Debate and Discussion

the end of democracy in america
StaceyMontgomery at 1:55PM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I enjoy healthy debate - but mockery tends to feel mean and it reflects very, very poorly on those who use it in a forum like this one.

It makes them seem small-minded and foolish, I think.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
imshard at 3:48PM, Jan. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
StaceyMontgomery
I enjoy healthy debate - but mockery tends to feel mean and it reflects very, very poorly on those who use it in a forum like this one.

It makes them seem small-minded and foolish, I think.

You're right I was angry, annoyed and overly caustic there. My bad, forgive my single lapse in a sea of sarcastic cynic users.

Overall it was a poor choice of words. The underlying feeling though had merit. Blind faith that a candidate will magically fix all the messes of the current administration reflects poorly and seems small-minded and foolish to me as well. In fact I beleive that it was the same kind of unseeing optimism that led to the electorate voting in bush in the first place. Let's look before we leap shall we? but not in this thread. There is already an Obama thread.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 6:47PM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
StaceyMontgomery
I enjoy healthy debate - but mockery tends to feel mean and it reflects very, very poorly on those who use it in a forum like this one.

It makes them seem small-minded and foolish, I think.

You're right I was angry, annoyed and overly caustic there. My bad, forgive my single lapse in a sea of sarcastic cynic users.

Overall it was a poor choice of words. The underlying feeling though had merit. Blind faith that a candidate will magically fix all the messes of the current administration reflects poorly and seems small-minded and foolish to me as well. In fact I beleive that it was the same kind of unseeing optimism that led to the electorate voting in bush in the first place. Let's look before we leap shall we? but not in this thread. There is already an Obama thread.

I accept apologies for your unwarranted attack, but don't try to paint me as a simpleton to justify your tirade. In the future if you are going to mock me, try not putting words in my mouth and criticize what I actually said.

I didn't say he would magically do anything, or that he would fix everything, my exact words were that he would reverse some of the damage with respects to the partisan blood feud we find ourselves mired in, which I believe he at least intends to do,; which to me is far superior than impeaching Bush now and as a result increasing partisan rancor and gridlock.

Funny how I try to take a moderate position and get my head handed to me, nice incentive for me to support future bipartisan cooperation. Congratulations you are so much smarter than me.

Oh and by the way, if its my widdle countwy, then I would be p“w”ecious, please try to get your insults straight.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
imshard at 8:17PM, Jan. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
I accept apologies for your unwarranted attack, but don't try to paint me as a simpleton to justify your tirade. In the future if you are going to mock me, try not putting words in my mouth and criticize what I actually said.

I didn't say he would magically do anything, or that he would fix everything, my exact words were that he would reverse some of the damage with respects to the partisan blood feud we find ourselves mired in, which I believe he at least intends to do,; which to me is far superior than impeaching Bush now and as a result increasing partisan rancor and gridlock.

Funny how I try to take a moderate position and get my head handed to me, nice incentive for me to support future bipartisan cooperation. Congratulations you are so much smarter than me.

Oh and by the way, if its my widdle countwy, then I would be p“w”ecious, please try to get your insults straight.

You offend too easily, and don't mis-characterize failed attempts at light-humor.

bobhhh
I can't argue with the validity of your points, I may be naive here, but I'm just hoping Obama will be elected and reverse a good deal of the damage that has been done.

This is not a moderate position by a long shot. A moderate position would have been “I hope the next president will be able to heal the rifts in the country”.
Granted it wasn't extreme as illustrated by your example, but it was clearly one-sided. It was a plug statement for Barrack, not exactly an olive branch.


You'd actually write off a future of untiy and mutual cooperation just because one or two people said something stupid that hurt your feelings?
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 8:55PM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
No my moderate position was not supporting impeachment in the hopes of ending partisan rancor.

And you can call it humour, but you characterized me as stupid for being hopeful that Obama might be successful at healing partisan wounds. I might disagree with you, but i will continue to avoid attaching personal judgements about your character to my responses.

And I was returning your levity with my Pwecious remark, so touche for not getting the joke.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Calbeck at 11:55PM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
Until 2004, I always voted for candidates and never parties — in 2004, as a direct reaction to the kind of arguments levied by some folks in this thread, I voted my first straight-party ticket EVER: blind-eyed Republican down the sheet.

