Seems to me that quite a few people have accidents every day too. Maybe a few less distractions and a bit more paying attention to the road would reduce those accidents?
Has it occurred to you that different people have different levels of skill at driving and multitasking and that there is no one-size-fits-all solution? Some people are quite comfortable at driving and decent at multitasking (cell phone/radio/big mac). Other people probably shouldn't be allowed on the roadways on bright sunny days with no distractions and zero traffic. Personally I'm quite comfortable eating behind the wheel and talking on my cell phone (with headset) on the highway -- I don't do it around town because I drive a stick-shift and need both hands.
As a random observation I've often thought if more people drive manuals that less people would drive distracted -- it just requires too much of your attention span to try and do other things. It confines distracting activities to the highway -- which has less risk as a general rule of thumb (traffic only going one-way, no stopping, etc, etc). Around town the stick-shift tends to keep you more engaged and alert to your surroundings.
Why do you suppose buses instituted the rule about not talking to the driver so many years ago?
Eh, around here you can talk to the drives to your hearts content -- if they are one of the friendly ones (most are).
I am constantly amazed at the general acceptance of the highway carnage in the US as well as a lot of other places.
That "carnage" has been around as long as cars have -- it predates cell phones, ebooks, drive-throughs and advanced sound systems. Might it be possible that you are mistaking correlation with causation?
I consider the sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls in magazines like Dolly and the romanticisation of sexual activity among children on television shows to be crass. Perhaps when you have kids you'll understand. And don't sing the "personal choice" song to me, you'll be singing a very different tune when your 19 year old daughter comes home one day to tell you she's pregnant with some local punk's child.
First off, at 19 she's an adult in every state in the union and can make those decisions for herself. If she falls on her ass, well that's just part of growing up isn't it? Second, if your teenage daughter (of any age) comes home pregnant with "some local punk's child" then you'd better take a good hard look at yourself and ask what you did wrong -- because I promise you that you'll be responsible for more of the blame than the media is.
And you may not be a member of the right, but how you can make these statements and not expect people to leap to that conclusion is beyond me. Are you on the videogame censorship bandwagon as well?
You still seem to have me mistaken for someone who dislikes liberals and the sexual revolution. I'm the first to stand up and defend civil rights.
I haven't mistaken you for anything. I was just throwing out an extreme example of where your arguments could be taken.
o to school with other kids with lunchboxes portraying half-naked MTV stars shakin' that ass
Why is it always people "shakin' that ass" that becomes the first topic in conversations like these? Why is sexuality always the first thing that people go after but violence is accepted and even encouraged in entertainment?
I will decry the crass parts of society until the day I die
Who gets to decide what's crass? You? Me? The MPAA? Congress? SCOTUS? To each their own I suppose, I just think there are more important issues that require my outrage then violence/sexuality in media.
think however you've got me painted as a right wing conservative. I am most certainly not.
I'm honestly not trying to paint you as anything. You are using some of the same arguments that they do but I don't know enough about you to make that conclusion. Hell, I suspect some of my own posts (on military history/foreign policy) would make me look like a right-winger, which I'm definitely not. In either case, I apologize for coming off as having that assumption about you.
Pick up an edition of Cosmo, watch an episode of Sex in the City
Mind telling me why you'd let your pre-pubescent girl read/watch either of those things? They clearly aren't intended for her consumption. If I happen to like watching Sex in the City should I give up that because of the message it conveys to young children? Or should the parents of said children stop relying on the TV as a babysitter and actually talk to their kids?
hell, walk in a shopping mall and you'll see what values we are teaching to our children
Then maybe you should be teaching different values? My values would dictate that I keep my kids away from the mall because I don't happen to agree with the message of consumption, greed and entitlement seen at most shopping malls. If you want your kids to learn your values then you need to teach them -- not rely on soceity to do it for you.
But a 10 year old modelling lingerie that looks straight out of an X rated film is not, at least in my view
Then don't buy shit from companies that employ underage models. I find it to be just as abhorrent as you do, which is why I refuse to buy stuff from them.
These distinctions I feel have been lost in this race to be the most "free thinking" or "liberated" individuals.
Yes, it's all the fault of the liberals and the sexual revolution. If only we could go back to the 50s when everything was good and wholesome and the biggest thing we had to worry about was some Senator from Wisconsin....
If I catch a burglar with a knife, unless we're right on top of each other chances are he's not interested in a Murder 2 charge but rather getting the hell out, while I'm not interested in getting killed trying to stop some deadbeat.
Of course if you catch him with a gun and your only weapon is a knife (since they are "less aggressive" in your mind) you might find yourself at a bit of a disadvantage;)
I'd say we avoid a lot of unplanned murders - victims, criminals and police - because people aren't forced into a situation where they feel either they have to shoot or be shot.
You should look up the definition of murder. It's not murder if you kill someone to defend yourself or another human being. And personally, if somebody breaks into my house it will be the last thing they ever do.
