36 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 (including his hometown paper in Crawford, TX) endorsed Kerry this time around, while only 6 went vice-versa (link). The Economist switch surprised me, since they've been defending Bush pretty strongly (recently they ran a poll(PDF) and found that most economists didn't agree with that -- much less the Nobel Prize winners.)
At this stage in the game, however, I've heard that the news coverage that's really going to effect the election is national news coverage culled from wire services like the AP in small town papers in swing states. (The AP doesn't endorse anyone, BTW.)
Check it out: the "butterfly ballot"? A Democrat County Clerk designed it.
So long as one democrat was involved, then its ok and "the democrats" really deserve it. Riight.
(The draft? Charlie Rangel (D) proposes it -- and they're still flogging the notion that it's Bush planning for a draft.)
So, because one democrat in the House pulled some stunt that means that "they" (the democrats) are really behind it, AND that means that therefore Bush isn't going to do it (because, I suppose, both one democrat and Bush after the election cannot both be for drafts, can they?). Riiight.
So, let me get this straight: you're willing to give up something actual, including the democratic system and presumably a lot of people's lives,in exchange for some poorly thought out slogan-laden fantasy ("take the government back!" "renewal of Democracy!" "America Master Reset and reboot") I have no idea what any of those actually mean.
Here's an idea: fix the system through actual democratic processes. Instant runoff voting is supported by plenty of major people in both parties, and they need to be supported. It's a lot less exciting than a "revolution!" but, you know, might actually work and there is some precendent for doing this sort of thing in this country.
Not that I'd vote for Bush. Or Kerry. May they both Rot in Peace.
All, that good ole logic: because they're not polar opposites, they must be exactly the same. Or, because they're not perfect, they must be worse than nothing.
Sorry, while it's easy to criticize a political candidate than any other kind of person, 1) they act impossibly because the enough of the voters seem to want impossible things 2) if you can't see difference enough to have any preference between the two, then IMHO you're acting irrationally.
After the campaign is over, all that is forgotten (including the so-called Party Platform), and the winner gets on to the proper business of government - taking your money, and giving it to someone else.
Or as has often been the case, taking your money and using it to kill someone else.
I agree. Stern is apparently too used to making idiots sound like idiots on his show -- he's completely out of practice debating an actually intelligent, cool-headed (if completely hypocritical) person, even when he has (IMHO) a perfectly good case.
If Stern had done any research he could have looked how Powell handles his responses in the past, etc. Jon Stewart is routinely able to make, smart cool-headed people look like fools when they act like fools, I don't see why Stern couldnt've if he actually had his act together.
Slashdot Mirror
36 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 (including his hometown paper in Crawford, TX) endorsed Kerry this time around, while only 6 went vice-versa (link). The Economist switch surprised me, since they've been defending Bush pretty strongly (recently they ran a poll (PDF) and found that most economists didn't agree with that -- much less the Nobel Prize winners.)
At this stage in the game, however, I've heard that the news coverage that's really going to effect the election is national news coverage culled from wire services like the AP in small town papers in swing states. (The AP doesn't endorse anyone, BTW.)
Too bad sharks don't have bones. They can't take advantage of this great technology.
Check it out: the "butterfly ballot"? A Democrat County Clerk designed it.
So long as one democrat was involved, then its ok and "the democrats" really deserve it. Riight.
(The draft? Charlie Rangel (D) proposes it -- and they're still flogging the notion that it's Bush planning for a draft.)
So, because one democrat in the House pulled some stunt that means that "they" (the democrats) are really behind it, AND that means that therefore Bush isn't going to do it (because, I suppose, both one democrat and Bush after the election cannot both be for drafts, can they?). Riiight.
Then again it could just be some jerk who spoofed an email to get everyone's dander up.
Or, it could be some jerk trying to get suicidegirls a lot of free publicity...
[learnfast@localhost backup]$ host whitehouse.gov
whitehouse.gov has address 63.161.169.137
Yea, that philosophy of definition sure is wacky stuff, isn't it?
So, let me get this straight: you're willing to give up something actual, including the democratic system and presumably a lot of people's lives,in exchange for some poorly thought out slogan-laden fantasy ("take the government back!" "renewal of Democracy!" "America Master Reset and reboot") I have no idea what any of those actually mean.
Here's an idea: fix the system through actual democratic processes. Instant runoff voting is supported by plenty of major people in both parties, and they need to be supported. It's a lot less exciting than a "revolution!" but, you know, might actually work and there is some precendent for doing this sort of thing in this country.
Not that I'd vote for Bush. Or Kerry. May they both Rot in Peace.
All, that good ole logic: because they're not polar opposites, they must be exactly the same. Or, because they're not perfect, they must be worse than nothing.
Sorry, while it's easy to criticize a political candidate than any other kind of person, 1) they act impossibly because the enough of the voters seem to want impossible things 2) if you can't see difference enough to have any preference between the two, then IMHO you're acting irrationally.
After the campaign is over, all that is forgotten (including the so-called Party Platform), and the winner gets on to the proper business of government - taking your money, and giving it to someone else.
Or as has often been the case, taking your money and using it to kill someone else.
I agree. Stern is apparently too used to making idiots sound like idiots on his show -- he's completely out of practice debating an actually intelligent, cool-headed (if completely hypocritical) person, even when he has (IMHO) a perfectly good case.
If Stern had done any research he could have looked how Powell handles his responses in the past, etc. Jon Stewart is routinely able to make, smart cool-headed people look like fools when they act like fools, I don't see why Stern couldnt've if he actually had his act together.