However, I'll always admire Washington for his strong convictions.
I'd clarify that you admire him because his strong convictions agree with yours, for the most part (as they do with mine). Not just because he had them. As I've pointed out, Adolph Hitler had strong convictions, too, but about things I personally disagree with.
|
See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid...stereotypes...
you mean orcs aren't stinky in your game? dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
oh, and would you two stop it already? no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
So in essence the Republicans have accepted and embrace unwed teenage daughters and teen sex.
This just doesn't really make much sense. I haven't heard anyone say it is absolutely the most wonderful thing that the daughter got pregnant. But just because a bad situation arises that doesn't mean you toss your daughter to the curb. Or you can make the best of a bad situation. Sure they could disown their daughter, get a big hate on for the baby daddy, but in the end how will that make the family any better? Or they can help their daughter to make better choices (from their perspective) from here on out.
But I will say, if the choice is between a teen mother and a teen getting an abortion, then the reps certainly favor the mother road than the abortion one. Of course neither would be preferable.
dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
Holy crow, that IS an important post. Chimay Grande Reserve is indeed the greatest beer brewed on this planet. By Belgian monks, no less, which proves to me that people can be both religious zealots AND Western Europeans, and that those people can accomplish transcendental feats.
|
|
Holy crow, that IS an important post. Chimay Grande Reserve is indeed the greatest beer brewed on this planet. By Belgian monks, no less, which proves to me that people can be both religious zealots AND Western Europeans, and that those people can accomplish transcendental feats.dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
i have to take you to agora. i used to work there, it is easily the most eurocentric place in houston, cool vibe, and good coffee. excellent beer selection and a nice variety of wines.
See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid...stereotypes...you mean orcs aren't stinky in your game? dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
oh, and would you two stop it already? no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
You're right. Beer is always important.
|
|
You're right. Beer is always important.See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid...stereotypes...you mean orcs aren't stinky in your game? dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
oh, and would you two stop it already? no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
where's your place in temple? if i ever find myself trucking up 35, the old lady and i may have to stop in for a frosty one :)
|
|
OMG--Palin's speech was awesome.
She's snarky.
Her big problem was her timing. She did not seem to recognize when to stop and let the audience go wild. That will give her some issues during the debate.
She mentioned the Bridge to Nowhere, and that might be giving the Democrats too easy a counterattack. Of course it could be a setup or a "gimme" to distract them from more significant issues.What amuses me most is the response of the Talkings Heads. They were all desperate for her to flub it big time. Now they have to recognize her as a "legitimate" candidate, despite how she dismissed them as the people she was appealing to as part of the campaign. In particular the CNN lead up was highly partisan, with their one commentator taking a long hard look down her nose at Palin for trying to set the media up as fall guy for sneering at her, which of course was exactly what she was doing.
I am looking forward to seeing how everyone, the Obama-Biden campaign, the rest of the Democratic party talking heads (I already love their vicious counters at current colleague Lieberman and former colleague Thomspon), the bloggers, and the media. I would expect all of them drag Obama-Biden down into the deep muck in very short order.
Its like she came in a time capsule from the fifties.
All I have to say is...God save the Queen.
England looks prettier every time I glance across the pond.
I love the interviews with people afterward: "Keep America Safe!"
Those poor people are all so scared.
"What if someone comes into my house and kills me? What if they are Iraqi? Or Iranian?"
