Who do you want in 2008?

[quote name='mykevermin']Universal health care? Nobody wants *that*![/QUOTE]

Certainly not when it's paid for by the government.
 
Anyone catch George Bush Sr. running around proclaiming how great Jeb Bush would be in '08. Hey dickhead, aren't you over '92 yet?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What politician is in that 1%? Furthermore, what politician is in that 1% *and* someone in the mainstream (for instance, I like Dennis Kucinich, and I don't see him as power hungry as much as he is someone who wants to promote justice and equality; but I recognize he has zero mainstream appeal).

myke.[/QUOTE]

Poor Kucinich. The most media he could get was Letterman making fun of him.

Which reminds me. Does anyone else remember when Bush appeared on Letterman before the 2000 election, and they got footage of him wiping his glasses on a woman's shirt while she wasn't looking during the commercial break.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
optimus-prime.jpg
 
Seriously, though. For a republican, I'd rather see Arlen Spector. Even though his party tried to neuter him during the whole judicial thing last year, I still respect him. It's just a shame he's got cancer and likely won't serve too much longer.

Screw McCain. He bitched and bitched about how people disgraced his vietnam service in the 2000 primaries, then complained in 2004 about "people opening up old wounds", and yet he campaigned with an AWOL loser whose party platform was to disgrace Kerry the same way they disgraced him. If he can't stand up for himself and his fellow vets, then to hell with him.
 
MegaloMcCainiac
While we're on the subject of bipartisanship, Bush got a tad defensive during the debate when John Kerry mentioned that he would "work with my friend, John McCain, to further campaign finance reform so we get these incredible amounts of money out of the system and open it up to average people."

"My opponent keeps mentioning John McCain," responded Dubya, "and I'm glad he did. John McCain is for me for president (sic)."

He sure is - and as you can see from this photo, George isn't going to let McCain out of his sight until the election is over.
175_mccain.jpg


http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/175.html

I like this quote from McCain: "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war," he said, calling about half of the population of the United States deluded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/169.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Seriously, though. For a republican, I'd rather see Arlen Spector. Even though his party tried to neuter him during the whole judicial thing last year, I still respect him. It's just a shame he's got cancer and likely won't serve too much longer.

Screw McCain. He bitched and bitched about how people disgraced his vietnam service in the 2000 primaries, then complained in 2004 about "people opening up old wounds", and yet he campaigned with an AWOL loser whose party platform was to disgrace Kerry the same way they disgraced him. If he can't stand up for himself and his fellow vets, then to hell with him.[/QUOTE]

I agree, to some extent, about how McCain still supports his abusive spouse. "Stand By Your Man," indeed.

However, consider how Specter and McCain were vilified by the right, and the media, following any attempt to exhibit dissent. I can't think of any examples at the moment for McCain, save for the fact that it was a forgone conclusion that he should have been the candidate to face Gore in 2000. I'm not sure how Bush upended him; perhaps it was a Karl Rove pulling a Max Cleland redux, I don't remember.

Specter, on the other hand, seems to be on the GOP's bad side more than he is the good, given his position on stem cell research. I'm just not convinced that the GOP can handle a moderate candidate anymore.

myke.
 
Spector and McCain will never get passed the primaries. Unfortunately, the majority of voters during the primaries always seem to be the extremists. I'm still shocked that Toomey didn't beat Spector last year during the primaries.
 
[quote name='Xevious']I dont think the enthusiam level is going to be good for anyone really. John McCain is a good choice for a republican. He's a hell lot smarter than Bush (in my opinion)[/QUOTE]


John McCain is WAY too middle of the road to win the GOP nomination.

Historically, moderates on either side rarely win. Bush, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Clinton, Bush Sr. All of whom are either way right or way left.
 
It's because of the extremists that Frist will likely be the '08 republican candidate should he exercise the nuclear option on the supreme court judicial nominee.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']John McCain is WAY too middle of the road to win the GOP nomination.

