Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
"Lurleen" Clinton: Why I won't vote for Hillary

By codejack in Op-Ed
Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: politics, DINO (all tags)
Politics

Lurleen Wallace was the only woman ever elected governor of Alabama, and the only reason she ran in the first place was because her husband, George Wallace (yes, that George Wallace), could not serve two consecutive terms. Lurleen, who was dying of cancer at the time, was used a his proxy to circumvent the election rules; on every issue, her position was her husband's position.

Sound familiar?


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
I tried. I honestly tried to be open-minded when it came to the wife of the man who destroyed the Democratic party. I was not blind to its faults even before "Bubba", as Bill Clinton is (not-so-)affectionately known in the south, got his grubby little mitts on it, but the term DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only) was coined for him. And Hillary's campaign slogan is: "I'm with Bill." Great.

Now we have "Lurleen" in the Senate, where she and the other DINOs have done...what exactly? Stopped the war in Iraq? Nope. Reversed the No(pronounced "Every") Child Left Behind disaster? Negative. Restored the constitutional rights stolen by the Patriot Act? Uh-uh. Instituted Universal Health Care? Don't make me laugh. Raised the minimum wage? Amazing, they did something; of course, if they were going to push for just one of these issues to get fixed, this should have been on the bottom of the list.

Few of the other candidates are appealing, either; Edwards gets some respect for his fund-raising rules but not his positions, Kucinich needs platform shoes or something, Obama seems to think that people will vote for him just because he's black, Dodd is...who the hell is Dodd? As it stands, none of these people are viable candidates, which may very well be the idea; who would WANT to take over this mess?

In the end, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, what's-his-face from New Mexico, or Dodd would be unmitigated disasters for this country. None of these people hold any positions sufficiently different from Republicans as to represent a genuine alternative. I would make fun of the Republican candidates, but it's WAY too easy.

Now I suppose you're wondering what it takes to get my support:

  1. America. Out of Iraq. Yesterday. Yes, I know, it will destabilize the region, cost our corporations billions of dollars in losses, and invite other foreign powers into the vacuum left by our inept invasion. This is in wild opposition to the current situation, right?
  2. Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. MUST go to jail, do not pass go, sure as hell do not collect $200. I can't say that it would have made a difference, but Nixon should have gone to jail for a long, long time, and maybe it would have made these clowns think twice about pulling the same stunt all over again. Better yet, just turn them over to a war crimes tribunal.
  3. Fix education; No Child Left Behind has been a joke ever since it was written, as it was supposed to be. Did anyone actually read it?! "What, your school doesn't have enough money? Then we'll have to take some away to punish you for it!" Brilliant. Also, I may very well punch the next moron who brings up school vouchers; anyone notice that there aren't enough private schools for the kids who can pay?
  4. Universal Health Care; this one is easy, just take the phrase "over 65" out of the medicare act. Oh, and let them negotiate the price of drugs, seriously.
  5. Reverse the Patriot act, etc.; can we go back to 1984, and work on it from there?
  6. Legalize marijuana; purely selfish reasons.
  7. If an evil dictator ever challenges you to a duel, ACCEPT! Cheat if you must, but can you imagine W going toe-to-toe with Saddam? I would have ordered pay-per-view for that; of course, the smart money would be on the man who wasn't a male cheerleader.


What's that you say? I didn't mention gay marriage or abortion? No, I didn't; I don't really care. I mean, outlawing abortion is stupid (it doesn't work, it just ups the body count) and gays aren't getting anywhere until they quit backing the other team, so let's focus on more important issues and try to find someone who will actually do something about it.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What could Hillary do to win your vote?
o Change her name to Vasquez 4%
o Castrate Bill and use it to open a new Smithsonian display 9%
o Offer herself sexually to each of the other presidential candidates, then call them fags for turning her down 41%
o Get a sex change operation 4%
o Get a lobobtomy 2%
o Get a clue 23%
o Say "I've got a pair of brass ovaries THIS big!" 13%

Votes: 43
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o that George Wallace
o quit backing the other team
o Also by codejack


Display: Sort:
"Lurleen" Clinton: Why I won't vote for Hillary | 222 comments (203 topical, 19 editorial, 2 hidden)
It's Billary Clinton (The sequel!) (none / 0) (#1)
by xC0000005 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:49:14 PM EST

I agree. We've already had two terms of hill/bill(y) rule. We don't need more. While I'm fairly far to the right I'm actually more interested in Obama. He seems like a change from the old crew. Plus, he practiced civil rights & some sort of constitutional law, so I figure he might be willing to reverse some of the abominations the Republicans (and lately democrats) have done.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
Obama (none / 0) (#3)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:18:56 PM EST

He won't implement universal health care, he won't get us out of Iraq, he won't reform campaign finance in any meaningful way, he won't stop illegal wiretapping, etc; what exactly does he have to offer?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
The possibility of returning power. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by xC0000005 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:32:06 PM EST

The current executive has seized far more power than it was ever supposed to have. I expect the republicans will lose the white house this election. So I ask myself - how likely is someone like Billary to return power? Politicians love power (part of the reason the tax revolt angers so many of them - the other part is that tax revolt is rarely sensibly aimed). Hillary is damn smart and she's a politician to the core. She knows the game and wants to play it. I can't imagine her relinquishing one bit of the usurped position this administration has. "But we are good. We wouldn't do evil things with this power like the bad guys did." The problem isn't whether or not I think you will do anything evil. It's that people in that position have limits on their power for a reason, and sliding that bar is dangerous. Failing to recognize that is worse. So I ask myself, who do I think would be willing to surrender the imbalance of power which the republicans like and the democrats lack the spine to reel in?

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
What do you have to offer? (none / 0) (#7)
by Barack Obama on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:13:04 PM EST

Your support.

America needs a change in direction, and I believe I am the black man who can achieve that change. Lobbyists have for too long controlled the course of politics in Washington. I intend to stop these abuses and set our country on a course to greatness.

Will you join me?

Will you give me the chance to overcome your doubts?



Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth. - me
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0) (#57)
by trhurler on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:18:01 PM EST

Nobody who has any chance of being elected is going to get us out of Iraq anytime soon, and the reason is obvious to people who have two brain cells to rub together. Obama has specifically said he favors universal health care, unless he has waffled since, which I might not have heard about. (I try to avoid listening to meaningless drivel so far from the elections that nobody will remember it anyway.)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
kind of, on the health care front (none / 0) (#174)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:27:16 AM EST

Last time I skimmed it, Obama's health care plan was basically:
  • Require companies to offer health insurance (not clear exactly what they have to offer)
  • Allow anyone who doesn't have insurance through their company to buy into an everyone-is-eligible pool, which he describes as basically making everyone eligible for the federal-government-employees' healthcare plan, even if they aren't federal government employees.
  • Subsidize the premiums of poor people for buying into the above plan
Kind of a variant on the Romney/Schwarzenegger approach, really.

[ Parent ]
I taught constitutional law. (none / 1) (#8)
by Barack Obama on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:19:11 PM EST

I've been a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School for many years now. I've taught and co-taught a number of courses covering constitutional issues and civil rights.

I'm running for President because I believe our civil rights have been trampled and abused by the current administration. I want to serve people like you, to ensure that your rights are not just protected, but guaranteed.

I thank you for your support.


Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth. - me
[ Parent ]

You forgot to ask for money. (3.00 / 2) (#91)
by sudogeek on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:17:29 PM EST

Therefore, it is obvious that you are not really Obama.

There's a sucker born every minute, and you're an hour's worth.
[ Parent ]
YEAH CINDY SHEEHAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (3.00 / 0) (#6)
by doubtless on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:40:48 PM EST



what did you expect? (none / 0) (#9)
by svampa on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:36:20 PM EST

All the big companies give money to both parties. Do you thing a party can fuel a campaign with donators like John and Mary?.

In the congress, you can't expect agreements or disagreements, but money fighting against money or contracts. No matter who is sitting in the White House, the policy is the same, only manners change.

Pepsi-cola or Coca-cola? don't order wine or orange juice, it is not on the menu.



Tell it to Russ Feingold /nt (none / 0) (#12)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:11:18 PM EST




Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
The exception that confirms the rule (none / 0) (#81)
by svampa on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:26:26 AM EST

I am not USA citizen, but Spaniard. I had never heard about Russ Feingold, so I have googled a little. Here is what I've come out:

First:

I don't know whether his maverick attitude is real or he has chosen a "market", a tiny "market" and he must be loyal to that tiny market. If he tried to expand he would loose those loyal voters but wouldn't increase other voters.

I don't like to be that cynical, but I don't know him personally, I can't tell whether he is honest or just another polician hunting votes. Most policians dare to do anything and pretend anything.

Second:

He is in the oposition. There have been a lot of redical leaders around the world, that when govern become more "conventional". In the third world is full of revolutionaries that have become...

Lula Da Silva, current president of Brazil, has come from unions, now he is considered by workers as any other polician, just the less bad option.

What he says in the oposition may change when he sits in the oval office, being aware of the whole picture, the pressions each side and the Real Politik.

Third. Last but not the least

He is honest, so what?. He is a Quijote, he has always been in the side of the tiny minority, his most challenging proposals goes nowhere. The fact that he catches our eyes only means the we are aware that policy is not like that and policians are not like that.



[ Parent ]
The big thing (none / 0) (#153)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:50:49 PM EST

Feingold refuses corporate donations, relying instead on individual contributions. The idea is that, since he is not dependent upon the corporations to fund his campaign (think of it as "keep his job"), he will vote against laws favoring corporations over consumers, a huge problem in the U.S.

Honesty is an interesting word in politics; our tradition is that an honest politician is one who stays bought.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
You and every political pundit forgets a simple (1.85 / 7) (#10)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:54:52 PM EST

fact; NO ONE currently active at the time of running for president in the U.S. Congress has been elected president since Lyndon Banes Johnson in 1964...43 years ago. It will not happen in this election either. Why is this you ask? Because any Senator that runs has a current public record that can be easily attacked. Any standing U.S. Senator that has tried to unsuccessfully run for president has failed for that reason alone. In case no American has studied their own history lately:

Presidents since LBJ:

  • Richard Nixon - was not an active senator at the time he was elected.

  • Gerald Ford - was never elected president. Was a senator at the time Nixon resigned. Carter beat him. Second worst U.S. 20th century president.

  • Jimmy Carter - the worst 20th century president. Couldn't get the hostages home from Iran. Reagan accomplished this within a matter of days. Was never a U.S. Senator. He was Governor of Georgia.

  • Ronald Reagan - never a U.S. Congressman, was Governor of California. Was not Governor at the time he was elected president.

  • George Bush - never elected to Congress.

  • Bill Clinton - never elected to Congress. Governor of Arkansas of all places.

  • George W. Bush - Governor of Texas

The Dems are in big trouble as it stands. History is against them. That is a fact.

Not just that but Americans will not elect a woman yet as president and they will not elect an Afro-American either.

Read it and weep...the Dems are in BIG trouble.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


Whoa (3.00 / 2) (#11)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:10:43 PM EST

You missed the joke about Reagan and the Iran hostages, didn't you? Reagan never even negotiated, the Iranians were holding the hostages to influence the election, specifically to get Reagan into office. Shines a little different light on Carter, doesn't it? Oh, and how can you call him the "worst 20th century president" right after mentioning Nixon?

