|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 12, 2004 21:37:08 GMT -5
What's all this talk about Click? He hasn't been here in ages. My fellow conservative warrior (and friend) is unfortunately MIA. We gotta get him back!
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 12, 2004 22:05:02 GMT -5
He's in my fantasy baseball league. I can ask him to come if you choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 12, 2004 22:14:47 GMT -5
That'd be great shin, but I'm sure he already knows about the place. Thanks for your offer though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 12, 2004 22:36:20 GMT -5
Yikes - I've been away most of the day and there's some very lengthy posts here I should respond to... I've still got to write a lecture for 10 a.m. tomorrow, so forgive me if my reply is a bit spotty for now! Didn't want to ignore rocdoc's posts completely, though.
I appreciate your apology rocdoc, and certainly no hard feelings. I also appreciate your sharing an example of a genuine Bush mistake—again, I hope it's clear that I didn't think you were claiming everything was going perfectly in Iraq, but just that I was unsure if you thought we could hold Bush accountable for any of the problems there. I would go much, much further in attributing accountability, of course. But I still get the impression that you are still responding to me through the lens of what you think "the left" typically thinks, rather than what I've actually written—I just have to point out that this is categorically false:
the same FAR overly simplistic 'War-for-OIL' shriek( times 10), which I've seen SEVERAL(incl you, yes)from the 'other side' here say repeatedly
I have NEVER made this claim. Honestly, outside of rs.com, I've had many arguments with friends and random liberals at protests and demonstrations about the whole "war for oil" angle. I have refused to carry "No Blood for Oil" signs and taken others to task for carrying them, so I can't imagine that while I was arguing during the day with my own friends about this, I was suddenly developing a different personality at night and posting "No Blood for Oil" all over rs.com. As I said repeatedly at the old rs.com, I've always believed this war was driven by a particular neoconservative ideology and NOT by oil. I'm sure oil isn't wholly irrelevant to the considerations surrounding the war, but I would never, ever suggest that oil was the primary reason why we invaded Iraq. I think this is a piss-poor oversimplification of the situation and I've said as much repeatedly. Some people here may have offered this analysis, but not all leftists are the same person, so again, as I believe I asked in my last post at CE on the old rs.com before the place went kaput, please don't lump me in with some blanket vision of the left that you harbor.
I don't really know how to respond to the rest of your post, because it addresses this broadly construed "youth vote" and I feel like I'd have to write another boring novel-length post to express my feelings about that. I'm no populist, and I can be quite cynical about the "people" and their unfortunate capacity to be manipulated or ideologically mystified. So in that respect I'm sympathetic to your suspicions. I just don't see why they apply with special force to the young, to the left, or to fans of Michael Moore. Not all critics of Bush are just knee-jerk 18 year old rebels in RATM t-shirt. In some way this is a strawman target; it's easy to mock them, it's easy to reveal their politics as more about fahion than well-reasoned analysis, but it's also a way of avoiding discussion with serious dissenting voices on the left. By essentially reducing leftist critique of Bush to an easily manipulated, faux-rebellious youth, I think you're doing a disservice to many more mature, sober, and intelligent critical voices.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 13, 2004 4:24:33 GMT -5
To correct the misunderstanding of this, where I wrote:
"BUT, I'm still not going to buy into the Moore/shin screed of "behind- EVERY-maneuver-there's-been-a-horrible-acquisitive- self-involved-conspiracy"... the same FAR overly simplistic 'War-for-OIL' shriek( times 10), which I've seen SEVERAL(incl you, yes)from the 'other side' here say repeatedly, convinced apparently, that it was a non-issue...or a side-issue, along with the absurd 'You're the man who wanted ta shoot muh Paw, stranger....now DRAW!'..."
I'm actually saying that I remember VERY well that you said 'War/Blood for Oil'-crap was something which you could not get behind as a vast oversimplified sound-byte, w/a nice concise 'ring' but ridiculous in fact.
Yuh, I musta buried the negators under too many sub-clauses to follow, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 13, 2004 4:58:37 GMT -5
So to read that Bushco is trying to make political hay out of the capture of a man that was behind the killing of 3,000 Americans, that instead of putting this sort of pressure on Musharraf and Friends two years ago, they waited until it was damaging to Kerry to do so, not one moment of hesitation enters your brain?
So...they've had him absolutely in the bag, a turkey shoot in fact, for those 2 years and held out...
...and purposely waited for the Bush numbers to dwindle(see they also KNEW they would....Madam Marie said so!)til OBL could be brought up out of the cave that Musharaf's men DASN'T dares to go in cos Unca Georgie done told them 'No'
...I mean come ON, I can understand that the administration could(and I'm sure HAS BEEN)ANYwhere along the line be asking the Pakis, 'Well? Is there anything happening? You've been given our dime here for this'...so they're NOT allowed to ask NOW?
