Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
By antiwar, do you mean anti all war? By the way you phrase the question, it seems you think it's hypocritical for anyone opposed to war to vote for anyone who would be willing to go to war. Since all electable presidential candidates have to be willing to go to war, this would mean that all antiwar folks are pretty much disqualified from having an impact on any presidential election, sicne they would be stuck voting for the Feng Shui party every time. That seems odd.

This is exactly the sort of nuance that we don't need in this time of national danger. Give me Hank's clarity instead.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I come from an education-centric family. I firmly believe that teachers will never allow tenured teachers to be adjudged "underperforming" and then removed. It will just never happen, except in the most egregious of cases.

I would confidently put up the education-centricity of my family and friends against anyone's. My point is only that there is a large (and growing) contingent of teachers who have grown up with awareness of many education paradigms outside of the traditional public school/tenure system, and who as thinking people who care about their work realize that the old system has shortcomings. Tenure protectionism is no longer the immutable article of faith you make it out to be, and to me that is the first step toward making the changes that you are apparently sure will "never happen."

[Dave]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is exactly the sort of nuance that we don't need in this time of national danger. Give me Hank's clarity instead.

At this point, I'd settle for Hank's Claritin (tm).

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
By antiwar, do you mean anti all war? By the way you phrase the question, it seems you think it's hypocritical for anyone opposed to war to vote for anyone who would be willing to go to war. Since all electable presidential candidates have to be willing to go to war, this would mean that all antiwar folks are pretty much disqualified from having an impact on any presidential election, sicne they would be stuck voting for the Feng Shui party every time. That seems odd.

Larry, be careful not to get wrapped 'round the axle on this one.

Hank is simply framing the question cleverly, in accordance with GOP campaign guidelines. Kinda like in today's paper, where the Administration, when faced with the revelation that they've set up their Office of Faith-Based Initiatives in 10 federal agencies without mentioning it to Congress, they simply replied that it shows that "the president is taking the steps he promised he would take to end discrimination against faith-based groups."

Clever, no? It's not really about a small office in the executive branch redistributing funds to a religious movement they support without getting approval from voters or Congress. It's about ending "discrimination."

Remember, this is the campaign that had the VP sneer at Kerry's "sensitive" approach to fighting terrorism less than 24 hours before the Prez advocated "sensitivity" re: same. If you blink, you'll miss it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When the GOP House and Senate don't pass Kerry's education reform, you're going to say you were vindicated?

No. The only way I can claim vindication will be if Kerry never proposes it - when he simply drops the centrist themes he's campaigned with, and reverts to his old self post-election. If he truly does try to push these things, and loses, then I was wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
By antiwar, do you mean anti all war? By the way you phrase the question, it seems you think it's hypocritical for anyone opposed to war to vote for anyone who would be willing to go to war. Since all electable presidential candidates have to be willing to go to war, this would mean that all antiwar folks are pretty much disqualified from having an impact on any presidential election, sicne they would be stuck voting for the Feng Shui party every time. That seems odd.

Don't try and do your clever lawyers tricks on me. Kerry didn't generically say he may support a hypothetical war. He and the Democratic party said they specifically support the war in Iraq. He only quibbles about how- ie bring in Frenchy. My question is how can you who are against Bush because of the war support Kerry.

Your cheap bullshit arguments are beneath you Larry. This is the kind of crap arguments I'd expect from Ty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No. The only way I can claim vindication will be if Kerry never proposes it - when he simply drops the centrist themes he's campaigned with, and reverts to his old self post-election. If he truly does try to push these things, and loses, then I was wrong.

I predict that Kerry will not be the uberliberal the right has made him out to be, but that events* will conspire to prevent him from doing much of what he would like to do.

* Foremost among them, the probability that he'll be dealing with a GOP Congress. If so, I wouldn't expect him to waste any political capital "proposing" things that aren't going to happen. He'll have to pick his spots.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I predict that Kerry will not be the uberliberal the right has made him out to be, but that events* will conspire to prevent him from doing much of what he would like to do.

This is one of the reasons I can't get too upset at the notion that he's going to win. It's going to be a stalemate, which really does serve my philosophy of government, after all.

I do fear for our future in regards to terrorist attacks - but the primary targets are always going to be the major cities on the coasts, and it's those cities that are pushing Kerry, so, well, I just hope they remember where they put their petards. They're going to be using them.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Since I think he's going to win, ....

Well. Cover me with mud and call me "Babe."

Bilmore, welcome. Meetings are now Tuesdays at 6:30. You can have Club's chair -- it's like new, and since we made the Libertarian Survivor dropoff, I'm guessing he won't be using it for a while.

