Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In most other industrialized countries, businesses and individuals bear a higher tax burden. That's in part because they have federally funded retirement benefits. It's also because these states have much higher welfare benefits. So in essence, whether you look at funding or payment out, broad-based or universal benefits result in a higher tax burden.

But in most countries, you don't limit the funding of retirement benefits to the wage base, effectively adding that cost to the cost of goods. And to the extent expenses like retirements costs are added to the cost of goods through the VAT, there is a refund on export (virtually all VATs are refundable on exported goods). This puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

I think reform based on leveling the competitive playing field could be something both Rs and Ds could agree on, and they could fix a regressive tax while they are at it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you don't see that his vote against the $87 million was nothing more than a way to get some cover from Dean, there's no reason to have any further discussion. He voted no to the bill, and would have voted no to any bill the president proposed, because he needed cover. He was one of 12 fucking senators to vote no, which indicates that the "Bush Bill," while imperfect, was a signable bill.

Instead of impugning his motives, why don't you look at what Kerry actually did. According to factcheck.org, which comes endorsed by Dick Cheney, Kerry "voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42." That was a vote for funding the $87 billion. Your objection is not that he wouldn't vote to fund the troops, but that he wouldn't borrow to do it. You could just as easily attack Bush for refusing to ask the rich to forego tax cuts while the country is at war.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the candidate for president should do it in that manner. You keep confusing the average citizen, even the average senator, with the CIC.

This is a new code of conduct for Presidents that apparently just got pulled out of Karl Rove's ass. So during an election, political candidates are supposed to avoid dissent on the most important issues of the day? If that's what you think, you should be writing in a vote for Putin.

Funny, why doesn't this same rationale apply to the French? I know I know. Because when Bush does it is a failure of diplomacy, but when Kerry does it it's pointing out the truth.

It would apply to the French if Allawi were their puppet. WTF are you talking about?

He's called them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed. That speaks for itself.

Is that not true of many of the countries on the list?

It's very confusing to me. What does this mean? How do you justifiy it? To whom do you justify it? What if you can justify it to your country man but not your allies?

After you act, you open your mouth and say things that are true and correct, not bullshit. The issue here is that Bush thinks he should be above explaining anything to anyone. William Saletan in Slate (internal links omitted) said it better than I can:

• It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.
  
  What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.
  
  Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see.
  
  This is the test Bush has failed. He has failed to produce evidence for his prewar claims of Iraqi WMD and operational ties to al-Qaida, or for his postwar claims of success against the insurgency. Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it.
  
  Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio. He says it isn't his job to take a "poll," to hear what others think. He needs no validation.
  
  Bush pretends he's just blowing off the French. But his comments show a pattern of blowing off external feedback in general. He shrugs off information that debunks his claims about WMD, arguing that it's more important for a president to understand the overall nature of the world. He defines credibility as agreement with himself. He reinterprets evidence of policy mistakes in postwar Iraq as evidence of success. In Thursday's debate, he dismissed unwelcome reports from that country as too offensive to heed. And according to Sunday's New York Times, he and his aides exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability, ignoring warnings from "the government's foremost nuclear experts."
  
  Bush claims he has done all this to protect you. But that claim is precisely what's challenged by the evidence he conceals or disregards. What he's protecting you from is the ability to measure his assertions against the world that you and I can see. That's the global test he's mocking. And he expects you to applaud him for it, because he thinks you resent the French so much you'd rather have a president accountable to no one.

Which is 1 issue more than Kerry's "I'm not Bush" platform.

If you can't understand Kerry's explanation of the so-called "global test," it's no wonder that you think he doesn't have a platform.

Of course it does, but it also should involve the military, and I don't believe Kerry believes this.

On what basis do you believe this? Kerry's website talks about his proposal to enlarge the military, and then says, "The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone." That's not the same thing as saying the military has no role.

You conservatives like to pretend that Democrats were somehow opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Barbara Lee voted against the $$$, but every other Democratic Senator and Representative was in favor. It's a straw man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Arghhh. There is no such thing as French Canada. The name of the province is Quebec. Many francophones live in other parts of the country. If you mean Quebec, say it. If you say French Canada, you are referring to the entire country.

This lack of precision really pisses me off for reasons I don't fully understand, no offense Hank.

Hank just gets a little confused about St. Pierre et Miquelon. So close to Canada, but French!

