I really never understood why New Yorkers put up with her (being a carpetbagger).
Because the guy that ran against her in 2000 was a complete fucking moron with absolutely no platform to speak of besides "I'm not Hillary Clinton". It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Giuliani hadn't dropped out. I still think she would have won, but at least Giuliani would have known the difference between Owego and Oswego. Lazio couldn't be bothered to learn a single thing about upstate (he was from Long Island) and if you know anything about New York State politics you know that a Republican can't win statewide office without upstate.
I went to some of Lazio's campaign events. Every single one of them was filled with rapid anti-Clintoniates that jumped on you from the moment you walked in the door and spent hours trying to convince you why Hillary would be bad for New York. They didn't say a single thing about why Lazio would be good for New York. And Lazio himself was one of the worst campaigners I've ever seen. At a political rally at the local hospital he refused to answer questions about his health care platform, saying (and I quote) "I didn't come here to talk about health care". What kind of questions did you think people would ask you at a hospital, you dipshit?
I don't agree with Islam and I'm not particularly in favor of Muslims in high office here, but intellectually I understand that I can't deny anyone that freedom while expecting to retain it myself. So drop it already, OK?
Holy fucking shit! A member of the religious right that acknowledges that they don't have the right to force their views and opinions on the rest of us. Not to beat it into the ground but that's pretty damned rare and I salute you for having that opinion.
I knew there must have been a reason why you were already in my friends list!
I think he's a really great person but I can't get behind his politics
Ditto, but I suspect for very different reasons then you. The two deal-breakers for me would be his pro-life stance and support for the war. I can give him more credit for those two positions then most of the other candidates because I think he's actually sincere about them, but that doesn't mean he's going to get my vote. And I can't forgive him for trying to get into bed with the religious right.
Except for the fact that he's a pretty boy and a personal injury lawyer, he's probably not so bad.
And what's wrong with a personal injury lawyer? I know it's popular and easy to make jokes at the expense of lawyers (particularly personal injury lawyers and defense attorney's) but one man's ambulance chaser is another man's crusader for justice. Ever know anybody that was legitimately hurt and got dicked over by an insurance company? Or anybody charged with a crime they didn't commit? For better or worse, lawyers are a necessary evil.
But not Clinton. Dear God, please not that again.
I honestly fail to understand the contempt that the right has for the Clinton's but nonetheless it's a reality. At the end of the day that's why I feel that Obama will do a better job of bringing us back together then Hillary will.
Stop depending on the news media to do all your homework for you. If you're deciding between Obama and Hillary, go read up on them. Read up on their records and what they plan to do. Do your homework yourself!
I'm not bitching about the media not doing my homework. I'm bitching about the media having misplaced priorities. We can spend hours talking about Hillary's tears but Ron Paul doesn't get any time for his platform? We can pay for helicopters to follow Britney Spears to jail while false information used to send us to war goes unchecked? We can cover the Anna Nicole Smith drama but not the violence in Iraq?
As this guy seemed to say (far better then I could have) "It's not just the issues".
I think that Obama has the best chance of defusing some of the bitterness in this country (and in Washington). I'll vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination because she's closely aligned with my views and far better then any of the Republicans (besides Ron Paul) but I know in my heart of hearts that if Hillary wins we can look forward to four more years of partisan bickering.
I don't know for sure that Obama can put an end to it, but I do know that Hillary can't.
I'm sure he has some substance, but that doesn't make his public comments any less mockable. Somebody asked him what he thought about Hillary's little display of emotion and he (I shit you not) came back with the answer of "Well, I think it's ok, and I can't help but recall all the funerals after 9/11". Give me a fucking break.
Beyond that, I don't care what substance he has, I'm sick and tired of Republican politicians running campaigns of fear. "If we make the wrong choice there is a danger that we'll get hit again", "I turned to him and said 'Thank God George Bush is our President'", etc, etc, etc. 9/11 was a tragedy but it should not be the defining moment of the United States in the 21st century or even in this decade.
Really, though, it is those who fear a Giuliani nomination that are pushing the Giuliani is running on 9/11 only notion.