Okay, so no one said the last quote. ;-)
where's your place in temple? if i ever find myself trucking up 35, the old lady and i may have to stop in for a frosty one :)You're right. Beer is always important.See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid...stereotypes...you mean orcs aren't stinky in your game? dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
oh, and would you two stop it already? no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
It's not too hard to find. It's called Cue's. You take the Central Avenue exit. Take a right. Go about 1/2 mile and you'll run into Main street. Take a right on Main and I'm there right across the Extraco bank. I warn you though. I'm primarily a pool hall. I don't carry many types of beers. I carry most of the domestics and I only carry two imports.
|
|
It's not too hard to find. It's called Cue's. You take the Central Avenue exit. Take a right. Go about 1/2 mile and you'll run into Main street. Take a right on Main and I'm there right across the Extraco bank. I warn you though. I'm primarily a pool hall. I don't carry many types of beers. I carry most of the domestics and I only carry two imports.where's your place in temple? if i ever find myself trucking up 35, the old lady and i may have to stop in for a frosty one :)You're right. Beer is always important.See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid...stereotypes...you mean orcs aren't stinky in your game? dude, if i have to put up with that kind of nonsense, you better bring chimay grand reserve next time...
oh, and would you two stop it already? no one is responding to my really, REALLY important posts! :P
no worries, i've been known to chalk a cue in a bca league now and then....
So? Why shouldn't he explore that material if that is what he finds interesting? You might think he is wasting his time on that stuff when he could be discussing bigger issues, but he might think that you'd be wasting your time playing RPGs and discussing them let alone wasting time discussing him.That's true. He just talks about what gets him ratings, and real issues don't do that. I blame his fans equally.
See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid political stereotypes and advocate refusal to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with any of my views. In fact, RPGs require cooperation on many levels. Points were made before that compromise is either (a) wishy-washy, or (b) impossible. I contend that it isn't necessarily either one of those, but that we've let ouselves believe that it is by listening to people and sources like Pelosi, Bush Jr., Moore, Limbaugh, Daily Kos, and O'Reilly. Maybe we should start listening to the "wishy-washy moderates" for a bit, and see if maybe some of that message can't sink in.
You're correct. I won't compromise my beliefs. I'm not going to meet someone in the "middle" for something I can't believe in. Cooperation on matters that I believe in is another thing. If a Democrat comes up with a tough law on child predators, I'm all for that. If a Democrat wants to cut national defense, I'm not willing to come to a "compromise".
|
|
I can't quite decide what bothered me most - Paln's sneering contempt for universal human rights, or the audience's enthusiastic approval of her sneering contempt for universal human rights. Either way, it was a sad spectacle.
um, exactly which "universal human right" did she show contempt for?
here's the text from the speech:
Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.
And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.<>
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you all, and may God bless America.
|
|
seriously, dude, there isn't...one...thing...in that speech that is dismissive of anyone's "universal human rights". did you even LISTEN to the speech, or did you just assume that since it was made by a republican, she must have advocated eating babies and torturing poodles sixteen times?
or did you just go to the daily kos for their summation?
just curious...
|
You're right. Nobody's above reproach. However, I'll always admire Washington for his strong convictions. He even turned down being our king. If it was offered to me I'd been like "Oh, hell yeah". Thankfully, Washington was a better man than me.
Actually, as a scholar of the era George Washington was the founder of the Federalist Party which was in all senses the conservative party. The trick was that the man himself was above reproach and the vicious media style of the day (seriously, you think Fox news is bad look up some of the stuff said about Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton with NO factual basis.Above reproach? I wouldn't say that. But being a war hero, which really meant keeping an army together and in the field in retreat after retreat, certainly accounted for a LOT.
Pass campaign finance reform and we should see a new day dawning.Amen to that.
Well maybe he wasn't "above reproach" as I first put it. What I meant was that the newsmen and politicians of the day knew that attacks against Washington wouldn't work. The quickest way to become unpopular was to spread nasty rumors about Washington or to really oppose him when he put his shoulder into something. Not that that really has anything to do with anything.
|
seriously, dude, there isn't...one...thing...in that speech that is dismissive of anyone's "universal human rights". did you even LISTEN to the speech, or did you just assume that since it was made by a republican, she must have advocated eating babies and torturing poodles sixteen times?
or did you just go to the daily kos for their summation?
just curious...
I was referring to the part where she was talking about Obama wanting to read supposed al-Queda supporters their rights. Man, how the crowd loved that.
Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers' money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
|
|
So you've never made a bad decision ever in your life?i've made some doozies, and to date haven't taken a government handout.
they have a fallback system. its called a "diverse investment portfolio". if you are foolish enough to put all your eggs in one basket, then yes, i have no sympathy.
you pay into social security, last i checked. its your money...
buy insurance instead of a big screen TV. priorities. americans are instant gratification junkies unwilling to...
And what if the entire market is in decline as in post-2001. My grandfather lost thousands of dollars. He was invested in Enron and got screwed.
And you may not have sympathy, but luckily it doesn't matter what you think. It is better for our economy if there are fallbacks and regulations. It is better for all of us if people who fall on hard times can recover and one day contribute to the economy again.
It is for the same reason that,for instance, tuition existence should exist. For if a student fro ma low-income family like mine, can get a college education, I can contribute to society in better ways than if I hadn't gotten that 'government handout' and become a waiter or something.
Especially given spiraling costs,without a correlating rise in income.
ANd yes,for the record, I was once on foodstamps and welfare during a bad stretch and for that reason only was I able to eat for a few months.
|
|
seriously, dude, there isn't...one...thing...in that speech that is dismissive of anyone's "universal human rights". did you even LISTEN to the speech, or did you just assume that since it was made by a republican, she must have advocated eating babies and torturing poodles sixteen times?
or did you just go to the daily kos for their summation?
just curious...
I was referring to the part where she was talking about Obama wanting to read supposed al-Queda supporters their rights. Man, how the crowd loved that.
Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
um, reading someone their rights is an american right (its known as a "miranda warning", although i'm sure most, if not all, european nations probably have something similar. they don't, incidentally, have this in mexico - i know first hand, btw). i'm sure people in 3/4th of the populated world would be shocked to find that it is, apparently, a "universal human right".
they do, however, have property, corporate, (and, yes, on some goods, sales), estate, inheritance, and "school" taxes...
ergo, try again...
|
|
seriously, dude, there isn't...one...thing...in that speech that is dismissive of anyone's "universal human rights". did you even LISTEN to the speech, or did you just assume that since it was made by a republican, she must have advocated eating babies and torturing poodles sixteen times?
or did you just go to the daily kos for their summation?
just curious...
I was referring to the part where she was talking about Obama wanting to read supposed al-Queda supporters their rights. Man, how the crowd loved that.
Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
um, reading someone their rights is an american right (its known as a "miranda warning", although i'm sure most, if not all, european nations probably have something similar. they don't, incidentally, have this in mexico - i know first hand, btw). i'm sure people in 3/4th of the populated world would be shocked to find that it is, apparently, a "universal human right".
ergo, try again...
Well, it may not be a universal human right, but let me ask you, if you were Araibc in complexion, wouldnt it be comforting to know that if you were ever mistaken for a terrorist, you could at least take comfort in the fact that a legal system existed to remedy the problem?
|
|
Well, it may not be a universal human right, but let me ask you, if you were Araibc in complexion, wouldnt it be comforting to know that if you were ever mistaken for a terrorist, you could at least take comfort in the fact that a legal system existed to remedy the problem?seriously, dude, there isn't...one...thing...in that speech that is dismissive of anyone's "universal human rights". did you even LISTEN to the speech, or did you just assume that since it was made by a republican, she must have advocated eating babies and torturing poodles sixteen times?
or did you just go to the daily kos for their summation?
just curious...
I was referring to the part where she was talking about Obama wanting to read supposed al-Queda supporters their rights. Man, how the crowd loved that.
Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
um, reading someone their rights is an american right (its known as a "miranda warning", although i'm sure most, if not all, european nations probably have something similar. they don't, incidentally, have this in mexico - i know first hand, btw). i'm sure people in 3/4th of the populated world would be shocked to find that it is, apparently, a "universal human right".
ergo, try again...
um, furthermore, she was referring to terrorists overseas. anyone actually ON u.s. soil is covered by miranda, regardless of national origin...
no one in gitmo was "arrested" in the US. the "20th" hijacker, the spanish kid, the one american citizen (the american taliban dude, can't remember his name...) are all in the regular federal prison system, not in the detention center in cuba...
|
|
I know what a Miranda warning is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the beef people have with Gitmo is that the prisoners there weren't read their Miranda card when they were sent there? And who cares if 3/4 of the world's population has no rights to habeas corpus or fair trials - therese are hardly countries you Americans would like to compare yourselves to. Hell, Norway no longer extradites prisoners to the United States...
The funny thing about this discussion is that back home in Norway, I've generally voted for the Conservative party; here in the US, the political map is skewed so far to the Right that I have serious reservations about a lot of the Democratic Party. Context is apparently everything.
|
|
I know what a Miranda warning is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the beef people have with Gitmo is that the prisoners there weren't read their Miranda card when they were sent there? And who cares if 3/4 of the world's population has no rights to habeas corpus or fair trials - therese are hardly countries you Americans would like to compare yourselves to. Hell, Norway no longer extradites prisoners to the United States...
The funny thing about this discussion is that back home in Norway, I've generally voted for the Conservative party; here in the US, the political map is skewed so far to the Right that I have serious reservations about a lot of the Democratic Party. Context is apparently everything.
no, i'm seriously trying to tell you that if that one comment is enough to make you say what you said, your perspective is seriously skewed.
oh, yeah, and apparently your neighbor in scandanavia is getting quite tired of their recent immigrants driving the crime rate up. a few more years, and you may find europe's political map "skewed"...
seriously, dude, there isn't...one...thing...in that speech that is dismissive of anyone's "universal human rights". did you even LISTEN to the speech, or did you just assume that since it was made by a republican, she must have advocated eating babies and torturing poodles sixteen times?
or did you just go to the daily kos for their summation?
just curious...
I was referring to the part where she was talking about Obama wanting to read supposed al-Queda supporters their rights. Man, how the crowd loved that.
Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
um, reading someone their rights is an american right (its known as a "miranda warning", although i'm sure most, if not all, european nations probably have something similar. they don't, incidentally, have this in mexico - i know first hand, btw). i'm sure people in 3/4th of the populated world would be shocked to find that it is, apparently, a "universal human right".
they do, however, have property, corporate, (and, yes, on some goods, sales), estate, inheritance, and "school" taxes...
ergo, try again...
You seem to be saying that if someone is deprived of something they never had a right to it? Please clarify.
We need to set the example. Sure, its a cliche, but if we don't we really are no different from what we are opposing. We *should* be reading suspected terrorists their rights.
Palin was off base with this comment.
it amazes me, since america is such a horrible place filled with such backwards and rabidly evil souls, that so many people from more "enlightened" nations ever bother to immigrate here...
ok, bedtime, i'll mess with y'all more tomorrow :)
I have yet to see a position strengthened by sarcasm. Seriously, come on...you jumped over straw man to straw elephant.
You're correct. I won't compromise my beliefs. I'm not going to meet someone in the "middle" for something I can't believe in.
Often you can advance your own beliefs further by being prepared to acknowledge and make concession's to one of your opponent's beliefs... Pretend for a second you are a congressman determined to drill for domestic oil. Your opponent across the aisle, some hippy Democrat, wants to ban all domestic drilling and put money into hydrogen technology. Pretend you absolutely don't believe in hydrogen, because clearly there's plenty of oil, and the infrastructure for it is already in place.
Option 1: You both declare that your beliefs are not subject to change or compromise of any kind. No new drilling gets done. No hydrogen reasearch gets funding, and most of that research moves to Singapore. The US remains dependent on foreign oil, and also loses its competetive edge in emerging energy technologies.