Historically, moderates on either side rarely win. Bush, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Clinton, Bush Sr. All of whom are either way right or way left.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean? Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr. all won at least once.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Spector and McCain will never get passed the primaries. Unfortunately, the majority of voters during the primaries always seem to be the extremists. I'm still shocked that Toomey didn't beat Spector last year during the primaries.[/QUOTE]

For a long time, I didn't understand states that held open primaries; I thought to myself, "I'd try to mobilize people to vote for Gary fucking Bauer, so the Dems could win easily, and right wingers would do the same - it's a moot fucking point in the end."

Now I'm beginning to think the opposite; closed primaries, in our modern society of blindly accepting things that are labeled "left" if we are left, and "right" if we are labeled right, the extremist jackass stands a better chance of surviving the primaries.

myke.
...fuck.
 
I just want someone better than what both parties put forward over the last two elections.

I particularly blame the Democrats - Kerry was the best they could do? They could have done better and we as a nation would have benefitted from it.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I just want someone better than what both parties put forward over the last two elections.

I particularly blame the Democrats - Kerry was the best they could do? They could have done better and we as a nation would have benefitted from it.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Bush was the best the republicans could do?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I particularly blame the Democrats - Kerry was the best they could do? They could have done better and we as a nation would have benefitted from it.[/QUOTE]

Huh? You seem to be implying that Bush was the best and brightest that the GOP could muster.

I'd agree that both sides could use better candidates.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I just want someone better than what both parties put forward over the last two elections.

I particularly blame the Democrats - Kerry was the best they could do? They could have done better and we as a nation would have benefitted from it.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Well, the GOP and the media killed Howard Dean dead. I don't mind the GOP - that's their job, and character assassination is something they're *fantastic* at. The media, on the other hand, was simply irresponsible.

fuckin' Bourdieu; why'd he have to be so right?

myke.
 
Yeah, Howard Dean lost because he used a noise cancelling mike.

He was yelling over the crowd, but the mike cancels out background noise...
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']What do you mean? Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr. all won at least once.[/QUOTE]


Exactly...they are all extremes. Which furthers my point.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']Exactly...they are all extremes. Which furthers my point.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of whether you liked them or not, Bush Sr. and Clinton were not extremes.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Huh? You seem to be implying that Bush was the best and brightest that the GOP could muster.

I'd agree that both sides could use better candidates.[/QUOTE]

If I left you with the impression that I believed Bush was the best and brightest among the GOP that was my mistake.

However, Bush's renomination as the GOP candidate is completely understandable. Failing to renominate Bush would have been tantamount to political suicide.

However the Democrats has a legitimate opportunity to put a real candidate like Joe Lieberman forward. Lieberman has impeccible integrity and I beleive would have been and still could be an outstanding President.

CTL
 
I understand why Dubya was nominated in 2004. I still can't understand why he was the nominee in 2000.

I don't share your enthusiasm for Lieberman. He's a little too Republican for my tastes.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']However the Democrats has a legitimate opportunity to put a real candidate like Joe Lieberman forward. Lieberman has impeccible integrity and I beleive would have been and still could be an outstanding President.[/QUOTE]

Lord no, what a tool.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I understand why Dubya was nominated in 2004. I still can't understand why he was the nominee in 2000.[/quote]

Money. Money. Money.

[quote name='MrBadExample']I don't share your enthusiasm for Lieberman. He's a little too Republican for my tastes.[/QUOTE]

I just used Lieberman for an example. He has a national presence and relative some of the other Democrats I can think of is closer to center of the political spectrum than others.

The point is Kerry was a dreadful choice. The Democrats could have done better.

Regrettably we as a nation are paying for it now.

I think people may have mistaken me as a big Bush supporter here. That is not the case. I find many of his policies contemptable. And I find him to be incredibly bland. There is nothing to get excited over there. However, given the alternative choices - I don't have a choice.