When I say that I'm referring to the laws against assault, burglary, theft, murder, money laundering and all of the other aspects that are involved in the drug world.
And any of those crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. One wonders though if drug prohibition ended if we'd be dealing with as many of those crimes though. It's not very often that you hear about somebody robbing you to get money to buy beer.....
Obama is just too new and has come up too fast
I just don't buy that argument. Lincoln went from being a one term Representative to being President, with some time off between the two in the private sector. And he is usually ranked as one of the best American Presidents. I think the whole "experience" argument is used to scare people. I'd rather have somebody with good judgment and brains than someone good at getting re-elected to the Senate or Governor's mansion. Experience might give you a longer record with which to judge those attributes (judgment and intelligence) but all too often it's just used as an argument to scare people into voting for the incumbent or career politician.
It makes me sad that people can't realize that the potential good outweighs the potential bad
It's not that I don't realize it, I just disagree with it. Your point that he would have to get his agenda through Congress is valid but that still isn't a convincing enough reason for me to vote for him. And a Republican Congress would be all to happy to go along with parts of his platform that I'd have issues with -- like privatizing everything in sight, dismantling the regulation of business and taking away a woman's right to choose.
If Ron Paul were President he would put Congress in check. Warantless wiretapping? No way. Enhanced interrogation techniques? No way.
Yes, he would end both of those things. But so would Barack Obama. John McCain has been pretty steadfast in his opposition to torture, though I wouldn't count on him ending warrentless wiretaps. Ditto for Hillary Clinton. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that Ron Paul isn't the only one that gets to claim those issues. I'm glad that he's been in the race to raise awareness of them but I still wouldn't vote for him -- even if I could -- which I couldn't as my state has a closed primary and I'm a registered Democrat.
I do think that the drug laws are all out of wack with regards to personal liberty. On the other hand, I'm glad that the enforcement mechanism was there to save me from myself. I'm talking about hard drugs here, not marijuana.
I honestly don't know how I feel about hard drugs because I've never tried them and I doubt I ever will. It's utterly insane that marijuana is illegal though. It's a plant that makes you dumb. End of story. The Government condones you coming home from work and drinking a beer to chill but declares war on you if you smoke a bowl of weed.... WTF? Weed should be as legal as beer or cigars and people arrested for possession of harder drugs should be treated and not thrown into prison.
The closest anyone has come to offering some real positive change was Ron Paul. He actually wanted to dismantle the empire and bring the troops home.
Even at that the good Doctor took it too far. I'd love to dismantle the empire and see American's compete on the World stage under the same rules as everybody else -- we are one of the most innovative people on this little rock and I personally don't think we need to flex our military muscle to get-by in the World economy. The problem is that Ron Paul wouldn't leave it there -- and I have serious disagreements with the rest of his platform.
In the end, I have come to the realization that change starts with me and if I want to change and make the world a better place, the government can't do anything about it
That's half of what Senator Obama's supporters have been talking about. Recall JFK's quote of "ask not what your country can do for you". For as much as Obama talks about change I think him (and most of his supporters) realize that it won't happen unless he can keep people involved after the election. That's where his charisma and oratory skills come into play and it's one of the reasons why I can't understand why everybody trashes him for being inspiring. Is there something wrong with an inspiring leader?
I'd love it if our way of life wasn't so inefficient that it requires the resources from the rest of the world to sustain it. But it is, at least until we consciously decide to make it so that it isn't.
Well, and that leads to the other problem with the Libertarian/Republican extreme. We need Government investment into alternative energy. There's no motivation for the private sector to do so as long as oil continues to be profitable. I don't want to see us replace the free market with a centrally planned economy -- but what the right doesn't seem to understand is that we need the Government to encourage investments into alternative technologies so they are ready before we run out of oil/it becomes prohibitively expensive. And I don't mean encourage as in give tiny little tax breaks to -- I mean encourge as in really invest the money and resources of this nation. If we can spend $12,000,000,000/month in Iraq than why can't we have a Manhattan project for fusion power?
We also need to end the war on science and make it the forefront of our educational system again. Doing so is the only way that we are going to cure our addition to oil without drastically lowering our standard of living -- and in the end it's the only way that we are going to remain competitive in the global economy. MBAs and lawyers didn't build the Saturn V -- scientists and engineers did.
Please don't try to pin this on Bush, et.al. Clinton pushed this just as much.
And that means Bush should get a free pass on it for what reason exactly?
In fact, I see no difference between Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabby, or Edwards.
Yeah, I can't help but think of all the similarities they all share on the war in Iraq, abortion, taxes, gay rights and foreign policy. C'Mon! You have a legitimate gripe that neither party is paying enough attention to our civil liberties but statements like that just make you look foolish.
Blame on people who would vote for a candidate's whose only answer to every problem is MORE centralized power.
Ya know, it's so easy to rail against "centralized power" but that centralized power passed and enforced the voting rights act. That centralized power put an end to Jim Crow laws. That centralized power provided us with the FMLA. That centralized power ended the exploitation of child labor. That centralized power provided women with the right to vote.
