#236062 - 17/10/2004 21:06
Re: Dear John
[Re: Ladmo]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I am surprised at how liberal this board is.
Didn't think we were smart enough not to be jingoists?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236063 - 18/10/2004 00:09
Re: Dear John
[Re: jimhogan]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
As a newbie, I haven't figured out how to insert the quotes yet, but Suskind's article horrified me. If, during Grand Rounds or a mental status exam, someone was saying that he,with help of God, was leading the next crusade, the decision to commit him, or at least to increase to his meds to a point where he wasn't dangerous to society, would be unanimous--if he weren't President of the United States! (I wish THAT was a delusion!) No wonder these folks frown on reality!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236064 - 18/10/2004 00:19
Re: Dear John
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You can click the reply button and edit out the irrelevant stuff or just copy and paste from the old post and put [q] and [/q] tags round it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236065 - 18/10/2004 05:42
Re: Dear John
[Re: Ladmo]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Well they did not 'yank' Comrad Klinton out of office, and at least Bush is not diddling the interns with cigars (that we know of!).
I am surprised at how liberal this board is...Just imagine Kerry (check out his real Viet Nam record) leading (?) a war or what he would have done in the first day after 9-11....scares the crap out of me.
Hrmmm.. So I'm assuming from your comments that democrats are commies, being liberal is something to be ashamed of, and going to Vietnam and having a (in some peoples opinions) questionable record is worse than not going. Not a strange opinion for you folks down in Colorado Springs, sadly.
I personally don't give a damn if our president wants to stick cigars in the vaginas of young interns. To me, it's better than invading other countries with no excuse except a large pile of misinformation.
And what you should be concerned with isn't what Kerry would have done after 9/11. What you should be concerned with is why you're still, at the age of 51, unable to shrug off you're prehistoric, bipartisan political views and try to help the country be a better place, rather than thinking it's clever to refer to "Comrade Klinton."
By the way. It's spelled Clinton. Or maybe that was some more of that rapier wit that the "right" is known for?
"Right" or "left", I don't give a damn. Why don't people just stop this petty crap and try to improve something?
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236066 - 18/10/2004 11:21
Re: Dear John
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
Yeah, I shudder to think. Kerry probably would have been too chicken to commit US ground forces
PBS Frontline, last night, had a two hour special with the political history of Kerry and of Bush, going back before either held political office. Kerry's refrain has always been that he, indeed, doesn't want to commit U.S. forces except as a last resort, but he was also quoted on September 12 as being "angry" and wanting to do something right away. I imagine that, under a Kerry (or Gore) administration, the Afganistan invasion would have begun largely the same way as it did under Bush.
Interestingly, when Bush ran for Texas governor against Ann Richards, one of his more effective ads criticized Richards for being soft on crime and presiding over a large increase in crime. In fact, crime had gone down during her tenure, but the accusations still stuck. Now, we're hearing accusations that Kerry will be soft on terror. Really, it's the same "weak on crime" arguments respun for a new political environment.
This year's election completely defeats the usual third party arguments that the two major candidates are indistinguishable. You can distinguish them on anything from tax and education policy to healthcare and environment. Trying to distinguish them on how Kerry might have responded to 9/11 by assuming that Kerry would have botched it is unfair to Kerry and distracts from the real issues that separate the candidates.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236067 - 18/10/2004 11:24
Re: Dear John
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I think you're responding to sarcasm, but point taken.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236068 - 18/10/2004 14:19
Re: Dear John
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
Not a strange opinion for you folks down in Colorado Springs, sadly.
Hey now, when did this become a city thing?
People here are just as varried as many places. I read an article the other day in the local paper about how a family who had members serve in Iraq got a nasty anti Kerry letter on their car. Basicially it talked about how supporting Kerry was a vote against the troops. They aparently missed the Support our Troops next to their Kerry bumper sticker, and vetran license plates.
To me though, it is incredible that people still do point out Clintons sexual mistakes while in office. So what? Did it impact the world? Did innocent people lose their lives over it? No. So, it's a horrible argument to try and justify any things Bush has done.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236069 - 18/10/2004 14:34
Re: Dear John
[Re: DWallach]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
Quote:
This year's election completely defeats the usual third party arguments that the two major candidates are indistinguishable.
As a 3rd-party guy, I'll try to distinguish them on a few things:
War in Iraq -- both in favor
War on Terror -- both in favor
War on Drugs -- both in favor
Gay Marriage -- both opposed
Middle Class Tax Cuts -- both favor
Deficit Budgets -- each has theirs
Huge Boondoggles -- each has more than one.
*edited to add tax cuts*
So by what means do you clearly distinguish them, Dan?
Edited by DLF (18/10/2004 14:42)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236070 - 18/10/2004 15:35
Re: Dear John
[Re: DLF]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
War in Iraq -- both in favor
War on Terror -- both in favor
War on Drugs -- both in favor
Gay Marriage -- both opposed
Middle Class Tax Cuts -- both favor
Deficit Budgets -- each has theirs
Huge Boondoggles -- each has more than one.