[Say_hello_for_me]

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/arch...04/100104y.htm

I guess this summarizes the arguments in the Church. They say you can still vote for Kerry because Bush is 1.) in favor of preemptive war, and 2.) because abortion is not likely to be altered anytime soon (among other reasons given).

Re: #1. So I guess that means Kerry is not, at least under any circumstance he can define and/or foresee?

Re: #2. I think the author is wrong, and changes are on the horizon with the right set of circumstances.

Who'd imagine that dissidents and editorials appear in a Catholic paper.

Hello

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I see it differently. It seems to me that people who were going to be flying over here aren't now rushing into Iraq to fight. There are plenty of new recruits in Iraq who no longer have a home or a family (and I'm not saying this to be a bleeding heart, but to understand why we're having such a problem) who are more than willing to do whatever to take out some Americans there.

So, the missile Clinton shot off after the first attempt on the WTC was equally as effective as Bush's war? I don't buy it. Just because we haven't been hit again doesn't mean Bush gets credit for it. It seems clear that they hit us and have turned to convincing other countries to back away from us. I'm not going to give Bush credit for influencing their strategy -- especially when, as you and Hank said, it is so easy to hit us here in the states. Hell, we've lost over a thousand soldiers in Iraq. For all any of us know, Osama puts this in his win column. They haven't gotten him and he's directly and indirectly responsible for the death of 4,000 people and counting. And everyday, another Osama clone pops up beheading people or blowing somebody up.

TM

Well, it still remains to be seen whether the Iraqis will decide to take revenge on us or just get their infrastructure together and get on with their lives. I will say this - Perle, Wolfowitz and Chalabi should be indicted for something. Those three idiots sold the "The Iraqis will greet us with roses" story, and thats turned out to be utterly unsupported horseshit.

As to your second point, no one can ever prove how effective or ineffective a response to terror has been. On what criteria do we determine success or failure? No one knows why nothing heppened in the last three years. My theory was that the Iraqi distraction was partly the reason, but your theory says otherwise. I can see you point, and historians will debate this for a long time.

I think Bush will have the strangest legacy in Presidential history -he'll be thought by half the people a visionary, the other half a war criminal. Our kids' kids will know his name because this "war" we're in, its going to be around for good. Think about it.... the one difference between this war and all others was that the others had finite lives. One group (Nazis, Communism) would lose, one (Democratic states) would win. But now, there's no win and no lose. There's just struggle. Its really not a war at all. Its just a struggle like the Israeli intifada on a global scale (yes, I apologize for citing the obvious). You don't end that kind of conflict because it never has an all-deciding battle. Fucking scary when you think about it this way, since the only all-deciding battle possible, which AQ clearly wants, is nuclear. In that regard, Cheney ain't wrong in his perception, just his reaction.

[SlaveNoMore]

Diane_Keaton
Help how? What precise help are you upset about losing and from which countries? I don’t recall any country in a position to send us money to help rebuild our towers so I’m thinking you mean countries were willing after 9/11 to search harder for terrorists in their countries. If so, nabbing terror cells in one’s country benefits one’s own country and not just Americans.

Anyways, if you are saying Bush lost this “help” by going to war in Iraq, what do you perceive as the consequences? A particular country will get lax in searching for terror cells because the country is pissed off that Bush went forward without full UN backing in Iraq? Well, that’s really smart of the country. They’ll sure show US, won’t they?

Before I hear any more sob stories about how bad it sucks that Norway no longer feels sorry for us (The Horror!) and how important it is that France and Russia think our President is “Not Diplomatic” why don’t you all finally tell us what exactly you want from these countries. List it all out by country – France, Russia, Sweden, Spain... Probably, you’ll think about it and decide to skirt the issue by joking about how awful a cheese/wine ban would be. Because I have yet to hear anything beyond “Diplomacy is good” and “everyone really liked us after 9/11 and now they don’t.” Or anyone explain why being felt sorry for is a good position to be in, as opposed to a strong position.

A big fat 2

That a bunch of governments sent condolences and that the citizens of countries like, say, Portugal, Brussels, Sri Lanka and Peru, all came together for one shining moment to hold hands and sing "Kum Bah Yah" really amounts to not much more than a hill of beans.

"squandering" nothing is still nothing.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It has been explained to me by intelligent devout conservative Catholics that the death penalty is OK if there are not effective alternative means of justice (e.g., no imprisonment or whatever available). They acknowledged (I think) that the death penalty is inappropriate in the US.