Afraid of him winning the nomination? Hardly. I'm a native New Yorker. I have zero fear for him. I don't think he can win the general election. Hell, I don't think he could have beaten Hillary in his own state in 2000 (he dropped out when he got prostate cancer) even though she came here as a carpetbagger. And if by some miracle he did win the general election, well, I'd take him over most of the other Republicans running, because whatever else I might think about him, I do recall his time in New York City and he is a moderate secular Republican.
And I just don't understand why Libertarians have this thinly veiled contempt for anybody that disagrees with them. Because calling someone a sheep is really going to lead to a productive debate about ideas.
If you are interested in the reasoning behind my preferences, then feel free to read this.
Almost made me wonder if they picked the two most "popular" candidates on/. and picked them for karma whoring.....
With respect, maybe you should bother to read my post history and/or journal before you accuse me of karma whoring.
I like Ron Paul because of his position on civil liberties. Ending the drug war, repealing the Patriot Act, getting us out of Iraq, etc, etc. I also like him because he has the balls to actually state his opinions, no matter how unpopular they might be. It takes a rare sort to do that in politics.
Notwithstanding the above, I have serious reservations about the Libertarian economic platform. There's a reason why we got away from Laissez-faire economics and I do not agree with the concept of a completely regulation free economy. In fact, given the events of the last decade or so and displays of corporate greed, I'm less inclined then ever to trust the "free market" to do anything in my best interest. I also completely disagree with the idea that we need to privatize everything.
I came to like Obama after watching some of his speeches and reading some of his interviews. I won't apologize for that and I realize it makes me the unpopular person around here because I won't tote the/. party line of "both parties are the same". I hope Obama wins the nomination and the general election. That said, I'm still rooting for Ron Paul to do well, because even though I disagree with him on a lot of stuff I think it's a good thing that he is bringing public attention to his platform. And even though I completely disagree with and would oppose their economic platform, I think it's a good thing to get Libertarian ideals into the public debate.
His strong man tactics are the only thing holding the narrow Republican margin in the Senate. Once he retires/dies the State will sink into the Blue morass; that'll be the last you ever hear from us up-staters.
Please tell me that you aren't one of those that buys into the upstate/downstate nonsense? The Republicans in the Senate share just as much of the blame for the problems of our state as do the Democrats. My Republican State Senator (Tom Libous) isn't effective at anything beyond photo-ops and bringing home the pork. He's part of the problem in Albany -- not the solution.
Bruno is just as much of a problem as Sliver is. He uses the same tactics. They aren't defensible imho, no matter how you justify them. Both of them need to go. I had hopes that Spitzer would use the "bully pulpit" to shame the rest of the people in the legislature into opposing the two of them, because until the rest of the Assembly and Senate grow some balls we'll never have meaningful reform in Albany.
Actually, I could imagine Joe Bruno making a good President. He's been the man behind the curtain here in NY long enough.
Don't forget that Silver is also behind that curtain;)
Here's an interesting thought if you are a New Yorker: If Hillary does win, who is Spitzer going to appoint to fill out her term in the Senate? One of my friends half-seriously suggested that he should appoint Silver just to get him the hell out of Albany and remove his chokehold on the Assembly. If we had a Republican Governor you could make the same argument for appointing Bruno.
Well, as we all know the answer is mostly ratings, there is at least some sense to it. While the President does have a bully pulpit, they don't write laws, and can't ultimately pass a health care policy, and certainly don't vote in the Senate. That is the job of legislators.
While I completely agree with what you are saying, I still think it would be a better service to our Democracy if the media focused less on Hillary's personality and more on the viewpoints and positions of the candidates. Who the hell cares how "likeable" she is? You realize that in 2000 and 2004 people voted for the candidate that they'd "rather have a beer with". How'd that turn out again?
So it's not surprising that the electorate at large is looking for signs of leadership and a particular philosphy more than they are looking for detailed policy proposals.
I'm starving for leadership. That's probably why I've become a fan of Obama. He is actually inspires me, which I haven't been able to say in a long time about a candidate for Federal office. Regardless, I still fail to see how the media spending hours talking about Hillary's tears and whether or not they were "real" is a productive use of time.