I would agree, though, that the dems were in trouble if it weren't for the fact that the GOP is in even worse shape: A mormon; an Italian triple-divorcee; I can't think of a funny enough joke for Fred Thompson; and John McCain. Ron Paul would get my vote if it weren't for the whole latent-racism thing. Why not get Charles Manson out of prison and run him for the Republican nominee? He'd fit right in.

Sorry, the last president that I have any respect for was FDR, and I had some issues with him.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
My hypothesis still stands (none / 1) (#15)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:21:19 PM EST

no Dem will get elected especially Clinton and Obama regardless of your opinions on the Republicans. All the Republicans have to do is field a non-congressional candidate.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 0) (#20)
by doubtless on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:36:30 PM EST

You imply that there's a causal relationship between being an active member of Congress and being defeated in a presidential election, but you provide no convincing evidence of such a relationship. "They have a record" is a pretty flimsy argument to offer; it's not as if the people who had been governors just sat around with their thumbs in their asses during their tenures, and Nixon's congressional record outlined pretty clearly what sort of person he was.

[ Parent ]
I like your comment(s) (none / 1) (#41)
by thugsonfilm on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:02:17 PM EST

but it is an abuse of the term "hypothesis" to apply general correlations in history to the prediction of the future behavior of populations (see Karl Marx).

You have a weak correlation, and as such it provides some presumption for prediction, but that ain't saying much. Otherwise you're holding your cock in your hand and pissing in the wind.

[ Parent ]

Um (2.33 / 3) (#59)
by trhurler on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:25:16 PM EST

FDR was a monster unequalled all the way back to Lincoln, who committed atrocities in his official capacity that would make Karl Rove, Nixon, and Cheney flee a room in terror and disgust. Carter WAS useless and nearly ran the country into the ground, although admittedly he was not a crook AND didn't say so. Nixon was a crook, but then again if you look at our presidents, his main failing relative to the rest of them is that he got caught.

All that aside, you really believe that conspiracy theory nonsense where allegedly some hostages were the big issue in that election and the Iranians were all clever about it? Come on. The Iranians in question were a bunch of nutjobs who by all accounts would have trouble organizing a soup kitchen and Reagan repaid them for their "kindness" by invading their country (unofficially of course,) three or four times and bombing it at least once.

All that crap aside, where do you see "latent racism" in Ron Paul? Sure, he's against unconstitutional laws that favor minorities, but that's not racism - the laws ARE unconstitutional, period.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Alternate suggestion re Iran vs. Reagan (none / 0) (#68)
by cdguru on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:16:55 PM EST

Perhaps the Iranians thought that Reagan would send a full strike force in to "rescue the hostages" if they were still being held on Feb. 1.

[ Parent ]
iran contra (3.00 / 2) (#80)
by blackbart on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:19:21 AM EST

throws a wrench into your theories eh?

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred
[ Parent ]

The problem with your analysis (none / 1) (#13)
by localroger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:13:56 PM EST

...is that every single one of the current top tier candidates has something that makes them "unelectable." Every. Single. One. Yet, history also suggests that one of these "unelectable" people will win the next election. So will it be Romney, who is unelectable because he's a Mormon, or Edwards who's unelectable because he's both a senator and a trial lawyer, or Giuliani because he is widely hated by his ex-wives, own children, and most of NYC? Thompson, whose wife is an obvious trophy bimbo? Gore, whose coyness is starting to grate even on those who want him to jump in?

I think the smart move for progressives is to let the DLC have the Presidency if that's what it takes to at least stop the train wreck, then continue reforming the Democratic party from within from a position of power. The 2008 and 2010 congressional elections could be veeeeery interesting.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]

I see no problem with my analysis at all (1.33 / 3) (#16)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:25:47 PM EST

it is based in facts not my wishful thinking or anyone else's.

The facts as they stand are correct, no one has been elected president as a standing member of Congress since Lyndon Johnson. This would be true whether they are Republicans or Democrats...it doesn't matter.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

There's a first time for everything (none / 0) (#18)
by localroger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:29:22 PM EST

...and this election is going to show us one of those. The only question is which one. First Mormon president? First sitting senator in forever? First woman or black guy? First doubly divorced and remarried guy? Take your pick, someone's going to be in for a surprise.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]
Unless (none / 0) (#26)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:59:07 PM EST

We get lucky and Gore manages to win. I'm not holding my breath.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
If he's going to run (none / 0) (#28)
by localroger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 05:56:46 PM EST

...he needs to declare yesterday. His open invitation is wearing out.

I think that if he runs, he will win both the Dem primary and the general hands down. But if he waits too long he'll look more indecisive than aloof.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]

LOL, why? (none / 0) (#32)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:24:47 PM EST

He's in the catbird seat; he can just sit where he is, continue working towards his goals (environmentalism, etc) through his books and movies, or he can get drafted to run for president by a grassroots movement, giving him a level of popular support undreamed of since Huey Long. Let's just hope his bodyguards are better.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I hope you're right (none / 0) (#40)
by localroger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:01:36 PM EST

I really thing Gore is our best ultimate hope for the next cycle, but I detect some of the enthusiasm running thin on the progressive blogs. If he waits too long he'll be seen as a spoiler rather than a latecoming participant.

I must admit it would be especially LOLworthy if the ultimate contest ends up being between Gore and Thompson, two people who aren't even officially in the race as the early debates are unfolding.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]

I predict (none / 0) (#204)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:28:36 PM EST

that the Mormon will win. Our current Prez is only one letter away, so why not?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
How? (none / 0) (#22)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:46:08 PM EST

How will letting the DLC have the presidency help? We already tried that with Bill, and look where it got us.

No, the DLC should be kicked out of the party altogether; Lieberman has started by kicking himself out. Keep it up.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I agree, long-term (none / 1) (#24)
by localroger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:51:50 PM EST

My feeling is that we cannot afford another Republican president at this time, even if the only alternative is to hold our noses and vote for Billary. And I don't think Billary will make a very good President, just as her husband was a disaster for many of the causes I hold dear.

But she or Obama will be a thousand percent better tha any of the Republicans. Even the worst DLC'ers won't use their position to gut the Justice Department or appoint stealth saboteurs to the Supreme Court. So the priority has to be FIRST get the Republicans out of the government, THEN get the DLC out of the Democratic Party.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]

Yes, but (none / 0) (#25)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:57:58 PM EST

The problem with that approach is that we'll never get rid of the DLC that way. We'll have a crappy DLC president for 8 years, then run a real dem and lose, starting the cycle all over again.

"The structure of spacetime is more concerned with means than ends: beginnings must be clean to be of profit"

- Surak


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
The DLC will be marginalized (none / 0) (#33)
by localroger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:29:35 PM EST

Even with a solidly DLC president like Billary, it's likely that the Congress will get much more progressive in the next couple of cycles; in the past it's the Right that has been renowned for its ability to get out the grass roots, but now the coalition between the business and religious wings of the Republican party is falling apart just as the far left is getting its shit together and getting people not just almost but actually elected that the national party thought were hopeless.

Don't forget that Dean is running the national strategy for them now.

It's not such a big deal if a progressive Democratic Congress faces an entrenched DLC president; the prez will be unlikely to veto what her own Congress sends her the way Bush is vetoing the time of day right now. And with a record of progressive success, it's likely that even if Billary serves 8 years the following president will be another Dem, probably more in line with the party (and increasingly the national) mood.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't bet on it (none / 0) (#178)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:41:02 AM EST

Real politics is basically between populism and non-populism. The populism switches sides and makes headlines, but the non-populism wields power. Democratic populism is usually over money, while Republican populism is over religion, and both sides throw in a little xenophobia when it's convenient.

The past 20 years of populism seems to have mostly been dominated by God/gays/guns, which handed Republicans victories but for little to show the populist base. Of those causes only guns have seen much of an advance (expiry of the assault-weapons ban), while God has continued His decline and gay rights progress apace.

Now the populist types are thinking maybe they should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, but I don't expect them to get much more from their new masters than their old ones. Maybe a few bones like a minimum wage increase, but that's about it. And if the Democrats are stupid enough to run the next William Jennings Bryan (or Michael Dukakis), the Republicans will make their comeback.

[ Parent ]

lol @ your narrow-minded ignorance (3.00 / 3) (#17)
by doubtless on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:25:58 PM EST

  1. LBJ was elected vice-president.
  2. Comparisons to Nixon aside, anyone who calls Jimmy Carter the worst president of the 20th century has clearly never heard of Warren Harding or Herbert Hoover.


[ Parent ]
We could quibble about that (1.33 / 3) (#19)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:33:24 PM EST

but the fact remains. If you are a standing Congressman you won't get elected president.

Carter was REALLY that bad a president. He was defeated by a landslide. Even Dems voted against him.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

I addressed that elsewhere in this thread. (none / 1) (#21)
by doubtless on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:39:48 PM EST

As for Carter: at least he wasn't an outright criminal. The same can't be said for Harding or Nixon.

[ Parent ]
What you won't "quibble" about... (none / 0) (#217)
by Gloria Privatus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 06:43:30 PM EST

... is actually precisely what invalidates your froth-at-the-mouth rambling. Just stop.

--
Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine.
[ Parent ]

Or Worse Yet (3.00 / 2) (#179)
by czolgosz on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:06:33 AM EST

Comparisons to Nixon aside, anyone who calls Jimmy Carter the worst president of the 20th century has clearly never heard of Warren Harding or Herbert Hoover.

Or Ronald Reagan.

Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
Ronald Reagan should have been assinated. . . (none / 0) (#29)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 05:58:39 PM EST

But history fucked up and forgot.  Please explain that with your magical "history says so" theory.

Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005
[ Parent ]
YFI /nt (none / 1) (#35)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:35:51 PM EST


--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 1) (#58)
by trhurler on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:18:57 PM EST

Most effective president with the most accomplishments of anyone in the latter half of the 20th century (regardless of whether you agree with him or not, this is OBVIOUSLY true,) and you think he should have been killed? An odd position to take.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I think (none / 0) (#203)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:23:07 PM EST

that he/she/it was thinking about the "20 year curse". Every President elected in a year divisible by 20 died in office. Except Reagan.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
George HW Bush was a congressman (none / 1) (#63)
by horny smurf on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:28:24 PM EST

house of reps 67-71.

Another point is most congresspeople just aren't leaders in any meaningful sense of the word. They can say "I voted for this" but if you look at legislation sponsored by John Fucking Kerry of Hillary Rodham "Clinton", it's limited to renaming post offices and bridges.

[ Parent ]

right, like presidential height (3.00 / 4) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:35:27 AM EST

the taller guy always wins. except when he didn't the last election

in other words, you should take up phrenology or numerology. you have the kind of superstitious mind perfectly suited for reading entrails and tea leaves


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

This guy won't listen to logic. (none / 1) (#218)
by Gloria Privatus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 06:45:06 PM EST

But succinctly put, regardless.

