Our people aren't jailed if they speak out against Government policy towards an oppressed/conquered racial group. Our opposition leaders aren't being assassinated. Our Supreme Court isn't under house arrest.
I will speak out against human rights abuses by any Government, including my own. This idea that we don't have the right to point out abuses in other countries because our own isn't 100% perfect benefits nobody besides the oppressive nations of the World.
Please, point out legislation that authorizes the Government to deny student loans to those engaged in legitimate acts of protest. There's a lot that's unfair with the student loan system in this country (like losing them for being convicted of something as stupid as marijuana possession) but I'm really interested to see someone actually point out some legislation that permits them to be denied to someone solely for speaking out against the Government.
or that high paying job you didn't get
Unless that high paying job was with the Government then I really don't see your point -- a private employer is free to refuse to hire you for just about any reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I imply that they were buddies? In fact, where did I even mention John McCain in the post that you replied to?
Apparently you think every Republican is some belligerent religious radicalI'd be real interested to know why you've drawn that conclusion, seeing as how I never made any such comment.
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks anything you post could possibly be based in fact with this kind of malicious, misleading rant.What "malicious, misleading rant"? Are you sure you didn't mean to reply to the GP? I wasn't ranting -- I was providing contrast to his rants. He ranted about Dailykos/Moveon but somehow neglected to mention Fox, Drudge and Limbaugh. He ranted about Rev. Wright's intolerant comments but somehow forgot to mention Jerry Falwells. He pointed out an old white Democratic Senator from West Virgina who used to be a racist but didn't think of the old white former racist Republican Senator from South Carolina.
My post had no other purpose then to encourage a dialog and provide the left-wing point of view. You are the one who made a connection to John McCain that wasn't there. You are the one who drew a conclusion that I was somehow attacking "every Republican". You are the one who called my comment 'malicious'. I think my words speak for themselves and you are clearly more interested in encouraging an argument then any constructive dialog.
or indirectly by staying home or voting for a spoiler candidate like Nader
Your wrong to label a third-party person as a 'spoiler'. I used to think that way but lately I've changed mind on that issue -- if he wants to run then all the power to him. If someone wants to vote for him then they shouldn't be scared away from doing so by a major party candidate. Hell, in the specific case of Nader, he wouldn't even be running if the Democratic Party gave more then lip service to his issues.
The 3am election ad is hardly evidence that Hillary's "just like Bush"
Why not? It's an appeal to fear.
it's actually a perfectly legitimate ad asking perfectly legitimate questions
If she wanted to ask those questions she could have done so in one of the 50,000 debates. The moderators of the last two gave her many chances to ask this question -- and she backed away from each one. If she doesn't have the guts to make that claim (I'm a better Commander in Chief) in a forum where Obama can respond then why should I assume it's anything more substantial then an appeal to fear?
The candidate you're happy to see win if Obama doesn't get the nomination, you know
You can keep putting words in my mouth but it doesn't change where I actually stand -- I do not want to see John McCain win the election. Nor do I want to see Hillary win it. Put the two of them on the ballot and I'll vote for neither of them. I've been pretty clear about this point so I don't know where you are getting this idea that I'd be happy to see John McCain win. Because I'm not going to fall in line behind Hillary if she wins the nomination?
Your final comments appear to be directed at the concept that we should support a man of principle, no matter what those principles are, above a woman whose principles on many key issues appear to be absent.
I didn't say we should support him. I said that I can respect him for taking those positions. Which is more than I can say about her.
I don't believe Clinton is without principles, I believe that she's unable to work out how to do the right things when they're unpopular
Great! So she isn't unprincipled, she's spineless! That's so much better. Where do I sign up to volunteer with the campaign?
She believes, as many politicians do, that stay in power is part of the battle, and that you can't win any battles if you're out of power
Ah, so the ends justify the means? Take your sentence and replace "She" with "Karl Rove" and you'll start to see where I have a problem with her.