Because the two most important issues to me: war on terror and taxes the Democrats just haven't offered anyone yet who I believe to be credible.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I think people may have mistaken me as a big Bush supporter here. That is not the case. I find many of his policies contemptable. And I find him to be incredibly bland. There is nothing to get excited over there. However, given the alternative choices - I don't have a choice.

Because the two most important issues to me: war on terror and taxes the Democrats just haven't offered anyone yet who I believe to be credible.

CTL[/QUOTE]

My, what a delightful change of demeanor. I hope it lasts.

I'm curious about your thoughts on taxes - what would you like Democrats to say about them? They, in a general sense, are constantly on the defensive because they do not share the same fervor for tax cuts that Republicans have. Campaigning on tax increases would be political suicide, with the peculiar exception of the last election; the democrats lost, yes, but there was not the backlash I expected to see when Dean, Kerry and possibly others emphasized a rollback of the Bush tax cuts, in a frame of criticizing the elite favortism it provides.

Anyway, I need to go get a coffee and play with some stats. yay. I'm curious - the simple question is this: what would you like Dems to say about taxes?

myke.
...and they do leave a lot to be desired on the war on terror (tho' I was befuddled why people hated Kerry's push for more multilateral antiterror action).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My, what a delightful change of demeanor. I hope it lasts.

I'm curious about your thoughts on taxes - what would you like Democrats to say about them? They, in a general sense, are constantly on the defensive because they do not share the same fervor for tax cuts that Republicans have. Campaigning on tax increases would be political suicide, with the peculiar exception of the last election; the democrats lost, yes, but there was not the backlash I expected to see when Dean, Kerry and possibly others emphasized a rollback of the Bush tax cuts, in a frame of criticizing the elite favortism it provides.[/quote]

I didn't need a $300 rebate check. I want substantial tax relief. Anyway you cut it I would have faced higher taxes under Kerry.

It is very easy to go after the estate tax as it pertains to very few people.

No one is talking about the ATM, alternative minumim tax. It is going to be fucking well over half the population within ten years.

And lets be clear - I get nothing in the way of services to just the unending tax increases I have been subjected to. Understand that when the Fed cuts taxes they are also cutting funding to the states. The states turn around and hike taxes because their spending is proportionately more out of control than the Fed.

[quote name='mykevermin']Anyway, I need to go get a coffee and play with some stats. yay. I'm curious - the simple question is this: what would you like Dems to say about taxes?[/quote]

That they abandon spending and reckless social programs.

[quote name='mykevermin'] myke.
...and they do leave a lot to be desired on the war on terror (tho' I was befuddled why people hated Kerry's push for more multilateral antiterror action).[/QUOTE]

Because his multilateral antiterror 'action' would have resulted in total inaction.

No one is ever going to be able to sell the American public on a "global test" for national security.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']No one is ever going to be able to sell the American public on a "global test" for national security.[/QUOTE]

You do know that the "global test" remark was taken way out of context and twisted by the Bushies.

Here's what Kerry said: "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America, but if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

A poor choice of words perhaps, but not a bad idea that our international actions, especially wars, should be able to stand up to close scrutiny and not rely on "faulty" intelligence.
 
That could be where we differ; in my opinion, defense spending, as it becomes larger and larger, makes reducing or eliminating social programs a moot point. Yearly deficits that make the debt harder and harder to eliminate are also a large source of difficulty in creating a more efficient government. Democrats and Republicans alike are equally culpable in this case.

What kinds of social programs would you recommend eliminating? What is your opinion on the farm subsidy cuts that Bush enacted?

Something I'm having a hard time understanding is how we are appropriating money, hand over fist (a euphemism I don't quite get either), to military spending, yet hazard pay has been reduced, some contend that the army was inadequately equipped to go to war, and our military is "stretched too thin" in places such as Iraq. Clearly, appropriating more money alone will not solve these problems (and other causes, such as declining recruitment, exist). However, I'd love to see the breakdown of where this money is going. What gov't site would have that kind of info?