Option 2: You and your opponent throw each other a bone. Maybe you say, "Hey, if we open up some domestic areas for drilling -- under environmental guidelines we'll work out together -- then some subsidies for hydrogen cells are probably in line as well; maybe we can fund them with a drilling tax or something." Then you work out the details. Yes, the price of domestic oil rises a bit because of that tax, but you get your drilling. Your opponent can go back to his constituents and make a bunch of long speeches about how he "pushed through tough environmental regulations" and "opened up hydrogen research for a new era." You both actually got what you were primarily after, by giving the other person something of secondary importance. That's why "package deal," all-or-nothing mind-sets are not conducive to a functioning government.
Option 1 leaves both people feeling like noble, virtuous paragons of justice and purity, but doesn't allow practical solutions, and it ensures that neither party gets what they want -- by standing up for their beliefs in posture, they prevent their beliefs from becoming reality.
|
|
You're correct. I won't compromise my beliefs. I'm not going to meet someone in the "middle" for something I can't believe in.Often you can advance your own beliefs further by being prepared to acknowledge and make concession's to one of your opponent's beliefs... Pretend for a second you are a congressman determined to drill for domestic oil. Your opponent across the aisle, some hippy Democrat, wants to ban all domestic drilling and put money into hydrogen technology. Pretend you absolutely don't believe in hydrogen, because clearly there's plenty of oil, and the infrastructure for it is already in place.
Option 1: You both declare that your beliefs are not subject to change or compromise of any kind. No new drilling gets done. No hydrogen reasearch gets funding, and most of that research moves to Singapore. The US remains dependent on foreign oil, and also loses its competetive edge in emerging energy technologies.
Option 2: You and your opponent throw each other a bone. Maybe you say, "Hey, if we open up some domestic areas for drilling -- under environmental guidelines we'll work out together -- then some subsidies for hydrogen cells are probably in line as well; maybe we can fund them with a drilling tax or something." Then you work out the details. Yes, the price of domestic oil rises a bit because of that tax, but you get your drilling. Your opponent can go back to his constituents and make a bunch of long speeches about how he "pushed through tough environmental regulations" and "opened up hydrogen research for a new era." You both actually got what you were primarily after, by giving the other person something of secondary importance. That's why "package deal," all-or-nothing mind-sets are not conducive to a functioning government.
Option 1 leaves both people feeling like noble, virtuous paragons of justice and purity, but doesn't allow practical solutions, and it ensures that neither party gets what they want -- by standing up for their beliefs in posture, they...
YO uare corect. What I am also referring to,however, is the fact that often agendas can keep votes on issues that can be compromised on off the table, in favor of ones no one will ever compromise on.
For instance, if a bill banning gay marriage comes up, very little room exists for compromise. However, what if a bill offering homosexuals equal protection under the law(similar to the civil rights act of 1964). There would then exist an issue with lots of nuances and such and perhaps some forms of compromise that a more hateful approach to the issue would not allow.
For instance, if a bill banning gay marriage comes up, very little room exists for compromise. However, what if a bill offering homosexuals equal protection under the law (similar to the civil rights act of 1964). There would then exist an issue with lots of nuances and such and perhaps some forms of compromise that a more hateful approach to the issue would not allow.
David proposed a variant that apparently pleased everyone who read it: split "marriage" into civil contracts (providing legal benefits) and religious rites. Any couple, gay or straight, could get the first. The second would be totally at the discretion of the individual churches. That way, the "ban gay marriage!" people are happy because churches are no longer under any pressure whatsoever to preform religious ceremonies for gay couples -- they can refuse point-blank without protest. The "equal rights for gays" people get what they want, too.