And that's specifically because Bush's opposition succeeded in scaring me more than BUSH does. I would have voted third-party, but Nader made a protest vote for Bush look more worthwhile.

I'm seriously considering Obama right now, because he's upbeat, on message, and makes reasoned arguments that one can civilly discuss rather than have a catfight over. He is the Anti-Dean in this regard. My position has been firmed up by the ongoing Republican failure to produce a worthy opponent.

If Hillary wins the nomination I will be forced to vote Republican in protest of seeing the “Bitter Old Guard” seize the Democrat reins again. And in the event that it's Hillary versus a Repub OTHER than McCain, Thompson, or Guiliani — all of whom I have reservations about anyways — then I'm seriously considering Australian citizenship. I hear they have excellent surf. -:D
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
RabbitMaster at 4:26AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 129
joined: 5-26-2007
Great surf but insane gun laws.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
bobhhh at 4:40AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
Until 2004, I always voted for candidates and never parties — in 2004, as a direct reaction to the kind of arguments levied by some folks in this thread, I voted my first straight-party ticket EVER: blind-eyed Republican down the sheet.

And that's specifically because Bush's opposition succeeded in scaring me more than BUSH does. I would have voted third-party, but Nader made a protest vote for Bush look more worthwhile.

I'm seriously considering Obama right now, because he's upbeat, on message, and makes reasoned arguments that one can civilly discuss rather than have a catfight over. He is the Anti-Dean in this regard. My position has been firmed up by the ongoing Republican failure to produce a worthy opponent.

If Hillary wins the nomination I will be forced to vote Republican in protest of seeing the “Bitter Old Guard” seize the Democrat reins again. And in the event that it's Hillary versus a Repub OTHER than McCain, Thompson, or Guiliani — all of whom I have reservations about anyways — then I'm seriously considering Australian citizenship. I hear they have excellent surf. -:D

Hillary is not as bad as you imagine. Even Obama will tell you they are close in terms of policy. The difference is that Hillary has made some errors in judgement that are based on the conventional wisdom of how to remain relevant in politics. This partially because she was more concerned with her own presidential ambition than with being a good senator, but this only makes her guilty of what most presidential candidates are. It's why she voted for the war. Hillary has been villified, and the national press has given her intense scrutiny, if she had voted against the war at a time when massive public opinion was swinging that way, she would have branded as weak on national security, and as a NY senator after 911, she might have found herself out of a job.

Still it was a mistake, just like her double speak about why she did it now is. But it is too easy to look at Obama's smile and confident manner and say he is uperior to Hillary without factoring how much different he would be if he had weathered decades of character assasination from the right. In a way Hillary is to be given high marks for survivng the right wing screw job and come this close to the presidency.

But I still feel that Obama carries less partisan baggage, and thus is the better choice, but don't kid yourself about Hillary. If she is bitter, she came by it honestly.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TitanOne at 8:44AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
bobhhh
No my moderate position was not supporting impeachment in the hopes of ending partisan rancor.


I say bring on the partisan rancor. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
imshard at 10:30AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
TitanOne
bobhhh
No my moderate position was not supporting impeachment in the hopes of ending partisan rancor.


I say bring on the partisan rancor. :)

The word anarchy comes to mind for some reason. You'd like some division then?
They call it the UNITED States of America for a reason. Because our strength has always been in our ability to look past our differences and combine our strengths. Like A metallic alloy the melting pot of America Burns away the impurities of our individual components and bonds us together into a whole that is stronger than its component elements. Where is the steel when the iron and charcoal won't melt or give way inside the crucible? The icy politics of partisanship leave us as nothing but piles of weak materials from which something greater could be forged.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
StaceyMontgomery at 11:02AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I think the problem is not the “partisanship” part but the “rancor.”

Americans have always liked to see ideas compete in the arena of the public square. We like to see people fight for their beliefs. But Rancor (“Bitter, long-lasting resentment and deep-seated ill will”) does get in the way of the the “United” stuff.