Clinton lacks those abilities so she will not appear to be out of step with the public on issues she's being scrutinized on.
Sounds a lot like John Kerry. He couldn't even defeat GWB. Do you really think Hillary stands a chance in hell against John McCain? More to the point, do you have a better reason for supporting her than "McCain is worse"?
and she'll keep steering the good-ship in the right direction even if she occasionally makes a stupid detour
Occasionally?
John McCain is the enemy
'Enemy' is an interesting word to apply to a decorated war-hero that suffered in the Hanoi Hilton for his country. It's interesting that you are encouraging reconciliation between Obama and Hillary supporters while simultaneously doing your best to encourage the divide between Republicans and Democrats. John McCain is no enemy of mine. I don't agree with him on very much but I won't call him the 'enemy'.
and to pull down the imperfect candidate
"Imperfect" is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about HRC.
ultimately, an act of treason, a betrayal of a nation of people, of your neighbors and fr
Only problem with that is I don't know which one to despise more. Maybe they'll take each other out (i.e: we all win)? ;)
I honestly don't have a clue what Code Pink or ANSWER are, but I'd really love to hear why MoveOn/Daily Kos are anything besides left-leaning blogs that have their fair share of counterparts on the right? And Air America? Is Air America even still relevant? And why mention all of those things but not Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc, etc? Is the left-leaning elements of the media/blogosphere somehow doing more damage to meaningful dialog then the right-leaning media/blogosphere? Both share the blame for inflaming passions and reducing politics to a shouting match of soundbites.
I see Obama's preacher of 20 years saying that the US brought on 9-11 itselfAnd I see Jerry Falwell blame 9-11 on lesbians, abortionists, the ACLU and secularists.
and that the white led US gov't started AIDS to kill black peopleAnd that comment was disgusting and was rightfully condemned by just about everybody I can think of, including Senator Obama.
Democrats, on the other hand, have a real life Klansman [wikipedia.org] in their party as a respected senior senator from West Virginia.Yeah, good thing the Republicans never had some barely still alive formerly racist old white guy as a US Senator. I don't know that I would vote for Byrd if I lived in West Virgina (I get leery of politicians that have been in office long enough to become institutions in-of themselves and he certainly qualifies), but bringing up viewpoints from his past that he has denounced serves what purpose exactly? Do you think he's still a Klansman? Do you think he still holds those views?
And where did I say that I'll vote for John McCain?
and face the fact that your little tantrum is going to help destroy this country"My little tantrum"? That's the way to convince me that your point of view is the correct one. Did it occur to you that there's a bit more of a difference between Hillary and Obama then one calling the other one a 'poopy-head'? I see little difference between the tactics of HRC and those of George W. Bush. Hillary's entire campaign since Super Tuesday has consisted of FUD. Fear (who do you want answering the phone at 3AM?), uncertainty (he won't survive the Republican attack machine) and doubt (he hasn't been vetted). Her stated goal is to throw the "kitchen sink" at him and hopefully create enough doubt in the minds of the superdelegates that she can overturn the will of the voters.
The best part of it all is that she has no one to blame for it besides herself. If she hadn't started drinking the "inevitability" kool-aid then she might have realized that she'd actually have to compete beyond Super Tuesday. Instead, Obama somehow managed to squeeze out a near-draw on Super Tuesday and proceeded to run away with the next 11 contests because Hillary had no plan to win them and no orginization on the ground. She didn't take any of her follow Democrats seriously enough to make the effort to win the nomination until after Super Tuesday and by then the damage had been done. Her own arrogance is directly responsible for the position she's in.
you'd have thought after losing two Presidential elections because you thought your guy wasn't any different to their guy, you'd have learned this by now. "Gore and Bush are exactly the same, I'm going to stay home", "Kerry voted for the war, so even though he has a history of liberalism, and now opposes the war, I'm going to pretend he's exactly the same and stay home."Your painting with a pretty broad brush here. Personally, I voted for Gore and Kerry. I've spoken out against people who claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. That doesn't change how I feel about HRC though. Gore and Kerry didn't run their campaigns the way she has -- I could find things to like and respect about both of them. Try as I might I can't say the same about HRC.