Actually, I think these are the issues where we can best differentiate the candidates.
Iraq: "in favor" is a fair description of Bush but not a fair description of Kerry. He's been quite clear with his whole "wrong war, wrong time, ..." rhetoric. I believe Kerry's point is more along the lines of "now that we're stuck in this mess, we need to find a way out of it without tearing the Middle East into pieces."
Terror: Bush thinks Iraq has something to do with Islamic terrorists. Kerry doesn't.
Drugs: We're not hearing enough from either candidate on this issue.
Gay Marriage: Bush wants a constitutional ammendment and seems to be generally opposed to any sort of "civil union" concept. Kerry doesn't want an ammendment and seems to be in favor of some kind of civil union.
Tax cuts: both want cuts for the middle class, but you can distinguish them with their policy for the rich. Plus, Bush is all about corporate tax cuts and loopholes. If we're lucky, Kerry won't be.
Deficit: Bush clearly feels other priorities are more important than deficit reduction. Kerry at least pays some lip service to the deficit, and particularly toward how we need to cover the forthcoming Social Security crunch. Bush's private Social Security savings would only reduce the dollar flow into Social Security and would do nothing for the dollar outflow.
Boondoggles: Every president has boondoggles. I've never seen a candidate run on the platform of "No more boondoggles!" Although, if you replace "boondoggle" with "unjustified war that destabilize the Middle East", then maybe you're getting closer to Kerry's platform.
Personally, I think the big issues that need to be discussed and sadly aren't are things like environmental policy (global warming, pollution, etc.), the outsourcing debate (Kerry talks about changing tax incentives, but nothing about the sweatshop working conditions of international garmet workers), health care (particularly the way that medicines are priced and how lower-income or unemployed people will get coverage), and maybe even intellectual property issues (the erosion of fair use and the public domain, abuse of the patent system, etc.). Of these, the only issue that clearly differentiates the candidates is the environment and maybe some medical issues like stem cell research. I have no idea how either candidate feels about intellectual property reforms.
I'm not one of these people calling this "the most important election ever", but I think it's foolhardy to claim that Kerry is somehow equivalent to Bush.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236071 - 18/10/2004 19:23
Re: Dear John
[Re: DLF]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Of course, middle class tax cuts are largely not relevant. It's upper class taxation which is the issue which is contentious. Also, your view of the issues seems to be one of someone looking at them from several miles away through feeble field-glasses rather than with any detail. Dan has offered better criticisms, I'm not going to, I'm more of a mock and run kinda guy 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236072 - 18/10/2004 20:37
Re: Dear John
[Re: Daria]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
Quote:
Of course, middle class tax cuts are largely not relevant. It's upper class taxation which is the issue which is contentious.
Unless you're me, in which case any cuts in revenue at a time of record-breaking spending is totally and utterly, uh, contentious.
Quote:
Also, your view of the issues seems to be one of someone looking at them from several miles away through feeble field-glasses rather than with any detail.
The devil is in the details, eh? Wanted to keep the post short, but I'll be glad to detail and then disagree with both candidates' "positions," if you like.
Quote:
Dan has offered better criticisms, I'm not going to, I'm more of a mock and run kinda guy
Hey, me to! Hence my original post and its total and utter lack of detailed criticisms.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236073 - 18/10/2004 22:00
Re: Dear John
[Re: DLF]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
You've got to be blind if you can't distinguish between the two main candidates.
One is a self-declared "War President". The other only wants to use war "As a last resort".
One has racked up the largest single-term deficit in history, more than every president in history combined, and still wants to cut taxes further. The other wants to balance the budget, and will raise taxes on 1% of the population in order to try and do so.
One badly wants to privatise Social Security. The other strongly believes that would be a mistake.
One wants to protect drug company profits. The other wants to protect the free market economy.
One wants to create the first amendment to the Constitution that would explicitly remove a right in order to deal with an issue whilst the other believes in state's rights.
One believes the War on Terror (tm)(R)(c) is useful to explain away an invasion of a sovereign nation, the other believes that it's about catching Osama Bin Laden and preventing further terrorism.
They're chalk and cheese. If you really think that Kerry is so similar to Bush then I guess the RNC spin doctors have earned their money.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236074 - 18/10/2004 22:02
Re: Dear John
[Re: DLF]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
That's right, cherry pick a couple of issues and compare the two just based on that. Here, let me choose a couple of different ones.
Environment: Bush opposed, Kerry for
Abortion rights: Bush opposed, Kerry for
Abolishing the Death penalty: Bush opposed, Kerry for
Seperation of Church And State: Bush opposed, Kerry for
The 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments: Bush opposed, Kerry for
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236076 - 19/10/2004 02:54
Re: Dear John
[Re: DLF]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, middle class tax cuts are largely not relevant. It's upper class taxation which is the issue which is contentious.
Unless you're me, in which case any cuts in revenue at a time of record-breaking spending is totally and utterly, uh, contentious.
So you're saying middle-class tax cuts plus upper-class tax increases are a decrease in revenue, or you're considering middle-class tax cuts in a vacuum. I don't care which, either is nonsensical.