These day I am suspicious of calls for everyone getting along. The other day I heard Newt Gingrich on the radio, he was speaking at length about the need for us all to get along in a bi-partisan way. This sounded good to me until he finally said that to achieve this goal, the right would have to work harder and the left would have to surrender it's beliefs. And for a moment there, I almost thought he was serious!

When you call for compromise, make sure you are ready to compromise. If you merely think that the other person should compromise, then you should probably think again.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
CharleyHorse at 6:23PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
To increase the feeling of disconnect there ol' Newt was one of the most gung-ho partisan extremists during the Bill Clinton administration and championed the notion of investigating Clinton with open-ended fishing expedition investigations on the tax payers' dime. It was only after HE got caught cheating on HIS wife that he gradually began to turn his back on rancor politics , because his being outed as a hypocrite destroyed his political career.

When Newt talks about hate and rancor and extreme partisan politics it is the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle messily sooty. I'm glad to see that he hasn't REALLY changed his evil and wicked ways.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
imshard at 10:04PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
It takes two to tango. The willingness to reciprocate is what leads to the bloodiest conflicts. How about you and I get an initiative going to clean house in Washington and start from scratch eh? Or are you willing to bitch but not pitch?
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
CharleyHorse at 6:21AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
I am pitching, and I'm doing so my way, and, yes, I have had some success doing so. Do not ascribe to others your perspectives and methodologies Imshard. I've MADE a difference during my life time and I intend to continue doing so, only to do so MY WAY.

Arrogant, eh? Sometimes I get that way.

It takes massive grass roots movements to even gain politician's attention to any significant degree and they know that if they are forced to act on popular ire issues that they can use the fact that each is only one representative or senatorial cog in a massive organization to more or less hide their involvement and also safely make the original plan look and feel and be more safe for general political interests.

This is precisely the fate of tax reform movements and bill earmark reforms and so forth and so on. On the ironic note that this thread IS about “The end of democracy in America/U.S.A.” I shall point out that from that respect it is an apt – if slightly misleading title.

Even when the punks are thrown out of congress in droves they are replaced with other politicians who fully intend to only make it look good while they immediately begin to feather their nests. This was what happened when the democrat dominated congress of Clinton's first term was replaced by republican politicians and this is what has already happened now that the republican dominated congress of G.W. Bush's second term has been replaced by democrat politicians. Different faces and supposedly different alliances and agendas, but same old garbage.

For their own reasons NEITHER republicans nor democrats want to instate a military draft or secure the U.S./Mexican border. Neither political affiliation are REALLY more for the interests of the poor and the middle class than they are for the wealthy and privileged .

So is there any difference at all between the parties and any point in voting at all?

Well, on the whole the democrats at least fake an interest in the genuine needs of the poor and the middle class and so once in a while actually do champion an important cause in that direction. Republican politicians, however, don't even fool their own supporters on the whole when they utter terms such as compassionate conservatism. It probably doesn't help that most of them laugh while trying to say the term.

So, yes, there are still a few differences between the two parties and so it probably does matter which way a person votes. Consider, for instance, how very different today would be if the U.S. supreme court hadn't overridden the popular vote of the nation and placed G.W. Bush in office in 2000. There would never have been an Iraq war, for instance nor our nation currently being ten trillion dollars in debt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
RabbitMaster at 7:12AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 129
joined: 5-26-2007
StaceyMontgomery
I think the problem is not the “partisanship” part but the “rancor.”
That's an interesting viewpoint. I really wish I could be more optimistic about the future of our society, but I think we have passed a tipping point. At the heart of many of the divisive issues that we squabble over is a common thread. That common thread are questions like “what is the nature of freedom? what is the proper role of government in a free society? what are our obligations to each other?” Very basic questions, and they are questions that form and shape someone's worldview. Without a common worldview as to the nature of the problem, we can hardly be expected to come up with a common solution.
We have pulled loose from the moorings of the ideas and concepts that became America. Now we're just arguing about what to do with the real estate.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
imshard at 10:34AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
CharleyHorse
I am pitching, and I'm doing so my way, and, yes, I have had some success doing so. Do not ascribe to others your perspectives and methodologies Imshard. I've MADE a difference during my life time and I intend to continue doing so, only to do so MY WAY.

Arrogant, eh? Sometimes I get that way.