--
Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine.
[ Parent ]

I give this troll 4/10 $ (none / 0) (#186)
by Phssthpok on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:00:29 PM EST


____________

affective flattening has caused me to kill 11,357 people

[ Parent ]
Hilary (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:19:02 PM EST

My understanding is that she wants to leave bases in Iraq and 50,000 soldiers.  She needs to change that position.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
That's just her way of saying... (none / 1) (#23)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:51:19 PM EST

...we'll put even more troops on the ground.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
VOTE OBAMA FOR A FRESH ALTERNATIVE (none / 0) (#173)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:20:33 AM EST

OUT OF IRAQ AND INTO PAKISTAN LOL

[ Parent ]
Ah, George Carlin (3.00 / 4) (#27)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 05:06:51 PM EST

Something like "We used to try to give kids a head start, now we're trying to keep from leaving them behind. Someone's losing fucking ground."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccYoVnBc_fk


Please read before posting.

Hillary Clinton rocks. (3.00 / 1) (#30)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:03:55 PM EST

I am so going to vote for her.  

Why? She is a women and I love women in positions of power.  Call it a sexual thing.  Plus, it is nice to have someone in office who is not ugly. (Though Edwards is pretty hot.  Obama is ugly.)

Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005

Really great reasons... (none / 0) (#31)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:22:07 PM EST

You are joking, right?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
No, why? What have you against my thoughts? (1.50 / 2) (#37)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:57:00 PM EST



Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005
[ Parent ]
STFU NIWS moron /nt (2.00 / 3) (#89)
by Uncle Remus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:46:30 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No, I doubt it. (3.00 / 8) (#39)
by doubtless on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:58:05 PM EST

Anyone who creates a gimmick account based on homosexual lust for a specific K5 user couldn't possibly be joking about judging political figures through the lens of his exaggerated sexuality.

[ Parent ]
Yea, sorry, thought he was Kos /nt (none / 1) (#87)
by codejack on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:50:48 PM EST




Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
kennedy. (none / 1) (#43)
by lolita on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:22:33 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Why does everyone think... (none / 0) (#158)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:17:13 PM EST

that all liberals kneel down in front of our anatomically-incorrect statues of JFK and ritualistically lick his balls every night?

MY anatomically-incorrect statue of JFK stays in the garage, where it belongs.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
i don't understand hillary haters (3.00 / 2) (#34)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:31:20 PM EST

hillary strikes me as bland and unremarkable. so when i encounter people who go foaming at the mouth over her, i am not in any way convinced of the unholy evil that is hillary clinton. however, i begin to wonder what the hell is wrong with some people moved to such hatred over someone so bland

bill clinton was a good president. really. i can't in my mind look at the arc of his presidency and find anything wrong with it to the extreme of peoples word. it's kind of weird the clinton hatred out there. meanwhile, a hillary presidency, in my mind, would not be a bill clinton proxy. it would be ok, not the best person to be president, but i can think of a lot worse (such as our current moron in chief, gw bush)

so if hillary wins the presidency, i'll just shrug. and depending on my choices, i may even vote for her. not with great passion either way

but people who go foaming at the mouth over either bill or hillary clinton: you're a fucking weirdo. the clintons are really pretty bland


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

NAFTA /nt (none / 0) (#44)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:44:30 PM EST




Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
NAFTA is the future (none / 0) (#47)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:58:08 PM EST

what's the big fucking deal with NAFTA? what is so horrible about it?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0) (#52)
by codejack on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:17:21 PM EST

As intended, nothing; the idea was for us to get cheap stuff while the "Mexicans" (everyone south of us) got decent jobs. Instead, corporations used it as a labor-sink and we (American workers and "Mexicans") got screwed.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
that reply doesn't make sense (none / 1) (#53)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:36:27 PM EST

it implies the mexicans are getting better jobs somewhere else


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
It does nothing of the sort (none / 0) (#156)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:08:29 PM EST

Sure, the Mexicans are getting paid more than they were before, but let's not pretend that we didn't have anything to do with that, either.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
The hill haters want something DIFFERENT. (none / 0) (#50)
by xC0000005 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:45:17 PM EST

Hillary isn't bill 2.0 - Bill was likely hill 1.0. I myself would not vote for her, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for Obama. I don't think a republican or normal democrat will have the guts to surrender the ill gotten power invested in this executive branch.

Were I Hillary the thing that would scare me the most about obama is the number of republicans who consider him a candidate they'd vote for. Cross party support is the demon under the bed for all candiates. It leaves the pollsters like windvanes in a hurricane. Which way is it coming from? They have no idea.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]

it's ok to want something different than hillary (none / 0) (#51)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:51:02 PM EST

it's not ok to have pathological hatred for her

it speaks of something that has nothing to do with hillary


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

my problem with hillary (none / 0) (#56)
by horny smurf on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:16:37 PM EST

Aside from the character issues exposed during her time as first lady and such, the reason she's a senator and a "serious" candidate is not because of her own ideas and qualifications, it's because of her husband. Kind of like George W Bush/George HW Bush. 20 years of Bush/Clinton is more than enough.

[ Parent ]
character issue? (none / 0) (#62)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:28:16 PM EST

and your saying she doesn't have any independent qualifications? she does. and even if you were right, where's the source of the hatred?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
It's easy, really (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:26:07 PM EST

Hillary tried to invent all sorts of powers for the position of first lady, proposing that she be considered co-president even though she was unelected. Also, she tried, as an unelected official, to seize two or three industries and nationalize them, all the while having a "Just shut the fuck up and accept the inevitable" attitude.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

and? what's the problem? (none / 0) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:27:21 PM EST

you didn't describe to me anything that should inspire the hatred


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
It's simple, really (2.00 / 2) (#66)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:46:30 PM EST

If Jeb Bush went around proclaiming himself czar of the US and tried to change laws as if that was the case, there would be more than a little ruckus. As far as health care went, it was:

  1. Blatantly unconstitutional
  2. Conducted in a secretive manner much like the Cheney Energy commission.
  3. Step one in turning America into a communist shithole.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

you're hysterical (2.33 / 3) (#67)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:01:50 PM EST

it's kind of funny. your panties are all tied up in a twist about her. it's abject fear. fear of a bland tired soccer mom type boring woman

bizarre

i think, in the end, my personal hypothesis, is that there are some guys (and it's always guys) who are the loudest hillary hysteria screamers. it's just basic fear of women. hillary is a woman, and some guys just can't understand women. and for them, she's a symbol of this unknown force

and so they scream and whimper like children

you're all kind of funny, hysterical hillary haters

she's boring and middle of the road. her politics are insipid. but to hear you guys tell it, she's the antichrist

pfffft

hilarious ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'd vote for a woman (2.00 / 2) (#69)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:19:05 PM EST

I would have no problem with a woman president, but I guess the pop psychological analysis always has to come into it, huh?

Here's the low-down: I'm opposed to any candidate that wants to socialize health care or to similarly reduce our freedom. Hillary's pseudoconservative voting record for her time in the Senate makes me even more suspicious, since she was basically a cryptcommunist before.

It's not because she doesn't have a Y chromosome. She wants another 20+% of my income.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

what's wrong with universal healthcare? (none / 1) (#70)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:32:13 PM EST

under the current system, the poor get healthcare, the rich get healthcare, and the middle class get denied

in other words, there can only be improvement from one we have now if we go to universal healthcare. you pay for it anyways, so what's the difference?

you're just a hysterical propagandized tool

but be my guest, go ahead rail on about communism

(rolls eyes)

you need to update your hysteria friend. compare hillary to bin laden and talk about her being a terrorist. there, your retarded comparisons to stereotypical bogeymen has been updated, i updated your retarded propaganda for you

zzz...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm hysterical? (1.33 / 3) (#95)
by QuantumFoam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:12:03 PM EST

Under the current system, I have the freedom to opt out, to select my own provider. I have the freedom to go without health insurance, and I have some amount of control over what I pay for it. Under the proposed systems, I have no choice. I have to pay into a large and wasteful system that will become less and less efficient and more and more wasteful until it completely destroys the remainder of our economy with its weight.

Do I want health care to have all the efficiency and managerial foresight of the Social Security system? Do you intend to retire solely on Social Security benefits, CTS? If not, I'd suggest that you are the hysterical propagandized tool.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Under the current system, (3.00 / 3) (#124)
by rpresser on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:24:05 AM EST

if you do not opt out, you have to pay into a large and wasteful system that becomes less and less efficient at delivering healthcare, and more and more efficient at lining pockets and buying legislators.

Everything you have said in this discussion that infuriates me can be nailed down in one sentence. You would rather see nothing done and people get rich than see the government waste money and get something done, even if poorly. To translate it from a national to a local level, if you discovered that for the last three decades there had been horrible amounts of waste and mismanagement in your local fire department and rescue squads, you would fight any attempt at improving them and instead push for their abolishment. And damn the burning houses.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

WELL. FUCKING. SAID nt (none / 0) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:13:59 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
hey einstein (none / 1) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:16:45 AM EST

if you fall down and break your arm, would you rather:

  1. a large and wasteful government entity fix your arm

  2. your arm remain broken

work it out and get back to me

oh, i'm all hot and heavy waiting to hear all about my missing choice #3: how the private healthcare system is glorious and efficient and everyone loves it and countries with government systems do far worse and every one hates them

(snicker)

yes, you are hysterical propagandized tool. because you can't see common fucking sense on the fucking issue


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Been There (none / 1) (#180)
by czolgosz on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:24:10 AM EST

I got my healthcare on the NHS in England. My experience of the NHS at its worst was better than any HMO I've had to use in the US.



Conservatives think that the government can't do anything right. That is, unless it's fighting wars and getting into other people's private lives in the name of enforcing morality. It's only when government's doing something for people in this country that they object. They hate Social Security too. But believe me, private enterprise can deliver an even more bureaucratic, incompetent and uncaring system than any government as long as they think there's a buck to be made.



The huge difference in the percentage of GDP the US spends on healthcare compared to other developed countries is soaked up by middlemen. Doctors are getting squeezed and so are patients. Nobody's benefiting but the parasites. Anyone who thinksvthat the US system is anything but a corrupt, lethargic nightmare hasn't seen much of the world.



And I agree with the FPP: there's no real electoral choice until a candidate starts talking seriously about putting the bastards in jail. Everything else is avoiding the issue.




Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
not really soaked up by middlemen (none / 1) (#189)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:50:10 PM EST

The biggest difference between U.S. and non-U.S. healthcare spending is how much gets spent on old people, basically. The U.S. puts a ridiculous percentage of its health care spending towards "heroic care" treatment of terminally ill patients in the last year of life, much more than most other countries do. Fixing that has to be part of any solution, but the strength of the AARP and the general American aversion to prioritizing ("rationing") treatment is an obstacle.

[ Parent ]
Reduce our *freedom*? (none / 1) (#92)
by rpresser on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:43:16 PM EST

Exactly what is free about healthcare?

OK, that was a bit of a cheap shot, deliberately confusing the two meanings of "free". But seriously ... what is the fucking big deal about putting a giant parasitic industry like health insurance out of business? Unless you or yours happen to work for them, in which case I suppose I can understand your opposition ... much as I understand the opposition of teachers unions for measures that would decrease the power of teachers.

As for your income ... it's better if you pay it ANYWAY to health insurance companies and let whole swaths of the American public go without?
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

Wasn't a cheap shot (2.00 / 3) (#97)
by QuantumFoam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:17:15 PM EST

It didn't even make sense. Making health insurance mandatory by taxing the fuck out of us for it isn't free, and it is a reduction of our freedom in that citizens in general have less discretion over what they can do with their income.