I, as usual, am less than enthusiastic about our choices for president
Outside of Ron Paul I have zero enthusiasm for anybody on the Republican side and even at that I doubt I could bring myself to vote for him. I used to have a lot of respect for McCain even though I disagree with him in a lot of areas (his being pro-life comes to mind) but I lost that respect when he started kissing the ass of the religious right, sometime around the 2004 elections. As a New Yorker I previously held Giuliani in high regard. Then he decided to run his entire campaign on 9/11.
On the Democratic side I was undecided for a long time with leanings towards Edwards. In the last week or so I've jumped on the Obama bandwagon. I don't know if he can actually pull off everything that he advocates but I do know that he is a breath of fresh air. You realize that less then three years ago he was a state legislator? Can you picture your Assemblyman or State Senator running for President in the next three years? I know that I can't. Yet somehow he has managed to do it.
I read an interview where his wife said that up until about a year ago they were still paying off student loans and she worries that even if he loses this race that they won't be "real" Americans anymore, i.e: they won't have any of the concerns that the middle class does (debt, health care, education for their kids, etc, etc). For some reason that hit home with me and I think is one of the fundamental problems with American politics -- how many politicians can you think of on the Federal level that even know what it's like to be a normal person anymore? Between the rich ones (who have never known want for anything) and the career politicians I doubt you can find more then a handful of "real" people in Congress or the Administration.
He's got my vote come Super Tuesday. I've never disliked Hillary and even voted for her twice (for the Senate) but I know that if she manages to win it all we can look forward to four more years of slash 'n burn politics in Washington. I don't know if Obama can actually change that and make Washington responsive to the people again but I do know that Hillary can't -- the Republicans will crucify her.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Look into Obama. You might be pleasantly surprised. I dismissed him for a long time and didn't pay much attention to what he had to say. That was a mistake on my part.
I watched just enough of the coverage last night to walk away with one observation: Fuck the news media.
Seriously. They spent more time talking about Hillary "tearing up" then they did talking about policy differences between the candidates.
"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?"WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate? Why don't you do some research into Obama's time as a state legislator, because most of us outside of Illinois know next to nothing about this period in his life.
And why all this goddamn focus on who "wins" each state? The primaries (at least for the Dems) aren't a winner-take-all. All three of the leading Democratic candidates walk away from this with delegates to the convention. All three of them walked away from Iowa with delegates. Yet somehow Hillary's loss in Iowa all but doomed her campaign in the eyes of the media.
*sigh* And they wonder why people are disillusioned with the process.....
I am guessing you are also single without children and work a full time job or go to school full time.
$1800+/yr for the full cable package including 120+ channels, 20+ premium channels, ~40 HD channels, DVR, On Demand, etc. is a steal if you are a full-time stay-at-home parent. As it is I'm eyeing satellite TV to supplement the HD channels. I still use Netflix, internet, and satellite radio, but without cable I'd go batshit fucking loco.
$1800+/yr for the full cable package including 120+ channels, 20+ premium channels, ~40 HD channels, DVR, On Demand, etc. is a steal if you are a full-time stay-at-home parent. As it is I'm eyeing satellite TV to supplement the HD channels. I still use Netflix, internet, and satellite radio, but without cable I'd go batshit fucking loco.
$1,800/yr is a steal??? That's more then I pay for my cellular phone ($626/yr), internet ($360/yr) natural gas ($360/yr) AND electric ($380/yr) bills combined. Granted, my utility bills are low because I live in a small apartment, but even so I find it hard to think that $1,800/yr is a "steal" for entertainment.
was waiting to see if they'd roll out FIOS TV too and get the package (dump Comcast altogether)
Why wait? Dump 'em now. I dropped my cable package down to "lifeline" service (local tv stations only) and wouldn't even have had that if I could have gotten decent reception with rabbit ears.
I actually like TV but it's just not worth the fucking money. In my area it now costs $55/mo for basic cable. $660/year. More if you want digital cable, DVR, or any of that. And it goes up every year. I can recall before Time Warner came in and bought up the local cable companies -- basic cable cost about $25/mo for 60 channels. Now it's $55/mo for 68 channels. I guess those five home shopping networks, BBC America and Spike TV really cost them $30 more....