It takes massive grass roots movements to even gain politician's attention to any significant degree and they know that if they are forced to act on popular ire issues that they can use the fact that each is only one representative or senatorial cog in a massive organization to more or less hide their involvement and also safely make the original plan look and feel and be more safe for general political interests.

This is precisely the fate of tax reform movements and bill earmark reforms and so forth and so on. On the ironic note that this thread IS about “The end of democracy in America/U.S.A.” I shall point out that from that respect it is an apt – if slightly misleading title.

Even when the punks are thrown out of congress in droves they are replaced with other politicians who fully intend to only make it look good while they immediately begin to feather their nests. This was what happened when the democrat dominated congress of Clinton's first term was replaced by republican politicians and this is what has already happened now that the republican dominated congress of G.W. Bush's second term has been replaced by democrat politicians. Different faces and supposedly different alliances and agendas, but same old garbage.

For their own reasons NEITHER republicans nor democrats want to instate a military draft or secure the U.S./Mexican border. Neither political affiliation are REALLY more for the interests of the poor and the middle class than they are for the wealthy and privileged .

So is there any difference at all between the parties and any point in voting at all?

Well, on the whole the democrats at least fake an interest in the genuine needs of the poor and the middle class and so once in a while actually do champion an important cause in that direction. Republican politicians, however, don't even fool their own supporters on the whole when they utter terms such as compassionate conservatism. It probably doesn't help that most of them laugh while trying to say the term.

So, yes, there are still a few differences between the two parties and so it probably does matter which way a person votes. Consider, for instance, how very different today would be if the U.S. supreme court hadn't overridden the popular vote of the nation and placed G.W. Bush in office in 2000. There would never have been an Iraq war, for instance nor our nation currently being ten trillion dollars in debt.

Eat some quinine lately? You seem bitter. At least I now know you have a bone with the entire political scope instead of just one side. Despite that, I agree with this post almost completely. I'm a member of those grassroots efforts you mentioned. I know first hand that requesting an audience with or writing letters to your state and federal reps actually works.

It is true that no matter who has “power” in D.C. that the same B.S. is going to happen. The new boss IS always the same as the old boss in Washington. Doesn't mean we can't try again. For instance lets not replace democrats with republicans with democrats with republicans, etc. Blow the party system and vote by issue. I'm a fan of the contractual idea. The politician has to sign a contract with his/her constituents in which he pledges his pay is forfeit if he doesn't fulfill his campaign promises. You know, try something new instead of repeating the same mistakes. In a nation supposedly led by the people we ostensibly have the freedom to make or reverse changes as we the people see fit.

btw its 58 trill of debts all things counted. Approx $400,000 owed by every citizen.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Calbeck at 10:39AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
RabbitMaster
Great surf but insane gun laws.

*gasp!*

What?! You mean…no Skeet Surfing?

Huh. Maybe New Zealand, then…*ponders*
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
Calbeck at 10:50AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
Hillary is not as bad as you imagine.

Imagine, nothing. Her sum-total qualifications are being married to an ex-President and having put together a lousy concept for a health-care plan that even her own party refused to get behind. One of her current health-care ideas is to swipe a page from the car-insurance industry and FINE anyone who DOESN'T get health care.

This puts her a notch below Barbara Bush, who also was married to an ex-President but at least isn't a failed policy wonk.

Even Obama will tell you they are close in terms of policy.

And Obama isn't part of the “good-ole-boy network” that does for the Democrats what the Bush/Reagan Bunch did for the Republicans. Obama maybe, Hillary not a chance.

Still it was a mistake, just like her double speak about why she did it now is. But it is too easy to look at Obama's smile and confident manner and say

…that he has none of Hillary's baggage and is therefore in a far superior position to bring a sense of balance to Washington.

Obama will be better able to build a centrist coalition and has a good chance of extending an olive branch moderate Republicans will accept. Hillary, because of the bad blood between her and almost everyone else in Washington who isn't a hardcore Democrat, will find that hardcore Dems are her only allies. Hello, gridlock.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
imshard at 11:00AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Indeed, whatever her qualifications, the divisiveness that ol' billary generates would hamstring her effectiveness as a leader.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Calbeck at 11:08AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
CharleyHorse
Consider, for instance, how very different today would be if the U.S. supreme court hadn't overridden the popular vote of the nation and placed G.W. Bush in office in 2000.