Yes, gorgeous, the Church does have a caveat about death possibly being appropriate if there are no alternatives, but, as a practical matter, it doesn't apply to a situation where the state can put you in a jail. Your intelligent devout conservative Catholic (is that some sort of oxymoron?) friends are correct.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think there is a general feeling that murderers are damned so it's less bad to kill them than to kill innocent babies.

That is absolutely the general feeling among the laity. Sadly, it looks like this attitude is starting to gain ground in the Church itself. One of the things that used to impress me about the Church was its consistent position on being "pro-life" -- no abortion, no euthanasia, no death penalty. Now it looks like they are picking and choosing, and choosing to go after those who dissent on the "liberal" side of the life issue.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I have some sympathy with getting people who are pro-choice or pro-death penalty or OK with people being gay out of the Catholic church. I mean, seriously, such people are like my stupid college roommate who said she was a vegetarian except she ate chicken and seafood. That's just not a vegetarian. That's someone who doesn't eat red meat.* If you are pro-choice and want the ceremony, go be Episcopalian.

Wrong-o, my little cabbage. The Church has evolved and will contiue to evolve. It hasn't burned a witch in years, and seems to have stopped perpetrating the blood libel as well. Dissent within the bounds of individual conscience has always been part of Catholicism.

Hmm. I seem to be unduly agitated by this. Maybe I should either go to Mass more than once a decade or stop this......

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

I have some sympathy with getting people who are pro-choice or pro-death penalty or OK with people being gay out of the Catholic church. I mean, seriously, such people are like my stupid college roommate who said she was a vegetarian except she ate chicken and seafood. That's just not a vegetarian. That's someone who doesn't eat red meat.* If you are pro-choice and want the ceremony, go be Episcopalian.

*"Pork, the other white meat" is bullshit crap advertising. Pork is red meat.

If you were to purge the people you cite out of the Catholic Church, there would be no Catholic Church. Its impossible to live a productive, sensible, constructive life in the modern world and still follow all the "non-negotiable" Catholic teachings. Sure, somebody will claim he's done so, and that person, if you examine him closely, will almost always turn out to be nuts. I'd personally welcome your purging of the Church. Shut the Goddamned thing down, fire all the employees sucking off it and start again. As I said before, if Jesus were to come back, he'd be pretty fucking pissed at what's going on in Rome, and a whole lotta fancy frock-wearing child-fucking screwheads would be out of work.

What's so good about white meat anyway? White turkey tastes like cardboard. The brown meat has all the juices. Fuck it - I hate pork anyway, except bacon, which I've recently grown to enjoy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The bottom line is most American Catholics (barring recent immigrants) aren't truly Catholics any more. The religion has a core set of basic, non-negotiable principles. That is, actually, a reasonable position for a religion to take. If you don't believe, you're not in the club. Amen.

In sum, while this is a nasty process that would make lots of people feel bad, I actually think this is an admirably principled stand by the Church (and no doubt led by non-Americans). J2P2 is a hard-core, conservative, traditionalist, principled guy. He actually IS a "compassionate conservative" in a way that puts pretenders and corporate whores like our President to shame.

I'd kind of hate to be excommunciated, but I'd just formally join the religion of the church I'm a member in anyway.

S_A_M

[edited to remove random words.]

Note that there is a significant conflict within the Catholic Church on the doctrine of infallibility and what it means. For many of us, infallibility is limited to specific pronouncements of a Pope spoken in combination with a Church council. But the doctrine has only been in place since 1870 and is still being defined. This may well be the bigger issue, and my fear is that if infallibility is available to a pope on a day to day issue the Church itself will have lost the eternal faith.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A big fat 2

That a bunch of governments sent condolences and that the citizens of countries like, say, Portugal, Brussels, Sri Lanka and Peru, all came together for one shining moment to hold hands and sing "Kum Bah Yah" really amounts to not much more than a hill of beans.

"squandering" nothing is still nothing.

You ought to be more grateful. A bunch of countries which are not with us in Iraq sent troops to Afghanistan, permitting us to get by there with fewer forces.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Help how? What precise help are you upset about losing and from which countries? I don’t recall any country in a position to send us money to help rebuild our towers so I’m thinking you mean countries were willing after 9/11 to search harder for terrorists in their countries. If so, nabbing terror cells in one’s country benefits one’s own country and not just Americans.