Clinton is not McCainYour right. She's not. John McCain is capable of taking a principled stand for something even if his own party disagrees with him (torture) or even the majority of the electorate (Iraq -- his quote was "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war"). Hillary doesn't seem to be capable of moving much past the latest focus group or opinion poll. And since the Iraq War seems to be a major issue for you, you do know that she voted to authorize it, right? That was her chance to take a principled stand (23 other US Senators had the backbone to oppose the war) and she made the wrong decision.
She's not the enemy here. Don't fuck up for a third time.As far as I'm concerned the only way people can "fuck up" is if they allow themselves to be scared into voting for someone they wouldn't otherwise vote for. I won't vote for HRC. I won't vote for John McCain. If Obama doesn't get the nomination then I honestly don't know what I'll do -- probably give Nader a good long look. But I won't be scared into voting for Hillary.
Which ones are you talking to? When I was in Korea I didn't see any hostility towards our troops and the few people that I talked to were either supportive of us or neutral about it. I didn't meet anybody that seemed anxious for us to leave.
The Japanese don't want us in OkinawaMaybe that's why we are planning on leaving Okinawa and moving our forces there to Guam? We aren't occupying them -- it was a basing agreement that they signed willingly back in the day.
soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that"Habitually"? I can think of three cases in the last 15 years. That's "habitually"?
I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight awayThink again. Our forces in Germany are a great economic benefit for those areas where they are stationed. A lot of Germans (in and out of Government) were disappointed when we announced that we'd be pulling upwards of 50% of them out of the country.
Hey, it's nice to see somebody stand up and defend the guy. I'm a lil tired of seeing us use that quote too -- how is beating McCain to death over that quote any different from going after Gore for "inventing" the internet or swift-boating John Kerry? I do take issue with one thing you said though:
Typical of the leftWhy was that even necessary and what positive thing do you contribute to the conservation by taking that sort of swipe at "the left" (as if "the left" is one monolithic entity with a single agenda and battle-plan)? I think we'd all be a lot better off if the people on both sides of the political divide could at least respect each other and avoid taking those kinds of pot-shots at each other.
I didn't even finish the rest of your McCain rantI can't speak for the GP, but my rant about John McCain doesn't have much to do with Iraq. I disagree with him completely on Iraq but I can at least respect him for his viewpoint and acknowledge the fact that he was one of the few Republican voices that questioned the Administration on Iraq (he called for more troops long before the surge became fashionable). My rant with John McCain is how he effectively sold out his own positions to kiss the ass of the base in order to secure the nomination. He went from having the courage to stand up to the likes of Jerry Falwell to kissing his ass four years later. That cost him a lot of respect in my eyes -- he got some of it back by speaking out against torture, but still.....
I miss the John McCain from 2000. If that guy was running he'd have a decent shot at getting my vote. Hell, if that guy had won in 2000 I think we'd be a lot better off -- he wouldn't have made Afghanistan into a side-show while outsourcing the job of catching Osama to local warloads of questionable loyalty. He wouldn't have run his administration from the extreme far-right while further dividing this country. He wouldn't have cost us our creditability on human rights by torturing prisoners. He wouldn't have stopped talking about Osama until he was "dead or alive".
Karl Rove has done his country a lot of disservices in the last eight years -- but as far as I'm concerned his biggest disservice was using his gutter politics against John McCain in South Carolina's 2000 Republican Primary.
With respect, it annoys me when I see sound bites taken out of context and used against someone, even if that person is someone whom I'm opposing (and I am opposed to McCain winning, FYI). He was attempting to put Iraq into perspective -- consider the fact that we've been in Japan and Germany for over 60 years -- Korea for almost as long.