I grow as weary of Government as the next guy but why can't people around here see that the Libertarian extreme is no better than the hard left or hard right extremes? Do you really want to see a return to the dog-eat-dog world of the 19th century?
I disagree strongly here. I used to be a fan of John McCain. I supported him in 2000 and was appalled at what the Bush campaign did to him. But, I was even more appalled at his willingness to abandon his principles and self-respect the last five or six years in pursuit of this Presidential election.
Hey I can agree with your sentiment here. I remember the John McCain that was brave enough to call Jerry Falwell out for what he is. When he later started sucking up to that crowd (gotta shore up the base, huh?) I lost a lot of respect for him. I still think there is much to admire about him though. He has a keen insight to what's at stake with the torture debate and I really applaud the stand that he took against the Neo-Cons on that issue. I think that was one of the few moments during the Republican debates that I could agree with what was being said (McCain's answers on torture questions).
Sadly, I don't think that Obama can beat McCain
I think he can. Obama has a fairly effective message of change that will probably serve him well in the general election. He draws at least as much Independent support as McCain. He keeps the "Reagan Democrats" on the home team -- with Hillary (or Kerry for that matter) they probably vote for McCain. In the end I think a lot of McCain's chances are going to depend on what's going on in Iraq. If Iraq reverts to the violent mess it was prior to "the surge" and you combine that with a lousy economy (McCain's weakest issue) I have a hard time seeing how he wins against any Democrat -- let alone Obama. If Iraq is stable and going well then it could be a real race.
I'm guessing that either you confused me with kiddailey or you just assumed that anyone commenting on this thread must be a Ron Paul nut
I will confess that in my haste to reply I confused the two of you.
as well as your need to continue with your attacks on Ron Paul supporters
I hope I'm not being perceived that way. The only thing I take issue with is the rapid group of (primarily online) Ron Paul supporters that refuse to accept the fact that people might have legitimate reasons for deciding not to vote for him. I take issue with their methods and not with the fact that they are Ron Paul supporters. It seems like I've run into a disproportionate number of such people over the last few weeks and that probably spilled over into my response to you.
But that isn't what you said. You said it was designed that way, implying that it was intentional. This is demonstrably false.
I think the schedule was designed with that idea in mind -- but saying that the whole primary process was designed that way was probably not my best choice of words.
Whether or not you want to admit it, the major media outlets have significant control over the general population's perception of political candidates and are active players in the process
You'll brook no argument from me on this. I watched my choice in 2004 get burned all because of a unidirectional microphone (that filtered out the equally loud crowd), a loud outburst and a slow news cycle. I watched the media anoint John Kerry as the presumptive nominee based on exit polling in Iowa showing him to be the more "electable" candidate before anybody in the other 49 states had a say. Frankly, I'm surprised that nothing similar has happened in this cycle -- though not for lack of trying on the part of the pundits (writing off Hillary after losing Iowa).
I just don't think that tells the whole story of Ron Paul though. I won't rehash all my reasons for thinking this -- I've outlined them pretty clearly above -- but I would hope that you would agree with the basic theory that it's not all the fault of the media -- some of Paul's ideas are going to have a hard time finding acceptance regardless of the media environment.
The fact that he's been able to garner so much support, run a generally positive campaign, and offer serious contention to Hillary demonstrates the seriousness of the rift within the Democratic party
I think it also demonstrates the arrogance of the Clinton campaign. They assumed that they could wipe him out on Super Tuesday and made no plans for anything after that date. I also think some of the tactics they used blew up in their faces -- which actually gives me hope for my country. I also tend to think that a campaign between John McCain and Barak Obama will be a refreshing change for this country -- I don't agree with McCain on much but I do respect him and at least we will have two new faces for once.
One of the things that I realized while weighing who to vote for is that two political families have basically shared control of this country for most of my life. I'm 26 -- for the last 20 years it's been a Bush or a Clinton in office (28 years if you count HW's time as veep). For some reason that just doesn't strike me as particularly American -- even if you are inclined to agree with/support either one of them. We need a fresh face and some new ideas to shake things up.
Sadly enough people probably would riot if you tried to take away Budweiser. Yet nobody bothers to riot over the erosion of habeas corpus, our civil liberties, or other injustices (poverty, hunger, AIDS) in the World.
I find your shock at thinking someone could believe the US government could do something like this a bit amusing. Do you honestly still think we're in Iraq because of WMD? How many have died there for what is just a natural resource grab?
And I find your attempt to link the modern day policies of GWB to a discussion about WW2 to be pretty amusing.
WTF? There you go with these leaps into insane conclusions! Why the fuck would I think the US forced Japan to invade China? How does that come from anything I said? Seriously, you need to read what I'm saying more carefully instead of injecting your preconceived notions of what you think I am.