Which it didn't.

What the USSC actually did was deny the Florida Supreme Court's decision to have every Florida county recount the votes according to whatever after-the-election criteria they chose to use. Which would have meant that a vote cast in Palm Beach that was interpreted as being ‘for Gore’ could just as readily have been interpreted as ‘for Bush’ in Broward.

The USSC invoked the Equal Protection Clause to ensure that a single statewide methodology was used, and under that methodology Bush won the popular vote.

Because Bush won the popular Florida vote, he also won the Florida electoral votes and thus the election. The USSC didn't “override” either of these.

There are exactly four scenarios in which Gore could have won a recount.

One was the county-by-county recount the USSC struck down. The other three required allowing votes that were legally disqualified due to voter error to be counted, and THEN only if PARTICULAR kinds of voter errors were counted.

Under a scenario where all interpretable errors were counted, Bush won again.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bobhhh at 2:07PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
First of all I agree with you about Obama being the better choice so take it easy.

Calbeck
bobhhh
Hillary is not as bad as you imagine.

Imagine, nothing. Her sum-total qualifications are being married to an ex-President and having put together a lousy concept for a health-care plan that even her own party refused to get behind. One of her current health-care ideas is to swipe a page from the car-insurance industry and FINE anyone who DOESN'T get health care.

As far as qualifications, she has spent nearly a decade in the senate and regardless of what you think, she has been involved in politics on the national level for decades. If she was so inconsequential as you imply, then there wouldn't be such a smear machine organized against her.

This puts her a notch below Barbara Bush, who also was married to an ex-President but at least isn't a failed policy wonk.

Even Obama will tell you they are close in terms of policy.

And Obama isn't part of the “good-ole-boy network” that does for the Democrats what the Bush/Reagan Bunch did for the Republicans. Obama maybe, Hillary not a chance.

Boy you lost me here, WTF are you talking about?

Still it was a mistake, just like her double speak about why she did it now is. But it is too easy to look at Obama's smile and confident manner and say

…that he has none of Hillary's baggage and is therefore in a far superior position to bring a sense of balance to Washington.

Nice way to not answer my point by splicing it out, and never mind the fact that i myself say he has less baggage in my original post. The way you write this implies that you are making this point to me. for reference here is my unedited comments

Bobhhh
Still it was a mistake, just like her double speak about why she did it now is. But it is too easy to look at Obama's smile and confident manner and say he is superior to Hillary without factoring how much different he would be if he had weathered decades of character assasination from the right. In a way Hillary is to be given high marks for survivng the right wing screw job and come this close to the presidency.

Obama will be better able to build a centrist coalition and has a good chance of extending an olive branch moderate Republicans will accept. Hillary, because of the bad blood between her and almost everyone else in Washington who isn't a hardcore Democrat, will find that hardcore Dems are her only allies. Hello, gridlock.

Once again I quote Me.

Bobhhh
But I still feel that Obama carries less partisan baggage, and thus is the better choice…

I believe I said as much in my post, so what's your beef, is it that I don't fall for the knee jerk vilification that the right wing spin machine as successfully encoded into the national subconscious? As far as i can see the real sin Hillary is guilty of was to have the misfortune of being married to the right wings most hated president, Bill Clinton. That and the fact that she spoke ill about baking cookies.

My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Calbeck at 4:38PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
As far as qualifications, she has spent nearly a decade in the senate and regardless of what you think, she has been involved in politics on the national level for decades.

And done what? I've reviewed her record, and there's next to nothing that she's originated. She's merely piled on a list of co-sponsorships, all of it party-line material she'd be voting for anyways. She's simply never taken the initiative as a senator.

If she was so inconsequential as you imply, then there wouldn't be such a smear machine organized against her.

*rolls eyes* Show me a Presidential candidate who isn't the target of an organized smear machine, and I'll show you a Presidential candidate who isn't breaking double digits in the polls. Actually, I can show you a couple who were slandered anyway, having been a two-time Presidential primary state delegate. When they start accusing Hillary of thinking she can fly by flapping her legs during yoga exercises, get back to me.

Boy you lost me here, WTF are you talking about?

