Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Where I am, being a Republican isn't this at all. It's voting R strictly because of the perception (let's put aside whether it's correct) that the Dems will not be willing to do what it takes at home and abroad to protect our asses as much as an R.

Please. Calling Dems soft in this way is just the flip side of showing that you're more ready than the next guy to use force on foreigners.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Where I am, being a Republican isn't this at all. It's voting R strictly because of the perception (let's put aside whether it's correct) that the Dems will not be willing to do what it takes at home and abroad to protect our asses as much as an R.

Then these people are astronomically stupid when it comes to assessing risk. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, if you die before you reach your gender's life expectancy, it won't be from a foreign soldier or terrorist.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
From my perspective, he's wrong. They are illogical.

But from say, Greedy's perspective - emphasizing principles - Hank's spot on. If the thing Kansans hold most dear are their social values, then their votes make sense. You could even say they are exceptionally principled, since they are sacrificing money for what they believe are social positives.

ETA: And Frank Rich is whining fucking horse's ass anyway. only a truly pompous effete imbecile would pen a book that obnoxious. I've seen him interviewed and read him for years. He's the third guy I'd like to slap, behind Krugman and Limbaugh.

I suspect they are exceptionally principled, and that one of their principles is that the idea of a moderate, fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party is an amusing little bit of history as relevant to life today as evolution.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please. Calling Dems soft in this way is just the flip side of showing that you're more ready than the next guy to use force on foreigners.

You and I don't agree on much, but you have my proxy on this. I have never been able to understand how Dems would be worse on protecting us than Republicans. Other than that silly argument Hank makes about Clinton not taking out bin Laden when he had the chance. I think this is a case where perception clouds facts. That the GOP's leader took us into a pre-emptive war doesn't prove they're the better protector. It proves they've got a wild foreign policy agenda.

Al Gore would have bombed Afghanistan just as ruthlessly. He just wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

And we'd all have higher taxes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I suspect they are exceptionally principled, and that one of their principles is that the idea of a moderate, fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party is an amusing little bit of history as relevant to life today as evolution.

Still, voting for someone who shares your delusion doesn't make you irrational. Maybe Frank Rich just needs a better Thesaurus.

No, I take that back. He's just a dick.

[sgtclub]

I haven't read the case, but I am pleased about this decision:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/...ign_finance_12

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't read the case, but I am pleased about this decision:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/...ign_finance_12

If you're going to post today about free speech, why that decision and not also the one involving the Alaskan teenager? Together, the two cases stand for the principle that rich people have the right to buy politicians, but high-school students can't piss off their principals.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're going to post today about free speech, why that decision and not also the one involving the Alaskan teenager?

I'm not aware of that one. What are the facts?

In other free speech news, I'm displeased about the Bong Hits for Jesus case.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not aware of that one. What are the facts?

In other free speech news, I'm displeased about the Bong Hits for Jesus case.

The Bong Hits For Jesus case is the Alaskan teenager case.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're going to post today about free speech, why that decision and not also the one involving the Alaskan teenager? Together, the two cases stand for the principle that rich people have the right to buy politicians, but high-school students can't piss off their principals.

If so, then the law hasn't changed a bit. These are two fairly well-established principles of our democracy.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Al Gore would have bombed Afghanistan just as ruthlessly. He just wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

And we'd all have higher taxes.

I dunno. Half a trillion dollars spent in Iraq - we could build a lot of solar power facilities for just a fraction of that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm displeased about the Bong Hits for Jesus case.

Yes, that one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I dunno. Half a trillion dollars spent in Iraq - we could build a lot of solar power facilities for just a fraction of that.

We'd all have hot showers on sunny days, but it would cost more to drive to work. That's the plan, right?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I dunno. Half a trillion dollars spent in Iraq - we could build a lot of solar power facilities for just a fraction of that.

Or off-shore wind farms.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
ETA: And Frank Rich is whining fucking horse's ass anyway. only a truly pompous effete imbecile would pen a book that obnoxious. I've seen him interviewed and read him for years. He's the third guy I'd like to slap, behind Krugman and Limbaugh.

You may well want to slap Frank Rich, but the book "What's The Matter With Kansas?" was written by a journalist/historian named Thomas Franks. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-K.../dp/0805073396

I think that his argument is a stupid one, frankly (hah!) -- people vote "against" their economic interests all the time, and the it was lampooned quite nicely as a bit of hand-wringing condescending drivel in Walter Shapiro's piece in the Atlantic Monthly called What's the Matter With Central Park West?

• Why, then, does Central Park West cling so stubbornly to irrational Democratic Party loyalties? The most plausible explanation is that the prickly voters of CPW feel that their traditional moral values (getting into Yale on merit, reading books other than the Bible, cherishing things from France) are not fully embraced by President Bush . . . CPW is an insular and hidebound neighborhood, brimming with cultural resentments unfathomable to outlanders.