It's just not fucking worth it. Having the networks will get you most new shows. Cable only shows can be downloaded, oftentimes quite legally (The Daily Show). There's also DVD rentals of older shows (Netflix anyone?).
I was just about to post that;) Best idea ever.... quoting this from DomainState.com: someone could totally script this and run there credit through the roof with the registry hahahahaha.
Assuming it costs them SOMETHING (even pennies) to register a domain with the central registry then I think this is an absolutely awesome idea. I'll run such a script if someone writes it. In fact maybe I'll write one myself, because screwing over NSI sounds like a much better way to spend my afternoon then doing anything productive;)
I agree for the most part, except they really shouldn't have capped the number of representatives in the House, and they never should have made senators be directly elected. Fixing the house to a set ratio of reps to populace would make both congress as a whole and presidential elections more closer to their original intended operations.
The number of representatives should be increased. In the early days of the Republic each representative had about 40,000 - 50,000 constituents. Now they have around 700,000 - 800,000.
I also agree on the Senate. If Senators were directly appointed by the State Legislatures then maybe Washington wouldn't be able to use the power of the purse to blackmail the states into doing things a specific way.
There is no Federal Law that takes that power away from the states. The Feds blackmailed the states with highway funds but it doesn't change the fact that the states still retain this power. If a state actually wanted to change the drinking age and retain their highway funds then they could fight for that via their Congressional Delegation and the Courts.
Or drug laws...
Again, there is NOTHING stopping the states from legalizing all drugs. In my state simple pot possession isn't even a crime (speeding tickets cost more). Every single state could legalize every single drug tomorrow if they wanted to. They'd still be illegal on a Federal level but that's what Congress is for.
But since you're probably not from Germany or France your ignorance doesn't reflect badly on them. Good judgement posting anonymously BTW.
His ignorance of the fact that it's currently the Fifth French Republic does not render his point that the US and UK seem to be more stable any less relevant.
The so called two party "rigging" is party responsible for the tremendous stability of the governments of the US and the UK. For example, I can never remember which number is the current German Reich or French Republic. It is not a coincidence that the US and the UK are among the longest lived continuous governments on the planet. In my view, minority parties almost by definition represent partisan special interests (what used to be called factions) and allowing them undue power is quite dangerous.
Wow. I give you credit for having the balls to say that. You'd get mod points if I had 'em and you'd be on my friends list if you weren't AC.
There are times when I get frustrated with our two-party system. But I think there are far more effective ways to reform our political process then by changing the way we vote. I think removing Corporate personhood and restricting the ability of corporations (of any sort) to put money into the political process would be far more effective at reclaiming our democracy then trying to change the voting system.
Money is the root of all evil. Not first-past-the-post voting.
but IMHO the Legislative branch is the one most needing a reform today
I disagree, at least with respects to the United States. The Executive has taken powers that it was never supposed to have. The only reform that the Legislative Branch needs is to grow a pair of balls and start restraining the power of the Executive.
Unfortunately party seems to matter more then principle and I'm guessing that if you see a Democrat win you won't see the Democrats in Congress whining about the Executive overstepping it's authority. Ditto if a Republican wins.
The problem right now in the American system is that it is not proportional representation. Look at the senators, 2 from each state.
That is not the problem. That's the system working as designed. It's the United States of America. Our states are more then just a line on a map -- they are sovereign entities in their own right and the Senate exists to prevent large populous states from walking all over small or sparsely populated ones.
They have quite a bit of direct democracy. Has it hurt them? Or what about California
The United States is not Switzerland. We aren't a Democracy. We are a Republic. A collection of individual states that still retain all rights not expressly ceded to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. The states are free to implement whatever direct democracy initiatives they want at the state or local level. On the Federal level the nation is a Republic. Direct Democracy on the Federal level is not what the founding fathers had in mind, would be fraught with problems and is not something that I would support.