I don't see what the advantage is in replacing one giant parasitic entity (the health insurance industry), with an even bigger and more firmly attached parasitic entity (the government).

The more freedom I have with my income, the better.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

And again I say ... (2.50 / 2) (#105)
by rpresser on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:13:11 PM EST

the good of you having the "freedom" of choice of where to throw your money away, trumps the freedom of enormous numbers of other people to receive competent medical care?
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
No other freedom I know of costs money (1.75 / 4) (#107)
by QuantumFoam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:47:41 PM EST

Freedom of speech is the ability to say what you want without any form of prior restraint. Freedom of religion is the freedom to follow your conscience without interference from the government.

"Freedom to receive competent medical care" is not a freedom, it is an entitlement. No other freedom, as defined by our system, costs society money, it is a freedom from governmental interference. Under our system anyone, regardless of race or background, has the freedom to choose whatever medical care they can afford. If they cannot afford it, they can obtain the money for it from non-profit charitable organizations. Health insurance is no more a right than car insurance, a large TV, or a Hawaiian vacation.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Aha. So what you really want (2.66 / 3) (#122)
by rpresser on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:48:18 AM EST

is the freedom from being required to pay for entitlements.

I guess that is what you were saying all along; I just wasn't hearing you.

This position is still a bit stomach-turning to me and I reserve the right to disagree (and remain disgusted).
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

youi're a fucking moron of the highest order (1.75 / 4) (#129)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:21:35 AM EST

hey genius:

EVER HEAR OF MEDICARE

EVER HEAR OF MEDICAID

YOU ARE ALREADY FUCKING PAYING FOR ENTITLEMENTS YOU FUCKING PROPAGANDIZED PRICK

under american healthcare, the poor do fine, the rich do fine, and the middle class get screwed

and fucking dimwitted selfish trolls like you, are so fucking braindead and propagandized you can't even understand how government healthcare, with all of the obvious inefficiences and waste that come with that, is still 100x better than what we have now!

you have no idea how furious i am in disgust at your colossal display of propagandized kneejerk idiocy

you sir are a fucking stupid loser of the highest order


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you left out an important category (none / 0) (#197)
by Delirium on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:19:48 PM EST

FUCKING OLD PEOPLE DO FINE; SEE: MEDICARE

The biggest problem with the U.S. healthcare system is that, due to the AARP, we spend all our money extending the lives of old people by 3 months, and fucking over everyone else.

[ Parent ]

The problem with your selfish approach (none / 1) (#205)
by sudogeek on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:23:44 PM EST

is that your lack of health insurance is a tax on me!  When you get hit by a car, fall off your skateboard, or have your unplanned heart attack, you show up in my ER and receive care.

It is unethical and morally wrong for me as a doctor to refuse to treat you. We don't lock the door and require you to swipe your insurance card to get in. Further, EMTALA and other laws make it illegal to fail to evaluate and treat uninsured persons (as private for-profit hospitals have done for years, dumping them on the public or not-for-profits).

Who pays for your treatment? I do - in both taxes and an increase in my insurance premiums. We responsible individuals who carry insurance for ourselves and our families which subsidize care for the uninsured.

Free speech is one thing. I can ignore your rants. Your "freedom" not to be insured is not guaranteed anywhere. When your "freedoms" impact on others, they are rightfully constrained by law.

There's a sucker born every minute, and you're an hour's worth.
[ Parent ]

I don't hate her, she'd just be a horrible pres (none / 0) (#103)
by godix on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:29:14 PM EST

hillary strikes me as bland and unremarkable.

I wouldn't call her bland or unremarkable. I'd call her a failure since she hasn't achieved anything of importance other than her own self servicing quest for power. I'd also say she has few real beliefs and none that she'll stand by, every move by her is blatantly politically calculated and she'll take whatever position she thinks will get her votes then try claiming to be on the other side next week. I don't foam at the mouth about her but I definitely wouldn't vote for her unless the other choice was much worse. Which, given the republican field, it might be.

bill clinton was a good president.

Really? Name three things he championed and achieved during his 8 years that wasn't forced on him by the republican congress. I can think of one. OTOH I can think of at least three for Bush. Which is why I consider Bush a more effective president than Clinton. Note, I didn't say things you agree with. Just major policies he supported and got enacted.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
(snicker) (none / 0) (#104)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:53:03 PM EST

dude, what you just said can be said of every single politician who ever lived, in any country

and the word "democrat" is completely interchangeable with the word "republican" in your rant above. because you haven't said anything of substance. you just have your standard issue boilerplate whine by your average brain dead propagandized asshole, who doesn't think in terms of ideas and solving problems, but just thinks in that typical factional them versus us way of the world

you're a loser


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You have no comprehension (2.50 / 2) (#162)
by godix on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:11:30 PM EST

dude, what you just said can be said of every single politician who ever lived, in any country

and the word "democrat" is completely interchangeable with the word "republican" in your rant above.

This isn't a democrat/republican concern. It's simply that I feel a politician who has core values and is willing to stand by them regardless, even if I don't agree with those core values, is far better than one who's just out for power. There are many republicans and democrats that are just out for power but it happens to be that none are as prominent or as likely to be a presidential nominee as Hillary is, thus my comment was directed against her.

Some examples of what I mean:
FDR is idolized today but at the time he had real problems. Many were so opposed to him they'd get offended at the mere mention of his name. A lot of his programs ended up being fought in court and declared unconstitutional. His attempt to pack the court blew up in his face. He did everything in his power to oppose Hitler despite that the country was very much opposed to getting involved. He's viewed as a hero today and despite I don't like a lot of his ideas, I gotta agree that it took a lot of guts to stand by them despite the opposition.

Bush is standing by the Iraq war even though it's destroyed his political capital. Agree or disagree with the war, I at least respect that he's willing to do what he thinks is right even if it plummets his approval ratings to less than 1 in 3. Similarly he stands by his position on stem cells despite opposition. It's a stupid position but it says something about him that he's willing to support it despite polls.

Carter stood by his humanitarianism. At times it was really really bad foreign policy and it turned around and really bit the US in the ass. However I still respect that he was a man who tried to help others and all but announced he'd never get the US involved in a military conflict even when it was a stupid idea to do so.

Reagan stood by anti-communism despite what it did to the deficit. We're still dealing with the financial repercussions of that 20 years later, but I respect that he thought communism was bad enough it was worth fighting even at that cost.

OTOH Bill Clinton was infamous for governing by poll. No one knew where he'd stand on any issue (unless the issue was him staying in power, then you knew exactly where he stood). Military in Somolia? Fine by him until it gets bad press then yank them out. Welfare reform? Not a chance, unless it polls well then sure. National healthcare? Sounds great, until it looks like a tough fight then fuck it. Deal with Iraq? Hell no, it was far easier to just bomb them a few times and let the next guy deal with it. Reform the military for a post-cold war world? Butting heads with the pentagon takes effort. Do something about Bin Laden? Nope, he only attacked a US warship, a couple embassies, and WTC while Clinton was in office, why bother eliminating him when we had a chance? I don't think Clinton was a bad president because he was democrat or I disagree with him, I think he was a bad president because there was no policies or values he'd stand by to agree or disagree with him on.

Hillary seems to be the same. I know where she stands on some issues now, but in a week from now? I don't think anyone, even Hillary, knows what she'll stand for then. ANY politician that hides in a backroom waiting for her opposition to vote on the Iraq war so she'll know what's the most politically expedient vote she can do is not someone who should be in the whitehouse regardless of party.

So consider this 'us vs them' if you'd like, but the us is anyone who has some beliefs they're willing to fight for and the them is any politician who stands for nothing but getting power.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton kept the fucking country running (3.00 / 2) (#108)
by damiam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:57:51 PM EST

and didn't fuck anything up too badly. That's really all I want in a president; they don't need to create dozens of new government initiatives or departments. I don't care how much Bush has "accomplished" if the things that he pushed through were terrible ideas that ruined people's lives (which, generally, they have been). But, since you ask: AmeriCorps, NAFTA, welfare reform, the line item veto, gun control (the Brady Bill), minimum wage increases, policy of regime change in Iraq, and ending ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and other things I'm probably missing.

[ Parent ]
Well you got one. (none / 0) (#170)
by godix on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:52:07 PM EST

Bill Clinton kept the fucking country running and didn't fuck anything up too badly. - The dot com bust happened while he was in office. If you're inclined to credit/blame the economy on the president (which I usually don't) then all the economic fallout of that was Clintons fault. Especially since it was his DoJ taking Microsoft to court that started the burst.

AmeriCorps - yeah, that's one

NAFTA - Not really a Clinton thing. Most politicians were for it.

welfare reform - a republican idea that Clinton co-opted once he realized it was popular

the line item veto - didn't pass and even if it did it's a naked power grab by the president

gun control (the Brady Bill) - wasn't his baby. There's a reason it's called the Brady Bill and not the Clinton Bill

minimum wage increases - of trivial importance. What's never, claiming making national wack yourself off day was a great Clinton victory?

policy of regime change in Iraq - BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GASP HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA breathing heavy HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA passes out from lack of oxygen. Clinton policy towards Iraq was to drop a couple cruise missles whenever it occured to him to do so.

ending ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia - Actually we arrived a couple years after most of the ethnic cleansing was done, we were specifically asked to come it wasn't our idea, and since we arrived so late it can honestly be questioned if we were much effect at all.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

So essentially (none / 1) (#171)
by damiam on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:55:36 AM EST

You're saying that Clinton was an ineffective president because he mostly did stuff that other people already thought were good ideas, but Bush is an effective president because he could push through initiatives that no sane person would support. Fair enough, but "effective" != "good".

[ Parent ]
Basically, yeah (none / 0) (#185)
by godix on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 09:56:34 AM EST

I went into this on another post but you basically got it. A president who doesn't put forth, or in Clintons case fight for, their own ideas is worthless. If all a president is going to do is take credit for others ideas then really what's the point of having a president? We could just ditch the office entirely and let the others push for their ideas themselves.

And no, effective isn't the same as good.  I never said it was. After all, Stalin was effective. However it's pretty near impossible to be a good president without also being an effective one. FDR wouldn't be the hero he's considered today if he wasn't effective.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

nitpick on the line-item veto (none / 1) (#177)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:32:37 AM EST

It did pass, but it was struck down as unconstitutional.

[ Parent ]
"good"? (none / 1) (#140)
by mirko on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:09:50 AM EST

bill clinton was a good president.

"funny" would be a better word... Any friend of Al Gore and Madeleine Al(notvery)bright, along with his use of depleted uranium in the Balkans, doesn't desserve such clemency.
Hang him up!
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane
[ Parent ]
hey fuckknob (1.40 / 5) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:59:57 AM EST

anything horrible, horrible crime you can remotely pin on bill clinton is surpassed by any other sitting president in us history

in other words, for you to look at the clinton presidency, and speak of it in the hysterical fire and brimstone way you do, means you're nothing more than a typical propagandized braindead partisan, long beyond ideas and solutions, which is what government is about (really, asswipe), and well into moronic us versus them soccer hooliganism

in short, you're a fucking retard

please choke on your own cock twatstain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

lemme get that straight... (none / 0) (#144)
by mirko on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:32:02 AM EST

You refer to Clinton as a good president then tell that it is because "any of his crimes can be surpassed".