BESIDES the fact that there are American forces all over Afghanistan still, INCLUDING at that border, dying n'shit
But you're saying STRAIGHT OUT that they milked it for 2 years, WAITING for the moment that Kerry needs to have something shoved up his ass???
AND while that article EXPLICITLY also stated that the Paki's know that their support traditionally dwindles with Dem administrations...c'mon shin/moore(heck, I'll give ya the top-billing too, long as you're taking it)this sort of 100% surety of a conspiracy behing every tree convinces me further and further that you're just nuts...
You DID then just say THIS also, right?
...but that doesn't mean you can bank on such a capture with such impeccable political timing.
MAN, then I must've totally misunderstood the point of what you were saying in that first half, cos you SURE seemed to ay that Bush COULD 'bank on such a capture'.
WTF are you on, BTW?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 13, 2004 5:24:50 GMT -5
I was all of 7 and a ½ in October of 1962 Dr D...it caused me to miss Huckleberry Hound for several nights...I was traumatized, believe me! Rocdoc, 7½ – about what I’d guessed. FWIW, my real introduction to current events was at about the same age. It was the October Crisis of 1970 when the FLQ kidnapped two officials in Quebec, murdering one of them, and Pierre Trudeau imposed martial law on the province. I had just turned eight the previous month. No trauma but I remember following it intently. Just had to know - who, what, why?? Must have got most of my info from television but for some reason it’s the radio reports that I remember most vividly. Not all critics of Bush are just knee-jerk 18 year old rebels in RATM t-shirt. Most assuredly. In fact, it would appear exceedingly unlikely that the youth vote will be the decisive factor in throwing Bush out of office, if and when that happens. There was a recent report that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 62% of women aged 18 – 25 didn’t vote in the last presidential election. The same article included figures from a 2002 Pew Research survey that showed that only 22% of women between the ages of 20 and 25 and 28% of men in the same age group vote on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 13, 2004 11:36:51 GMT -5
MAN, then I must've totally misunderstood the point of what you were saying in that first half, cos you SURE seemed to ay that Bush COULD 'bank on such a capture'. Indeed you did totally misunderstand it. An convenient misunderstanding that allows you a byway to appease and apologize. Surprise, surprise. *and now, a Krauthammerian satirical look inside the mind of RocDoc, using the tried-and-true satirical prose OF RocDoc. Reader discretion is advised...* Isha conspiracy! Shin/Moore wrote the article! Dere ain't no truf to it! So he has to be the one to answer for it! Just cuz I can't figure out that Bushco asking for a HVT for political gain doesn't mean they'll get it, but that asking for such a specific political gift at all is really really disgusting, crass and shows their true colors, that don't mean I can't apologize and deflect and blame this on Blink 182 somehow!
Dear Leader...so perfect. So strong. He's always cared about bringing down OBL...that's why he brought those 150,000 troops to Iraq. I mean, to Afghanistan. Wait, it wuz Iraq after all, weren't it?*clicks to CNN.com...* What dis? A HTV surrendered? Musharraf musta gotten the prize early! Er...I mean...yay for Fearless Leader! His strength and unwavering attempts to bring down OBL all these years is paying off! Just in time to show that no-good-nick Kerry how to REALLY fight a war, too! Nya!
Cuz we all know if there's one thing Dear Leader has NEVER DONE, it's taken his focus off the True Evil, not even for ONE SECOND. But if he has, by golly, well then I'd want his attention, as well as that of our Iraq-saturated populace, to be brought back to the true perpetrator of the 9/11 tragedy, SADDAM HUSSEIN...I mean, OSAMA BIN HUSSEIN...but only when it's DAMAGING POLITICALLY to that waste of a vote, John Kerry, who would appease the Islamofacists by punishing Doctor Kahn for selling nuclear secrets to terrorists. Thaz appeasement right there! Can't have none of dat!
Oh great Bush...such good intentions, such a difficult task to undertake, he tries his best he does. The buck does not stop with him, it stops with that ass Clarke, the turncoat!
He loves da kittens, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 13, 2004 11:39:29 GMT -5
My real introduction to current events was about that same age: My country went to war with El Salvador over a soccer game. True story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 13, 2004 11:45:27 GMT -5
As for unseating the current Monarch, turning towards our youth is not the answer, not by a longshot.
We will have to make an appeal towards the older generations, the ones who realize behind their sad eyes they have nothing much (if anything) to live for, anyway. The ones who whom we can (easily) convince they have no "status quo" to hold onto anymore, so why not let the young-uns engender their Change--?
This is just a small revelation I recently underwent. Start at the TOP of the voter demographic: fuck all the brainless youth of America. Let's get the old folks one last chance at defiance against this current Administration with money in their blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 13, 2004 12:10:46 GMT -5
My real introduction to current events was about that same age: My country went to war with El Salvador over a soccer game. True story. Just a lil' reminder that, yes, we humans do have a tendency to get into wars over the silliest things. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 13, 2004 12:27:32 GMT -5
War is a "Fact Of Life": get used to it!
