Politics: A new beginning - Page 120

bilmore · 11-25-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. . .He thinks the purpose of university education is to produce people willing to enact and defend whatever policy the administration articulates. . . .

You probably dislike ROTC, too.

Atticus Grinch · 11-25-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You probably dislike ROTC, too.

Actually, I like ROTC a lot. I think it's a socially healthier and cheaper way to produce well-rounded officers than the academies. But I guess the military has to keep up traditions, like having a basis for one ensign to look down on another ensign, et cetera, and so the academies serve their purpose, too.

bilmore · 11-25-2003, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Plan your laws for when your party is not in power, too.

Can't argue with that. (See, Why The Filibuster Is Good, part IV.)

BTW, if you are interested at all in the other point of view on this one, (I'm really not the "expert" who should be speaking for this particular POV), read this ( http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz061603.asp ) and follow some of the links. (I hate to seem like all my info comes from one source, but I just happened to remember two NR pieces that were pertinent today.)

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-25-2003, 05:00 PM

"There was a reason I was designated the 'ethanol queen' when I was in the Senate."

-- Carol Mosely Braun

linky

Shape Shifter · 11-25-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"There was a reason I was designated the 'ethanol queen' when I was in the Senate."

-- Carol Mosely Braun

linky

I know you're a mod and everything, but shouldn't the corn discussions be on the fb?

bilmore · 11-25-2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Actually, I like ROTC a lot

Yeah, but my larger point was, to speak of "the" purpose of education is . . . well . . . pedantic.

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-25-2003, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Has anyone been following the flap over the latest GOP ad? The DEMS are saying that it should be pulled because it questions their patriotism. I've seen the ad, and maybe I've got partisan blinders on, but I just don't see a basis for the objection. Can anyone explain?

I haven't seen it, but it sounds shameless. Here's a good description. As these folks suggest, it has a whiff of desperation about it. If they're resorting to this crap now, where will they be next October?

Atticus Grinch · 11-25-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, but my larger point was, to speak of "the" purpose of education is . . . well . . . pedantic.

I don't think I ever agreed that the purpose of ROTC was education, or that its purpose was illustrative of the purpose of education. The T in ROTC stands for something that is different from education. Neither better nor worse, but different.

Say_hello_for_me · 11-25-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If they're resorting to this crap now, where will they be next October?

Well, from the looks of the quotes from the Slate article that someone or other just posted, on the way to even greater dominance of the American political system.

Recent news I've seen is that

a.) the IRS is auditing the NEA;
b.) a bunch of guys in Iraq took a video of themselves shooting a civilian transport plane with a surface-to-air missile... while a U.S. Black Hawk blithely flew by (or something close) without noticing;
c.) On an entirely, total and completely different note, there were Mob murders yesterday in the Springfield, MA area and the Philadelphia, PA area. Nothing to see here, just a coincidence, keep moving.

And conservatives in Illinois are desparately trying to figure out how to back a Democrat for the U.S. senate. Blair Hull is one my people are watching. Note, this is the only Republican senate seat that is affirmatively likely to be lost next year. No matter.

Re: (a), I would have thought it was political, except the NEA seemed to be admitting to what they were charged with, though they added that the charges were politically motivated. Ugh.

Re: (b) Jihad TV or not, that is probably one of the 4 or 5 most important pieces of film that you will see this year. 12 guys in a field standing around unnoticed. A military helicopter flys by without noticing them. A civilian jetliner comes into view. A guy whips out a SAM. The 12 guys start to disperse to their vehicles. The camera snaps back to the plane. Its now on fire and trailing smoke. The 12 guys leave.

Re: (c) You had to tie scraps together from two different media sources to pick up on this one. Nothing further.

Hello

Atticus Grinch · 11-25-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
So are you admitting that from time to time the LA Times gets the story wrong?

Dunno. I don't read the LAT, although I lead people to believe I subscribe to it. It sits on my coffee table (actually, one of those trendy oversize tufted ottomans) under imaginary piles of Utne Readers, Economists, and Jane's Defence Weeklys, and some very real Cook's Illustrateds.

If the LAT said that 33 state senators simply caved in on illegal drivers' licenses because AAS convinced them they were wrong by sheer force of his personality, then I'll go on record saying the LAT is a bunch of full-of-shit star fuckers.

sgtclub · 11-25-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I haven't seen it, but it sounds shameless. Here's a good description. As these folks suggest, it has a whiff of desperation about it. If they're resorting to this crap now, where will they be next October?

So it seems the line that has the DEMS' panties bunched is "some attack the president for attacking the terrorists" (paraphrased). This goes back to the 6 month argument of whether the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you believe it is, then this line is roughly true (at least close enough for politics, and certainly closer than "BUSH LIED"). If you don't, well . . . your panties are twisted.

Billmore had it right on this one a few posts up.

And desperation? Palease. With the economy TURNED (not just turning) and the mediscare strategy off the table, this is shaping up to be a landslide.

HRC couldn't be happier.

sgtclub · 11-25-2003, 07:14 PM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004345

[WSJ takes GOP to the woodshed for irresponsible spending]

ltl/fb · 11-25-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004345

[WSJ takes GOP to the woodshed for irresponsible spending]

Yes, you are absolutely correct, the NYT has shown overwhelming support for Bush's spending increases. It's been amazing.*

Which is not to say I'm not liking the WSJ article, though I can't see how the WSJ still saying, with a straight face, "it is true that denying Congress money in the first place is itself a kind of fiscal discipline." Um, yeah, um, I'm not really seeing that that is happening -- anyone have some examples from the past? Or are they saying that the current denial of money to Congress right now will result in decreased spending in 10 years or so?

*This is sarcasm, in case you can't recognize it.

sgtclub · 11-25-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Which is not to say I'm not liking the WSJ article, though I can't see how the WSJ still saying, with a straight face, "it is true that denying Congress money in the first place is itself a kind of fiscal discipline." Um, yeah, um, I'm not really seeing that that is happening -- anyone have some examples from the past? Or are they saying that the current denial of money to Congress right now will result in decreased spending in 10 years or so?

It used to be, except congress finally figured out that they could keep raising the debt ceiling.

ltl/fb · 11-25-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It used to be, except congress finally figured out that they could keep raising the debt ceiling.

When did they figure that out? Can't we use one of those flashing thingies from Men in Black and wipe this knowledge from their brains?