Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't recall anyone here praising the movie.

Likewise, I'm going to avoid praising whatever's on TV this Wednesday night.

And, likewise, I'll probably chuckle gleefully when it's mentioned.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
This was only in response to Ty assertion that "no serious economist" believes in the tax cuts. I think this guy qualifies, and probably beats out you and I in the process.

Or, maybe he's pretty damn stupid.

So he won a Nobel Prize. Big Deal. Since when do we care what the Swedes think about economics? They don't even have an army.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Dean and Kucinich are sitting at home right now, thinking the same thing.

The difference is that the Dems on this board aren't sitting around lamenting that a "real Democrat" isn't on the ticket. Look in the mirror.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There was no question -- none -- that the troops would get funded. The only question was how. Taxwonk now has my proxy on this.

Good, your off that bull shit that he just voted for a different way to fund and have conceeded it was a protest vote. A CIC does not have this luxury, however, nor should someone who wants to give protest votes at the expense of sending a clear message to our troops be president.

It's hard for me to believe that you want to pick this fight. With Bush's malapropisms, faux folksiness (fauxiness?), scowling, grimacing, and so on, it's a wash for you guys, at best.

What in the hell does this have to do with anything, other than deflecting the critisism of your candidate?

First of all, I don't know what you're talking about. Second of all, my objection to Bush's approach to diplomacy is not that it lacks decorum or respect, but that it serves our country's interests poorly.

As is my objection to Kerry's approach.

"Bring it on." And a good diplomat doesn't build a "coalition" of the coerced and bribed. (I might say something about the particular countries in the coalition, but after the vice-presidential debate the White House removed the list and links to it from the White House web site.)

Again, not responsive.

No. There is now and there has been a split among Democrats over the war. Many Democrats supported it. Many opposed it. Howard Dean was the first viable candidate to oppose it, and got support for tapping into the people who felt unrepresented.

Yes, and many supported and opposed it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So he won a Nobel Prize. Big Deal. Since when do we care what the Swedes think about economics? They don't even have an army.

I read that, and I wondered why someone didn't smack him and say "who the hell do you think ordered all those damn knives?!"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Likewise, I'm going to avoid praising whatever's on TV this Wednesday night.

And, likewise, I'll probably chuckle gleefully when it's mentioned.

I was a little upset until I learned that Sinclair owned WB and UPN affiliates. Hell, I don't even know what channels those are on my local cable. I doubt too many people expecting to see America's Next Top Model will stay tuned to watch a bunch of boring ugly old white guys.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The difference is that the Dems on this board aren't sitting around lamenting that a "real Democrat" isn't on the ticket. Look in the mirror.

I'm guessing there are more Dems sitting around lamenting the choice of Kerry than Repubs sitting around lamenting the choice of Bush. Go read DU. It's fun.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I doubt too many people expecting to see America's Next Top Model will stay tuned to watch a bunch of boring ugly old white guys.

No, the debates did quite well on TV.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I'm not going to parse every single word you say.

Translation: I have no idea what I actually mean when I say “After 9/11 we had the sympathy and support of the entire world. Every country wanted to help. Bush took that and turned it all the way around” but it sure SOUNDS cool. Like grown up stuff!

Post 9/11, everyone’s an armchair foreign policy expert spouting this flowery stuff. Oh!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Post 9/11, everyone’s an armchair foreign policy expert spouting this flowery stuff. Oh!

Yeah, and it's annoying to those of us who were armchair foreign policy experts pre-9/11. Effin' newbies.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm on board in spirit, but I do think there is such a thing as repetance and forgiveness. But, of course, I wouldn't leave a bunch of unrepentant Cardinals milling about in charge of things, and for many like Cardinal Law, I think the proper penance would be a life of solitude and repentance in a monastery.

I'm on board with that too. In fact, put them on the list of people to be shot, even before other lawbreakers like the ones we talked about last week. I am seriously and fundamentally in favor of shooting sexual predators in a society where we shoot anyone (insert "execute" for shoot" where appropriate). And those who covered this from the civil authorities should certainly be in for long prison sentences too.