You should stick to your movie business because if my (Swiss) opinion of US politics makes me look a "fucking retard" to you, yours makes you a tocard to me... but I guess there's not much to expect from an Amuritan.

You can go and choke on Al Gore's dick as much as you wish... It won't change my life... Maybe not even the smell of your breath.
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane
[ Parent ]

here, i'll straighten things out for you (1.40 / 5) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:40:44 AM EST

if you were a typical braindead leftist partisan coming in here besmirching reagan with iran contra, etc., i'd say the same thing to you

because it's not about being on the right, or being on the left, i can appreciate an intelligent conservative or intelligent liberal

what i can't appreciate is brain dead cretinous cro magnons like yourself, from the right OR the left, who come in here with your hysterical reinterpretation of what is obviously, by ANY measure, a hum drum presidency and proclaim with great fire and brimstone how clinton is about as evil as im il jong

no, you partisan turd, fuck you and your fucking propaganda

seriously, you're a fucking useless twatstain

i HATE partisan brain dead assholes

no fucking brain power, all fucking teams sports

why don't you go fucking watch a wrestling match: it has exactly the same sort of baseless villainy and drama you use when talking about politics, and is exactly as intelligent as you are: stone cold stupid

just please, shut the fuck up and die already you useless empty headed partisan turd

politics is not TEAM sports, it is about IDEAS and ISSUES

but you think it's just like a fucking football game

fucking retard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

who shat in your mŁesli? (none / 0) (#146)
by mirko on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:49:21 AM EST

you just offered me a few minutes of your life.
I'm amazed: I thought you did not have any.

was that some copy-pasting of a former "troll" or are you that shallow?
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane
[ Parent ]

you did cumstain (1.75 / 4) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:01:20 PM EST

with your low iq propaganda

i fucking HATE partisan retards

and that is EXACTLY what you are

i can appreciate a smart conservative, i can appreciate a smart liberal. i don't care about ideology, i care about brains

AND YOU HAVE NONE YOU FUCKING PARTISAN FUCK

oooh, tell us all about the great evil of bill clinton

FUCK YOU YOU MORON

there is no valid measur eof clinton other than he was unremarkable. i don't love clinton, i don't hate lcinton, i appreciate him for what he is

but i'm not going to sit here and have some braindead asswipe like you come in and recharacterize the bland as evil for the sake of political teamsports

because if there is any problem in american politics it is PARTISAN RETARDS LIKE YOU, FROM THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

fundamentally flawed rethorics... (none / 1) (#149)
by mirko on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:46:36 PM EST

You call me a "PARTISAN RETARD". But when did I say I was a "partisan"? "Partisan" to whom? Who would publicly answer any of these questions honestly?
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane
[ Parent ]
side comment (2.90 / 10) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:38:19 PM EST

i was recently in chicago. i took a tourist's trip to the top of the john hancock building. this was late july

as i was leaving, chicago pd pulled up and out stepped some seriously high ranking looking plain clothed cops. as i was beginning to wonder what a chiago version of "law and order" would look like, a bunch of black vans pulled up, and the guys in suits with ear plugs began circling about me, and out of one black van stepped barack obama

i told him "good luck!", it's all i could think of. he walked within 5 feet of me. my woman tried to snap a picture, but the flash didn't take. he didn't seem to notice either of us nor my comment. he was talking to some blonde woman as he went in the john hancock building. the secret service guy smiled when i said that though

and jesus christ, someone give barack obama a sandwich. that guy is scary rail thin


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

If you could work that into an article (1.66 / 3) (#45)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:48:22 PM EST

of a trip to Chicago it would make a great read CTS style. My favorite city next to NYC is Chicago.

As usual you make great comments.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

yeah chicago rocks (2.50 / 2) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:59:47 PM EST

and 1/3rd the price of nyc, and off al qaeda's radar

maybe i should move


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

SECRET CODED MESSAGE TO AL QAEDA (2.50 / 2) (#79)
by BJH on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:32:25 AM EST

PLEASE TAKE CARE OF CHICAGO NEXT KPLZTHX
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
She's got my vote cuz she has no cock (2.83 / 6) (#38)
by thugsonfilm on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:57:27 PM EST

and represents the other 50% of Americans who have never had a President with no cock (that is, openly, unlike Bush, Jr who has no cock, but ostensibly has a cock despite being otherwise totally cockless).

I agree. (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:22:04 PM EST

The largest minority should be represented before the smallest minority.

Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005
[ Parent ]
I think I agree with you (none / 0) (#46)
by thugsonfilm on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:49:27 PM EST

your sentence gave me a headache.

[ Parent ]
sir, might i suggest a fine gay porn site (none / 0) (#71)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:30:37 AM EST

to complement your constant thinking about cocks?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hey, that would be great! (none / 1) (#73)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:36:32 AM EST



Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005
[ Parent ]
but 20 years of dynastic rule isn't enough!!11one$ (none / 1) (#49)
by skyknight on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:06:57 PM EST



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
It's simpler than that. (3.00 / 2) (#82)
by Kasreyn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:48:48 AM EST

And it really doesn't have anything to do with whether Hillary is a sockpuppet of Bill. Even if she wasn't - even if she held differing views from his - Americans are just chauvinist enough that a sly wink and nod will tip her below an electoral majority. After all, it will mean Bill will get back in the White House, right? And most Americans won't believe, whatever the facts, that Bill's little lady won't let her man run the show. After all, that's how most American households run - the husband makes the political choices and the wife joins his vote.

Hillary's gung-ho feminist act (if it's an act) is a very daring political gamble, but necessary. She risks alienating some, but she also knows why it's necessary: first, a divorcee will never be elected, and second, neither will a former First Lady if people think she lets her husband run her. Sadly, I don't think it's going to work. Bill should have laid low and gone into retirement to avoid overshadowing Hillary's career. Instead, he's done too much speechifying and legacy-building. His public image is still quite active, enough to convince just enough that he'll be enjoying a third term if Hillary is elected.

As for the other candidates, I'm probably going to hold my nose and vote for Edwards in the primary, even if he does look like a grown-up Luke Duke. I would dearly love to the existing sexual and racial precedents shattered, but I'm beginning to lose faith in the two supposed front runners' political savvy. I think that symbolism (a woman or black president) is going to have to take a back seat in favor of getting a candidate who can get us out of Bush's multifarious quagmires.




"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Anyone who has ever been married (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by xC0000005 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:36:11 AM EST

will tend to think it was Hillary in charge last time, not Bill in charge this time.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
hillary is a battered wife (none / 0) (#109)
by horny smurf on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:36:09 PM EST

or might as well be. Look at her reaction to Bill shooting a wad on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

[ Parent ]
In Hillary's defense (3.00 / 2) (#112)
by xC0000005 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:13:36 AM EST

I think letting Bill blow his wad all over Monica was a rational decision compared to letting him do it all over her. Monica takes the spew, Bill takes the blame, Hillary takes the nomination. I think it worked out ok for her.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
damned if you do, damned if you don't (none / 1) (#168)
by horny smurf on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:23:18 PM EST

which raises the second objection to her: She's a power hungry bitch and doesn't care what her sex addict husband does because it's just a sham marriage.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit (none / 0) (#210)
by trhurler on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 03:24:30 PM EST

Hillary knows she needs Bill around in order to get what she wants: the presidency. Had she divorced him anywhere along the way, she would have zero chance. As it is, she will have every chance.

And understand something: it won't be Bill running the show. Bill didn't run the show LAST time.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
you've got to be kidding me (none / 0) (#211)
by rhiannon on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:11:35 AM EST

You're going to vote for someone who doesn't even know the difference between a right and a privilege.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

You want to elect this person to defend the constitution?


-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]

partial transcript link (none / 0) (#212)
by Delirium on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:20:12 AM EST

For those who, like me, are not going to sit through a youtube interview, here's a transcript of the "right or privilege?" section.

[ Parent ]
I know I'm late replying (none / 0) (#216)
by Kasreyn on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:42:38 AM EST

But I agree with Edwards in considering handgun ownership a privilege. It's already treated that way; why be coy? If you have to get a license from the government to do something, it's already not a right! A license means "you are granted this privilege".

Gun ownership in this country is already a privilege. If it were a right, one wouldn't need a license to own one. Fait accompli.

Now, as to why it's a privilege, I refer you to the entire text of Amendment 2, specifically the qualifying phrase before the first comma. Cheers!


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
that's not the part I found objectionable (none / 0) (#219)
by Delirium on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:48:08 AM EST

The things he did say are rights don't meet any reasonable definition of "right". College education is a right, really? Should we enshrine that in the Constitution?

[ Parent ]
there would be no need to arrest anyone (none / 1) (#85)
by /dev/trash on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:33:53 PM EST

If your precious Democrat friends in the Congress woulda did their jobs to begin with.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
That was sort of my point /nt (none / 0) (#86)
by codejack on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:40:28 PM EST




Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
some things (2.16 / 6) (#88)
by guidoreichstadter on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:02:12 PM EST

It's facile scapegoating to believe that one person single handedly destroyed the Democratic Party. The sorry state of the party reflects much deeper and ominous changes in the society.

I'll be pounding pavement to ensure the election of the Democratic nominee, even though he or she may not align with my ideals on a majority of the important issues, and even though the best that may come of it is a somewhat slower descent into chaos. Politics is an existential struggle at this point, not a a parlor game, and the alternative- a Republican president enabling the current rightwing fascist elements in ascendancy- is subsantially worse.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.

i wish more people thought like you (1.75 / 4) (#90)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:04:56 PM EST

politics is always about picking the candidate who is less worse than the other, and has a better chance of winning. it's strategy, not idealism

but some assholes are idealistic, and only vote for the candidate who is aligned exactly with whatever their retarded fringe beliefs are

that led to 2000, in which al gore should have won, but didn't, because of assholes who voted for nader

when i look at 2000-2008 and the shameful debacle that is the gw bush presidency, that fucking moron, i don't blame social conservatives for gw bush, i blame liberal fucktards

because social conservatives are a known evil force, they can be defeated

but libtards are an uncompromising bunch of idiot children who can only destroy what the more levelheaded amongst the solid minded liberals can do for this world

the biggest enemy of progress in the world is not the social conservative lizards of the world. they are evil, but they can be defeated. it is the retards on the fringe of the left. they can't be controlled, and all they do is run around and break things, sometimes important things

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you are correct about this... (1.00 / 6) (#96)
by achievingfluidity on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:12:40 PM EST

libs/progressives/far-left-fringe are the Dems worst enemies. The more the Democrats pander to them the more they go down a blackhole.

Everyone was all lathered up almost a year ago when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. Yet true to form the Dems lack focus and purpose. If you ask an average Joe Bloe on the street if the Democrats represent either conservatism, moderation or liberalism, it does not matter what party Joe Bloe aligns himself with, he/she will always answer "liberal". This is the Democrats' problem; rightly or wrongly Democrats are perceived as liberal.

Making matters worse are the two front runners Clinton and Obama. Neither of the two have sold the idea to most Americans that they are anything but liberal.

