Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Let me get this straight.

So, before you knew of these excerpted earlier statements, you were thinking about voting for a candidate that has on the campaign trail been critical of the Administration's approach in Iraq?

Atticus, maybe Club has been reading the Independent (UK) for more profound reasons than we recognize. Club, meetings are at 9:30, but last time I learned you have to bring your own coffee.

What can I say, I'm a sucker for an authentic war hero.

Actually, I'm really just pissed off at the discretionary spending explosion over the last 3 years and the gay marriage bullshit (though, admittedly, mostly for former). If the president was being challenged this year in the GOP or if the DEMs put forth a more moderate candidate, I'd consider voting for him/her.

ETA: I still support the President's foreign policy. My complaint is the domestic spending.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Club, meetings are at 9:30, but last time I learned you have to bring your own coffee.

Fair trade coffee only, please. No paper or styro cups --- something reusable.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Atticus, maybe Club has been reading the Independent (UK) for more profound reasons than we recognize. Club, meetings are at 9:30, but last time I learned you have to bring your own coffee.

Don't forget your tinfoil hat.



edited to add link to tinfoil hat site for the black helicopter crowd

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Note to Club: Please check your sources for ideological purity before posting.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=485143

ETA: I thought you people were founding your own media. Please stop reading ours; we can't very well post coded messages to our deep cover operatives with you reading The Guardian and the like.

Within 2 hours of claiming the right posts only to the screaming nutcases to show the "left's position", Atticus cites Human Rights Watch. HRW is so negative, it passes PETA for sheer ferocity of dogma. At least PETA is always sure to put somePurrs into each report.
http://www.hrw.org/

find something positive-

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Within 2 hours of claiming the right posts only to the screaming nutcases to show the "left's position", Atticus cites Human Rights Watch.

Now, be fair. I chastized Bilmore for citing to DU to show what the mainstream Democratic party thinks; I posted that article to show Club what the Independent is reporting. He's a young associate and wouldn't necessarily have travelled the world enough to know that was passes for a politicized media in the U.S. would be seen as milquetoast elsewhere by comparison.

I happen to think HRW is onto something; are you in favor of child sex slavery or something, you sicko?

Confidential to Joe Lieberman: Don't run for Parliament.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is too bad. I was actually considering voting for him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0401261431.asp

Highlights:

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true."

"Saddam Hussein has continued to push international patience to the very edge."

"We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S."

"Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted...the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged."
"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."

"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value."

Interestingly, David Kay seems to think that Clinton's air strikes in 1998, derided at the time by Republicans who were more interested in investigating his sex life, were partly to credit for getting rid of Saddam's WMD. Which suggests that what you have posted here, which sounds like it supports the Clinton policy, is not only consistent with Kerry's prior views, but also may well have been the best course.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I know deception is SOP for the Administration's Iraq policy . . .

Jesus. You and AG have a nice conversation. Sarcasm mixed with disingenuous . . . stuff. Commiserate over looted museums, and lies. Call me when it's over.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is too bad. I was actually considering voting for him.

Him? No flippin way. And, despite what Not_Me says, he ain't they type of movie star or ex-drunk driver/ex-junkie that will get braindead democratic women to swoon either.

Edwards would get lotso women, but he won't get anyone who really dislikes trial lawyers. Watch the democratic constituencies implode on that one.

I was a Clark fan, and I think that military stuff is ridiculous. I mean, he was too aggressive for Cohen and someone else in Kosovo? Fuck, how did he get to be more aggressive than a republican?

But he just had to go on record on abortion saying it should be an unrestricted right up til the moment of birth. Ouch. Goodbye Clark.

This race is like watching a herd of has-beens at a glue factory try-out for the Kentucky derby. Or something like that.

On an entirely different topic, do ya know how people say the melting glaciers at the poles will raise water levels worldwide and flood places like your tax-pyramid scheme on the West Coast?

A long, long time ago I was pretty close to this topic. A guy asks a world-renowned hydrology professor, (paraphrasing) "isn't the ice on at least one of the poles already floating?" You know, the subs floating underneath the poles during the cold war and all. The professor says "as far as I know". The guy says, didn't some guy in a robe figure this thing about weight and density and floating, like, 2000 years ago?

For the luddites here, that means the water levels don't rise unless the poles aren't floating. And its believed that at least one of them is.

Back to work.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Not_Me says,

Ummm, I haven't even been here today. What did I say?

BTW - I am sticking with my predictions:

1. Mr. Heinz

2. Hollarin' Howie

3. Bottom-dweller Edwards

4. Lieberman

5. Clinton Sock Puppet Clark

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Ummm, I haven't even been here today. What did I say?

BTW - I am sticking with my predictions:

1. Mr. Heinz

2. Hollarin' Howie

3. Bottom-dweller Edwards

4. Lieberman

5. Clinton Sock Puppet Clark

It's a disappointment that with this list, you didn't take the time to create a clever nickname for #4. Hadassah's Husband, perhaps?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's a disappointment that with this list, you didn't take the time to create a clever nickname for #4. Hadassah's Husband, perhaps?

I like Joe so I didn't want to insult him. I may not agree with everything he says, but he is an honest guy who went into politics for the right reasons.

FYI - As soon as Kerry wins the Dem nomination, he will be referred to as "Ketchup Boy." Mark my words; you heard it here first.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
looted museums, and lies

The stolen ancient treasures are in Syria. Only a matter of time before they show up on ebay, though, and they will be confiscated.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, Bush is taking proposals. He's open to people's ideas. But, he's not willing to go with an idea that leads to a longer presence that what he was planning.

That's the part I find striking. It is good that Bush is listening to many ideas, and revamping plans in light of Iraqi demands. However, one might think that, if a smooth transition to a stable Iraq was the predominant concern, even the TIMING for the hand-over of power would be open to negotiation.

That the timing is about the only sacrosanct part of the transition plan gives me the uncomfortable feeling that domestic political concerns (i.e. must . . . be. . . OUT. . . before . . . Convention) are driving the train more than I might like. Of course, perhaps we can get the UN in there -- not seeking a permission slip, just someone to hold the bag.

S_A_M

P.S. to all fiscal conservatives: CBO reports $477 billion budget deficit likely for this fiscal year -- $2.4 trillion projected ten-year deficit -- and making Bush tax cuts permanent could double (??)it. While 10 year projections are worth very little, that makes a net loss of $3.4 TRILLION in the nation's projected budgetary condition (over 10 years ) since the GOP took power in both the WH and the Congress.

Never fear though: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." VP Cheney

Look -- I appreciate the tax break on a personal level -- the refund will help me re-pipe the house this year -- but I still don't think they were probably a good idea. We'd better get some good, old-fashioned fiscally conservative Democrats back in the WH -- at least then the GOP leadership in Congress would oppose new spending.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A black hole is an object that is described by a spacetime geometry that is a solution to the Einstein equation. In string theory at large distance scales, solutions to the Einstein equation are only modified by very small corrections. .
string theories contain objects called p-branes and D-branes. Since a point can be thought of as a zero-brane, a natural generalization of a black hole is a black p-brane. And there are also BPS black p-branes.
But there's also a relationship between black p-branes and D-branes. At large values of the charge, spacetime geometry is a good description of of a black p-brane system. But when the charge is small, the system can be described by a bunch of weakly interacting D-branes.
This was a fantastic result for string theory. But can we now say that D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics? The D-brane calculation is only easily performed for the supersymmetric BPS black objects. Most black holes in the Universe probably have very little if any electric or magnetic charge, and are very far from being BPS objects. It's still a challenge to compute the black hole entropy for such an object using D-branes.

But can you see them with your telescope?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We'd better get some good, old-fashioned fiscally conservative Democrats back in the WH -- at least then the GOP leadership in Congress would oppose new spending.

I actually wouldn't mind this. It truly is the only way to curb the spending. We need gridlock. We need paralysis. We need a balanced Congress. I think the stats show that Republican admins have not shrunk government in the last 75 years. So, please, people, don't nominate Dean.