[besson3c]

Oh yeah, I guess you can add that to my list too..

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If I have everything straight, we invaded Iraq for the following reasons, in sequence:

- Because Iraq's WMDs posed a threat to America
- To rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a dangerous dictator
- To spread democracy
- Iraq was/is a central part of the war on terrorism
- Some might say that we invaded Iraq for oil, although I don't know where that would fit in sequence
- To send a message to the rest of the world
- Staging ground for Iran

Why is it so difficult for Republicans to face the fact that even if you still think that the invasion was a good idea for whatever reason, that the war planning was complete and utter shit?

For you among the NWO/Bilderberg crowd, invading Iran was the first, last and only reason. The others are just throw off the rest of the world.

[besson3c]

Ahhh, I see, it all makes sense now!

To you guys ever step back and question all of this stuff you believe?

[Chongo]

Wow, if this a real photo, this kills any chance she has left

[besson3c]

Why is that, prey tell?

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If I have everything straight, we invaded Iraq for the following reasons, in sequence:

- Because Iraq's WMDs posed a threat to America
- To rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a dangerous dictator
- To spread democracy
- Iraq was/is a central part of the war on terrorism
- Some might say that we invaded Iraq for oil, although I don't know where that would fit in sequence
- To send a message to the rest of the world
- Staging ground for Iran

Why is it so difficult for Republicans to face the fact that even if you still think that the invasion was a good idea for whatever reason, that the war planning was complete and utter shit?

Here are the reasons that we used force against Iraq

[peeb]

The reason of the week, you mean?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Here are the reasons that we used force against Iraq

I'm amazed that documents from 2002 and 2003 that clearly outline the reasons still need to be posted. Even more amazing is that the people who refuse to (or who lack the ability to) comprehend this want to be in power.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Wow, if this a real photo, this kills any chance she has left

She looks like she is challenging someone to a fist fight.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I'm amazed that documents from 2002 and 2003 that clearly outline the reasons still need to be posted. Even more amazing is that the people who refuse to (or who lack the ability to) comprehend this want to be in power.

Yes, then there are the documents from 2004 that outline different reasons, then the documents from 2005 with more reasons, then the 2006 version with new improved reasons....

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Wow, if this a real photo, this kills any chance she has left

I must be missing something. The only thing I can see wrong with that picture is her horrible gown.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, then there are the documents from 2004 that outline different reasons, then the documents from 2005 with more reasons, then the 2006 version with new improved reasons....

And the 9/11 Commission, the mixed messages sent by firing Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney saying that the war is in its last throws, mission accomplished, secrecy over body counts, the lack of WMDs, etc. Oh, but it's oh so clear!

Face it, this administration has no ****ing clue what they are doing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I must be missing something. The only thing I can see wrong with that picture is her horrible gown.

Gown-gate!! Call CNN!!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Wow, if this a real photo, this kills any chance she has left

You have something against rain slickers?

[Chongo]

lt looks like a mu mu, and it makes her look huge.

[Big Mac]

Don't give up, Hillary. You haven't finished off your accursed party yet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Don't give up, Hillary. You haven't finished off your accursed party yet.

Do you not see the wisdom in the checks and balances of a second party? Seriously, you need Democrats just as Democrats need Republicans.

[peeb]

Dick Cheney does not need any checks and balances. Parties are to be abolished, as are elections.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

lt looks like a mu mu, and it makes her look huge.

And this matters why? Republican men can look as ugly as they want while the appearance of Democrat women have to meet your approval?

[peeb]

Because style is so much more important than substance?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Dick Cheney does not need any checks and balances. Parties are to be abolished, as are elections.

But where else can we play pin the tail on the donkey if not for parties?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you not see the wisdom in the checks and balances of a second party? Seriously, you need Democrats just as Democrats need Republicans.

Rhetorical question: Why did George Washington reject political parties?