David proposed a variant that apparently pleased everyone who read it: split "marriage" into civil contracts (providing legal benefits) and religious rites. Any couple, gay or straight, could get the first. The second would be totally at the discretion of the individual churches. That way, the "ban gay marriage!" people are happy because churches are no longer under any pressure whatsoever to preform religious ceremonies for gay couples -- they can refuse point-blank without protest. The "equal rights for gays" people get what they want, too.For instance, if a bill banning gay marriage comes up, very little room exists for compromise. However, what if a bill offering homosexuals equal protection under the law (similar to the civil rights act of 1964). There would then exist an issue with lots of nuances and such and perhaps some forms of compromise that a more hateful approach to the issue would not allow.
To me this is the obvious solution. We went awry when we started handing out lots of legal benefits to married couples. Somewhere along the line we forgot separation of church and state.
BUT I seriously doubt we will agree to such a compromise. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, right now many Americans seem to routinely confuse compromise with weakness or "waffling." Ironically, that confusion is far more likely to destroy our country than any religious conservative or secular progressive agenda. Perhaps that is the "culture war" to which we should be paying attention.
You're correct. I won't compromise my beliefs. I'm not going to meet someone in the "middle" for something I can't believe in.Often you can advance your own beliefs further by being prepared to acknowledge and make concession's to one of your opponent's beliefs... Pretend for a second you are a congressman determined to drill for domestic oil. Your opponent across the aisle, some hippy Democrat, wants to ban all domestic drilling and put money into hydrogen technology. Pretend you absolutely don't believe in hydrogen, because clearly there's plenty of oil, and the infrastructure for it is already in place.
Option 1: You both declare that your beliefs are not subject to change or compromise of any kind. No new drilling gets done. No hydrogen reasearch gets funding, and most of that research moves to Singapore. The US remains dependent on foreign oil, and also loses its competetive edge in emerging energy technologies.
Option 2: You and your opponent throw each other a bone. Maybe you say, "Hey, if we open up some domestic areas for drilling -- under environmental guidelines we'll work out together -- then some subsidies for hydrogen cells are probably in line as well; maybe we can fund them with a drilling tax or something." Then you work out the details. Yes, the price of domestic oil rises a bit because of that tax, but you get your drilling. Your opponent can go back to his constituents and make a bunch of long speeches about how he "pushed through tough environmental regulations" and "opened up hydrogen research for a new era." You both actually got what you were primarily after, by giving the other person something of secondary importance. That's why "package deal," all-or-nothing mind-sets are not conducive to a functioning government.
Option 1 leaves both people feeling like noble, virtuous paragons of justice and purity, but doesn't allow practical solutions, and it ensures that neither party gets what they want -- by standing up for their beliefs in posture, they...
That's not a good example because why would anybody be against hydrogen? It's too difficult to pretend. Let's do an example of mine. Say that I'm in congress and a democrat said that he'd give me what I wanted(whatever that is) if I would go along with him on a tax increase on the American people. Deep in my heart, I know this tax increase is going to hurt the middle class. So, in order to get what I want, should I compromise? These back door "compromises" tend to screw the American people more than help. That's why guys like HoustonDerek tend to distrust and dislike both parties. What I'm trying to say is compromise is only good if its a win-win situation.
Let's do an example of mine. Say that I'm in congress and a democrat said that he'd give me what I wanted (whatever that is) if I would go along with him on a tax increase on the American people. Deep in my heart, I know this tax increase is going to hurt the middle class. So, in order to get what I want, should I compromise? These back door "compromises" tend to screw the American people more than help. That's why guys like HoustonDerek tend to distrust and dislike both parties.
A "tax increase on the American people;" isn't anything specific; it's meaningless. If what he's proposing a specific tax on the middle class: say, everyone who makes between 30K and 200K gets a 15% hike, then there's really no way to compromise, because he's approached the matter in an Option 1 kind of way. On the other hand, if he says "a tax on the rich," but really means everything above poverty, it's up to you to talk him up. "Yes, if lower taxes for people between 30K and 200K is OK with you, then those above might get a slight increase -- but we'd offset it by offering tax incentives for small businesses as well; the economy needs to keep moving." Or, "how about no new income taxes, but we have a luxury tax on yachts and stuff?"