Anyways, if you are saying Bush lost this “help” by going to war in Iraq, what do you perceive as the consequences? A particular country will get lax in searching for terror cells because the country is pissed off that Bush went forward without full UN backing in Iraq? Well, that’s really smart of the country. They’ll sure show US, won’t they?

Stop being such a shrill bitch. If you're going to look at my criticism as an attack on you because you want to vote for Bush, you are incapable of having a straight-up conversation and should just PM club and NotMe to get your attention fix. So I'm not going to parse every single word you say or defend every single word I say in an effort to extend the argument to it's illogical conclusion.

We don't know exactly to what extent we could have leveraged other countries' ability or desire to help us because we told them all to go fuck themselves. That is our foreign (and domestic) policy.

But it's not insane to think that if you're a country that we suspect has terrorist cells and the US comes to you after making its intent known that we intend to hunt down everyone responsible for this vicious, cowardly attack, you might see some serious cooperation.

Nabbing a terrorist cell in your country is in your best interests, yes. But it's not a priority when they aren't targeting you or your citizens and are simply hiding/raising money/plotting/whatever on your soil.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Before I hear any more sob stories about how bad it sucks that Norway no longer feels sorry for us (The Horror!) and how important it is that France and Russia think our President is “Not Diplomatic” why don’t you all finally tell us what exactly you want from these countries. List it all out by country – France, Russia, Sweden, Spain... Probably, you’ll think about it and decide to skirt the issue by joking about how awful a cheese/wine ban would be. Because I have yet to hear anything beyond “Diplomacy is good” and “everyone really liked us after 9/11 and now they don’t.” Or anyone explain why being felt sorry for is a good position to be in, as opposed to a strong position.

Hold your breath.

But while you are doing so, please explain to me how it helps us to go at it virtually alone against a number of (i) countries and (ii) people hiding in places we don't have access to while asking ourselves questions like, "How do we achieve our goals without reinstituting the draft?"

You're bitchy attitude and empty sarcasm doesn't change the fact that you are hiding behind Bush's failed diplomacy. It is impossible to see the extent of the help that might have been offered if someone with brains and vision had been in the White House at the time when everyone was on our side. And the reason why we don't know how much assistance would have been provided was because Bush doesn't need to listen to anyone but Jesus Christ and the three or four advisors who make all of his decisions.

TM

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You ought to be more grateful. A bunch of countries which are not with us in Iraq sent troops to Afghanistan, permitting us to get by there with fewer forces.

Did they have lucrative contracts in place with the Taliban - like they did with Saddam? I don't think so.

Kum Bah Yah, indeed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that there is a significant conflict within the Catholic Church on the doctrine of infallibility and what it means. For many of us, infallibility is limited to specific pronouncements of a Pope spoken in combination with a Church council. But the doctrine has only been in place since 1870 and is still being defined. This may well be the bigger issue, and my fear is that if infallibility is available to a pope on a day to day issue the Church itself will have lost the eternal faith.

The definition employed generally is "bullshit."

Infallible? What the hell kind of organization is the Church? Sounds like some fucking silly fraternity ritual... "And now, we shall read from the infallible text of our founder, Cornelious Bottomely." Nonsense. I mean, I get being spiritual, but this "Institution Worship" is bizarre. How in the hell can any of this bureaucratic, self-perpoetuating corpotrate horseshit have anything to do with getting closer to God.

You want to find God? Stay as far away from a Church as possible. I think Mencken, perhaps Twain said that. Couldn't agree more.

Absurd, fucking absurd. Infallibility... I mean, really... what are we laity, a mass of imbeciles?

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
But while you are doing so, please explain to me how it helps us to go at it virtually alone against a number of (i) countries and (ii) people hiding in places we don't have access to while asking ourselves questions like, "How do we achieve our goals without reinstituting the draft?"

I'm still waiting to hear the name of one relevant Ally that wasn't involved, other than perhaps [a big perhaps] Canada.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did they have lucrative contracts in place with the Taliban - like they did with Saddam? I don't think so.

Possibly -- just possibly -- they figured that while the Taliban let OBL use their country as a launching pad for heinous attacks against us, Saddam Hussein might not have WMD and wasn't allied with Al Qaeda.

Nah. It's got to be the government contracts. All I can say is, we're lucky that Poland didn't have those deals with Iraq.