We can oppose him for his views on the war but trying to beat him to death using that single quote is no better then beating Al Gore to death for "inventing" the internet or swift-boating John Kerry. Can't we have an intellectual debate that doesn't resolve around sound bites and feigned outrage?
Obama supporters: Clinton isn't ideal, but she's not the enemyI believed that before the voting started. I continued to believe that through Super Tuesday and in spite of the various comments (mostly from Bill) that aimed to diminish Obama's campaign. After watching how Hillary has run this campaign though I can no longer support her. She's gotten the short end of the stick at times (especially from the media) but that doesn't excuse her tactics. Saying that Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know", claiming that he isn't ready to be Commander in Chief (and then backing away from that assertion during the debates) and flat out lying about her past (sniper-gate) have all served to convince me that Hillary is not fit to be President. If she manages to somehow win the nomination then I'll be voting for Nader.
y'know Bill wasn't ideologically that great either but somehow the government didn't turn to crap under his Presidency.No, it turned into crap immediately after his Presidency. Remember the recession of 2001? You can't blame that on GWB, he was only in office for a few months and hadn't enacted any of his platform yet. And the Clintons? Forget all the scandals of the 90s and think about the legislation that he signed -- remember the Telecommunications Act of 96 that gutted regulation and set the stage for the telcos and cablecos to crave up this country into a duopoly? Remember the Communications Decency Act and the blatant attempts to censor the internet? Remember the relaxation of media ownership rules that encouraged the consolidation of the newspaper and radio industries? Remember who signed the DMCA into law? Remember whose failed health care plan and Federal tax increase set the stage for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994?
The Clinton years weren't all they were cracked up to be. They moved the Democratic Party so far to the center that it might as well have been 'Republican-lite'. Their pro-business DLC platform and obsessive focus on big-donor fundraising (something Hillary continues to rely on today) gave the impression (right or wrong) that the Democratic Party was just as subservient to big business as the Republican Party.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that I should vote for Hillary because of John McCain. I've come to realize in recent weeks just how much I disagree with him (gods, remember the John McCain from 2000? This wouldn't even be a contest if he was still around), but that doesn't mean that Hillary deserves to be our President as the 'lesser of two evils'. I don't think she's morally fit to be President and I have serious issues with some of the positions (*cough* censorship *cough*) that she has advocated in the past. I won't even be voting for her for her Senate seat again, assuming she remains in the Senate.
And we all know how that one ended.
Hey! Maybe Hillary and Obama can have a duel to settle the nomination once and for all. Anyone want to place any bets? Will the brother pop a cap into Hillary's ass? Or will Hillary dodge his shots as she did the sniper fire in Bosnia before taking him out? Or will they both have to duke it out with dull steak knifes because both are in favor of gun control?
Coming soon to a pay-per-view station near you! Don King is gonna make a fortune.... ;)
Porn? Pfft! I'd be downloading massive amounts of ware^WLinux ISOs with that connection. As an aside, how the hell do you get 40Gbps to your workstation? Isn't 39 of that kinda overkill? ;)
They are all like that on idle for some reason -- at least for me in FF
Why is it that Conservatives are only too happy to adopt a minimalist reading of the Constitution when talking about health care (or education, or job training, blah, blah, blah) but not when discussing the War on Drugs, the erosion of our Civil Liberties or the ceding of power to the Executive Branch? What clause in the Constitution gives the Feds the power to outlaw pot (at least prohibition was done correctly, via the amendment process)? Where does it say that Congress can pass treaties without 2/3rds of the Senate (NAFTA)? Where does it say that the President should have a line-item veto (not an actual power yet but one often advocated for by Conservatives)?
I'm not saying that you personally support any of those things but perhaps you could explain to me why your Conservative friends do and how they rationalize them.