Don't know what's to miss: Hillary's part of the Old Business-As-Usual Establishment and Obama isn't.

Bobhhh
I believe I said as much in my post, so what's your beef, is it that I don't fall for the knee jerk vilification that the right wing spin machine as successfully encoded into the national subconscious?

Wow, you sound like the left wing's version of Bill O'Reilly. Congrats on lowering yourself that far.

I'll make it simple: I don't like Hillary because during her time as First Lady, I cannot remember a single thing she was involved in that she didn't botch. NOT ONE. And not ONCE did she take responsibility, even for things that no one else had a hand in.

Even that idiot BUSH has been better in that regard. Do you really think I want this country to take a step down in the Presidential department? Instead of a schmuck who can't pour pee out of boot with instructions written under the heel, we'll get one that blames Republican moles in the FBI for stealing the instruction labels.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bobhhh at 8:21PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
bobhhh
As far as qualifications, she has spent nearly a decade in the senate and regardless of what you think, she has been involved in politics on the national level for decades.

And done what? I've reviewed her record, and there's next to nothing that she's originated. She's merely piled on a list of co-sponsorships, all of it party-line material she'd be voting for anyways. She's simply never taken the initiative as a senator.

If she was so inconsequential as you imply, then there wouldn't be such a smear machine organized against her.

*rolls eyes* Show me a Presidential candidate who isn't the target of an organized smear machine, and I'll show you a Presidential candidate who isn't breaking double digits in the polls. Actually, I can show you a couple who were slandered anyway, having been a two-time Presidential primary state delegate. When they start accusing Hillary of thinking she can fly by flapping her legs during yoga exercises, get back to me.

Boy you lost me here, WTF are you talking about?

Don't know what's to miss: Hillary's part of the Old Business-As-Usual Establishment and Obama isn't.

Bobhhh
I believe I said as much in my post, so what's your beef, is it that I don't fall for the knee jerk vilification that the right wing spin machine as successfully encoded into the national subconscious?

Wow, you sound like the left wing's version of Bill O'Reilly. Congrats on lowering yourself that far.

I'll make it simple: I don't like Hillary because during her time as First Lady, I cannot remember a single thing she was involved in that she didn't botch. NOT ONE. And not ONCE did she take responsibility, even for things that no one else had a hand in.

Even that idiot BUSH has been better in that regard. Do you really think I want this country to take a step down in the Presidential department? Instead of a schmuck who can't pour pee out of boot with instructions written under the heel, we'll get one that blames Republican moles in the FBI for stealing the instruction labels.

You once again twist my points so badly that i can't respond without repeating myself, the odd thing is we agree on Obama, but you seem intent on proving I am a liar or stupid because I don't agree with every last point you make.

I won't repeat myself only to have you misquote me again, I am not up for that game. Anyone who wants can read my earlier post and decide for themselves what i said and if it has merit.

I will only say again that Hillary has had the national press on her ass like no other current candidate for the last decade or so. If you think any of these current candidates have been subjected to the intense scrutiny and vilification that Hillary has, then you are being dishonest with yourself, possibly due to your irrational hatred of her. Yos seem to think her senate experience is worthless, I guess the people from New york are idiots for electing and reelecting her then. Maybe you need to explain your wisdom to them too.

Again I say Obama will fare better because he hasn't been saddled with the same baggage and as such i think he is much more optimistic and less polarizing, but that's unfortunate for Hillary because she didn't deserve half the crap flung her way for being Bill's wife.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 8:25PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
Indeed, whatever her qualifications, the divisiveness that ol' billary generates would hamstring her effectiveness as a leader.

Agreed, Obama has the best chance of getting the job done with less flak from across the aisle.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TitanOne at 1:48AM, Jan. 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
It takes two to tango. The willingness to reciprocate is what leads to the bloodiest conflicts. How about you and I get an initiative going to clean house in Washington and start from scratch eh? Or are you willing to bitch but not pitch?

In order to “clean house”, we have to deal with what's wrong in the first place, and what's wrong now, in my opinion, is that the US government is too powerful, corrupt, warlike, and unconstitutional.

Correcting that requires that people be punished for wrongdoings and that rules be reestablished respecting separation of powers, and doing away with garbage like “presidential signing statements”.