Liberals are seen as money spending socialists. This may be OK on the East and West Coasts but in the middle of the country people want to hang on to what they have, go to church with their families, none of them give a rat's ass about Global Warming and they want keep money out of the pockets of politicians. Middle Americans don't want shitty socialized medicine, they don't want Federalized education and they don't want to be taken care of by the government and Hillary's "It Takes A Village" nonsense.

Like it or not, true or not, that is the perception. The Democrats will need to change that perception or they will become irrelevant.

The Democrats better wake up soon and come up with a unique idea like UNIFYING OUR COUNTRY. As it stands now, they have all the same tired ideas that they have been trying to beat down our throats for the last 30 years.

The Democrats at one time had unifying ideals that brought the country together. Now their ideals are only serving to Balkanize the country. I gave up on the Republicans a long time ago.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

fuck you retard (1.66 / 3) (#98)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:31:30 PM EST

liberalism is the only thing saving the world. conservatism results in stasis, ethnocetrism, and constant war


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
not as percieved by most (none / 1) (#99)
by achievingfluidity on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:39:31 PM EST

Americans. And you may well be right. Problem is that most people that call themselves liberal or progressive DON'T VOTE and haven't for years.

People vote their pocketbook not purely on idealism.

Those are facts.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

then our problem is words (none / 1) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:23:17 PM EST

in my mind, there are fundmentalists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, and radicals

radicals=libtards, fundamentalists=paleoconservatives
libtards are stupid, paleoconservatives are evil

i think you think all liberals are libtards

no, in fact real liberalism is the greatest tradition of mankind. it is nothing more than progress itself

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Except (2.66 / 3) (#113)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:15:29 AM EST

Liberalism in the strict sense is not the liberalism that is used as an epithet in American politics. Classic liberalism is defined by free trade, open markets, and a lack of governmental interference, which is the exact opposite of positions espoused by the politicians that many would identify as being "liberal".

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

yes, conservatives have kidnapped the word (2.33 / 3) (#116)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:08:30 AM EST

and corrupted its meaning

and i also think the fruit of liberalism in the 20th century was spent on the folly called communism. but with that dead end gone and buried, i think you will see a rebirth of the real power of liberalism in the 21st and 22nd and 23rd centuries that led to things like the enlightenment, the abolition of slavery, and universal suffrage, like it did before the drunk idiocy of communism swallowed the best productive efforts of liberalism the last century

meanwhile, conservatives are mired in the usual bullshit: fighting gays, fighting abortion, fighting evolution. and conservatives in another culture are busy blowing infidels to smithereens. because that's what conservatives and fundamentalists are best at: killing and creating misery in the name of god, ie, the name of hate. conservatives are good for nothing except creating stasis and ossification

they rally around the heart of their religions, all the while actualy missing the spirit of the founding fathers of their religions. jesus was a dirty hippy talking about love and tolerance. and those who speak in his name today are nothing but bind feeble hateful brittle fools

social conservatives are extremely easy to beat, i eat them for lunch

it's the idiot libtards on the fringe of liberalism i really worry about. you can't shut them up, and you can't kill them. all you can do is contain the damage and shout them down


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So do we sort of agree? (2.00 / 2) (#118)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:21:18 AM EST

Since those erroneously referred to as liberals in our current political spectrum are protectionists due to their long-held ties with unions and encourage massive governmental interference to achieve their nanny-state goals, they are not classical liberals.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

no, we don't agree (1.50 / 2) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:23:52 AM EST

because real politics is not about idealistic choices, it is between two people who are slightly less worse than the other

in that respect, i vote for the asshole who is slightly left, rather than the asshole who is slightly right

because i am a political realist, and i vote strategically, i don't throw away my vote on an idealistic pipe dream


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The problem I have with that (none / 0) (#123)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:09:26 AM EST

Is that the major parties have about a 50/50 split on ideas I support, so neither the slightly left asshole nor the slightly right asshole have any clear advantage. Perhaps I am an idealist, but it seems that even if a third-party candidate doesn't have a realistic chance, a decent showing can get them on the ballot automatically in future elections, so voting on a hopeless candidate could do some good in the long term.

We both seem to feel that the tweedledee/tweedledum choices are insufficient, so any effort in changing the current system is not wasted.

I currently live in a state (Texas), where no vote really matters since my state's electoral votes will go to the GOP nominee barring any sort of really fucked up turn of events. I plan on moving to California in the near future, where the situation will be pretty much the same. Since even your strategic voting strategy doesn't really have any chance to affect change, how is it any better than voting one's conscience?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

the answer to your question is easy (none / 1) (#126)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:07:28 AM EST

from out on the prairie, two rocky mountain peaks look the same

but from the valley in between those two peaks, they couldn't be more different

the problem is not american politics, the problem is you and your fringe perspective

the point is not change in order to get to where you are at, the point is to ignore you, because you are a tiny segment of what the american people want

in fact that is why democracy works, because it represents the will of the great moderate middle, rather than some dangerous fringe

the way you speak of the centrist politicians means you are no centrist. which means you are a fringe asshole, and the only proper thing to say to you in that regard is fuck you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 2) (#130)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:47:41 AM EST

because real politics is not about idealistic choices, it is between two people who are slightly less worse than the other

in that respect, i vote for the asshole who is slightly left, rather than the asshole who is slightly right

And your views seem to imply that neither of the two major-party choices are what you want, but you pick one, almost at random, and give it your full support. Any of the two major party candidates represent a continuation of the status quo, which you don't seem to be a fan of, yet you still seem to  support due to a lack of imagination.

You, yourself, are on the fringe. Past postings have shown a more than average desire to fight terrorism because a few extremist blew up a few shitty towers in your shitty city. This given, the general approval ratings on the "war on terror" put you in the decided minority.

Your high opinion of the moderate middle is also indicative of your lack of clear position. The moderate middle espouses positions that are good for nobody.

I support the decriminalization of drugs. I oppose domestic surveillance. I oppose the buildup of the military beyond what it would take to destroy the world a few times over. I support freedom of choice with regard to abortion. I would prefer it if we stopped all nation building attempts. I oppose most all government handouts. As such I have no party to represent me, and I hardly feel that voting for a third party somehow makes me a "fringe asshole". I'm merely not a sheep, as you are.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

no, you're not a sheep (1.00 / 3) (#131)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:22:18 AM EST

you're a moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
And you're a big poopie-head (2.25 / 4) (#132)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:27:33 AM EST

Thanks for proving the depth of your understanding of the issues at hand and your intelligence overall.

Look: a bouncy ball. You should go play with it.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

intelligence? (1.00 / 3) (#134)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:46:08 AM EST

you want to legalize all drugs

that makes you a fucking moron

i'm for the legalization of marijuana

but not heroin, meth, cocaine

why? because i actually fucking understand what those drugs are actually like: too fucking addictive and inebriating (unlike nicotine, which only addicts)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Let it be a choice for the individual (2.75 / 4) (#137)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:02:18 AM EST

I've tried all of the above on many occasions, some of which could be classified as benders. I am not let a desperate homeless man that will suck off random passerby for a fix.

Alcohol is worse than coke and heroin. Meth is a harder argument. Letting the possible behavior of the lowest common denominator of humanity dictate the rules for the rest of humanity is the ultimate expression of cowardice and idiocy. You've been reduced to a simpering coward since those cavemen attacked your city. Grow a pair and act like a fucking citizen, not a slave.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

alcohol is not as addictive (1.50 / 2) (#138)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:07:35 AM EST

by a long shot, as heroin, coke, meth

sure, i am certain many people can try these drugs, a number of times, and never ge thooked

i'm also certain mainy people can drive 120 mph and never get in an accident

but we'll never know which are the accidents waiting to happen and which are the addicts waiting to happen, now will we?

and when you crash your car, you might take out some poor shlub with you

and you speak of slavery, when drug addiction is the biggest form of slavery and lack fo freedom there is

pfffft. loud mouth, little brain

in other words: speeding, highly addictive drugs: nope, illegal

this comes form real world experience, not thought experiments of

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You hypocrit, you have done 120mph and didn't (none / 0) (#165)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:45:28 PM EST

crash, but you rant and rave about someone doing 120mph in a different lane.

Mushrooms, pot and LSD DO cause psychosis in some people, and psychosis is a prison of the mind too.

Furthermore, if an addiction can be satiated, the person can continue to function just fine in society. Just being addicted doesn't mean 24x7 usage.

No drugs are safe, but the risks should be up to each and every person.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

drugs, dude (1.50 / 2) (#200)
by Hiphopopotamus on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:51:38 PM EST


_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

Slavery is the ultimate form of slavery (2.00 / 2) (#181)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 05:07:43 AM EST

With substances, on can quit or lose the connection that procured them in the first place. Slavery is being property, in having no say in how the fruits of your labor are spent since they are predestined to destinations deemed optimal by your betters. Paternalistic government programs such as universal heath care are slavery.

You should start taking your pills again, feeb.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

New York (3.00 / 2) (#141)
by tetsuwan on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:44:45 AM EST

That city is more popular than the rest of the US added together.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Um (none / 0) (#184)
by codejack on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 08:57:30 AM EST

libs/progressives/far-left-fringe are the Dems worst enemies.
Weird, the republicans call the 30% of their party that is radically conservative their "base", and tend to win when they get them to vote, but the 75% of the Democratic party that are liberal are "the problem"; there's a "problem" here, alright, but it's not the liberals.

Making matters worse are the two front runners Clinton and Obama. Neither of the two have sold the idea to most Americans that they are anything but liberal.
WTF?! Clinton and Obama's problem is that they haven't sold the Democratic party that they are liberal at all; this "common knowledge" bullshit that we have to unite behind someone who can win is killing us.

Here's a simple question for anyone who wants me to vote for Hillary, or Obama, or Dodd, or whoever (Edwards, I might hold my nose and vote for, but I wouldn't be happy):

What would they change?

I know they say a lot, but for the most part, I don't believe them, because I've seen what's come before. The fact of the matter is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for "more of the same".


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
they'd probably appoint different judges (none / 0) (#188)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:47:51 PM EST

Despite some people saying that Bill Clinton was indistinguishable from Republicans, for example, the Supreme Court justices he appointed (Ginsberg and Breyer) are the most liberal on the court, possibly excepting Stevens.

[ Parent ]
And that's pretty sad /nt (none / 0) (#190)
by codejack on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 07:49:28 PM EST




Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
wut (none / 0) (#191)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:07:29 PM EST

Ginsburg in particular is just about as liberal as you can get and still be vaguely within the range of mainstream legal views. I mean before becoming a judge she was chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, not known as a hotbed of conservative or even centrist legal thought.

She does have some faults IMO, but they mostly are (from my perspective) due to being too liberal rather than not liberal enough, especially on federalism. For example, I disagree with her views on Raich (the medical-marijuana case), but they're consistent with the traditional liberal view of federalism, in which "states' rights" are very limited and the interstate commerce clause is interpreted very loosely to give the federal government broad authority.