What the hell else am I supposed to think when you dismiss every single positive thing about our history with canned lines like "We were more concerned about catching up to the other imperial powers, and getting a piece of China and S.E. Asia" that have no basis in historical fact?
If you bothered to open a history book you might learn that FDR was primarily interested in the War in Europe and did everything that he could to avoid war with Japan while still trying to constrain their actions in China. If you bothered to do any study of the man you might learn that FDR was fundamentally opposed to imperialism/colonialism and did everything in his power to see that it would end after the war -- even when those goals conflicted with the interests of our Allies (France and the UK).
Dude, you just admitted in your last post that in retrospect the nukes probably didn't change the outcome. Now you seem to be implying that they did by referencing a movie.
I referenced that movie to try and give you some perspective on just how hard it actually was to get the Japanese to surrender. It's a really interesting look into the mentality of the Japanese leadership during the War. It's also a Japanese movie -- not an American one -- so I tend to give it more weight than I would an equivalent American production. If you take one single thing away from this discussion I hope it's a desire to see that film and do some meaningful research into that period of history.
Don't make up some bullshit excuse like "come back when your not an idiot".
That's about what it boils down to with you. Half of your arguments have no basis in historical fact. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that exists to support the theory that we nuked Japan just to test out our new weapons. Even the people in the Truman Administration/military leadership who opposed the bombings have never suggested that. There's nothing in the historical record to suggest that FDR had imperialistic designs/ambitions on anyone, yet you claim we only got involved to secure our "slice of the pie". What is your historical basis for that assumption?
The other half of your arguments boil down to ridiculous statements like "Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history" that are just downright insulting and offensive. You ignore or are unaware of the fact that it was the actions/atrocities of the Axis powers that started to erode Isolationist sentiment in the United States and turn public opinion towards the Allies. The evidence in the historical record disputes every single theory that you've put forth.
I simply took issue with your assertion that the primary process is designed to give a shot to fringe candidates
*shrug* and I think it does give them a shot by virtue of allowing the small states to go first. It certainly offers the best chance an outsider candidate has of unseating the establishment/incumbent candidate. What would you do differently? A national same-day primary will eliminate the ability to go into small states and connect with individual voters. It would favor the establishment candidate at the expense of everybody else. It would cost so much money that no candidate without the backing of the party would be able to compete.
Three months ago would you have called Hillary being where she is? Everybody thought that she was inevitable and that the whole primary process was just a formality. Would you have guessed that John McCain would emerge as the Republican front-runner after being written off as dead and listless?
There's a lot that I don't like about our primary system but I still take issue with supporters of Ron Paul claiming that it was solely the media that disenfranchised him. That was the original thing that got this whole conversation started.
I read it. It did nothing to change my opinion that Ron Paul had as much of a shot as anybody else going into Iowa and New Hampshire. If you can't pull off a win (or at least a respectable showing) in such small states with weeks to campaign and grassroots support then I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy for you. Blaming the media only goes so far.
I did debate discussing some of your points further, because there's a lot of stuff that's wrong with our primary system, but my main point all along has been about Ron Paul and who is to blame for his poor showings. He has a lot of legitimate gripes with the media (why was Rudy "viable" after losing those elections but Paul wasn't?) but I find it really hard to believe that the media is the sole reason he has performed so badly.
Ask yourself if the mainstream of Americans are really ready to accept some of his ideas and I think you'll find that the answer is no. You aren't going to convince a majority of the American public that we should withdraw from the United Nations. You aren't going to convince them that the entire Federal social safety net/regulatory structure should be dismantled. Ask yourself if his idea of strict property rights and marketplace intervention is really going to be enough to solve the problem of global warming. Ask yourself why he touts "personal liberty" yet stands opposed to allowing a woman to control her own body and end her pregnancy.
I'm sorry, I really like some of his ideas and I think it's important that he get all of them out into the public debate (we need another POV), but there's just no way in hell that I would ever vote for him. And for daring to say that I've been vilified and insulted by his supporters. Yeah, cuz that's gonna bring people over to your side!
Fortunately, a huge wholesaler, Costco is challenging the constitutionality of those laws in Oregon and Washington (which has similar laws) because they make so much money off of liquor in CA
They will lose. Let me save them the trouble:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited
In broad terms the 21st Amendment allows the states to do whatever the hell they want with liquor sales. That was the price of repealing prohibition -- the states gained full control to do virtually whatever they want within their own borders. There's nothing preventing a state from adopting statewide prohibition tomorrow if it desired to do so -- well, nothing except the voting public:)
Ron Paul has/had supporters in virtually every part of the country. He managed to generate much of the same grassroots level excitement that Obama did. He leveraged the internet into a fund raising source and raised enough cash to be taken seriously. He had people working for him and talking to their neighbors/co-workers/friends trying to win support. Anybody who was interested in him could find out all they wanted to know with about five minutes and an internet connection. He was included in many of the early Republican debates. At what point do you own up to the fact that it's at least as likely that your ideas were heard and rejected by the voting public as it is that the media is "keeping you down"?