If you want to have a debate about the merits of going back to a minimalist interpretation of the Constitution, then fine. Tell the pro-lifers in the Republican Party that New York and California can legalize abortion just as easily as Texas and South Carolina can outlaw it (that's my reading of the 10th amendment). Tell them that Oregon's assisted suicide law is no business of the Federal Government. Tell the interventionist crowd that the Founding Fathers were leery of a large standing army and opposed to foreign entanglements. Tell the Rural Conservatives that those of us in the Blue States would like our Federal tax dollars back (most urban blue states pay out more than they take in). Tell the Law and Order crowd that the Feds have no business telling the states what the drinking age and/or BAC limit should be. Tell the Bush supporters that the Constitution says a state can allocate it's electoral votes however it wants and SCOTUS had no business overruling a Florida court's decision on state election law.
If you are a true Conservative then I suspect you'd agree with me on most of those points. I'd love to have an honest debate about the merits of a true Conservative platform vs a Liberal one. Unfortunately it seems that the Republican Party has been taken over by the religious right and big business, while the Democratic Party is too spineless to actually stand for anything. Would you join me in making a toast to the parties of old and the intellectual giants on both sides of the Conservative/Liberal debate?
If that's the way you feel then don't go into that profession. Problem solved. But don't pretend that various professions don't come with some sort of reduction in your rights.
Police Officers/Soldiers don't generally have the right to abandon their posts during times of emergency. Doctors don't generally have the right to refuse to lend treatment during similar times. Lawyers can be forced to retain clients they might not otherwise wish to represent. Individual citizens don't generally have the right to refuse to serve on a Jury or refuse to testify.
It's not about forcing "you" to serve "me" dinner. It's about society as a whole taking care of it's less fortunate members. By doing so we provide a benefit for society as a whole. Taking the things that you specifically mentioned:
and similarly foodstamps or daycare assistance or student financial aidDaycare assistance enables more people to be productive members of the workforce. That in turn helps us to remain competitive in the global economy. Ditto for student financial aid -- an educated workforce is the only way that we will remain competitive (Wal-Mart and McDonalds aren't gonna do it). Food stamps are more of a purely humanitarian matter -- though one could make the argument that they have a fringe benefit to society (a starving person faces the choice of breaking the law to feed themselves or dying).
The historical record and recent events suggest otherwise.
I am the type of conservative who puts principles of small government and liberty ahead of principles of actively helping the economyLiberty != watching your child/sibling/spouse/parent/self die from a treatable disease because of your unfavorable socio-economic standing.
If it is your rightAnd why is health care any less of a right then living without fear of violence (crime prevention/national defense is a role for Government that most Conservatives would agree with)? Is dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford treatment somehow better then being murdered during an armed robbery? Both should outrage us and serve as motivation to do better.
that means I have to provide itNo, that means society has to provide it. Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back.
This is not what the Constitution stands for.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research. How many for-profit drug companies do you think would be willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into things like a vaccine for AIDS with no prospects of recouping that money for decades (if ever)?
Furthermore, isn't funding scientific research (in any field, not just pharmaceuticals) usually a good thing for the economy in the long run? At the end of the day the MBAs and Lawyers aren't going to keep us competitive with China and India -- the scientists and engineers will. We didn't beat the Soviet Union by producing more steel or pumping more oil -- we beat them by changing the economic paradigm towards technology and that's directly attributable to policies (Governmental and Corporate -- recall the Bell Labs of old) that promoted research, science and math.
Any research we DO subsidize should be public domain.Amen to that. If Government-funded research uncovers some new breakthrough in any field it should be released into the public domain -- some outfit will find a way to make money off it.
Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health careFor me, I ideologically believe that health care is a right of everyone and not a privilege for those that can afford it.
instead of addressing the actual problems of cost.I don't see why one (addressing the problems of cost) precludes the other (making sure everyone has access to health care).