As I have said before, I don't want to see the Republican party be the only party. the Republicans are far from optimal. I'd rather have parties that abide by the Constitution and especially its explicit limitations of the powers given to the federal government. Both parties are very much deficient from that standpoint, but at least the Republican party pays lip service to limited government and could be rehabilitated and remodeled into a party that respects the Constitution. Not so with the Democratic party. That's what I stated I'd like to see the Dems implode and the Republicans to split on Constitutional/libertarian versus expansive government lines.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

lt looks like a mu mu, and it makes her look huge.

Because we've never had any presidents who were actually fat?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Taft was big boned.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd rather have parties that abide by the Constitution and especially its explicit limitations of the powers given to the federal government.

Me too!

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Both parties are very much deficient from that standpoint,

Erm, not so much, really.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

but at least the Republican party pays lip service to limited government and could be rehabilitated and remodeled into a party that respects the Constitution.

Erm, torture, illegal spying on Americans, secret prisons, illegal wars? I don't think so...

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not so with the Democratic party.

Come on then, where is the corresponding list for the Democrats? Getting a blow job in the oval office? Come on.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's what I stated I'd like to see the Dems implode and the Republicans to split on Constitutional/libertarian versus expansive government lines.

The Republicans have zero respect for the constitution, and have presided over the largest growth in government and erosion of civil liberties of the modern age. What planet are you living on?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Rhetorical question: Why did George Washington reject political parties?

As I have said before, I don't want to see the Republican party be the only party. the Republicans are far from optimal. I'd rather have parties that abide by the Constitution and especially its explicit limitations of the powers given to the federal government. Both parties are very much deficient from that standpoint, but at least the Republican party pays lip service to limited government and could be rehabilitated and remodeled into a party that respects the Constitution. Not so with the Democratic party. That's what I stated I'd like to see the Dems implode and the Republicans to split on Constitutional/libertarian versus expansive government lines.

So you're kind of a single issue voter?

Look at all of the issues facing us, and how the Republican approach has failed...

I personally think that the whole prop up big business economic approach no longer works like it did in the industrial revolution. Back in the day, companies that expand would require more American workers to work the machines in the factories. In today's day and age, expansion (with exception to agriculture) often occurs overseas, or involves robotics and various forms of automation based in IT. There is no clear relationship that makes trickle down economics work anymore, in my opinion. As long as Americans are unable to compete in the global economy, these models need to be rethought, but clearly Bush nor the Republicans seem to want to acknowledge this yet.

Secondly, health care. What we have now simply does not work, end of story. What we have now is a rather libertarian "free market is the solution here" approach, and look at what we have - millions of Americans that aren't covered and can't afford insurance, insurance companies with too much power, malpractice lawsuits, etc.

Thirdly, foreign policy. I happen to think that the Libertarian approach of non-intervention is probably best, so I agree with you here. However, we are deeply entrenched in the affairs of too many countries for this to change overnight in any sort of responsible way, and frankly I see no reason to trust this administration with our foreign policy. I don't know if a new Republican administration would bring about change, but it seems that they would be inclined to do more of the same.

You could go down the list: energy policy, the environment, education, etc. and make good arguments that the Republicans we've had have failed us. Maybe a Libertarian administration would work better, but given that this administration has been a complete failure why don't you advocate for a Libertarian/Democratic battle, leaving the Republicans out in the cold?

We are in really dire times, guys. This country is facing a lot of problems, and as much as you want to place the blame on Bill Cinton, Jimmy Carter, or the tooth fairy, many of these problems have been caused, worsened, or left unattended to by this administration. I really have a hard time understanding how anybody can objectively see differently here. I appreciate full well the faith you guys have in old-fashioned Republican values, but those are gone. I wonder if you haven't come to grips with this?

Why would you prefer completely disfunctional and broken leadership that would be unable to pass any legislation over potentially semi-functional leadership that may improve upon some of these problems, if not ideal and agreeable in every way? Do you really care whether improvement to education, the environment, energy, or health care comes from a REpublican or Democrat?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Both parties are very much deficient from that standpoint, but at least the Republican party pays lip service to limited government and could be rehabilitated and remodeled into a party that respects the Constitution. Not so with the Democratic party.