If you find the periodic rumbling distressing, try not to worry about it. They're actually the sound of conservative troll postings (we call 'em "Hankies"), but usually they fall pretty far from their mark.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry didn't generically say he may support a hypothetical war. He and the Democratic party said they specifically support the war in Iraq.

That's not what he said, although I understand your confusion since much of the media seems to be working off GOP talking points instead of, e.g., a transcript of the press conference. He said that knowing what we do now, he wouldn't have changed his vote on the war resolution. But he also said that if he were President, he wouldn't have used that authority has quickly and rashly as Bush did.

This is the sort of shit that happens when Senators run for President.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I do fear for our future in regards to terrorist attacks - but the primary targets are always going to be the major cities on the coasts, and it's those cities that are pushing Kerry, so, well, I just hope they remember where they put their petards. They're going to be using them.

Do you have any confidence in the Bush Administration to protect us? Because I don't. Whatever parts of the war on terror Bush may be running well, what his people are doing to defend the homeland leaves me cold. It seems to me a collection of hacks worried more about CYA than accomplishment, and it's hard for me to imagine that a Kerry Administration could be any worse.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you have any confidence in the Bush Administration to protect us? Because I don't. Whatever parts of the war on terror Bush may be running well, what his people are doing to defend the homeland leaves me cold. It seems to me a collection of hacks worried more about CYA than accomplishment, and it's hard for me to imagine that a Kerry Administration could be any worse.

I am convinced that, in an age of expansionist, radical Islamicism, a doctrine of aggression and pre-emption is more appropriate than one of diplomacy, appeasance, and isolationism. To that extent, yes, I believe that Bush's approach would make us safer in the long run. I don't see a radical waging of overseas war to be a CYA movement at all - if Bush truly wanted to be popular, and guarantee a second term, he would have embraced his post-9/11 approval ratings, wooed Chirac, and built coalitions. He went out on a limb, and to accuse his admin of taking some safe, CYA path seems confused.

And, do the homeland security measures stifle Constitutional rights, or are they weak and ineffective? Seems Kerry's side argues both. I can't picture a Democratic initiative that would do anything to make it harder for terrorists to hit us.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Don't try and do your clever lawyers tricks on me. Kerry didn't generically say he may support a hypothetical war. He and the Democratic party said they specifically support the war in Iraq. He only quibbles about how- ie bring in Frenchy. My question is how can you who are against Bush because of the war support Kerry.

Your cheap bullshit arguments are beneath you Larry. This is the kind of crap arguments I'd expect from Ty.

I strongly disagree. My post was indeed cheap and bullshit, but it wasn't an argument. Now that you have clarified your question you'll get your argument, sonny.

I am displeased with how we went to war and the self-inflicted difficulties we have had in reconstructing Iraq because of the fact that it made us only marginally safer, and certainly not to the level of American lives, political capital, and taxpayer dollars spent in the process. I am voting for Kerry because I find the current admin's overwhelming focus on state sponsors of terror to be hugely misguided and I don't want these mistakes repeated on a wider scale in the future.

By the way, you're the one playing lawyer tricks here, but they're not so clever. What Kerry said last week was not that he supported all that we did in Iraq aside from alienating the French. What he said was that if presented with the resolution he was presented with back in October of '02 he would vote the same way again. That prior vote doesn't make him jointly liable with the admin for what was done with the authority given to the Prez, no matter how much you apparently need to have Kerry share the blame for the stumbles of your bumbling heroes in the GOP.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well. Cover me with mud and call me "Babe."

Bilmore, welcome. Meetings are now Tuesdays at 6:30. You can have Club's chair -- it's like new, and since we made the Libertarian Survivor dropoff, I'm guessing he won't be using it for a while.

If you find the periodic rumbling distressing, try not to worry about it. They're actually the sound of conservative troll postings (we call 'em "Hankies"), but usually they fall pretty far from their mark.

Well, don't mistake acceptance for desire. In about four hours I'll be sitting about forty feet from Bush, showing the colors as it were. Unfortunately, I think the image-based disinformation campaign has succeeded in corralling many of the sound-byte-based uncommitted (which means, usually, barely informed and engaged) voters.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I am convinced that, in an age of expansionist, radical Islamicism, a doctrine of aggression and pre-emption is more appropriate than one of diplomacy, appeasance, and isolationism.

Given Bush's announcement to recall tens of thousands of troops from their bases around the world, I find it curious that you've chosen the word "isolationism" to describe Dems and to distinguish GOPers. Please explain. "Appeaseance," too.

Further, I find it hard to believe that any president will feel any political comfort zone in being less diligent in the search for terrorists. Notice the return of the Clinton-era hate industry surrounding Kerry, and he's only a fucking candidate right now. Imagine what it will be like after November.