The Constitution is clear: the point of a patent is to encourage innovation. It is only worthwhile to the extent it does that, and patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal.I think many businesses are being extremely short-sighted by trying to game the patent/copyright system. When a company (or industry) comes to rely on patents and lawyers more than innovation then something is seriously wrong. It might work for awhile to protect the bottom line but at the end of the day we can't compete in the global economy unless we get back to our innovative roots. All to often it seems like that takes a back seat to next quarters results or the stock price. Doesn't anybody invest and plan for the long term anymore?
Which according to his minions can pretty much do whatever it wants without any Legislative or Judaical oversight.
The legislature is the branch charged with writing lawsMight wanna tell King George about that. He seems to have other ideas.
If you want free gigabit ethernet in your home, write your congresscritter.I did but my check wasn't as big as at&t or Verizon's, apparently.....
(disclaimer: not only am I not a fan of Bush, well, I'm not going to get into what I think of him as the other day when I dared give my opinion of him the comment was modded up to +4 before it wound up as "0 flamebait". Some people equate bad opinions of Bush to bad opinions of the country.)I love the United States and would gladly give my life to defend them. I also think GWB is a dimwitted moron who owes his success in life to his family name and Karl Rove. Let's see where I end up after the modding is done ;)
Dude, you did it wrong. Haven't you seen the new logo? It's 'The new at&t'. See? Lowercase! Clearly less threatening and not like the old Ma Bell at all......
ILEC = Incumbent local exchange carrier, i.e: the phone company (Verizon or AT&T) that actually owns the lines in an area. Contrast to CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier) which is a third-party company that leases facilities from the ILEC to provision service (dial tone or DSL typically) for it's customers.
FTTP = Fiber to the premises
FTTN = Fiber to the neighborhood (most cable networks would qualify, being hybrid fiber-coax)
Just wait until you wind up with something that can't be treated with antibiotics ;)
Comcast has service in China???
Naw, I can't think of anything that would suggest that Trey and Matt indulge in any semi-legal substances ;)
Read my other reply in this discussion. I've never suggested that criticism of the US can be ignored or dismissed. In fact I have spoken out against current policies of my Government (torture of prisoners being high on the list) alongside past injustices (internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2).
What I am suggesting is that the people who think the United States is in the same league as China get some perspective and consider recent events in China, Pakistan, Burma, or Saudi Arabia before they make sweeping generalizations that equate the United States with the aforementioned countries.
In times in the past when protests were viewed as not being safe to ignore the US government acted in essentially the same way as that of china.The US Government? The Kent State shootings were conducted by the Ohio National Guard, operating under State (not Federal) authority. And while I find them abhorrent and won't defend them at all, I fail to see the relevance to a discussion about China. Do black marks in American history somehow excuse the actions of the Chinese Government? Do we need to be 100% perfect to point out injustice in the World?
I'm not being an apologist. I'm horrified at some of the actions undertaken by my Government in recent years. But anybody with any sense of objectivity can see that it's not nearly as bad as what's going on in China right now. Or Pakistan. Or Burma. Our people aren't jailed if they speak out against Government policy towards an oppressed/conquered racial group. Our opposition leaders aren't being assassinated. Our Supreme Court isn't under house arrest.
I will speak out against human rights abuses by any Government, including my own. This idea that we don't have the right to point out abuses in other countries because our own isn't 100% perfect benefits nobody besides the oppressive nations of the World.
Please, point out legislation that authorizes the Government to deny student loans to those engaged in legitimate acts of protest. There's a lot that's unfair with the student loan system in this country (like losing them for being convicted of something as stupid as marijuana possession) but I'm really interested to see someone actually point out some legislation that permits them to be denied to someone solely for speaking out against the Government.
or that high paying job you didn't getUnless that high paying job was with the Government then I really don't see your point -- a private employer is free to refuse to hire you for just about any reason.
perhaps because your file was flagged?Which 'file' are we talking about?