The system needs to be reformed and that requires conflict, not “can we all just get along?”
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
TitanOne at 2:12AM, Jan. 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
I'm a fan of the contractual idea. The politician has to sign a contract with his/her constituents in which he pledges his pay is forfeit if he doesn't fulfill his campaign promises.

I seriously doubt that would work, either. Most of them care more about being re-elected, sponging bribes from lobbyists, and campaign contributions than they do about salary—and job perks like free plane trips, honorariums to speak in public, and so on. Most people in Congress and especially the Senate would serve for free, and they'd still make a huge pile of money behind the scenes. Threaten their pensions, and that might raise a few eyebrows, but many of them retire to be poohbahs in the corporate world or lobbyists anyway.

Additionally, our biggest problem today is that we have Kings in all but name only. The executive branch is totally out of control. If you are a Republican, you may disagree with me on this today. But you probably will agree with me on it tomorrow, since the odds are very low that the GOP will retain the White House next year.

And we are rapidly spending ourselves into oblivion with all this imperial government.



imshard
You know, try something new instead of repeating the same mistakes. In a nation supposedly led by the people we ostensibly have the freedom to make or reverse changes as we the people see fit.

btw its 58 trill of debts all things counted. Approx $400,000 owed by every citizen.

This year. It will increase exponentially, within a few years, to the point that it cannot be paid off in any way, shape, or form. Unless spending is drastically cut, the US will soon be bankrupt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
imshard at 5:59AM, Jan. 19, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
TitanOne
imshard
I'm a fan of the contractual idea. The politician has to sign a contract with his/her constituents in which he pledges his pay is forfeit if he doesn't fulfill his campaign promises.

I seriously doubt that would work, either. Most of them care more about being re-elected, sponging bribes from lobbyists, and campaign contributions than they do about salary—and job perks like free plane trips, honorariums to speak in public, and so on. Most people in Congress and especially the Senate would serve for free, and they'd still make a huge pile of money behind the scenes. Threaten their pensions, and that might raise a few eyebrows, but many of them retire to be poohbahs in the corporate world or lobbyists anyway.

Additionally, our biggest problem today is that we have Kings in all but name only. The executive branch is totally out of control. If you are a Republican, you may disagree with me on this today. But you probably will agree with me on it tomorrow, since the odds are very low that the GOP will retain the White House next year.

And we are rapidly spending ourselves into oblivion with all this imperial government.



imshard
You know, try something new instead of repeating the same mistakes. In a nation supposedly led by the people we ostensibly have the freedom to make or reverse changes as we the people see fit.

btw its 58 trill of debts all things counted. Approx $400,000 owed by every citizen.

This year. It will increase exponentially, within a few years, to the point that it cannot be paid off in any way, shape, or form. Unless spending is drastically cut, the US will soon be bankrupt.

Couple things. First off, Imperialism? Please be serious. If you going to accuse your own country of being over-bearing, power-hungry, and corrupt then at least use the proper terminology. Second, We're already broke. I mean seriously. If we were a corporation we'd be a bad memory by now. We're one crisis short of a total collapse. We've been running on fumes and momentum for some time now.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
TitanOne at 9:53PM, Jan. 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
Not sure I get your point–if you have a global military policy with troops stationed in 130 countries, and you fight wars of aggression, is that not an empire?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
Calbeck at 3:40PM, Jan. 26, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
You once again twist my points so badly that i can't respond without repeating myself, the odd thing is we agree on Obama, but you seem intent on proving I am a liar or stupid because I don't agree with every last point you make.

Hardly. The simple fact is you keep saying I should reconsider the idea of supporting Hillary, I give specific reasons why I think she would make a poor President, and then you claim I developed my reasons on basis of “propaganda”.

There is nothing odd about the fact we agree on Obama, though I consider that our motives may be different: I support him as a well-spoken human being with the ability to move the country forward instead of miring it down in petty political bickering.

I think — and, naturally, I may be incorrect — that you only support him as a means of eliminating Republican control of the White House, and therefore also support Hillary for the same reason, making the two into the same candidate for all practical intents and purposes.