I agree with many of your criticisms of the Democrats (though perhaps without the same extremity), but my experience has been that the Republicans truly do an awful job when it comes to respecting the 1st and 4th amendments. This is opposed to the Democrats, who (though there are exceptions) seem to put far more value on them.

Again, I don't disagree with your overall ideas. The only descriptor for this state of affairs is ironic.

Edit to clarify: me agreeing with you isn't what's ironic, that the Democrats have picked up the slack in this department (considering their federalist positions) is what's ironic.

[Chongo]

LBJ did more to undermine civil liberties(he was truly spying on Americans: MLK, Malcolm Shabazz, Black Panthers, et al) and mess up health care (medicare) than anyone. As soon as the government got onto the health care biz, prices went up and up.(hey, I ain't paying for it) Now they want to fix the problem that they made to begin with.

Which part of the 1st amendment? The freedom the speech/press/assembly, or the freedom of religion part. (not freedom from, BTW). The collectivists have little regard for the 10th amendment. The 5th amendment as well. Take my house for tax revenue generation, not a park, school, or road. Found not guilty? Try them for civil rights violation.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

... or the freedom of religion part. (not freedom from, BTW).

Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin roll in their graves.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you're kind of a single issue voter?
As long as Americans are unable to compete in the global economy, these models need to be rethought, but clearly Bush nor the Republicans seem to want to acknowledge this yet.

The US pretty much leads the global economy, and with a 5% unemployment rate - considered by economists as "full employment", I'd say Americans are competing just fine.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Secondly, health care. What we have now simply does not work, end of story.

It works pretty well. Many of those "millions" can afford health insurance, they simply choose to spend their money on other things that they deem more important. Perhaps that's due to high insurance costs, but those can be addressed on a state-by-state. Insurance is quite affordable in some states, and crazy high in others. Regardless, socialized medicine is not the ultimate answer.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You could go down the list: energy policy, the environment, education, etc. and make good arguments that the Republicans we've had have failed us.

I can make good arguments that liberal interference is at the root of many of these issues you deem problematic. Energy - let us drill and extract. Kill the state-by-state requirements for 40,000 different blends of gas (exaggeration). Education - dump the teachers' unions. Provide school vouchers.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We are in really dire times, guys. This country is facing a lot of problems...many of these problems have been caused, worsened, or left unattended to by this administration. I really have a hard time understanding how anybody can objectively see differently here.

No, efforts to address these problems haven't been caused or been left unattended. The efforts have been blocked by Democrat obstructionism.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would you prefer completely disfunctional and broken leadership that would be unable to pass any legislation...

And there you have it. Unable to pass legislation due to what? Democrat obstructionism.

Anyone who wants to learn whose solutions work, and whose fail miserable... simply look around the nation. Remember NYC up until Guiliani? It was a dirty, crime-infested city. Compare that with NYC at the tail end of Guiliani's tenure. The difference is like night and day.

New Orleans: 60+ years of uninterrupted liberal Democrat rule. If there's any area in the nation that should have been a liberal utopia, New Orleans was it. What did we all see on TV after Katrina? We saw 6 decades of unchallenged liberalism.

I think we need to give states more of their power back. Issues like education, health care, environmental... these can and should be dealt with at the state level. Expanding the Federal government is not the answer. Some Senator from California should have no say in how Virginians tackle a particular education problem of theirs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

LBJ did more to undermine civil liberties(he was truly spying on Americans

To which I preemptively responded both "though there are exceptions" and "[t]he only descriptor for this state of affairs is ironic".

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Which part of the 1st amendment? The freedom the speech/press/assembly, or the freedom of religion part. (not freedom from, BTW).

The whole kit and caboodle.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The collectivists have little regard for the 10th amendment. The 5th amendment as well.

And the 2nd too.

There was a reason I didn't mention these amendments WRT being supported by the Democrats. This would be the same reason the first sentence of my post was "I agree with many of your [Big Mac's] criticisms of the Democrats".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And this matters why? Republican men can look as ugly as they want while the appearance of Democrat women have to meet your approval?

