Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Those who think that every Prince who has a name for prudence owes it to the wise counsellors he has around him, and not to any merit of his own, are certainly mistaken; since it is an unerring rule and of universal application that a Prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised by others, unless by chance he surrender himself to be wholly governed by some one adviser who happens to be supremely prudent; in which case he may, indeed, be well advised; but not for long, since such an adviser will soon deprive him of his Government. If he listen to a multitude of advisers, the Prince who is not wise will never have consistent counsels, nor will he know of himself how to reconcile them. Each of his counsellors will study his own advantage, and the Prince will be unable to detect or correct them. Nor could it well be otherwise, for men will always grow rogues on your hands unless they find themselves under a necessity to be honest. Hence it follows that good counsels, whencesoever they come, have their origin in the prudence of the Prince, and not the prudence of the Prince in wise counsels.

Ty, posting this above your current sig line is just too much. The GOP is the party of fine print. We Dems believe in full disclosure and a (wo)man's inalienable right to read without squinting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Ty, posting this above your current sig line is just too much. The GOP is the party of fine print. We Dems believe in full disclosure and a (wo)man's inalienable right to read without squinting.

Spoiler text follows for LDE alone:

Those who think that every Prince who has a name for prudence owes it to the wise counsellors he has around him, and not to any merit of his own, are certainly mistaken; since it is an unerring rule and of universal application that a Prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised by others, unless by chance he surrender himself to be wholly governed by some one adviser who happens to be supremely prudent; in which case he may, indeed, be well advised; but not for long, since such an adviser will soon deprive him of his Government. If he listen to a multitude of advisers, the Prince who is not wise will never have consistent counsels, nor will he know of himself how to reconcile them. Each of his counsellors will study his own advantage, and the Prince will be unable to detect or correct them. Nor could it well be otherwise, for men will always grow rogues on your hands unless they find themselves under a necessity to be honest. Hence it follows that good counsels, whencesoever they come, have their origin in the prudence of the Prince, and not the prudence of the Prince in wise counsels.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spoiler text follows for LDE alone:

Many thanks. You all can continue your discussions now that I've been properly edified.

[LessinSF]

Kerry moves to +140. Republicans who wanted to allow betting on terrorist events under the belief that an efficient market is predictive must be worried. I got mine at +160.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There was a general bipartisan consensus about how to fight the Cold War that involved working with allies, but not giving them a veto power. This continued under Bush I and Clinton, although Clinton's wingnuts opponents increasingly subordinated what was good for the country to their hatred for him. Republicans didn't think Kerry's sort of internationalism was inept and dangerous under Republicans Presidents like Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I, so I don't buy the pretense that failing to go along with Bush's new "you're with me or fuck you" unilateralism is somehow risky and untested.

Bonus points to you for calling Kerry "inept" in light of the continuing clusterfuck that the administration has made of Iraq. The story about Bremer wanting more troops really goes to the heart of it, and yet you call Kerry "inept." Nicely done.

Talk about rewriting history. This is completely false. For example, our allies, and many democrats, did not want us to deploy missles in Western Europe. We did anyway. Guess who was right?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Kerry moves to +140. Republicans who wanted to allow betting on terrorist events under the belief that an efficient market is predictive must be worried. I got mine at +160.

Where are those odds? The Iowa market has held static since the debates.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Talk about rewriting history. This is completely false. For example, our allies, and many democrats, did not want us to deploy missles in Western Europe. We did anyway. Guess who was right?

Your story proves the point, which is not that before Bush came along, ours was a happy country where everyone agreed about everything and our allies always went along too. Did Reagan say that our allies could veto mid-range missile deployment? No. Read Kerry's answer again -- in principle, he's fully in accord. He thinks you need to explain to Americans and to your allies why you're acting unilaterally and preemptively -- that's the "global test" -- but this doesn't mean that you don't do it.

France wasn't a full member of NATO. Did we scrap NATO as a result? No. International institutions and agreements can be a force multiplier for us.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
He thinks you need to explain to Americans and to your allies why you're acting unilaterally and preemptively -- that's the "global test" -- but this doesn't mean that you don't do it.

Then tell me how Bush failed this global test with Iraq?

He spoke to the American people;

He spoke in front of the UN;

He spoke to numerous Allies (GB, Australia) and Enemies (France);

He acted.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Where are those odds? The Iowa market has held static since the debates.

http://www.wsex.com/frames/main.html - left side, click on "Politics"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Then tell me how Bush failed this global test with Iraq?

He spoke to the American people;

He spoke in front of the UN;

He spoke to numerous Allies (GB, Australia) and Enemies (France);

He acted.

(1) Scroll up and read the Saletan article I posted.

(2) Did you ever watch the A-Team? Mr. T didn't always like the decisions the group made, but he often grumbled and went along with them because he knew that he was better off as a part of a team, instead of free-lancing. He always could have ditched the rest of them, but he didn't.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Scroll up and read the Saletan article I posted.

(2) Did you ever watch the A-Team? Mr. T didn't always like the decisions the group made, but he often grumbled and went along with them because he knew that he was better off as a part of a team, instead of free-lancing. He always could have ditched the rest of them, but he didn't.

Who is Mr. T is this hypo? Pakistan?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Who is Mr. T is this hypo? Pakistan?

Good to know you don't see W as strong/imposing enough to be Mr. T.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Good to know you don't see W as strong/imposing enough to be Mr. T.

As our first black President, I assume only Clinton could be Mr. T.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As our first black President, I assume only Clinton could be Mr. T.

Good to know that you see things in such black and white terms. Because, really, the most important characteristic of Mr. T in the hypo was his race.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Good to know that you see things in such black and white terms. Because, really, the most important characteristic of Mr. T in the hypo was his race.

B.A. Baracus was also the dumb, violent, areophobic one.

I have no idea if Clinton is violent or fears flying.