Hear hear on state taxes and other cost increases; the university I'm at has had 3 consecutive 10% tuition increases, and my undergrad university just upped their tuition 14% in one year. Shame that alcohol and tobacco are singled out for taxation.

myke.
...as a sociologist and criminologist, I'm of the mindset that our corrections system is, for the most part, a tremendous burden on taxpayers. I don't support privatization, but reducing sentences and increasing rehabilitation programs would go a long way in beginning to mend the "revolving door effect" of prizonization.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']You do know that the "global test" remark was taken way out of context and twisted by the Bushies.[/Quote]

Honestly, its a little late in the game to be critical of anyone for taking that out of context, particularly given the spin people here have given the Dowing Street Memo.

[quote name='MrBadExample']A poor choice of words perhaps, but not a bad idea that our international actions, especially wars, should be able to stand up to close scrutiny and not rely on "faulty" intelligence.[/QUOTE]

An exceptionally poor choice of words. The bottom line however is we don't have to prove anything to the world that we invaded another country for "legitimate" reasons.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Honestly, its a little late in the game to be critical of anyone for taking that out of context, particularly given the spin people here have given the Dowing Street Memo. [/quote]

I'm not exactly sure how you think the DS Memo has been spun. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but whatever...

[quote name='CTLesq']An exceptionally poor choice of words. The bottom line however is we don't have to prove anything to the world that we invaded another country for "legitimate" reasons.[/QUOTE]

And that the kind of empirical attitude that wins us so many friends worldwide. :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That could be where we differ; in my opinion, defense spending, as it becomes larger and larger, makes reducing or eliminating social programs a moot point. Yearly deficits that make the debt harder and harder to eliminate are also a large source of difficulty in creating a more efficient government. Democrats and Republicans alike are equally culpable in this case.[/quote]

I would point out a couple things. US Military spending as compared to a percentage of GNP really hasn't hit dangerous levels. I would recommend Paul kennedy's excellent book Rise and Fall of the Great Powers for a really excellent discussion of that.

Further given that Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill since he has taken office I don't see any real cuts in spending on social programs.

[quote name='mykevermin']What kinds of social programs would you recommend eliminating? What is your opinion on the farm subsidy cuts that Bush enacted?[/quote]

I would decimate virtually all social programs. I don't think throwing money at an issue necessarily fixes it. By way of example I love public spending on education.

We are spending incredibly larger sums of money on public education today than we were 20 or 40 years ago - yet virtually every metric shows we are either treading water or losing ground.

Either accept we need to spend catastophic sums of money to improve education AND raise taxes to the point where it would amount to a takings or accept not everyone is going to make it. Accept we don't have to spend every last dollar because we are going to end up in virtually the same place if we spend 500M or 2B dollars. Please - give me my money back.

[quote name='mykevermin']Something I'm having a hard time understanding is how we are appropriating money, hand over fist (a euphemism I don't quite get either), to military spending, yet hazard pay has been reduced, some contend that the army was inadequately equipped to go to war, and our military is "stretched too thin" in places such as Iraq. Clearly, appropriating more money alone will not solve these problems (and other causes, such as declining recruitment, exist). However, I'd love to see the breakdown of where this money is going. What gov't site would have that kind of info?[/quote]

Hazard pay has been reduced? News to me.

If you are going to be critical of the government for not properly equiping soldiers in Iraq then you have to accept that historically American armies have been improperly equiped from Valley Forge forward. This isn't a Bush phenomem. That shouldn't be used to defend Bush from criticism.

Consider a national guard unit is funded by a state government - that state government made the decision they weren't paying for an up armored HMV, not the administration. Fault the administration for failing to have the companies that make up armored HMV's not working at 101% once they realized this equipment.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Hear hear on state taxes and other cost increases; the university I'm at has had 3 consecutive 10% tuition increases, and my undergrad university just upped their tuition 14% in one year. Shame that alcohol and tobacco are singled out for taxation.[/quote]

Public schools colleges/universities are the worst. They can't stop spending.

