A fun game to play, if nothing else. I like to tease those friends that it is not true that I ma for anyone but Bush. Out of 280 million Americans, there must be at least one million of them who, if they ran against Bush, I would vote for Bush. Your list of nine would be among them, although Rumsfeld and Robertson would at least make me think. Cheney and Ashcroft would be at
I think you raise the most important issue facing America at the moment. However, when you say In all fairness, however, the greatest incompetence in the sharing of information lies with the politicians I have to disagree. On the ground, it is politically suicidal to speak at length about information. <br
I think middle is synonymous with "well rounded In my case, it meant that I know next to nothing -- I only knew what they were talking about in like five questions... so I am in the middle.
Madine, I honestly wish you are right, but you are practicing self deceit. I fervently pray that 5-10 years down the road it will turn out that I was wrong and you were right., but, in the meantime, I am going to go with #8.
That's a rediculous argument. Do you really think the terrorists wanted us to overthrow the one government that was giving them sanctuary? Do you really think the terrorists want us to build a democr
What is it about our diplomacy that terrorists should fear? I think it is important for us to encourage other countries to detain terrorists and freeze assets within their borders. You have partly but not completely answered your own question. We are the mightiest country in the world, but we have nowhe
As you worded these, #8 comes out on top. In the long run, we will wish that we had excellent foreign policy more than we will wish for anything else here, even #7. The terrorists have more to fear from us, if we excel in diplomancy than if we excel in any striclty military arena. However, you leave out a lot. You ruin the economic policy choice by turning it into s
Back to your original point, it seems to me that the role of a constitution is to be a check on the principle of democracy, kind of a circuit breaker on short term decisions that violate agreed on principles. It's not that you cannot decide to place a limit on freedom of expression. It's that the courts will take a dim view of any substantial imposement on that limit, unless it is very narrow and clearly a part of public policy. As you say, the law
I saw much speculation. But a far more reasonable explanation. You would prefer to fight with an oversimplifaction than to deal with a quite likely middle ground that leaves your man not so blameless. Not speculation: We identified the 9/11 attacker as Osama Bin Laden. Almost certainly true: Presi
I have had this happen alot: 1. Someone makes an argument 2. I post statistics that counter that argument 3. The other person starts downplaying the validity of the statistics. Recently on another board, there was a discussion about marketing and its effect on people. One person said that despite the
When you're dealing with the lower end of the intellectual spectrum, Democrats and Republicans tend to become pretty similar. Their reasons for voting are often equally uninformed or irrational. Equally based on TV, image advertising, and entertainment values <img src="../images/smiles/smile.gif" border=0 ALIG
So, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Iraq had WMDs, but only Bush lied because he stated that Iraq had WMDs even though many others stated the same thing? See my post above. Both sides of this argument are oversimplifying the sequence of events.
If Kerry wins and the economy contiues to recover RadLibs will probably say that it was "buyer confidence" spurred on by the belief that Kerry would win. If the budget tanks a few months after he wins, they'll certainly blame it on Bush, though Ve
President Bush's fatal errors were these: When faced with the 9/11 calamity, he and the people closest to him decided to pour a huge percentage of our response into attacking Iraq. He sold this to America as being primarily a matter of Saddam Hussein having WMD and of the unsatisfactory nature of the international inspections. I heard this with my own ears, and I cannot imagine what would convince me that this did not take place. Is
For minority or gender issues to effect the election you have to believe that we are basically safe with either candidate, and beleive that the real difference is going to be the social and economic progress of the nation. I don't think people have that luxury this time. People who vote for Kerry seem to be genuinely concerned fo
No Don, your problem is that you came expecting to read a bunch of liberals agreeing with your own views. Pretty ugly statement, Brad... The old "I know so much better than you that I even know your own mind." It also happens that you are wrong. I came here to hear
Bill O'Reilly loves distorting things in ways that appeal to a certain brand of conservatives. Michael Moore loves distorting things in ways that appeal to a certain brand of liberals. They share the goal, and the hope among their respective followers, of converting the uncoverted using a mix of entertainment, fact, distortion, and convenient excisements from the record. I don't know if they convince people or not, but they both turn a nic
Well, let me tote up myJohn Kerry scorecard: The plusses: * his environmental beliefs * his plan to take the money away from a high income tax cut and use it to extend health care benefits The minuses: * he looks silly in a NASA suit * he is silly about complaining regarding an unflattering picture Geez guys, this is such a close call, I just can't decide whether the plusses or minuses carry more weight.
As teacher of high school students, I believe I am doing my duty as a citizen to get students worked up about politics. I am not too worried about my biases -- my collegues, who also try to interest students in the issues -- pretty much cover the political spectrum. I figure that a student's habit of following the issues will far outlast any momentary unfair effect that we might have on a student's views. However, as Champas Socialist impli
Just another stupid sidehow to distract us from the boring issues. It's fun to bait every conservative politician and call them ignorant and stupid. It's fun to bait liberal candidates' wives for not being able to find the exactly correct feminist and mainstream image simultaneously. Then, when these people finally make a gaffe in exasperation, the field day really begins, and we listen to the tapes over and over, wallowing in it all. It is
Before swallowing this stuff whole, read another viewpoint on George Soros: Link
am refuting the idea that international cooperation brings safety. Nazi Germany is the classic example of how pacifist diplomacy made a bad situation worse. Those who believe in war always come back to that example, and for good reason -- that it is an exception. However, my point is not to disagree with you,
Are you talking about the one John Kerry was on when he announced his candidacy? Every appearance of this kind, by all candidates of all parties -- but your response says it all. When an opponent candidate does this kind of thing, opponents can respond with line liners and one-upmanship, but no real argument, a
Never in my lifetime have I seen the opposing party of someone become so hysterical. Conservatives vs. Clinton was pretty close if not equal to the hysteria. I s
I find him manipulative and playing up the dumb aspect. Yes, I read one place that Bush lost an election early in his career to somebody who out "good-old-boyed" him and cast him as an elitist. Thus, he has made it a point to never allow that to happen again. My larger point, though, is that this
PolMach Forums