[ Parent ]

Hold the phone (none / 0) (#192)
by codejack on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:17:19 AM EST

  1. The ACLU was liberal once, or so I am told; I don't remember it, personally. These days, they're too concerned with their reputation to do anything that might be construed as "too liberal", which, of course, the newspapers are happy to paint them as. As for the women's rights project, they are definitely not what I would call liberal; they are conservatives going the other way, wanting more than equality for women.
  2. Federalism is not a liberal issue; granted, the history of liberalism in this country is littered with certain states attempting to buck progress (see George Wallace, above), requiring a decision one way or the other from the federal government. In most cases, however, the constitution has been amended to allow the requisite laws to be enacted and enforced. Indeed, the original conflict over federalism versus states rights was between Jefferson (liberal, states rights) and Hamilton (conservative, federalist).
  3. Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer look like liberals to the FAUX news crowd, because Clinton (Bill) redefined the lines; as a "moderate", Bubba would have been called a knee-jerk reactionary 30 years ago, hopelessly conservative. Go read the mission statement of the DLC; the whole idea was to destroy liberalism in this country, and I'm very much afraid that they have succeeded.



Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I meant liberalism of the past 50 years (none / 0) (#193)
by Delirium on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:27:54 AM EST

I was defining liberalism as aligned with FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and the civil-rights court decisions of the past 50 years, not as Jefferson-era liberalism. By that definition, federalism is almost a defining liberal issue: Under a Jefferson-style stricter interpretation of the constitution, the New Deal was unconstitutional, and most civil rights legislation was beyond the federal government's powers to enforce. In the modern era it's only conservatives like FDR's opponents in the 1930s and Barry Goldwater in the 1960s who've made those arguments, though, and on the Supreme Court, it's generally the conservatives who read the interstate-commerce clause as a narrow grant of power (see Clarence Thomas's dissent in Raich).

But yet you seem to think that Clinton destroyed this brand of liberalism that you claim not to have agreed with anyway?

[ Parent ]

No, no, no (none / 0) (#194)
by codejack on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:47:20 AM EST

That FDR exceeded his authority is unquestionable, although whether it was unconstitutional is; the argument is similar to that of Lincoln, though, in that, had they not acted in the ways that they did, the USA would no longer exist. N.B. this is not an endorsement of "the ends justify the means"!

My point was that federalism is not synonymous with either liberalism or conservatism; liberals are federalists when it comes to upholding civil liberties, while conservatives are federalists when it comes to stealing elections :)

What Clinton did was move the "center" to the right; his liberal was my moderate, etc. The traditional liberal ideals about unions, civil rights, affirmative action, welfare, etc, were all compromised in his administration, and now his compromises are the new "liberal".


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it's quite that simple (none / 0) (#196)
by Delirium on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:50:15 PM EST

Liberalism, for the sake of consistency, has basically gotten stuck supporting a strong federal government, and conservatives, at least those who care about consistency, opposing it. Hence the otherwise counterintuitive results on medical marijuana, where the "conservatives" supported medical-marijuana and the "liberals" opposed it, because they basically had both painted themselves into a corner from their previous views.

[ Parent ]
It is and it isn't (none / 0) (#198)
by codejack on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:20:09 PM EST

Both sides have shown their willingness to bend their scruples when it is expedient, but the central argument has been spun out of recognition; a strong federal government is implicit in the constitution, with the safeguards Jefferson and others felt necessary to prevent a dictatorship (or monarchy, as they would have it). Modern liberals support a strong federal government as a necessary institution to promote civil liberties, education, and welfare, and conservatives oppose it for exactly the same reasons.

If you want an egregious example, though, look at the 2000 election: 5 justices notorious for voting for states rights, voted against states rights; the other 4 justices, while usually in favor of a strong federal government, dissented not because of states rights, but because the verdict (to stop the recount) was unconstitutional!

Medical marijuana is another issue; the Supreme Court could not rule in favor of it without undermining about a third of the drug laws in the country, resulting in even more cases; I think they rejected the argument out of laziness, myself.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
well, also without overturning civil-rights laws (none / 0) (#199)
by Delirium on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:25:45 PM EST

The civil-rights era has basically forced liberals to accept the precedent that "interstate commerce" means "anything". If someone growing marijuana in their own back yard entirely within one state isn't interstate commerce, then maybe someone running a "public accomodation" located entirely within one state isn't engaged in interstate commerce either. Since the latter is pretty hard to square with any substantive restrictions on what constitutes "interstate commerce", liberals for the sake of consistency are left saying that all human activity is interstate commerce.

[ Parent ]
I hate it, but yea (none / 0) (#201)
by codejack on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:11:21 PM EST

But now they're bucking the trend over gay marriage, of all things; marriages that aren't recognized in different states is going to lead to all new categories of disaster.

All new categories of jokes, too, like Alabama not recognizing marriages where the couple aren't brother and sister :)


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
What Middle America really wants... (none / 1) (#195)
by Handyman on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:29:30 PM EST

Liberals are seen as money spending socialists. This may be OK on the East and West Coasts but in the middle of the country people want to hang on to what they have, go to church with their families, none of them give a rat's ass about Global Warming and they want keep money out of the pockets of politicians. Middle Americans don't want shitty socialized medicine, they don't want Federalized education and they don't want to be taken care of by the government and Hillary's "It Takes A Village" nonsense.

I had to comment on this point; it seems to be commonly thought that "Middle America" is a bastion of self-reliance and thrift, from whom all goodness and light and other American principles emanate.

Unfortunately, that's just not true.
"In 2003, the top subsidy-sucking state, in percentage terms, was red-lite New Mexico, which received $1.99 in federal money for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. All the next eight net recipients of federal spending were redder yet: Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi and Alaska, which received $1.60 to $1.89 back for each tax dollar." - SeattlePI.com
"The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, also known as the 2002 Farm Bill, is the most recent incarnation of U.S. government assistance to domestic farmers. [...] Annually, the act directs 16.5 billion dollars of funding toward agricultural subsidies." - Wikipedia
These are just two examples of ways that Middle America is "taken care of by the government." If it is really the case that Middle America would prefer the government to stay out of their business, perhaps they could refuse the "welfare" that the government forces upon them?

And yes, I understand that you specifically said "true or not, that is the perception." I'm just trying to change that perception with a little dose of facts.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
maybe gore did win (none / 0) (#111)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:48:28 AM EST

in which al gore should have won, but didn't, because of assholes who voted for nader

What about the assholes who rigged the elections for Bush?

General principle: where there's smoke, there's fire. Lots of smoke in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio and New Mexico in 2004.


[ Parent ]

yes, conspiracies everywhere (none / 1) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:12:07 AM EST

the lazy stupid and insane man's replacement for valid thought

but you can ignore me and my venomous words dear crackpot... i obviously work for THEM

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

some people only believe in official conspiracies (none / 0) (#119)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:22:27 AM EST

I'm not going to snicker - I pitty thee. Perhaps you'll be like Mr. Cramer when your comfortable world view starts breaking down. If you happen to meet the Mad Money Man himself on Times Square, you should ask him what it's like to be blindsided.

[ Parent ]
dear crackpot (none / 1) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:27:46 AM EST

you may think cathartic displays of emotion may validate your paranoid views, but they don't

you'll excuse me now, i have to go suck the cock of the dark lord illumnati, he has just given dick cheney his latest marching orders


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Gore ? (none / 1) (#135)
by mirko on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:52:01 AM EST

You mean the one who married Tipper Gore? That bitch and her PAEL label? Re-read the Zappa Book.

You might also check the reason why Gore is so keen on preaching aboutthe Global Warming: he's got stocks in companies that resell pollution shares.

I would not vote for that cunt if he were the only candidate.
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane
[ Parent ]

Gore didn't lose because of Nader (none / 0) (#164)
by godix on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:28:51 PM EST

Gore lost because of himself. I mean how fucking bad at politics do you have to be to not be able to turn 8 years as VP under a popular president into a landslide victory during good economic times? Shit, even the first Bush was able to pull that one off and we all know what a twit he was. That election SHOULD have ended with Gore grabbing such a large majority that Naders few percent wouldn't matter at all. The fact it didn't shows just how worthless Gore really was.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
Gore's main problem (none / 0) (#175)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:29:20 AM EST

Was that he assumed 8 years of a popular president and roaring economy was actually a liability, because he thought everyone was still worried about Monica, so he tried to distance himself as much as possible from 1992-2000, and therefore lost. The effective message was that he was "some chump who used to be a Tennessee senator and did something else since then but doesn't like talking about it".

[ Parent ]
Even if what you say is true (none / 0) (#220)
by vectro on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:46:56 PM EST

Then it really comes down to a failure of the electoral system. It is not a desirable property of an electoral method that the introduction of a new unpopular candidate should change the final result.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
that's tangential (none / 0) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:32:31 PM EST

there are many voting systems, borda for instance, that would improve what we got

but there will still be idealistic morons who won't vote because their perfect fringe candidate won't win

thereby ensuring a worse candidate wins

you need to vote strategically, not idealistically: pick the candidate with the best chance of winning closest to your beliefs, not the fringe canddidate who matches your beliefs perfectly but can't win

if you vote idealistically, you only ensure the candidate furthest from your beliefs wins, by robbing the one with a good shot to win, closer to your beliefs, is deprived of votes

this is true no matter what voting system you use


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think you need to read up on this more. (none / 0) (#222)
by vectro on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:00:28 PM EST

What you are referring to is a property of electoral systems, namely susceptibility to tactical or strategic voting. Although it is true that most electoral systems have some degree of vulnerability in this area, the plurality system is one of the worst by this criterion. The electoral college system is exceptional in that one's incentive to vote strategically varies depending on the overall mood of one's state, but voters in swing states (that is, voters that matter) have high incentive to vote strategically.

Voting systems that are susceptible to strategic voting are inferior; in the case of plurality, a candidate can be forced out of an election by a self-perpetuating perception that he or she cannot win.

What you seem to be saying is that voters should vote strategically if their electoral system leads them in that direction; in that sense, I'll agree, but also point out that strategic voting does not necessarily lead one to vote for a mainstream candidate. Voting third-party, especially in an uncontested election, will affect the policies of mainstream candidates that are in fact elected. Also, your model of strategic voting does not necessarily apply if one is looking at the long-term; one may vote for a third party in order to keep it on the ballot, or to pass a fundraising threshold.

Finally, though, one should point out that none of this is really the important issue. The electoral system in America is not going to change short of a revolution, for the same reason that we are not going to see meaningful campaign finance reform anytime soon: The people who have the power to change the system have a strong disincentive to do so. Because of this and because of the relatively minor differences between the main parties, voting is not a very good way to exercise political power in contemporary America. Fundraising, direct action, and volunteerism are all more effective, albiet requiring a greater time commitment.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

You are correct. (none / 1) (#93)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:48:07 PM EST



Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005
[ Parent ]
Uh, riiight. (2.00 / 2) (#100)
by godix on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:02:30 PM EST

  1. Spoken like someone with no concept of what they're talking about. Fortunately, the only democratic candidate who agrees with you happens to be one of the ones that doesn't have a prayer.

  2. It's really questionable on if they violated laws. Disagreeing with their policies isn't the same as illegal. And don't bother quoting examples unless you can also quote a court judgment that shows not only were their actions illegal, they are meriting a jail sentance. You aren't a judge, you don't get to decide.

  3. The problem with US education isn't money. Throwing money at it won't help. I don't agree with no child left behind but I have yet to hear of any politician with a better idea.

  4. Universal health care isn't the solution to americas medical problems. Breaking the backs of the drug companies, reforming the legal system to prevent frivolous lawsuits while allowing legit lawsuits to go forward, and overhauling the entire system so doctors can spend more time treating patients than filling out forms are the solution. But all of those go against powerful special interests and not only are democrats not willing to do that, in the case of Edwards they're contemplating electing the special interest instead.