[quote name='mykevermin'] myke.
...as a sociologist and criminologist, I'm of the mindset that our corrections system is, for the most part, a tremendous burden on taxpayers. I don't support privatization, but reducing sentences and increasing rehabilitation programs would go a long way in beginning to mend the "revolving door effect" of prizonization.[/QUOTE]

No. I support punishment, not rehibilitation.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I would point out a couple things. US Military spending as compared to a percentage of GNP really hasn't hit dangerous levels. I would recommend Paul kennedy's excellent book Rise and Fall of the Great Powers for a really excellent discussion of that.[/quote]

How is it as a proportion of the government's annual budget, given that, even if a dollar amount is set based upon the GNP, it continues to be exceeded.

I would decimate virtually all social programs. I don't think throwing money at an issue necessarily fixes it. By way of example I love public spending on education.

We are spending incredibly larger sums of money on public education today than we were 20 or 40 years ago - yet virtually every metric shows we are either treading water or losing ground.

Either accept we need to spend catastophic sums of money to improve education AND raise taxes to the point where it would amount to a takings or accept not everyone is going to make it. Accept we don't have to spend every last dollar because we are going to end up in virtually the same place if we spend 500M or 2B dollars. Please - give me my money back.
Click to expand...

So, since we need to pigeonhole everyone, I will call you "libertarian." Please inform me if you find this to be wholly inaccurate.

Anyway, since I'm not an economist, I won't try to discuss this numerically. Sociologically, however, there are tremendous performance differences between children of impoverished families (particularly urban compared to rural - not to suggest they are doing well either) and middle-class families. School spending is not exactly equal, but my argument is that children are not performing consistently poorly all around; poor children are much worse off than others, suggesting that you are correct, spending as much does not matter.

However, this implies that society matters; plenty of texts exist on the diminished opportunities for poor and minorites alike. One of the major arguments they consistently make is that the underclass, by the very nature of the people they spend time around, find no reason to believe that upward mobility is a possibility to them. Add in a lack of stable jobs with opportunities for upward mobility (Thomas Sugure's "The Origins of the Urban Crisis" is particularly useful, if you're interested), and you have your lot in life decided for you from the beginning.

The problem, then, is this: how do we solve the problem of social inequality without throwing money at it, particularly when the impoverished aren't completely responsible for their state (consider John Yinger's arguments that there are economic incentives to discriminate, for instance)?

Hazard pay has been reduced? News to me.

If you are going to be critical of the government for not properly equiping soldiers in Iraq then you have to accept that historically American armies have been improperly equiped from Valley Forge forward. This isn't a Bush phenomem. That shouldn't be used to defend Bush from criticism.

Consider a national guard unit is funded by a state government - that state government made the decision they weren't paying for an up armored HMV, not the administration. Fault the administration for failing to have the companies that make up armored HMV's not working at 101% once they realized this equipment.
Click to expand...

You'll hate this idea: What you're saying is that the state gov't had a hand in deciding the fate of the vehicles; fine. Perhaps we should have spent some time up-armoring them, and postponed the invasion of Iraq. We could have given Hans Blix et al. more time to look around, and since we (well, not me, but...) don't give a fuck about what he had to say, we could have invaded anyway, and looked *that much more* diplomatic than we did pushing inspectors aside after they were finally let back in again.

Public schools colleges/universities are the worst. They can't stop spending.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that. Blame it on the sports, since only the smallest number of universities have sports programs that don't run deficits that the university must pick up annually. Add into that their insatiable desire to resemble pro sports (like UK basketball wanting a fucking $40 million practice space/arena).

Our campus also had Pauly Shore here the other week. I certainly don't condone that kind of reckless spending.

No. I support punishment, not rehibilitation.
Click to expand...