Almost anything can be made win-win, or at least lose less - lose less (for some unfortunate "damned-if-you-do" scenarios). It's a challenge to our thinking outside the box to come up with creative ways to make it possible. Giving up on that and just taking a hard-line, "Option 1" stance on everything says that a politician refuses to think, and just wants to posture.
As a side note, I also distrust and dislike both parties, but for the reason that I find it arbitrary and annoying to lump different issues, about which I have different opinions, together into a package deal.
|
I wayched Sarah Palin's speech, and as someone described it, it was like watching Reagan in a skirt. I think she is going to be big in the Republican Party. I may have to switch my alligence from Pathfinders for Romney to Pathfinders for Palin. Here are a few of my favorite highlights.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman. I grew up with those people. They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.
Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes. I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
I've noticed a pattern with our opponent. Maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much ... he promises more. Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Wow... just read this from her, regarding the troops in Iraq: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
Also, regarding an Alaska pipeline: "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
Anyone against the gas line is obviously against God, I guess.
Yikes.
Wow... just read this from her, regarding the troops in Iraq: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
Yikes.
Well, we should make sure these statements are true before we jump to conclusions. The media has reported a lot of bogus stuff about her the last few days.
Well, we should make sure these statements are true before we jump to conclusions. The media has reported a lot of bogus stuff about her the last few days.
Yes, we should definitely check into it. I don't necessarily buy into the whole conspiracy theory that the world press manufactures all quotes and events ever reported in order to push a liberal agenda, but it is indeed possible that the Associated Press in this case received faulty information and rushed to print it.
But that is what she said, I just might sit out this election in protest.
EDIT: Just looked; the story and links to the videotape are all over everywhere. If this is a hoax, it's quite a big one. Let's keep looking.
Wow... just read this from her, regarding the troops in Iraq: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
Also, regarding an Alaska pipeline: "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
Anyone against the gas line is obviously against God, I guess.
Yikes.
Assuming this is true, I think "yikes" is an understatement.
|
|
But the pipeline got built, so maybe there is something to it. Remember that FDR used a radio address to lead the entire nation in prayer on the eve of D-Day. Today the same people who hold FDR up as a great president because of his progressive agenda would condemn him for saying:Wow... just read this from her, regarding the troops in Iraq: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
Also, regarding an Alaska pipeline: "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
Anyone against the gas line is obviously against God, I guess.
Yikes.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men.
sounds a lot like what Sarah Palin said.
I don't necessarily buy into the whole conspiracy theory that the world press manufactures all quotes and events ever reported in order to push a liberal agenda.
I've never understood this idea. Aside from the obvious point that the press is owned by large corporations, the majority of which have a vested interest in opposing the liberal "agenda," there are a few interesting pieces of research that show that the further one is from the center, the more slanted to the other side one perceives any reporting. Let me say that again: even if the *exact same* report is shown to opposed parties, the more extreme the beliefs of those parties the more they perceive the story to be slanted to the OTHER side.
Remember that FDR used a radio address to lead the entire nation in prayer on the eve of D-Day.... sounds a lot like what Sarah Palin said.
If FDR said, "God demands that the TVA build this dam!" I'd totally condemn that statement as well.
There's another (anonymous) quote that I favor: "He who claims to know the mind of God is engaged in the devil's work."
But the pipeline got built, so maybe there is something to it.
David, you *can't* be serious.
Well, we should make sure these statements are true before we jump to conclusions. The media has reported a lot of bogus stuff about her the last few days.
Fox News reports it as well. Aren't they supposed to be "fair and balanced"?
|
|
But the pipeline got built, so maybe there is something to it.David, you *can't* be serious.
You're right, that part was a joke. But I still don't think there is anything wrong with a politician asking someone to pray for something. Harry Truman did sign a law instituting a National Day of Prayer after all.