Besides, We the Taxpayers paid with our hard-earned dollars for all those toys military weapons. *koff*
What the hell is a good Radiologist to do - ?
"Promissory Note" my ass!
Seems to me that Bush & His Ilk are guilty of nothing less than sweeping this Debt over to the next generation(s), let them deal with it. You wanna stay on that Bandwagon -- go right ahead; not me.
I not only understand the concept of "sacrifice" -- but I'm willing to commit to it.
I'm willing to (have already, in fact) give up my CAR.
I'm willing to Just Say No To Gasoline, Oil, Insurance Policies, the Pharmaceutical Industry, Credit Card Companies....all that bullshit that got us into this mess, straight up.
I refuse to lend my hand to The Broomstick We collectively Push Together in order to Sweep This Mess under the Rug of our Children's Children.
And I Don't Even HAVE Any Children Of My Own~! go figure
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 13, 2004 14:23:30 GMT -5
OK. I get it! 'Shrooms, rapacious egotism and an apparent channelling of the worst of solepoet's pidgin through a blender....
You really should keep the dosages down, shin.
~
Yeah shin, you certainly aspire to a Krauthammer...in a fevered wet dream.
*splurt!*
...oh and at the same time you might as well also be Donald Trump AND say, Isaac Brock.
No scarier than the flailing mess you are now...
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 13, 2004 14:49:40 GMT -5
I thought it was Numbers that used to do that. In any case, it kinda makes one look like a dick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 13, 2004 15:01:14 GMT -5
NEW YORK TIMES
July 13, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Machine at Work
By PAUL KRUGMAN
"From a business point of view, Enron is a smoking ruin. But there's important evidence in the rubble.
If Enron hadn't collapsed, we might still have only circumstantial evidence that energy companies artificially drove up prices during California's electricity crisis. Because of that collapse, we have direct evidence in the form of the now-infamous Enron tapes — although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Justice Department tried to prevent their release.
Now, e-mail and other Enron documents are revealing why Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, is one of the most powerful men in America.
A little background: at the Republican convention, most featured speakers will be social moderates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A moderate facade is necessary to win elections in a generally tolerant nation. But real power in the party rests with hard-line social conservatives like Mr. DeLay, who, in the debate over gun control after the Columbine shootings, insisted that juvenile violence is the result of day care, birth control and the teaching of evolution.
Here's the puzzle: if Mr. DeLay's brand of conservatism is so unpopular that it must be kept in the closet during the convention, how can people like him really run the party?
In Mr. DeLay's case, a large part of the answer is his control over corporate cash. As far back as 1996, one analyst described Mr. DeLay as the "chief enforcer of company contributions to Republicans." Some of that cash has flowed through Americans for a Republican Majority, called Armpac, a political action committee Mr. DeLay founded in 1994. By dispensing that money to other legislators, he gains their allegiance; this, in turn, allows him to deliver favors to his corporate contributors. Four of the five Republicans on the House ethics committee, where a complaint has been filed against Mr. DeLay, are past recipients of Armpac money.
The complaint, filed by Representative Chris Bell of Texas, contends, among other things, that Mr. DeLay laundered illegal corporate contributions for use in Texas elections. And that's where Enron enters the picture.
In May 2001, according to yesterday's Washington Post, Enron lobbyists in Washington informed Ken Lay via e-mail that Mr. DeLay was seeking $100,000 in additional donations to his political action committee, with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas." The Post says it has "at least a dozen" documents showing that Mr. DeLay and his associates directed money from corporate donors and lobbyists to an effort to win control of the Texas Legislature so the Republican Party could redraw the state's political districts.
Enron, which helped launch Armpac, was happy to oblige, especially because Mr. DeLay was helping the firm's effort to secure energy deregulation legislation, even as its traders boasted to one another about how they were rigging California's deregulated market and stealing millions each day from "Grandma Millie."
The Texas redistricting, like many of Mr. DeLay's actions, broke all the usual rules of political fair play. But when you believe, as Mr. DeLay does, that God is using you to promote a "biblical worldview" in politics, the usual rules don't apply. And the redistricting worked — it is a major reason why anything short of a Democratic tidal wave in November is likely to leave the House in Republican hands.
There is, however, one problem: a 100-year-old Texas law bars corporate financing of State Legislature campaigns. An inquiry is under way, and Mr. DeLay has hired two criminal defense lawyers. Stay tuned. (boldface mine -thorny)
But you shouldn't conclude that the system is working. Mr. DeLay's current predicament is an accident. The party machine that he has done so much to create has eliminated most of the checks and balances in our government. Again and again, Republicans in Congress have closed ranks to block or emasculate politically inconvenient investigations. If Enron hadn't collapsed, and if Texas didn't still have a campaign finance law that is a relic of its populist past, Mr. DeLay would be in no danger at all.
The larger picture is this: Mr. DeLay and his fellow hard-liners, whose values are far from the American mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests. And they may be just one election away from achieving a long-term lock on power. "
|
|