Because it's worked so well in reducing crime, or because it keeps people from recidivating?

myke.
...all day fucking meetings. Great. See you on the other side.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Our campus also had Pauly Shore here the other week. I certainly don't condone that kind of reckless spending.[/QUOTE]

Was he picking up trash for community service? :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How is it as a proportion of the government's annual budget, given that, even if a dollar amount is set based upon the GNP, it continues to be exceeded.[/quote]

Decent question. Its a percentage. Had I looked more carefully I am sure I could have come up with a better site and better numbers:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

US military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1940--2003


20013.0 20023.4 20033.7

Yes the percentage has increased but so has our economy. But when you look at what Spain or Britian were spending at the time of their respective collapses this isn't even a drop in the bucket. Oh you can point to that for discretionary spending military spending is up, I won't argue that because it is. But historically military spending has been compared to GDP/GNP and we aren't close to being stretched thin because of this.

[quote name='mykevermin']So, since we need to pigeonhole everyone, I will call you "libertarian." Please inform me if you find this to be wholly inaccurate.[/quote]

Wholly? Probably not.

[quote name='mykevermin']Anyway, since I'm not an economist, I won't try to discuss this numerically. Sociologically, however, there are tremendous performance differences between children of impoverished families (particularly urban compared to rural - not to suggest they are doing well either) and middle-class families. School spending is not exactly equal, but my argument is that children are not performing consistently poorly all around; poor children are much worse off than others, suggesting that you are correct, spending as much does not matter.[/quote]

We don't have to get into really talking about real dollars to understand my point. Its pretty easy to understand I think. Basically there is a reasonable amount that we should spend on public education. I support that spending, we need it if we are going to have an educated population and remain a democracy. IE its in MY self interest to have money spent on a school system.

HOWEVER, spending is now out of control. Be it by legislative mandates or court orders or the middle class voting for it we spend more today on public education than we ever have. At some point the line where spending crosses a decent education is passed and spending justs shoots off into the sky.

Look some people just are not going to make it and there is no reason why my last dollar has to be taken from me for "the children" when its not going to happen anyways.

Find the middle point. I will pay for that. Anything beyond that is a middle class pipe dream.

[quote name='mykevermin']However, this implies that society matters; plenty of texts exist on the diminished opportunities for poor and minorites alike. One of the major arguments they consistently make is that the underclass, by the very nature of the people they spend time around, find no reason to believe that upward mobility is a possibility to them. Add in a lack of stable jobs with opportunities for upward mobility (Thomas Sugure's "The Origins of the Urban Crisis" is particularly useful, if you're interested), and you have your lot in life decided for you from the beginning.[/quote]

No offense but I think those texts have been invented by sociologists so that they can be continuosly employed. My mother was a social worker for a state for children and families. Utterly inept. If I was a child who was beaten and starved I would take my chances being pimped on the street before I allowed those idiots to F up my life.

People who want to succeed will.

[quote name='mykevermin']The problem, then, is this: how do we solve the problem of social inequality without throwing money at it, particularly when the impoverished aren't completely responsible for their state (consider John Yinger's arguments that there are economic incentives to discriminate, for instance)?[/quote]

Its not an issue that really concerns me. It concerns me to the extent my salary is frittered away to support them and thats about it.


[quote name='mykevermin']You'll hate this idea: What you're saying is that the state gov't had a hand in deciding the fate of the vehicles; fine. Perhaps we should have spent some time up-armoring them, and postponed the invasion of Iraq. We could have given Hans Blix et al. more time to look around, and since we (well, not me, but...) don't give a fuck about what he had to say, we could have invaded anyway, and looked *that much more* diplomatic than we did pushing inspectors aside after they were finally let back in again.[/quote]

We had already given them 10 years. The worst thing that ever happened to the US was that we were able to get a UN vote in Korea and the first Gulf War.

Any other countries ever ask permission to invade someone else through the UN Sec Council? Hopefully this war broke that absurd requirement.

I am continously amused by the fact that people who opposed the invasion give such a free pass to France, Germany and Russia in their single minded opposition to the war.

For those who criticize the Bush administrations single minded desire for war with Iraq I cannot understand how they even fail to acknowledge that short of Paris and the Riviera being nuked from Baghdad that France would have NEVER agreed under ANY circumstance to allow a yes vote in the UN SEC CNCL.