The same reason Uncle Walter and Andy Rooney can stay on the air till they're was 100, and Chris Craft lost her job at 39 because

"too old, too unattractive and wouldn't defer to men."

[Chongo]

any way

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you're kind of a single issue voter?

Far from it.

I personally think that the whole prop up big business economic approach no longer works like it did in the industrial revolution. Back in the day, companies that expand would require more American workers to work the machines in the factories. In today's day and age, expansion (with exception to agriculture) often occurs overseas, or involves robotics and various forms of automation based in IT. There is no clear relationship that makes trickle down economics work anymore, in my opinion. As long as Americans are unable to compete in the global economy, these models need to be rethought, but clearly Bush nor the Republicans seem to want to acknowledge this yet.

What is your alternative to market economics? If you're hinting at promoting increased competition rather than oligopolistic control, I would agree with you - that's a good thing to address because we have been lax in enforcing anti-trust laws. But you don't really spell out what you mean, and I have reason to believe your solution would increasing government interference with and control over markets (aside from anti-trust actions where justified by law), which I definitely do not support.

Secondly, health care. What we have now simply does not work, end of story. What we have now is a rather libertarian "free market is the solution here" approach, and look at what we have - millions of Americans that aren't covered and can't afford insurance, insurance companies with too much power, malpractice lawsuits, etc.

That's your opinion. I have addressed problems with health insurance and care in America. I think McCain's policy outline would be a step in the right direction. Socialized medicine, however, would be terrifically destructive, and I have cause to assume that's what you support. Most people are satisfied with the health care they receive in America, with the technological creativity and innovation this country produces and with the ability to get a whole host of various "elective" procedures that people in other countries don't have access to because their governments forbid it. And heck, even CNN points to the fact that America comes out on top in patient satisfaction versus the rest of the world.

Thirdly, foreign policy. I happen to think that the Libertarian approach of non-intervention is probably best, so I agree with you here. However, we are deeply entrenched in the affairs of too many countries for this to change overnight in any sort of responsible way, and frankly I see no reason to trust this administration with our foreign policy. I don't know if a new Republican administration would bring about change, but it seems that they would be inclined to do more of the same.

There are big problems with actually implementing non-interventionism. The first and most obvious is that we've learned through experience that it's wrong to withdraw into one's borders and let the rest of the world descend into war and chaos because we don't want to get our hands dirty. Secondly, I think there was a correlation between our lack of commitment to fighting radical Islam in the '90s and 9/11; every terrorist that dies fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is one fewer terrorist living and plotting to commit a devastating terrorist attack against us. Thirdly, even if you can make the case that our interests and property aren't at stake in a given conflict, if it's a conflict that's sufficiently important to the world it will cause us economic problems because the industrialized world is so interdependent. America is the richest and most powerful country, and the world expects America to act. Now I agree that we shouldn't be spread so thinly abroad and should redeploy our forces in places where their presence is obviously no longer necessary (say, Japan). But it's clear that America can't just retreat from the world.

You could go down the list: energy policy, the environment, education, etc. and make good arguments that the Republicans we've had have failed us.

America's energy policy failed the moment we committed to a petroleum based economy. The country has been talking about energy independence since Nixon. With the price of oil so high we're experiencing pain from it, just like when it was high in the early '80s. People forgot about the issue when the price fell. The high price may be the only thing that spurs us to finally kick our addiction.

As for education, it's a complicated issue but one that's largely disconnected from the federal government. I assume you're talking about K-12. President Bush adopted the Ted Kennedy solution of No Child Left Behind, but I suppose you don't like that, either. I think much of the problem is lack of choice and competition as well as restrictions put in place by teacher's unions. Our higher education system is quite good, except for escalating costs, and the solution to that is more competition.

Maybe a Libertarian administration would work better, but given that this administration has been a complete failure why don't you advocate for a Libertarian/Democratic battle, leaving the Republicans out in the cold?