Quote:
Quote:
Dan has offered better criticisms, I'm not going to, I'm more of a mock and run kinda guy
Hey, me to! Hence my original post and its total and utter lack of detailed criticisms.
You to what? You to me? Oh, you meant "me too" 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236077 - 19/10/2004 03:56
Re: Dear John
[Re: DWallach]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
sweatshop working conditions of international garmet workers
You meant, of course, international garnet workers.
Plus, I need an excuse to use the word "demantoid."
By the way, good work on the eVoting studies!
Too bad my locality is totally disregarding your efforts and moving full steam ahead. I'll cast my vote (again) this year in an insecure electronic manner.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236078 - 19/10/2004 13:54
Re: Dear John
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Errr, garment workers, but I suppose garnet workers might have their own troubles which would garner our attention.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236079 - 19/10/2004 20:11
Re: Dear John
[Re: genixia]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
I could challenge some of your own spin (Kerry is pro "free-market" and states' rights?), or I could just refer you to the fifth and tenth answers by Jeff Taylor here.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236080 - 19/10/2004 20:35
Re: Dear John
[Re: ninti]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
You're right, I can't believe my oversight in neglecting to point out that both candidates/parties are simultaneously pro-life and pro-death! Woo-hoo! Go fetuses and felons! But I guess that's not so different from "War: it's good only when I say so, dammit!"
So it's come down to "cherry-picking" from the Bill of Rights, has it? (Hey, at least Bush likes the 2nd amendment, doesn't he?) 3 of 10 is the best we can reasonably hope for nowadays?
/game-show buzzer
Not quite good enough for me.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236081 - 20/10/2004 05:09
Re: Dear John
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
I'll cast my vote (again) this year in an insecure electronic manner.
Why not vote by absentee ballot? At least it leaves a paper trail.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236082 - 20/10/2004 16:21
Re: Dear John
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
Why not vote by absentee ballot? At least it leaves a paper trail.
A couple of reasons:
- I like the excitement of voting on election day. It makes me feel the buzz of democracy. I can truly feel like I am doing my duty as a citizen and being a part of the process.
- Apparently, in some states the absentee ballots are never tallied unless they could potentially alter the outcome. So when the final results are reported (x people voted for Candidate A, and y people voted for Candidate B), these numbers might not include the absentee votes if it is a runaway landslide in the state in question. Since I live in a state which is extremely non-contested (i.e., my vote won't make a difference either way), I feel like my absentee ballot would be discarded. So I'm voting on Election Day so that I will be counted and show up in the statistics!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236083 - 20/10/2004 16:27
Re: Dear John
[Re: music]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
Apparently, in some states the absentee ballots are never tallied unless they could potentially alter the outcome.
Interesting, do you know which states? I'd been planning to do absentee, but that might discourage me from it.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236084 - 21/10/2004 01:16
Re: Dear John
[Re: mcomb]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
Interesting, do you know which states?
Hmmm, my information might be out-of-date. Perhaps this isn't done any more.
I don't know where this information is consolidated for all states, so people will have to look it up somewhere at <yourstate>.gov.
I looked up California (where you appear to reside) and they claim they do count all absentee votes regardless of outcome or closeness of the race.
That is, they are counted if they are deemed valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236085 - 21/10/2004 01:35
Re: Dear John
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Interesting, do you know which states?
Hmmm, my information might be out-of-date. Perhaps this isn't done any more.
I don't know where this information is consolidated for all states, so people will have to look it up somewhere at <yourstate>.gov.
How about state.(yourstate).us? (yourstate).gov is a non-compliant use of .gov and the situation when last I looked was no more would be registered that weren't already. And it *was* worse than that. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources before it was split into DCNR and DEP was "pader.gov". Yuck.
Good thing so many people decided domain name rules were annoying and to just break them as convenient.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236086 - 21/10/2004 06:50
Re: Dear John
[Re: Daria]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
Good thing so many people decided domain name rules were annoying and to just break them as convenient.
The one that really gets my goat is that they unleashed the .edu domain.
So now if I start a "piano school" to teach a couple people lessons I can get one. And lots of little two-bit kindergarten ballet schools are queuing up as well.
It just doesn't seem right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236087 - 21/10/2004 14:08
Re: Dear John
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
.edu was releashed; you have to be a college or university to get one again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236088 - 21/10/2004 16:42
Re: Dear John
[Re: Daria]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Woohoo!
Of course, now I have one less thing to gripe about.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236089 - 21/10/2004 17:00
Re: Dear John
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Nope. Now you're griping about having fewer things to gripe about, which makes you break even. Which means you shouldn't be griping. Which means you should. Auuugh!
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236090 - 21/10/2004 20:38
Re: Dear John
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/04/2002
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hants, UK
|
You guys need more people like John Prescot to liven up the election a little. Here he is meeting the public in 2001:  Here is what he thought of some photographers: 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#236091 - 22/10/2004 04:45
Re: Dear John
[Re: g_attrill]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Here is what he thought of some photographers:
[pretty picture]
Is that a bulge in his jacket?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index