Its amazing how this pendulum has swung. I suspect that the abuse of trust first came about by people having that "faith" in a person (e.g., a priest) by virtue of his position and how they were indoctrinated. At its peak, sexual predators were drawn to such positions, knowing the abuse they could inflict onto children. Nowadays, people (any Catholic parent with half a brain) starts having the conversations about inappropriate contact when the kids are 4 or 5. Sad, really.

In any case, as non-infallible matters, I look forward to the day when women can be priests and priests can be married. I have simply never seen a great argument to explain why this shouldn't be. In the meantime, its not that the Catholic church teaches or taught child-molestation, its more that Catholic would-be child molestors used the Catholic chuch. Its one of the Church's great modern shames that it allowed itself, and still continues to in some ways, to be used in this way.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm on board with that too. In fact, put them on the list of people to be shot, even before other lawbreakers like the ones we talked about last week. I am seriously and fundamentally in favor of shooting sexual predators in a society where we shoot anyone (insert "execute" for shoot" where appropriate). And those who covered this from the civil authorities should certainly be in for long prison sentences too.

Gather together thousands of young men. Train them they they are the spiritual leaders of their nation, that they are the voices of god, that they are the benefactors and protectors and educators of our youth.

Put them in charge of the youth ministry when they get ordained. Have them counsel the youth on theer deepest, most intimate problems. Present them as someone to whom that youth can confide secret, embarrassing thoughts on any subject.

Tell those young men they can't ever marry, or have sex. Guarantee for them a life of sexual frustration.

Simmer for a bit, and then serve.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Translation: I have no idea what I actually mean when I say “After 9/11 we had the sympathy and support of the entire world. Every country wanted to help. Bush took that and turned it all the way around” but it sure SOUNDS cool. Like grown up stuff!

Post 9/11, everyone’s an armchair foreign policy expert spouting this flowery stuff. Oh!

Ignore the substance, focus on me not wanting to get into this exact fucking string with you. You're an idiot who doesn't deserve my attention.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
There is no way that involves a time period of more than six months to "help workers" that doesn't involve "helping the economy." If you do something that "helps workers" at the expense of the economy, you'll have more workers hurt within that time. There's no big pot to take wealth from - it's the economy that fuels everything.

If I kick you in the groin, take your wallet, and distribute its contents to club, Burger and wonk, the five of us are at least as well off in the aggregate -- you got some pain, but the rest of got to watch. This hypo has more relevance to outsourcing than most Republicans want to acknowledge.

I thought it was over the "secret plan" to push this through quickly in January without talking about it.

I like the way you twist Suskind's words to make them sound kooky. According to CNN, Suskind "quoted Bush as saying at a recent private luncheon that he would 'come out strong' in a second term ''with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.''"

About Bush's plans, DeLong writes:

• on Social Security, everyone understands--everyone--that there is a very strong faction inside the White House, probably headed by George W. Bush, that wants to roll out the partial privatization of Social Security in January. Take a look at the last Economic Report of the President, or at Ron Suskind's website.
  
  Are Rosenbaum and Halbfinger genuinely ignorant of the discussions currently going on inside the Bush administration (as reported by people like David Wessel)? Nobody who has been following the issue and is not in the tank for the Bush administration could think that Rosenbaum and Halbfinger's "...the president was quoted as telling a group of Republican donors at a private meeting last month, 'I'm going to come out strong after my swearing-in with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.' Mr. Schmidt said Mr. Bush had been misquoted and had never used the word 'privatization' to describe his policy..." is an accurate and informative summary of what Bush plans really are.

This is no secret. It's what people were saying when Bush was talking cryptically about his "ownership society" back at the Convention.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The difference is that the Dems on this board aren't sitting around lamenting that a "real Democrat" isn't on the ticket.

Clearly not. You got your man, Gunga Din.