I don't hate President Bush like you do, and I don't blame every problem real or imagined on his administration; I don't hate the Republican party. I think Bush has been far from great, mostly due to the fact that he's not a traditional conservative, only found the will to veto a bill after the Republicans lost control of Congress and has naively grown government because he thinks it's the best thing for the country. I disagree strongly with much of the power grabs by the executive branch post-9/11, but neither party wanted to resist the Patriot Act or its reauthorization. I wish we had elected a better, far more principled Republican, but he was still a better choice than the Democratic alternatives. I think the Republican party can be salvaged given that the party claims to be the party of limited government. I think the Republican party has been corrupted to a significant extent by big government Republicans who differ very little from their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But as long as the party professes to desire limited, Constitutional government, there's a chance to get the party back on the right track.

In contrast, the Democratic party base has moved far to the left, and I believe that leftism is inimical to nearly every tenet that makes our country work. I find the Democratic party to be irredeemable. It's definitely not the party of JFK. In essence, I root for the Democratic party's destruction because I believe it is thoroughly anti-American. Now that doesn't mean all Democrats are bad people or don't mean well - that's not what I'm saying. I imagine Barack Obama is a nice guy. But he would be a horrible, horrible president.

We are in really dire times, guys. This country is facing a lot of problems. . .

You think these are dire times? Foolish boy, cry me a river. There has scarcely been a period of time our country's existence when we haven't faced problems. From the War(s) of Independence, to the Civil War, to WWII, to the Cold War, to today, when haven't we been faced with huge challenges to overcome? The baby boomers grew up fearing imminent nuclear Holocaust. Vietnam was far more traumatic than Iraq, by any metric. The Stagflation of the '70s and the living joke of The Very Worst President Ever Jimmy Carter makes our current economy with ~5% unemployment minute but real GDP growth look quite healthy by comparison. Young people today who lack historical knowledge have no idea what a bad American economy actually looks like - they're spoiled and have never known truly difficult economic times.

Are there problems? Most certainly. Is the solution more government control, more government spending, more government entitlements, more government coercion? Is the solution to abandon our allies abroad? These are the leftist solutions, the solutions you support by supporting Obama and Hillary. But these are not solutions - such polices would only exacerbate the ills the left has foisted upon America in the past.

[BRussell]

Nothing gives me more confidence in liberalism than the fact that people like Big Mac, who reject basic science, also reject liberalism.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It works pretty well. Many of those "millions" can afford health insurance, they simply choose to spend their money on other things that they deem more important.

I can't speak for those millions, but if my job didn't offer health insurance (thanks to the teachers' union ), I wouldn't be able to afford it. Anyone who lives in California and works in Education probably has a similar situation.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Energy - let us drill and extract. Kill the state-by-state requirements for 40,000 different blends of gas (exaggeration). Education - dump the teachers' unions. Provide school vouchers.

I have a better solution: Stop the automobile companies from lobbying the Congress to continue to allow production of inefficient vehicles and putting barriers up against alternative solutions. Then it wouldn't be a problem.

As for Eduction, we need the teachers' unions. They get sh*t for pay because America doesn't seem to care about its teachers. Every time there's a tax cut, where does the money get cut from? That's right, social services and education. The unions help the teachers keep their jobs during the worst of times, and earn a higher wage during the best of times (which is pretty much never.)

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

No, efforts to address these problems haven't been caused or been left unattended. The efforts have been blocked by Democrat obstructionism.

Maybe if the Republicans stopped earmarking/pork barrel every single bill they try to pass, the Democrats would stop obstructing the bill. The reverse is true. It's all about positioning and bribing so they can get what they want for their special interest groups.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Anyone who wants to learn whose solutions work, and whose fail miserable... simply look around the nation. Remember NYC up until Guiliani? It was a dirty, crime-infested city. Compare that with NYC at the tail end of Guiliani's tenure. The difference is like night and day.

I think you're confusing liberal/conservatism with political parties. Yes, Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be progressive, but that is not always true. Huge increase on spending on social services allowed NYC to clean up. Guiliani was a pretty liberal Republican, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

New Orleans: 60+ years of uninterrupted liberal Democrat rule. If there's any area in the nation that should have been a liberal utopia, New Orleans was it. What did we all see on TV after Katrina? We saw 6 decades of unchallenged liberalism.