[quote name='mykevermin']I won't argue that. Blame it on the sports, since only the smallest number of universities have sports programs that don't run deficits that the university must pick up annually. Add into that their insatiable desire to resemble pro sports (like UK basketball wanting a fucking $40 million practice space/arena).[/quote]

Oh sports do play a big role, but sports can generate some degree of revenue. Some of the other expeditures such as new classrooms, wi-fi access, new student dorms/meeting centers etc are just unnecessary.

Alternatively, you could make an argument that public colleges and universities have been under priced for years.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Because it's worked so well in reducing crime, or because it keeps people from recidivating?[/quote]

Because I believe in punishment for punishments sake.
 
Where is that fiesty Ross Perot at? 8-[

I think Condoleeza Rice, John McCain, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman will be the names thrown out there the most.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Where is that fiesty Ross Perot at? 8-[

I think Condoleeza Rice, John McCain, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman will be the names thrown out there the most.[/QUOTE]

If Condoleeza gets the nod, expect to see that clip of her being forced to identify the "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US" memo ad infinitum.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If Condoleeza gets the nod, expect to see that clip of her being forced to identify the "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US" memo ad infinitum.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Anyone who may be a candidate will have everthing scrutinized. I like her because she is a very intelligent and strong woman (which Hilary admittedly is also). I think if all the President had to do was deal with terror she would win easily but being President is more than just that. She would have to prove she can work with Congress and set policy too. Personally, I think she could do it but I am not set on anyone yet.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Unqualified hollywood idiots with a following of blind sheeple can always win. Just look at Arnold.[/QUOTE]

I'll pick John Stewart over GWB on any test of knowledge on any topic (except the New Testament).
 
I don't trust many Hollywood types in regards to anything dealing with the real world. Most are so far from reality to start with it isn't even funny.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I don't trust many Hollywood types in regards to anything dealing with the real world. Most are so far from reality to start with it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]

That goes for a lot of the silver spoon politicians as well. Dubya wasn't (and still isn't) a shining example of the educated class.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I'll pick John Stewart over GWB on any test of knowledge on any topic (except the New Testament).[/QUOTE]

If I could be kept permeanently drunk during his administration that might be fun.

Think he can build GWB's face on MT Rushmore after he succeeds in the Middle East.

CTL
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That goes for a lot of the silver spoon politicians as well. Dubya wasn't (and still isn't) a shining example of the educated class.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I don't think President Bush is that bad though. Dan Quayle on the other hand.......now THAT was a moron if I ever heard one.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']If I could be kept permeanently drunk during his administration that might be fun.

Think he can build GWB's face on MT Rushmore after he succeeds in the Middle East.

CTL[/QUOTE]I would bet $50 that GWB doesn't know what state Mt. Rushmore is in. I guess he could always look it up on the Internets.

I'm not saying that Stewart would be a good political leader, just that he is infinitely more intellegent than our President.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I would bet $50 that GWB doesn't know what state Mt. Rushmore is in. I guess he could always look it up on the Internets.

I'm not saying that Stewart would be a good political leader, just that he is infinitely more intellegent than our President.[/QUOTE]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 10:53 a.m. EST [/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]'But as an American . . .'
We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of "The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might" (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it:[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that--[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--?[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole--[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: This could be unbelievable![/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow![/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs?[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive?[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes.[/font][/font]

​
[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times] [/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top).[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism.[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation."[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Times][font=Verdana, Times]Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues.[/font][/font]
 
Of Jon Stewart...

I think you would have to be an extremely immature thinker to not wonder "what if the other side is correct?" I do it often and it always lead me back to being a liberal.

However this peak into JS thought process is only one narrow (I can't stress this enough) view into the why the Middle East could change. Futhermore it ignored the fact that this change could have come about a variety of smarter, less costly ways.

It's funny that the right-wingers like Stewart all of the sudden. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top