Therefore, your concern here — assuming, of course, that I'm right — is that if Hillary gets the nomination, the Democrats lose one vote on Election Night, and that given the outcome of the last two elections, single votes from fence-sitters may actually be of some concern. Therefore you defend Hillary's record on basis of your hatred of Republicans, claiming in essence “it's all a plot”.

Which is not an argument that sits well with me at all, regardless of who is being discussed. I have the same reaction to the schmucks who've been trying to convince me Obama is a latent Islamic terrorist-sympathizer…it just makes me want to vote Obama as a means of poking my finger in their collective eye.

I will only say again that Hillary has had the national press on her ass like no other current candidate for the last decade or so.

*rolls eyes*

Um, sorry, but I REMEMBER the last decade or so. Hillary hasn't yet seen flak like Kerry got, or even Bush Junior. And if you want to see a REAL shellacking by the press, look no further than Ross Perot, whose campaign collapsed because the press took a single statement out of context and claimed he'd quit the race. Frankly, Perot
could kick any of the current candidate's keesters up between their teeth, and that's WITH being a national laughingstock for over a decade now.

If you think any of these current candidates have been subjected to the intense scrutiny and vilification that Hillary has

Gee, I have no idea why someone who was virtually at the center of numerous political controversies over the course of more than a decade, including several that virtually riveted the nation to their television sets, would POSSIBLY be subjected to more scrutiny or vilification than candidates who have next to no political baggage by comparison.

In any event, it sounds like your position is that I should give Hillary's candidacy consideration because the press is “out to get her”…not a compelling argument.

Yos seem to think her senate experience is worthless

Hardly. I think, in fact, that she's done little WITH her Senate experience. Her focus is not, and does not ever appear to have been, on serving her constituents. From my view, she has treated her election to the Senate as nothing more than a movement on a chess board…much like most of her Senatorial colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I guess the people from New york are idiots for electing and reelecting her then. Maybe you need to explain your wisdom to them too.

I recall the same defense being made of Bush Junior. Of course, the “proper response” from the Democrat party faithful was “yes, Texans ARE idiots”. The Democrat post-2004 rallying scream of “Jesusland” and the “Red State/Blue State” rivalry they kicked off helped to alienate me from considering Democrat candidates of any stripe in the 2004 elections. Frankly, it began to alienate me in 1992 and 1996 when Democrat losses were publically declared by the Democrat rank, file and leadership to be the result of “fooled” and “stupid” voters.

I think New Yorkers elected Hillary because New York is a strongly Democrat state, the Democrat Party draws much of its national organizational and fundraising network from there, and Hillary was a far more powerful member of the party's internal infrastructure than any of her competitors. Without internal opposition to the nomination, and without significant Republican opposition, who else were people going to vote for?

Not to mention that repudiating her candidacy would naturally be interpreted on the national scale as a rebuke to the Clinton Administration, and Bill was the party chairman at the time. Not going to happen.

Again I say Obama will fare better because he hasn't been saddled with the same baggage and as such i think he is much more optimistic and less polarizing, but that's unfortunate for Hillary because she didn't deserve half the crap flung her way for being Bill's wife.

I largely agree, except that the confirmable facts are that Hillary herself walked right into most of it and it had little to do with merely being Bill's wife. Her problem is that she repeatedly runs roughshod over her own allies, ignoring sage advice and facts that do not meet with her pre-decided goals. Note that this is the very reason most people (including myself) have issues with Bush.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
Calbeck at 3:45PM, Jan. 26, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
TitanOne
Not sure I get your point–if you have a global military policy with troops stationed in 130 countries, and you fight wars of aggression, is that not an empire?

Nope. Although I like the term “wars of aggression” there…I presume you're implying that there's a type of war that ISN'T about aggression.

No, an empire is a nation run by an emperor. Feel free to follow up with the standard routine I've been hearing since the '70s as to how any given US president is a de facto “emperor” because of .

I heard it about Clinton over Waco, Reagan over Nicaraugua, Carter over Panama (and that was with him giving it back to the Panamanians!)…and, oh yes of course, Bush the Elder over Iraq, circa 1991. “No Blood for Oil”, remember?

If only we could redirect the horse$#!+ in this country to the more useful purposes of filling in potholes and growing crops…
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved