Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
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.

Agreed. I find it amazing that this is all a relatively new revelation. Pedophiles take jobs that put them in proximity to children. And they prefer the ones that give them the most authority over those children. People just don't want to believe it because these positions are supposed to the ones with whom you deposit your kids to keep them safe. It's sad, but you have to be suspect of anyone who is in that kind of position. Especially sad when there are so many people out there who really just like kids.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

You cannot read. I just said that they differed on whether to borrow to pay for the war, not on whether to pay for it. News flash: Voting to spend money is not about "sending a clear message to our troops." We have fax machines and e-mail for that. It's about spending money.

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

I thought you were being ironic when you were complaining that Kerry wasn't acting presidential.

Suppose that the President has his appointed puppet leader of another country come to the United States to campaign for him, and has his campaign write the guy's speech. What is the appropriate way to respond to that? Any response gives aid and comfort to the country's enemies, right? Indeed, since Bush is the Commander in Chief, any criticism of him at all gives aid and comfort to our enemies, right?

[bilmore]

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

Then I'm totally confused. Bush has been pushing this privatization thing forever, and certainly making no secret about it - heck, it was a debate point. It would make no sense to speak that way about it now, unless they were countering some perception that he was going to pursue a wider plan than he's spoken of, or pursue it faster than he let on, and I've seen no indication either that he is, or that such a thing would fly at all. So, I'm not getting what you're saying.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Clearly not. You got your man, Gunga Din.

Yeah, they're solidly behind Not B . . . I mean, Kerry.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

I agree with the first part, inasmuch as I think that libertarian Republicans are a noisy but numerically insignificant group who have little or no clout within their party. If they were to actually vote against Bush, they'd have to come to grips with the fact that the GOP has nothing for libertarians but lip service.*

As for the second suggestion, I can think of many, many other things I'd rather do. But thanks.


* Not necessarily a bad thing -- ask Bill Clinton.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, they're solidly behind Not B . . . I mean, Kerry.

I didn't say Kerry was their first choice. I said they weren't lamenting the compromise.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Then I'm totally confused. Bush has been pushing this privatization thing forever, and certainly making no secret about it - heck, it was a debate point. It would make no sense to speak that way about it now, unless they were countering some perception that he was going to pursue a wider plan than he's spoken of, or pursue it faster than he let on, and I've seen no indication either that he is, or that such a thing would fly at all. So, I'm not getting what you're saying.

"Privatization" is a word the GOP wants to get distance from because it has been demonized by the DEMs. That is why they've gone with the "ownership society" theme.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Then I'm totally confused. Bush has been pushing this privatization thing forever, and certainly making no secret about it - heck, it was a debate point. It would make no sense to speak that way about it now, unless they were countering some perception that he was going to pursue a wider plan than he's spoken of, or pursue it faster than he let on, and I've seen no indication either that he is, or that such a thing would fly at all. So, I'm not getting what you're saying.

Bush has been trying to have it both ways, like a good politician should. He has signalled, opaquely, to his supporters that he intends to pursue privatization in his second term. According to Suskind's sources, he's not opaque about it at all in front of the right crowd. But swing voters and Democrats do not want to hear this, so he's sending the general public a different message -- it's not an issue. What Suskind did was share Bush's words for his supporters with the rest of us.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
"Privatization" is a word the GOP wants to get distance from because it has been demonized by the DEMs. That is why they've gone with the "ownership society" theme.

Here's the deal - you guys stop using liberal and we'll stop using privatize.

Frankly, privatize used to be the R's word, we just attacked it on substance and now you want to rebrand it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
"Privatization" is a word the GOP wants to get distance from because it has been demonized by the DEMs. That is why they've gone with the "ownership society" theme.

Weird that. I like the privatization concept, myself.

But I'm jaded - I'm pretty sure that what will eventually happen, should this pass, is that the big Funds will simply establish a bunch of "approved" plans that people can invest in, with very low risk/rewards, and fees. The approval process will guard the needed governmental recordkeeping, and the fees, coupled with savings-account-rate returns, make it a dull, boring thing - private in name only.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
According to Suskind's sources, he's not opaque about it at all in front of the right crowd. But swing voters and Democrats do not want to hear this, so he's sending the general public a different message -- it's not an issue.

He spoke in the debate about it - he described it openly. I guess I don't see this opacity you speak of.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You cannot read. I just said that they differed on whether to borrow to pay for the war, not on whether to pay for it. News flash: Voting to spend money is not about "sending a clear message to our troops." We have fax machines and e-mail for that. It's about spending money.

I understand that. But once the "Kerry Bill" went down, he had a choice of (A) voting to fund based on a bill that he didn't love, but sending a message to the troops that he supports them, and (B) voting not to fund, and sending a message to the President that he disagreed with the method.* He chose (B).

*Go ahead an argue that this is the principled stand.

Suppose that the President has his appointed puppet leader of another country come to the United States to campaign for him, and has his campaign write the guy's speech. What is the appropriate way to respond to that? Any response gives aid and comfort to the country's enemies, right? Indeed, since Bush is the Commander in Chief, any criticism of him at all gives aid and comfort to our enemies, right?

It does not give aid and comfort, but it does undercut Allawi's, err, the other leader's, ability to govern and our efforts in that country. What he could have said was something like "I stand firmly behind [Leader] and look forward to working with em and the other leaders when I am president." That is all that needs to be said. He also should have met with the guy and had the decency to show up when he addressed the Senate.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, they're solidly behind Not B . . . I mean, Kerry.

Consider me in this camp. I don't know why you guys are so glad that so many people don't care who's president as long as it's not W. Too bad Sharpton didn't snag the nomination. The next four years would certainly be more entertaining.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Too bad Sharpton didn't snag the nomination. The next four years would certainly be more entertaining.

I'd go for that just to see his SCOTUS nomination list.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
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

Tell me where the substance was that I was supposed to respond to. You said, “We don't know exactly to what extent we could have leveraged other countries' ability or desire to help us because we told them all to go fuck themselves. That is our foreign (and domestic) policy.”

First of all, you didn’t answer the question about what help you feel so bad about losing from various countries. Once and for all, what the hell is it that you want so bad from foreign countries?

Second, our country sought the assistance of other countries so I don’t see how our foreign policy is “go fuck yourself”. Just because some countries declined to go the route we did in Iraq (surely for global reasons rather than self interest) doesn’t change the fact that we asked them or transform our foreign policy into “go fuck yourself.” And how is our domestic policy “Go fuck yourself?” ??? In any event, if you're against the war in Iraq, fine. So's the majority of Repubs I know. But something tells me that if we went to a war that you did AGREE with, you wouldn't give a good Goddamn what any other country thought.