I think the real reason why America would not want that is because the entire midwest would loose huge amounts of influence. It would be concentrated in California, New York, and Florida. And what are those states? You guessed it mostly democractic, or at least democratic tendencies.
Again, that's the system working as designed. The same system that provides checks and balances to protect the rural interests also protects the urban ones. As much as I hate the current administration and the Republican Party in general I'm glad that we have the system in place that we do. Contract it to the United Kingdom (similar to the United States in many ways) where one party has had a choke hold on the political process for the last decade or so and short of Royal Assent there are no checks-and-balances on it's power. The majority party in the House of Commons can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants.
Not to mention that Democracy is basically two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner and the sheep would be even less protected in a direct-democracy scenario.
Yes, because (here goes my karma if any Apple fans have mod points) replacing one proprietary closed-source operating system with vendor lock-in with another closed-source operating system with vendor lock-in is a great idea. I don't approve of their business practices, I'm not a big fan of their hardware design and I grow rather weary of the fanboy'ism that surrounds them.
For gaming, and Access, you can always run Windows through Boot Camp or Parallels.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the guy that ran against her in 2000 was a complete fucking moron with absolutely no platform to speak of besides "I'm not Hillary Clinton". It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Giuliani hadn't dropped out. I still think she would have won, but at least Giuliani would have known the difference between Owego and Oswego. Lazio couldn't be bothered to learn a single thing about upstate (he was from Long Island) and if you know anything about New York State politics you know that a Republican can't win statewide office without upstate.
I went to some of Lazio's campaign events. Every single one of them was filled with rapid anti-Clintoniates that jumped on you from the moment you walked in the door and spent hours trying to convince you why Hillary would be bad for New York. They didn't say a single thing about why Lazio would be good for New York. And Lazio himself was one of the worst campaigners I've ever seen. At a political rally at the local hospital he refused to answer questions about his health care platform, saying (and I quote) "I didn't come here to talk about health care". What kind of questions did you think people would ask you at a hospital, you dipshit?
Holy fucking shit! A member of the religious right that acknowledges that they don't have the right to force their views and opinions on the rest of us. Not to beat it into the ground but that's pretty damned rare and I salute you for having that opinion.
I knew there must have been a reason why you were already in my friends list!
Ditto, but I suspect for very different reasons then you. The two deal-breakers for me would be his pro-life stance and support for the war. I can give him more credit for those two positions then most of the other candidates because I think he's actually sincere about them, but that doesn't mean he's going to get my vote. And I can't forgive him for trying to get into bed with the religious right.
Except for the fact that he's a pretty boy and a personal injury lawyer, he's probably not so bad.And what's wrong with a personal injury lawyer? I know it's popular and easy to make jokes at the expense of lawyers (particularly personal injury lawyers and defense attorney's) but one man's ambulance chaser is another man's crusader for justice. Ever know anybody that was legitimately hurt and got dicked over by an insurance company? Or anybody charged with a crime they didn't commit? For better or worse, lawyers are a necessary evil.
But not Clinton. Dear God, please not that again.I honestly fail to understand the contempt that the right has for the Clinton's but nonetheless it's a reality. At the end of the day that's why I feel that Obama will do a better job of bringing us back together then Hillary will.
I'm not bitching about the media not doing my homework. I'm bitching about the media having misplaced priorities. We can spend hours talking about Hillary's tears but Ron Paul doesn't get any time for his platform? We can pay for helicopters to follow Britney Spears to jail while false information used to send us to war goes unchecked? We can cover the Anna Nicole Smith drama but not the violence in Iraq?
As this guy seemed to say (far better then I could have) "It's not just the issues".
I think that Obama has the best chance of defusing some of the bitterness in this country (and in Washington). I'll vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination because she's closely aligned with my views and far better then any of the Republicans (besides Ron Paul) but I know in my heart of hearts that if Hillary wins we can look forward to four more years of partisan bickering.
I don't know for sure that Obama can put an end to it, but I do know that Hillary can't.
I'm sure he has some substance, but that doesn't make his public comments any less mockable. Somebody asked him what he thought about Hillary's little display of emotion and he (I shit you not) came back with the answer of "Well, I think it's ok, and I can't help but recall all the funerals after 9/11". Give me a fucking break.
Beyond that, I don't care what substance he has, I'm sick and tired of Republican politicians running campaigns of fear. "If we make the wrong choice there is a danger that we'll get hit again", "I turned to him and said 'Thank God George Bush is our President'", etc, etc, etc. 9/11 was a tragedy but it should not be the defining moment of the United States in the 21st century or even in this decade.
Really, though, it is those who fear a Giuliani nomination that are pushing the Giuliani is running on 9/11 only notion.Afraid of him winning the nomination? Hardly. I'm a native New Yorker. I have zero fear for him. I don't think he can win the general election. Hell, I don't think he could have beaten Hillary in his own state in 2000 (he dropped out when he got prostate cancer) even though she came here as a carpetbagger. And if by some miracle he did win the general election, well, I'd take him over most of the other Republicans running, because whatever else I might think about him, I do recall his time in New York City and he is a moderate secular Republican.
And I just don't understand why Libertarians have this thinly veiled contempt for anybody that disagrees with them. Because calling someone a sheep is really going to lead to a productive debate about ideas.
If you are interested in the reasoning behind my preferences, then feel free to read this.
With respect, maybe you should bother to read my post history and/or journal before you accuse me of karma whoring.
I like Ron Paul because of his position on civil liberties. Ending the drug war, repealing the Patriot Act, getting us out of Iraq, etc, etc. I also like him because he has the balls to actually state his opinions, no matter how unpopular they might be. It takes a rare sort to do that in politics.
Notwithstanding the above, I have serious reservations about the Libertarian economic platform. There's a reason why we got away from Laissez-faire economics and I do not agree with the concept of a completely regulation free economy. In fact, given the events of the last decade or so and displays of corporate greed, I'm less inclined then ever to trust the "free market" to do anything in my best interest. I also completely disagree with the idea that we need to privatize everything.
I came to like Obama after watching some of his speeches and reading some of his interviews. I won't apologize for that and I realize it makes me the unpopular person around here because I won't tote the /. party line of "both parties are the same". I hope Obama wins the nomination and the general election. That said, I'm still rooting for Ron Paul to do well, because even though I disagree with him on a lot of stuff I think it's a good thing that he is bringing public attention to his platform. And even though I completely disagree with and would oppose their economic platform, I think it's a good thing to get Libertarian ideals into the public debate.
Please tell me that you aren't one of those that buys into the upstate/downstate nonsense? The Republicans in the Senate share just as much of the blame for the problems of our state as do the Democrats. My Republican State Senator (Tom Libous) isn't effective at anything beyond photo-ops and bringing home the pork. He's part of the problem in Albany -- not the solution.
Bruno is just as much of a problem as Sliver is. He uses the same tactics. They aren't defensible imho, no matter how you justify them. Both of them need to go. I had hopes that Spitzer would use the "bully pulpit" to shame the rest of the people in the legislature into opposing the two of them, because until the rest of the Assembly and Senate grow some balls we'll never have meaningful reform in Albany.
Don't forget that Silver is also behind that curtain ;)
Here's an interesting thought if you are a New Yorker: If Hillary does win, who is Spitzer going to appoint to fill out her term in the Senate? One of my friends half-seriously suggested that he should appoint Silver just to get him the hell out of Albany and remove his chokehold on the Assembly. If we had a Republican Governor you could make the same argument for appointing Bruno.
While I completely agree with what you are saying, I still think it would be a better service to our Democracy if the media focused less on Hillary's personality and more on the viewpoints and positions of the candidates. Who the hell cares how "likeable" she is? You realize that in 2000 and 2004 people voted for the candidate that they'd "rather have a beer with". How'd that turn out again?
So it's not surprising that the electorate at large is looking for signs of leadership and a particular philosphy more than they are looking for detailed policy proposals.I'm starving for leadership. That's probably why I've become a fan of Obama. He is actually inspires me, which I haven't been able to say in a long time about a candidate for Federal office. Regardless, I still fail to see how the media spending hours talking about Hillary's tears and whether or not they were "real" is a productive use of time.
Outside of Ron Paul I have zero enthusiasm for anybody on the Republican side and even at that I doubt I could bring myself to vote for him. I used to have a lot of respect for McCain even though I disagree with him in a lot of areas (his being pro-life comes to mind) but I lost that respect when he started kissing the ass of the religious right, sometime around the 2004 elections. As a New Yorker I previously held Giuliani in high regard. Then he decided to run his entire campaign on 9/11.
On the Democratic side I was undecided for a long time with leanings towards Edwards. In the last week or so I've jumped on the Obama bandwagon. I don't know if he can actually pull off everything that he advocates but I do know that he is a breath of fresh air. You realize that less then three years ago he was a state legislator? Can you picture your Assemblyman or State Senator running for President in the next three years? I know that I can't. Yet somehow he has managed to do it.
I read an interview where his wife said that up until about a year ago they were still paying off student loans and she worries that even if he loses this race that they won't be "real" Americans anymore, i.e: they won't have any of the concerns that the middle class does (debt, health care, education for their kids, etc, etc). For some reason that hit home with me and I think is one of the fundamental problems with American politics -- how many politicians can you think of on the Federal level that even know what it's like to be a normal person anymore? Between the rich ones (who have never known want for anything) and the career politicians I doubt you can find more then a handful of "real" people in Congress or the Administration.
He's got my vote come Super Tuesday. I've never disliked Hillary and even voted for her twice (for the Senate) but I know that if she manages to win it all we can look forward to four more years of slash 'n burn politics in Washington. I don't know if Obama can actually change that and make Washington responsive to the people again but I do know that Hillary can't -- the Republicans will crucify her.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Look into Obama. You might be pleasantly surprised. I dismissed him for a long time and didn't pay much attention to what he had to say. That was a mistake on my part.
I watched just enough of the coverage last night to walk away with one observation: Fuck the news media.
Seriously. They spent more time talking about Hillary "tearing up" then they did talking about policy differences between the candidates.
"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate? Why don't you do some research into Obama's time as a state legislator, because most of us outside of Illinois know next to nothing about this period in his life.
And why all this goddamn focus on who "wins" each state? The primaries (at least for the Dems) aren't a winner-take-all. All three of the leading Democratic candidates walk away from this with delegates to the convention. All three of them walked away from Iowa with delegates. Yet somehow Hillary's loss in Iowa all but doomed her campaign in the eyes of the media.
*sigh* And they wonder why people are disillusioned with the process.....
$1800+/yr for the full cable package including 120+ channels, 20+ premium channels, ~40 HD channels, DVR, On Demand, etc. is a steal if you are a full-time stay-at-home parent. As it is I'm eyeing satellite TV to supplement the HD channels. I still use Netflix, internet, and satellite radio, but without cable I'd go batshit fucking loco. $1800+/yr for the full cable package including 120+ channels, 20+ premium channels, ~40 HD channels, DVR, On Demand, etc. is a steal if you are a full-time stay-at-home parent. As it is I'm eyeing satellite TV to supplement the HD channels. I still use Netflix, internet, and satellite radio, but without cable I'd go batshit fucking loco.
$1,800/yr is a steal??? That's more then I pay for my cellular phone ($626/yr), internet ($360/yr) natural gas ($360/yr) AND electric ($380/yr) bills combined. Granted, my utility bills are low because I live in a small apartment, but even so I find it hard to think that $1,800/yr is a "steal" for entertainment.
Why wait? Dump 'em now. I dropped my cable package down to "lifeline" service (local tv stations only) and wouldn't even have had that if I could have gotten decent reception with rabbit ears.
I actually like TV but it's just not worth the fucking money. In my area it now costs $55/mo for basic cable. $660/year. More if you want digital cable, DVR, or any of that. And it goes up every year. I can recall before Time Warner came in and bought up the local cable companies -- basic cable cost about $25/mo for 60 channels. Now it's $55/mo for 68 channels. I guess those five home shopping networks, BBC America and Spike TV really cost them $30 more....
It's just not fucking worth it. Having the networks will get you most new shows. Cable only shows can be downloaded, oftentimes quite legally (The Daily Show). There's also DVD rentals of older shows (Netflix anyone?).
I was just about to post that ;) Best idea ever.... quoting this from DomainState.com: someone could totally script this and run there credit through the roof with the registry hahahahaha.
Assuming it costs them SOMETHING (even pennies) to register a domain with the central registry then I think this is an absolutely awesome idea. I'll run such a script if someone writes it. In fact maybe I'll write one myself, because screwing over NSI sounds like a much better way to spend my afternoon then doing anything productive ;)
The number of representatives should be increased. In the early days of the Republic each representative had about 40,000 - 50,000 constituents. Now they have around 700,000 - 800,000.
I also agree on the Senate. If Senators were directly appointed by the State Legislatures then maybe Washington wouldn't be able to use the power of the purse to blackmail the states into doing things a specific way.
There is no Federal Law that takes that power away from the states. The Feds blackmailed the states with highway funds but it doesn't change the fact that the states still retain this power. If a state actually wanted to change the drinking age and retain their highway funds then they could fight for that via their Congressional Delegation and the Courts.
Or drug laws...Again, there is NOTHING stopping the states from legalizing all drugs. In my state simple pot possession isn't even a crime (speeding tickets cost more). Every single state could legalize every single drug tomorrow if they wanted to. They'd still be illegal on a Federal level but that's what Congress is for.
His ignorance of the fact that it's currently the Fifth French Republic does not render his point that the US and UK seem to be more stable any less relevant.
Wow. I give you credit for having the balls to say that. You'd get mod points if I had 'em and you'd be on my friends list if you weren't AC.
There are times when I get frustrated with our two-party system. But I think there are far more effective ways to reform our political process then by changing the way we vote. I think removing Corporate personhood and restricting the ability of corporations (of any sort) to put money into the political process would be far more effective at reclaiming our democracy then trying to change the voting system.
Money is the root of all evil. Not first-past-the-post voting.
And therein lies one of the problems with Democracy -- the tyranny of the majority.
I disagree, at least with respects to the United States. The Executive has taken powers that it was never supposed to have. The only reform that the Legislative Branch needs is to grow a pair of balls and start restraining the power of the Executive.
Unfortunately party seems to matter more then principle and I'm guessing that if you see a Democrat win you won't see the Democrats in Congress whining about the Executive overstepping it's authority. Ditto if a Republican wins.
That is not the problem. That's the system working as designed. It's the United States of America. Our states are more then just a line on a map -- they are sovereign entities in their own right and the Senate exists to prevent large populous states from walking all over small or sparsely populated ones.
They have quite a bit of direct democracy. Has it hurt them? Or what about CaliforniaThe United States is not Switzerland. We aren't a Democracy. We are a Republic. A collection of individual states that still retain all rights not expressly ceded to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. The states are free to implement whatever direct democracy initiatives they want at the state or local level. On the Federal level the nation is a Republic. Direct Democracy on the Federal level is not what the founding fathers had in mind, would be fraught with problems and is not something that I would support.
I think the real reason why America would not want that is because the entire midwest would loose huge amounts of influence. It would be concentrated in California, New York, and Florida. And what are those states? You guessed it mostly democractic, or at least democratic tendencies.Again, that's the system working as designed. The same system that provides checks and balances to protect the rural interests also protects the urban ones. As much as I hate the current administration and the Republican Party in general I'm glad that we have the system in place that we do. Contract it to the United Kingdom (similar to the United States in many ways) where one party has had a choke hold on the political process for the last decade or so and short of Royal Assent there are no checks-and-balances on it's power. The majority party in the House of Commons can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants.
Not to mention that Democracy is basically two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner and the sheep would be even less protected in a direct-democracy scenario.
Yes, because (here goes my karma if any Apple fans have mod points) replacing one proprietary closed-source operating system with vendor lock-in with another closed-source operating system with vendor lock-in is a great idea. I don't approve of their business practices, I'm not a big fan of their hardware design and I grow rather weary of the fanboy'ism that surrounds them.
For gaming, and Access, you can always run Windows through Boot Camp or Parallels.And I should deal with that hassle, why exactly?