I'd also like to add that I'm really getting tired of the nastiness that seems to come from certain vocal Ron Paul supporters. Anybody who dares to speak out against him is instantly vilified. Moderation systems (both on/. and other forums) are co-opted in an attempt to silence critics. Supporters have engaged in everything from stuffing the ballot box of online polls to insulting people who disagree with his platform or whom declare they are supporting someone else.
Telling someone who disagrees with your candidate to "just go and put your head back in the sand" (the recent example) is not the way you win over hearts and minds. At best you are doing a disservice to your candidate and the principles that he stands for. At worst you are turning people off to the process and encouraging the type of apathy that has given us the current status quo in Washington.
Slashdot Mirror
Has it occurred to you that different people have different levels of skill at driving and multitasking and that there is no one-size-fits-all solution? Some people are quite comfortable at driving and decent at multitasking (cell phone/radio/big mac). Other people probably shouldn't be allowed on the roadways on bright sunny days with no distractions and zero traffic. Personally I'm quite comfortable eating behind the wheel and talking on my cell phone (with headset) on the highway -- I don't do it around town because I drive a stick-shift and need both hands.
As a random observation I've often thought if more people drive manuals that less people would drive distracted -- it just requires too much of your attention span to try and do other things. It confines distracting activities to the highway -- which has less risk as a general rule of thumb (traffic only going one-way, no stopping, etc, etc). Around town the stick-shift tends to keep you more engaged and alert to your surroundings.
Why do you suppose buses instituted the rule about not talking to the driver so many years ago?Eh, around here you can talk to the drives to your hearts content -- if they are one of the friendly ones (most are).
I am constantly amazed at the general acceptance of the highway carnage in the US as well as a lot of other places.That "carnage" has been around as long as cars have -- it predates cell phones, ebooks, drive-throughs and advanced sound systems. Might it be possible that you are mistaking correlation with causation?
Obviously you aren't familiar with the deep South. I'm sure this will pass easily.
even lower odds of enforcing it.That I'll grant you.
First off, at 19 she's an adult in every state in the union and can make those decisions for herself. If she falls on her ass, well that's just part of growing up isn't it? Second, if your teenage daughter (of any age) comes home pregnant with "some local punk's child" then you'd better take a good hard look at yourself and ask what you did wrong -- because I promise you that you'll be responsible for more of the blame than the media is.
And you may not be a member of the right, but how you can make these statements and not expect people to leap to that conclusion is beyond me. Are you on the videogame censorship bandwagon as well?
I haven't mistaken you for anything. I was just throwing out an extreme example of where your arguments could be taken.
o to school with other kids with lunchboxes portraying half-naked MTV stars shakin' that assWhy is it always people "shakin' that ass" that becomes the first topic in conversations like these? Why is sexuality always the first thing that people go after but violence is accepted and even encouraged in entertainment?
I will decry the crass parts of society until the day I dieWho gets to decide what's crass? You? Me? The MPAA? Congress? SCOTUS? To each their own I suppose, I just think there are more important issues that require my outrage then violence/sexuality in media.
think however you've got me painted as a right wing conservative. I am most certainly not.I'm honestly not trying to paint you as anything. You are using some of the same arguments that they do but I don't know enough about you to make that conclusion. Hell, I suspect some of my own posts (on military history/foreign policy) would make me look like a right-winger, which I'm definitely not. In either case, I apologize for coming off as having that assumption about you.
Not at the office it isn't. Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method.
Outside of work, no problem.
Mind telling me why you'd let your pre-pubescent girl read/watch either of those things? They clearly aren't intended for her consumption. If I happen to like watching Sex in the City should I give up that because of the message it conveys to young children? Or should the parents of said children stop relying on the TV as a babysitter and actually talk to their kids?
hell, walk in a shopping mall and you'll see what values we are teaching to our childrenThen maybe you should be teaching different values? My values would dictate that I keep my kids away from the mall because I don't happen to agree with the message of consumption, greed and entitlement seen at most shopping malls. If you want your kids to learn your values then you need to teach them -- not rely on soceity to do it for you.
But a 10 year old modelling lingerie that looks straight out of an X rated film is not, at least in my viewThen don't buy shit from companies that employ underage models. I find it to be just as abhorrent as you do, which is why I refuse to buy stuff from them.
These distinctions I feel have been lost in this race to be the most "free thinking" or "liberated" individuals.Yes, it's all the fault of the liberals and the sexual revolution. If only we could go back to the 50s when everything was good and wholesome and the biggest thing we had to worry about was some Senator from Wisconsin....
Also known as everything you need to have a good time anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line ;)
Of course if you catch him with a gun and your only weapon is a knife (since they are "less aggressive" in your mind) you might find yourself at a bit of a disadvantage ;)
I'd say we avoid a lot of unplanned murders - victims, criminals and police - because people aren't forced into a situation where they feel either they have to shoot or be shot.You should look up the definition of murder. It's not murder if you kill someone to defend yourself or another human being. And personally, if somebody breaks into my house it will be the last thing they ever do.
And any of those crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. One wonders though if drug prohibition ended if we'd be dealing with as many of those crimes though. It's not very often that you hear about somebody robbing you to get money to buy beer.....
Obama is just too new and has come up too fastI just don't buy that argument. Lincoln went from being a one term Representative to being President, with some time off between the two in the private sector. And he is usually ranked as one of the best American Presidents. I think the whole "experience" argument is used to scare people. I'd rather have somebody with good judgment and brains than someone good at getting re-elected to the Senate or Governor's mansion. Experience might give you a longer record with which to judge those attributes (judgment and intelligence) but all too often it's just used as an argument to scare people into voting for the incumbent or career politician.
It makes me sad that people can't realize that the potential good outweighs the potential badIt's not that I don't realize it, I just disagree with it. Your point that he would have to get his agenda through Congress is valid but that still isn't a convincing enough reason for me to vote for him. And a Republican Congress would be all to happy to go along with parts of his platform that I'd have issues with -- like privatizing everything in sight, dismantling the regulation of business and taking away a woman's right to choose.
If Ron Paul were President he would put Congress in check. Warantless wiretapping? No way. Enhanced interrogation techniques? No way.Yes, he would end both of those things. But so would Barack Obama. John McCain has been pretty steadfast in his opposition to torture, though I wouldn't count on him ending warrentless wiretaps. Ditto for Hillary Clinton. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that Ron Paul isn't the only one that gets to claim those issues. I'm glad that he's been in the race to raise awareness of them but I still wouldn't vote for him -- even if I could -- which I couldn't as my state has a closed primary and I'm a registered Democrat.
I honestly don't know how I feel about hard drugs because I've never tried them and I doubt I ever will. It's utterly insane that marijuana is illegal though. It's a plant that makes you dumb. End of story. The Government condones you coming home from work and drinking a beer to chill but declares war on you if you smoke a bowl of weed.... WTF? Weed should be as legal as beer or cigars and people arrested for possession of harder drugs should be treated and not thrown into prison.
The closest anyone has come to offering some real positive change was Ron Paul. He actually wanted to dismantle the empire and bring the troops home.Even at that the good Doctor took it too far. I'd love to dismantle the empire and see American's compete on the World stage under the same rules as everybody else -- we are one of the most innovative people on this little rock and I personally don't think we need to flex our military muscle to get-by in the World economy. The problem is that Ron Paul wouldn't leave it there -- and I have serious disagreements with the rest of his platform.
In the end, I have come to the realization that change starts with me and if I want to change and make the world a better place, the government can't do anything about itThat's half of what Senator Obama's supporters have been talking about. Recall JFK's quote of "ask not what your country can do for you". For as much as Obama talks about change I think him (and most of his supporters) realize that it won't happen unless he can keep people involved after the election. That's where his charisma and oratory skills come into play and it's one of the reasons why I can't understand why everybody trashes him for being inspiring. Is there something wrong with an inspiring leader?
I'd love it if our way of life wasn't so inefficient that it requires the resources from the rest of the world to sustain it. But it is, at least until we consciously decide to make it so that it isn't.Well, and that leads to the other problem with the Libertarian/Republican extreme. We need Government investment into alternative energy. There's no motivation for the private sector to do so as long as oil continues to be profitable. I don't want to see us replace the free market with a centrally planned economy -- but what the right doesn't seem to understand is that we need the Government to encourage investments into alternative technologies so they are ready before we run out of oil/it becomes prohibitively expensive. And I don't mean encourage as in give tiny little tax breaks to -- I mean encourge as in really invest the money and resources of this nation. If we can spend $12,000,000,000/month in Iraq than why can't we have a Manhattan project for fusion power?
We also need to end the war on science and make it the forefront of our educational system again. Doing so is the only way that we are going to cure our addition to oil without drastically lowering our standard of living -- and in the end it's the only way that we are going to remain competitive in the global economy. MBAs and lawyers didn't build the Saturn V -- scientists and engineers did.
Stupid question: What the hell is simsubbing?
And that means Bush should get a free pass on it for what reason exactly?
In fact, I see no difference between Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabby, or Edwards.Yeah, I can't help but think of all the similarities they all share on the war in Iraq, abortion, taxes, gay rights and foreign policy. C'Mon! You have a legitimate gripe that neither party is paying enough attention to our civil liberties but statements like that just make you look foolish.
Blame on people who would vote for a candidate's whose only answer to every problem is MORE centralized power.Ya know, it's so easy to rail against "centralized power" but that centralized power passed and enforced the voting rights act. That centralized power put an end to Jim Crow laws. That centralized power provided us with the FMLA. That centralized power ended the exploitation of child labor. That centralized power provided women with the right to vote.
I grow as weary of Government as the next guy but why can't people around here see that the Libertarian extreme is no better than the hard left or hard right extremes? Do you really want to see a return to the dog-eat-dog world of the 19th century?
Mod the parent up.... this is actually the most insightful comment I've seen in this discussion.
"It's funny, laugh"
Naw, if anything it would take the form of a smug cloud, which isn't quite as impressive as ripping space time -- though no less deadly.
I'd love to see the two of them in a debate with each other. That'd be great. Think of the drinking games you could create off that.
Oh, ok. We were wondering where his Dad was ;)
Hey I can agree with your sentiment here. I remember the John McCain that was brave enough to call Jerry Falwell out for what he is. When he later started sucking up to that crowd (gotta shore up the base, huh?) I lost a lot of respect for him. I still think there is much to admire about him though. He has a keen insight to what's at stake with the torture debate and I really applaud the stand that he took against the Neo-Cons on that issue. I think that was one of the few moments during the Republican debates that I could agree with what was being said (McCain's answers on torture questions).
Sadly, I don't think that Obama can beat McCainI think he can. Obama has a fairly effective message of change that will probably serve him well in the general election. He draws at least as much Independent support as McCain. He keeps the "Reagan Democrats" on the home team -- with Hillary (or Kerry for that matter) they probably vote for McCain. In the end I think a lot of McCain's chances are going to depend on what's going on in Iraq. If Iraq reverts to the violent mess it was prior to "the surge" and you combine that with a lousy economy (McCain's weakest issue) I have a hard time seeing how he wins against any Democrat -- let alone Obama. If Iraq is stable and going well then it could be a real race.
I will confess that in my haste to reply I confused the two of you.
as well as your need to continue with your attacks on Ron Paul supportersI hope I'm not being perceived that way. The only thing I take issue with is the rapid group of (primarily online) Ron Paul supporters that refuse to accept the fact that people might have legitimate reasons for deciding not to vote for him. I take issue with their methods and not with the fact that they are Ron Paul supporters. It seems like I've run into a disproportionate number of such people over the last few weeks and that probably spilled over into my response to you.
But that isn't what you said. You said it was designed that way, implying that it was intentional. This is demonstrably false.I think the schedule was designed with that idea in mind -- but saying that the whole primary process was designed that way was probably not my best choice of words.
Whether or not you want to admit it, the major media outlets have significant control over the general population's perception of political candidates and are active players in the processYou'll brook no argument from me on this. I watched my choice in 2004 get burned all because of a unidirectional microphone (that filtered out the equally loud crowd), a loud outburst and a slow news cycle. I watched the media anoint John Kerry as the presumptive nominee based on exit polling in Iowa showing him to be the more "electable" candidate before anybody in the other 49 states had a say. Frankly, I'm surprised that nothing similar has happened in this cycle -- though not for lack of trying on the part of the pundits (writing off Hillary after losing Iowa).
I just don't think that tells the whole story of Ron Paul though. I won't rehash all my reasons for thinking this -- I've outlined them pretty clearly above -- but I would hope that you would agree with the basic theory that it's not all the fault of the media -- some of Paul's ideas are going to have a hard time finding acceptance regardless of the media environment.
The fact that he's been able to garner so much support, run a generally positive campaign, and offer serious contention to Hillary demonstrates the seriousness of the rift within the Democratic partyI think it also demonstrates the arrogance of the Clinton campaign. They assumed that they could wipe him out on Super Tuesday and made no plans for anything after that date. I also think some of the tactics they used blew up in their faces -- which actually gives me hope for my country. I also tend to think that a campaign between John McCain and Barak Obama will be a refreshing change for this country -- I don't agree with McCain on much but I do respect him and at least we will have two new faces for once.
One of the things that I realized while weighing who to vote for is that two political families have basically shared control of this country for most of my life. I'm 26 -- for the last 20 years it's been a Bush or a Clinton in office (28 years if you count HW's time as veep). For some reason that just doesn't strike me as particularly American -- even if you are inclined to agree with/support either one of them. We need a fresh face and some new ideas to shake things up.
Sadly enough people probably would riot if you tried to take away Budweiser. Yet nobody bothers to riot over the erosion of habeas corpus, our civil liberties, or other injustices (poverty, hunger, AIDS) in the World.
*sigh*
And I find your attempt to link the modern day policies of GWB to a discussion about WW2 to be pretty amusing.
WTF? There you go with these leaps into insane conclusions! Why the fuck would I think the US forced Japan to invade China? How does that come from anything I said? Seriously, you need to read what I'm saying more carefully instead of injecting your preconceived notions of what you think I am.What the hell else am I supposed to think when you dismiss every single positive thing about our history with canned lines like "We were more concerned about catching up to the other imperial powers, and getting a piece of China and S.E. Asia" that have no basis in historical fact?
If you bothered to open a history book you might learn that FDR was primarily interested in the War in Europe and did everything that he could to avoid war with Japan while still trying to constrain their actions in China. If you bothered to do any study of the man you might learn that FDR was fundamentally opposed to imperialism/colonialism and did everything in his power to see that it would end after the war -- even when those goals conflicted with the interests of our Allies (France and the UK).
Dude, you just admitted in your last post that in retrospect the nukes probably didn't change the outcome. Now you seem to be implying that they did by referencing a movie.I referenced that movie to try and give you some perspective on just how hard it actually was to get the Japanese to surrender. It's a really interesting look into the mentality of the Japanese leadership during the War. It's also a Japanese movie -- not an American one -- so I tend to give it more weight than I would an equivalent American production. If you take one single thing away from this discussion I hope it's a desire to see that film and do some meaningful research into that period of history.
Don't make up some bullshit excuse like "come back when your not an idiot".That's about what it boils down to with you. Half of your arguments have no basis in historical fact. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that exists to support the theory that we nuked Japan just to test out our new weapons. Even the people in the Truman Administration/military leadership who opposed the bombings have never suggested that. There's nothing in the historical record to suggest that FDR had imperialistic designs/ambitions on anyone, yet you claim we only got involved to secure our "slice of the pie". What is your historical basis for that assumption?
The other half of your arguments boil down to ridiculous statements like "Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history" that are just downright insulting and offensive. You ignore or are unaware of the fact that it was the actions/atrocities of the Axis powers that started to erode Isolationist sentiment in the United States and turn public opinion towards the Allies. The evidence in the historical record disputes every single theory that you've put forth.
*shrug* and I think it does give them a shot by virtue of allowing the small states to go first. It certainly offers the best chance an outsider candidate has of unseating the establishment/incumbent candidate. What would you do differently? A national same-day primary will eliminate the ability to go into small states and connect with individual voters. It would favor the establishment candidate at the expense of everybody else. It would cost so much money that no candidate without the backing of the party would be able to compete.
Three months ago would you have called Hillary being where she is? Everybody thought that she was inevitable and that the whole primary process was just a formality. Would you have guessed that John McCain would emerge as the Republican front-runner after being written off as dead and listless?
There's a lot that I don't like about our primary system but I still take issue with supporters of Ron Paul claiming that it was solely the media that disenfranchised him. That was the original thing that got this whole conversation started.
I read it. It did nothing to change my opinion that Ron Paul had as much of a shot as anybody else going into Iowa and New Hampshire. If you can't pull off a win (or at least a respectable showing) in such small states with weeks to campaign and grassroots support then I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy for you. Blaming the media only goes so far.
I did debate discussing some of your points further, because there's a lot of stuff that's wrong with our primary system, but my main point all along has been about Ron Paul and who is to blame for his poor showings. He has a lot of legitimate gripes with the media (why was Rudy "viable" after losing those elections but Paul wasn't?) but I find it really hard to believe that the media is the sole reason he has performed so badly.
Ask yourself if the mainstream of Americans are really ready to accept some of his ideas and I think you'll find that the answer is no. You aren't going to convince a majority of the American public that we should withdraw from the United Nations. You aren't going to convince them that the entire Federal social safety net/regulatory structure should be dismantled. Ask yourself if his idea of strict property rights and marketplace intervention is really going to be enough to solve the problem of global warming. Ask yourself why he touts "personal liberty" yet stands opposed to allowing a woman to control her own body and end her pregnancy.
I'm sorry, I really like some of his ideas and I think it's important that he get all of them out into the public debate (we need another POV), but there's just no way in hell that I would ever vote for him. And for daring to say that I've been vilified and insulted by his supporters. Yeah, cuz that's gonna bring people over to your side!
They will lose. Let me save them the trouble:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited
In broad terms the 21st Amendment allows the states to do whatever the hell they want with liquor sales. That was the price of repealing prohibition -- the states gained full control to do virtually whatever they want within their own borders. There's nothing preventing a state from adopting statewide prohibition tomorrow if it desired to do so -- well, nothing except the voting public :)
Ron Paul has/had supporters in virtually every part of the country. He managed to generate much of the same grassroots level excitement that Obama did. He leveraged the internet into a fund raising source and raised enough cash to be taken seriously. He had people working for him and talking to their neighbors/co-workers/friends trying to win support. Anybody who was interested in him could find out all they wanted to know with about five minutes and an internet connection. He was included in many of the early Republican debates. At what point do you own up to the fact that it's at least as likely that your ideas were heard and rejected by the voting public as it is that the media is "keeping you down"?
I'd also like to add that I'm really getting tired of the nastiness that seems to come from certain vocal Ron Paul supporters. Anybody who dares to speak out against him is instantly vilified. Moderation systems (both on /. and other forums) are co-opted in an attempt to silence critics. Supporters have engaged in everything from stuffing the ballot box of online polls to insulting people who disagree with his platform or whom declare they are supporting someone else.
Telling someone who disagrees with your candidate to "just go and put your head back in the sand" (the recent example) is not the way you win over hearts and minds. At best you are doing a disservice to your candidate and the principles that he stands for. At worst you are turning people off to the process and encouraging the type of apathy that has given us the current status quo in Washington.