  5. Not really a big deal. The patriot act is a bad law but there a many things going on that are far worse for our liberties. All reversing the patriot act would do is make sure the sheep go back to sleep while the foxes continue with really fucking with em.

  6. I agree but not a major issue with most people who aren't currently high. Nor should it be. There are many more important things to be concerned with.

  7. Ok, on this one you have a point. Which is why I'm hoping Jesse Ventura runs for president. You think some raghead is gonna be able to pin an ex-seal/ex-wrestler?



- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
The war on drugs is a big issue for non-druggies (3.00 / 2) (#106)
by damiam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:21:01 PM EST

Or should be, anyway. Billions of dollars every year are being sent straight into the pockets of gangsters and drug lords in Latin America. More billions are spent to incarcerate nonviolent offenders who pose no threat to society, and we're ignoring even more billions in potential tax revenue. Each of those things is pretty fucking significant.

[ Parent ]
also, the industry that runs our prisons system (3.00 / 3) (#110)
by insomnyuk on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:42:40 PM EST

is a big lobbyist for 3 strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, and an all-out drug war.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
I won't deny that (none / 0) (#163)
by godix on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:21:59 PM EST

but I do think there are more important issues. Iraq is costing billions and that money, in part, goes directly to people who want to kill us. Despite the terrorism boogyman that's been trotted out again and again, reality is there are terrorist who want to hurt America and we should do something about it. Russia in a lot of ways is looking like it's taking steps back to the cold war period, that's a huge concern. China looks like it's preparing for a future war against America and we should pay attention to that. I'm not going to say drugs should remain illegal, I'm pretty pro-legalization myself for mostly the reasons you mention, I just think there are other things we should focus on first. When your neighbor is waving around a shotgun threatening to shoot someone isn't the time to be concerned about his dog pooping in your yard ya know, there are priorities.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
those are all valid concerns (none / 0) (#169)
by damiam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:42:32 PM EST

But our government employs 2 million people; surely they have the resources to think about more than one issue at once.

[ Parent ]
I registered to vote last night (none / 0) (#102)
by MichaelCrawford on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:24:21 PM EST

In a month or two I'll also start making campaign donations. The first one is probably going to Kucinich.

I expect to volunteer as well, to register voters and help with the get-out-the-vote drive.

I was one of the founders of the '92 Santa Cruz Jerry Brown for President Campaign, and it was a wonderful experience.


Looking for some free songs?


pay off your debts (3.00 / 6) (#115)
by Jobst of Moravia on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:58:09 AM EST

you disgusting moral degenerate

---
              __
   .,-;-;-,. /'_\ ---Did this Negro say "Street Moor"?
 _/_/_/_|_\_\) /
'-<_><_><_><_>=\
 `/_/====/_/-'\_\
  ""     ""    ""

[ Parent ]

Pay them for him and do something useful (none / 0) (#209)
by tweet on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:19:23 AM EST

for a change

_______________________________________________
Not everything in black and white makes sense.

[ Parent ]

you will jog for the master race (none / 1) (#172)
by Delirium on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:18:04 AM EST

and always wear the happy face

[ Parent ]
What Hillary could do to get my vote (none / 0) (#133)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:39:27 AM EST

1)  Kill herself.

RE: War crimes - You know as well as I do as well as everyone in the house and senate that the UN and Clinton set the stage for Round 2.  If you wanted to convict anyone, go after Bush Sr for not finishing the job.

RE: PATRIOT act - I still maintain it's a reasonable update to laws that were written back when telephones were two wires and a hand-crank.

RE: Marijuana - are you in the "without laws" legalization camp or in the "alcohol laws" legalization camp?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

Wouldn't that be one wire? (none / 1) (#136)
by xC0000005 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:58:03 AM EST

The earth itself was the ground in this case. My father in law helped run the telephone lines to his town when he was young - they were proud of having two wires, for two separate phone calls.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
I BOW TO YOUR SUPERIOR TELEPHONE KNOWLEDGE nt (3.00 / 3) (#139)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:24:39 AM EST


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Allow me to retort... (none / 0) (#150)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:47:41 PM EST

RE: RE: War crimes - are you fucking nuts?! Hell, we just found out that Cheney knew EXACTLY what would happen if we went into Baghdad back in '94; what, he forgot?! And yea, Clinton was just as much at fault, ship his sorry ass to Brussels, too.

RE: RE: PATRIOT act - sure, and it's reasonable for "the" (ha-ha, remember that?) phone company to raise prices as their costs go up... but push the envelope at your own risk.

RE: RE: Marijuana - I'm not totally convinced that alcohol should have "alcohol laws"; having said that, this is one of those areas where the local option seems appropriate. There are still dry counties...


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I SUPPOSE SO (none / 0) (#154)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:14:38 PM EST

RE: War crimes - hindsight is always perfect.  Just because "massive civil unrest" was a perfectly obvious consequence of completely wiping a government off the map doesn't mean he had intimate knowledge of the future. He's not psychic. I find it very strange people have the opinion that the Bush Administration had some kind of foreknowledge if they are willing to accept the premise that the UN and Clinton played a major role in the current situation. One of the reasons why things are screwed up is because the Clinton Administration cut money to the CIA, so the same intelligence that said Iraq had nukes in addition to chemical weapons was the same intelligence that underestimated the level of civil unrest.

RE: PATRIOT act - It doesn't particularly bother me to push the envelope. Unlike the massive prisonplanet-esque predictions of eyes in every home, it seems a good amount of the observable use of this act has been to track people making international calls. Since US citizens are allowed a public trial of their peers as part of their basic rights, it's reasonable to expect that a trial would take place and be commented on in the papers. Miss a spin opportunity like the government screwing up someone wrongfully over the PATRIOT act? That wont' happen.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

RE: RE: Patriot act (none / 1) (#155)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:04:22 PM EST

Um, how would we know? They're holding people and they don't have to even admit it; maybe you're comfortable allowing our government to jail people indefinitely for ambiguous reasons with no trial, but I'm not.

And since you're such a big fan of history, why don't you go read about 1930's Germany and figure out what they could have done differently to get away with it, because that's what Bush's family has been doing for 60 years.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Oh I know what could be done differently (none / 0) (#157)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:11:45 PM EST

Clear up the fact that these people aren't protected by the rights guaranteed to citizens of the local country!

OH HOLY SHIT IF I'M NOT A JAPANESE CITIZEN I AM NOT PROTECTED BY THE RIGHTS OF JAPAN DESPITE HAVING RAPE WRITTEN INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION!

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

WTF?! (none / 0) (#159)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:19:39 PM EST

How do we know?! They have reserved the right to not even acknowledge the existence of some prisoners, much less identify them and secure their rights.

The honor system didn't work in school, and it sure as hell isn't going to work in government.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
OK I had to roffle (none / 0) (#160)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:26:26 PM EST

Alright, how do you reconcile the Afghanistan Bill of Rights against the American Bill of Rights?

Hint:  Article 1 of the Afghanistan Constitution begins with "Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state."

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

I don't have to :) (none / 1) (#161)
by codejack on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:09:15 PM EST

The foreign policy precedents are clear; I have no problem with our invasion of Afghanistan, I do have a problem with the half-assed job we've done of it.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Impressive (1.75 / 4) (#148)
by bob6 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:10:12 PM EST

The great lenghts of ridiculous excuses people here make up just in order not to vote for a woman. And yet we're supposed to be the smarter ones...

Cheers.
Yeah, like we should totally vote for a woman just (1.75 / 4) (#151)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:20:26 PM EST

because she's a woman. That's the most important issue here, like guys.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 1) (#206)
by bob6 on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:57:34 AM EST

but when I read stuff like "I would never vote for her because her husband cheated on her", it just sounds like a lame excuse.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Bros before Hoes. (3.00 / 2) (#183)
by Psycho Dave on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:38:14 AM EST

Edwards? Well, he's charismatic. If he pulls a coup in Iowa he might stir things up if Clinton and Obama don't show incredibly. There's still plenty of time for someone to melt down between now and then. Still, I get a sort of Jimmy Carter vibe from him. Utterly charismatic on the campaign trail, ineffective once he's in office.

I'm rooting for Obama, but I'm kinda resigned to Hillary getting the nomination. Her sex isn't a liability as much as the presidency of her husband. The right hate her because of Whitewater and Monica. The left hate her because she did more than just roll over when it came down to the Iraq War, she was one of the people ordering people to roll over. She cannot wash her hands of it as easily as it seems.

Despite being hated by many, it all really comes down to who the Republicans put up, and so far, they seem to be a sorry lot. McCain imploded early. Good. He's the Republican version of Hillary Clinton: a pure political opportunist, and the left's love affair with him ended around the time he started hugging up on Bush in the '04 election (as well as seeing that the McCain/Feingold Act didn't do much besides make the candidates say "I'm _______ and I approve this message" at the end of their ads.

Romney is too much of a Ken doll. He spits out the party line and looks presidential doing it. It's enough to get some campaign dollars in from the grassroots. I don't really give a shit that he's Mormon, but I do wonder how many of the Religious Right do?

Fred Thompson will go out like Wesley Clark. Great buzz, good polling and fundraising for a couple of weeks, then when Law and Order reruns are off the air for a couple of weeks everyone starts to ignore him. And if he does manage to win the party's nomination, you can bring him down by just asking how he found the time to be both a senator and star in a hit TV show at the same time? Methinks he probably let the legislating thing slide a bit during sweeps season.

Likewise, Guiliani (who I believe will get the nomination) is gonna have to explain why he dressed up in drag so often. If he gets the nomination and the Democrats don't plaster this picture fucking everywhere, then they are true incompetents.

I am kinda torn (none / 0) (#202)
by lukme on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:45:25 AM EST

I kinda like the congress being held by a different party than the president - it seems to keep everyone honest. However, after seeing what the Bush administration has done, I really cannot bring myself to vote for a republican. It is too bad that we don't have separate elections for the vice president and president. It would have be nice to elect Gore to be Bush's vice president.


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
started out (none / 0) (#215)
by Zombie Schrodingers Cat on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:35:04 AM EST

the winner of the election was prez, the dude that got the second most votes was VP. It caused too many problems though so they changed it.

[ Parent ]
Pure ignorance (1.00 / 3) (#207)
by volkris on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:27:27 PM EST

Wow... what a horribly, horribly ignorant post.

I try to check the submissions queue when I have a chance, but somehow stuff like this still slips through.

This article positively drips with the idea that the author knows nothing about the world, about how it works, and, most importantly, about what's best for the country and its citizens.

I mean great: I appreciate that you have a list of concrete positions that it would take to gain your support, now please... don't vote. Ever.

Public Schools are destroying America (none / 0) (#208)
by nlscb on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:35:38 AM EST

Any bill to help take down the US education system and corrupt teachers unions is OK in my book.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

Right (none / 0) (#214)
by ShiftyStoner on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:27:01 AM EST

Bill makes her look weak. Just as a woman to a man. Twofold considering she feeds off of his abilities and past presidency.

Apparently all the clever pole heads missed that.

 
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

"Lurleen" Clinton: Why I won't vote for Hillary | 222 comments (203 topical, 19 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!