I haven't read the Time article yet (more on this when I do), but from what you've said it sounds kinda like blaming Jimmy Olsen for outing Superman, when all he did was confirm that Clark Kent worked for the Daily Bugle. Or did you mean that "Valerie Plame, known CIA analyst, drives to work at CIA headquarters every morning in a convertible" is the super-secret Mission Impossible secret identity?
That's funny, because I was listening to a radio program called "The Majority Report", and they seemed pretty anti-Christian to me. So either the majority in this country really is anti-Christian, or else Air America is packed with tools and dupes. Hrm. Come to think of it, this looks like a win-win situation to me! Thanks, Ico!
It depends who it was. If Osama Bin Laden could convince me that all terrorism, worldwide, would end immediately the moment I kill the President, I'd say no thanks, punch his head until his towel fell off, and take my chances. I guess I'd happily kill one terrorist, if it would end terrorism. I'm not so comfortable with the idea of singling out unconnected monsters on the basis of "he had it coming, and it would also end terrorism",
I favor reparations, on the following basis: One, that reparations consist of restoring people to the state they'd be in if they'd never been enslaved: starving and dying in the pesthole that is Africa today. Don't get me wrong--slavery is some repugnant shit, and I'd never argue that a slave is better off than a free man, but... okay, I might argue that. Wh
Somebody has to pay for the soldiers. That would be the hardworking civilians back home, whose taxes fund the entire government, and whose daily devotion to their jobs is the source of all the wealth this country produces. It seems to me that this is reason enough, by itself, for some who support the war to stay home and work, while others go to fight. Another way to look at it is this: Many soldiers support the war. I don't hav
Myrrander , what about the part where it turned out that Clinton actually did the things he was accused of doing ? Last time I checked, it seemed clear that Rove didn't leak anything to anybody, mostly because there was nothing to leak. Allgation: Clinton had an affair with an intern. Truth: Clinton had an affair with an intern. Allegation: Rove leaked the name of a covert CIA operative. Truth: Rove di
A. What is the year of your birth? 1973 B. What state do you live in? California C. Which presidential candidate did you vote for in each election over the course of your life? 2004 Election: George W. Bush. D. If you've had a major shift in political beliefs, is there any particular reason for it? I began by being totally apathetic (note I didn't vote before the 2004 presidential election). In my early 20s, I
A centrist, tending towards "liberal" and "small government".
Ironic only if one accepts your crude and simplistic stereotypes at face value. And speaking of stereotypes, aren't the liberals supposed to be the faction of love and tolerance and total rejection of stereotypes? How's that for irony? I'm assuming you're a liberal of some kind, given your choice of a negative stereotype for the Republicans, and a positive stereotype for the Democrats.
What I choose to do or NOT do is (as far as I'm concerned) NONE of the communities business! What about loud parties late at night? Operating a motor vehicle without a license? Digging through the neighborhood power conduit? Painting racial slurs on the front of your house? What if the community wants to have some say in your activities before those activitiies start costing the community? I mean, it's kind of hard t
Also, I don't see how it follows that caring about stem cells means being unable to care about soldiers. I seem to have no difficulty caring about both. But since that doesn't fit your stereotype of conservatives, you'll probably conclude that I'm lying. Way to align your worldview with the comics page, Zink . Let me know if that ever works out for you.
MONKEY: He sure seems sincere. PANTS: Well, he's not sincere. MONKEY: Really? How can you tell? Because he sure seems sincere to me. PANTS: I can tell, because I disagree with him. So he must be lying. MONKEY: Oh. Well, that makes sense, I guess. PANTS: Really? Because you don't seem very sincere about that at all.
Dharma , I'm curious: has the experience changed your mind at all, about the problem of terrorism or how to solve it? Or do you remain steadfast in the conclusions you've already reached on those issues? I'm not saying this should change your mind, any more than a General's first-hand knowledge of the carnage of war should change his mind about the necessity of assaulting enemy strongholds. I'm just curious, really.
Myrrander , your grief for the victims of 9/11 and the recent London bombings hasn't changed your mind about how to solve the problem. Why do you expect--demand, even--that our grief over soldiers and their families change our mind aobut how to solve the problem? You seem to think that because you are not willing to make a sacrifice, that those who are willing do not actually care about the sacrifice being made. What if Bush we
Look, if the press is participating in illegal acts, such as publishing classified information, then they must face the consequences. We don't have a special law set aside for the media. If they believe that the information they are publishing is worth going to jail for, I can respect that. If they decide that breaking the law isn't worth it in this case, I can respect that, too. What I cannot respect is, reporters publishing illegal inform
I love it how the entire armed forces gets credit whenever a few bad apples fuck up; but whenever a few good apples make the world a better place, the entire armed forces gets... no recognition at all. I suppose it's possible that knitter is a really nice and thoughtful person. But by knitter's own logic, having read one silly post, I can safely conclude that knitter is a fool and a dupe of the highest order. So don't bother t
miler , as I said earlier, I'm pretty sure Hillary's idea isn't the best way to approach this problem. But I still think it's an interesting idea, and worth considering. But still, I wouldn't restrict it to the poor. In fact, my main objection to Hillary's plan isn't who it targets (everybody), but rather who is doing the targetting: the Federal Government. Personally, this seems like the kind of thing that would be done best--if at a
Uh... Mail storage instead of deletion was one of the major and most publicized FEATURES of Gmail!
Ah. Well, that makes sense, I guess.
Thanks, Gid. I'll take your arguments into consideration, that this is a bad idea for reasons I don't quite understand (yet). In the mean time, I'm not trying to use one oppression to justify another. Rather, I'm trying to point out that communities always impose restrictions and safeguards on individual activities that have a community impact. Not all of these restrictions equal oppression. What solution would you propose, for y
Just to be clear, this is a reaction to a comment I made on Gideon's article about the idea of mandatory government supervision of new families. While Gideon mounted a spirited and serious defense of his position, he did so with the understanding that I'm a "liberal". This is in fact
And for the record, I'm sorry for implying that your kids, specifically, were a drain on anything. I had used the rhetorical "you", not the personal "you". My apologies for the offense. If a familiy is willing and able to make the sacrifices necessary to support themselves without additional help from the community, fine. But if they're not, then my taxes pay their way--in spite of the fact that if they'd come to me and asked "hey, we'd lik
Gid , I'm a conservative. Also, I'm never in favor of Constitutional overreach. But there are public and private entities at all levels of our society dedicated to opposing things like overreach and oppression of the poor, from the checks and balances of our triune government to the ACLU. But speaking of the poor, it's exactly the poor families that impose the greatest burden on their community's resources. Making babies is a
We don't trust people to operate an automobile. Instead, we assume they can't until they've gone through some mandatory training and testing. And if they fail the test, they don't get our permission to operate an automobile. Every child brought into a community is a drain on that community's limited resources. Personally, I would like to see more community oversight of things like this. Maybe more people would think things through a little
Me? I'm all in favor of due process as a prerequisite for putting even the most monstrous criminal in prison for his crimes. On the other hand, I'm not the kind of guy to let the rules get in the way of saving a child's life. My solution? Write off the trial, since the cops screwed up what must be the most obvious and easy part of the arrest: reading the suspect his rights. (I mean, come on, how hard can it be to remember t
JoeUser Forums