You're blaming the aftermath of Katrina on Democrats?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Nothing gives me more confidence in liberalism than the fact that people like Big Mac, who reject basic science, also reject liberalism.

Your puny ad hominems have no effect on me. It speaks volumes that you need me to bolster your confidence in your own cherished views. Perhaps there's more doubt in your mind than you know.

[Chongo]

You're blaming the aftermath of Katrina on Democrats?

The 1st response responsibility is on the state and local level. Nagin and Blanco failed miserably on that. Nagin for not ordering a mandatory evacuation and using the school busses to get every out, and Blanco for failing to call up the National Guard. It's not like this was an earthquake that happened without notice. They knew well in advance that the storm was headed their way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I have a better solution: Stop the automobile companies from lobbying the Congress to continue to allow production of inefficient vehicles and putting barriers up against alternative solutions. Then it wouldn't be a problem.

Well, I don't think anyone who is reasonable thinks there should be barriers to alternate solutions, and despite this, I'm not saying that the automobile companies aren't trying to put up barriers, but those barriers are a drop in the ocean compared to the practical barriers.

We have a hugely developed infrastructure to provide gasoline everywhere in the country, and it can provide you with a 400 mile "charge" in about 5 minutes. This is the (very high) barrier that needs to be overcome.

As for the other half of your argument, that I find truly confounding. Why shouldn't car makers be able to make whatever the hell they want? If people want (i.e. that's what they buy) inefficient vehicles it's the auto manufacturers fault for making them, and we need the government to fix it? If people don't want inefficient vehicles (as is the case now), and the auto manufacturers make them anyways...

People won't buy the inefficient vehicles. They will go out of their way to find the existing efficient option. There are plenty of fairly priced examples at this point, so you don't even need to go out of your way any more.

Auto manufacturers (especially American ones) are always about 5 years behind the curve, but they always come around, no interference needed.

Edit: I should also add that there are barriers to fuel efficiency in the ridiculous safety regulations that say it's okay to drive an organ-donor mobile (a motorcycle), but we have a nerfed US Smart car that gets 20 mpg less than the European model for "safety". This is the kind of stupid **** that happens when you let the government solve your problems.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your puny ad hominems have no effect on me. It speaks volumes that you need me to bolster your confidence in your own cherished views. Perhaps there's more doubt in your mind than you know.

I'm not trying to affect you, I'm just stating my opinion. You have a faith-based rather than an empirically-based approach to life, and so do most people who politically agree with you, it seems to me.

And BTW, you're right, I always have doubt. That's one of the most important differences between the views we're talking about here. Fundamentalism = lack of doubt = extremism, and liberalism = doubt = moderation. I believe that a fundamentalist vs. a liberal outlook on life is maybe the key difference that separates people and cultures today, and it's at the root of most world conflicts going on right now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And BTW, you're right, I always have doubt.

I've always been a little struck by (what seems to me to be) the incompatibility of humility, which I would place as far and away the most important virtue, and unshakable faith.

Not all religions may rate humility as highly as I do, but most of them seem to agree that it is indeed a virtue.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm not trying to affect you, I'm just stating my opinion. You have a faith-based rather than an empirically-based approach to life, and so do most people who politically agree with you, it seems to me.

You enjoy painting people with broad strokes. My politics and my religion are both empirically based, from my point of view. You view things differently, but to me the empirical evidence overwhelmingly confirms my beliefs. And simply because a person has faith does not mean he or she is lacking in reason. If a close-minded skeptic can't accept that, so be it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I have a better solution: Stop the automobile companies from lobbying the Congress to continue to allow production of inefficient vehicles and putting barriers up against alternative solutions. Then it wouldn't be a problem.

It also wouldn't be a problem if we just outlawed cars and all oil products, but the effects of such a ridiculous, unrealistic solution would be devastating. The issue is supply. We need supply.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As for Eduction, we need the teachers' unions. They get sh*t for pay because America doesn't seem to care about its teachers.

Really? Last I checked, avergage salaries were over $40K, with dynamite benfits and grand pension plans. My recently-retired mother (HS teacher 25+ years) will be receiving $50,000 annually until she dies. Nothing "sh*t" about that.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I have a better solution: Stop the automobile companies from lobbying the Congress to continue to allow production of inefficient vehicles and putting barriers up against alternative solutions. Then it wouldn't be a problem.

It also wouldn't be a problem if we just outlawed cars and all oil products, but the effects of such a ridiculous, unrealistic solution would be devastating. I'm not going to stop anyone from lobbying. And if the market wants big cars, and the market is willing to buy big cars, I'm not going to restrict producers or buyers from doing business. together. Has something to do with freedom.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Every time there's a tax cut, where does the money get cut from? That's right, social services and education.

What cuts are you referring to? If you're referring to federal, take a look at the chart and point out where these cuts occurred...

Total U.S. Expenditures for Elementary and Secondary Education



Federal Spending Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The unions help the teachers keep their jobs during the worst of times, and earn a higher wage during the best of times (which is pretty much never.)

The unions prevent schools from dismissing tenured teachers who are unproductive, and they prevent the best teachers from negotiating individually for top-dollar. Read some Steve Jobs quotes on the subject. He's right on.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think you're confusing liberal/conservatism with political parties.

Absolutely correct. I was actually returning to this thread to clarify as much. Good call.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

...increase on spending on social services allowed NYC to clean up.... Guiliani was a pretty liberal Republican, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

No way. Guiliani is pro-choice, and he had some gun control measures, but other than that, his solutions were conservative through and through. A good read...

"Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives." .

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're blaming the aftermath of Katrina on Democrats?

Nope... I'm blaming the condition of New Orleans in general. The Pre-Katrina squalor, so to speak.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You enjoy painting people with broad strokes. My politics and my religion are both empirically based, from my point of view. You view things differently, but to me the empirical evidence overwhelmingly confirms my beliefs. And simply because a person has faith does not mean he or she is lacking in reason. If a close-minded skeptic can't accept that, so be it.

You say you believe in empiricism, but it's not consistent with what you've said in other threads, that God obscures the truth in order to test our faith, among other things. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy your claims in this post about your appreciation of empirical evidence. It's just convenient to say so now. And I don't think it's unfair for me to point it out or to indicate that it's different from the world views of others.

[Chongo]

Uh Oh, I Picked the wrong diner

[paul w]

^ I lolled.

[Zeeb]

Well, it appears that Hillary's campaign has strengthened a bit. Obama still beats her with regard to delegates of course, but she is hoping that winning by a wide margin in West Virginia will improve the idea that she is more electable. Interesting, it just doesn't seem like this will end well for either candidate.

Link:

Clinton wins in West Virginia, CNN projects - CNN.com

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Well, it appears that Hillary's campaign has strengthened a bit. Obama still beats her with regard to delegates of course, but she is hoping that winning by a wide margin in West Virginia will improve the idea that she is more electable. Interesting, it just doesn't seem like this will end well for either candidate.

Link:

Clinton wins in West Virginia, CNN projects - CNN.com

sorry to copy from an earlier post, it fits.

[Zeeb]

She definitely could have chosen her words more carefully but sensitivity is not one of her strengths it would seem.

However, she was referring to uneducated white men in a statistical fashion and did not refer to any other ethnic group in a derogatory way. I've heard various candidates refer to black, hispanic, and other minority groups in a statistical fashion as well. All tend to point out support from one ethnic group or another. However, it's true--no candidate is going to win without support from white voters but it seems very difficult to say that without appearing racist for some reason. In fact, its been quite damaging in the past to the Democratic party when candidates have snubbed and/or ignored rural whites. Obama seems to be making the same mistake in light of recent comments from him--hopefully he'll turn that around.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

However, it's true--no candidate is going to win without support from white voters but it seems very difficult to say that without appearing racist for some reason.

Blanket hypocritical political correctness that Obama gets to benefit from because he is black.
If it was Lieberman or Richardson instead of him people would not have blinked twice at Clinton's comments.