Very sorry to hear that. Does it help that his party didn't have a majority, or am I confusing Iraqi and Canadian political systems?
Yes, it makes a giant difference. The average length of a minority goverment in Canada is well less than two years, and there's no natural party for the cobag party to team-up with. It is going to make it very difficult for them to truly achieve their major political interests (e.g. stopping gay marriage, tax cuts for the wealthy, two-tier health care system). But being the ruling party, they still get to set the agenda. It will be a very tenuous time in Canada.
Oh, I am so sorry. Is neo-con contagious? WTF?
At least they've been branded with the stigmata of cobagiousness. I've introduced the word into Milwaukee lexicon because of this site, although it's an uphill battle against those unable to comprehend their inner cobag (Wisconsin state republican party and others).
robola, you are awesome, I noticed you linkied us, and we are happy to have you. We do try to entertain with content, but what we love most is when people stop by and give us a visit and some comments- even if you just want to pimp your place or blow off steam-
Honey, I'm sorry. It will swing back hopefully in no time. Canada is more rationale than the States. You'll see.
Most telling for me is that Stephen Harper's Conservatives were shut out of all three of Canada's major cities: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. It is a dark morning... we now have confirmation of another solitude split in Canada: urban vs. rural.
Weird, that's almost the same thing I wrote after the last US elections. Seriously, it was almost word for word!
This is great news! Yay, Canada!!
Seriously, the funniest thought I had this morning was about all those U.S. liberals that fled to Canada after Dubya got re-elected. Man, life just keeps gettin' funnier.
I echo madamrouge's sentiments. I was actually very pleased with how Toronto voted - even the votes for the New Democratic Party were in regions where those leaders clearly served best to benefit those residents. But really, beyond the urban/rural split, we saw the first time that the radical right wing sentiments of Alberta have defined Canadian national politics. Calgary is urban, but politically more to the right than the cities of Texas. I don't know what fuels the hate there, but the monopolar voice of Alberta will haunt Canada for years to come.
I just can't wait to hear all the stupidity that comes out of all the Conservative (reform) mouths and watch as our electorate gasps and asks themselves, "what have we done."
But is it a sad day for Ketchup Chips?
Oh dear God let there still be ketchup chips.
Oh Rosemary. How could you? Just because you support Dubya on war doesn't mean you have to support him on cronyism, deficits, horrible tax breaks, etc. A sad day is had when the QOAE drops some bombs on the Uncanny One. Not even waiting one single day. Just put us in camps and then blog about how funny we are in our matching jumpsuits. I am still mad at Rosemary for loving that cobag SeanS. It tells a lot about someone how they act around SeanS.
"Seriously, the funniest thought I had this morning was about all those U.S. liberals that fled to Canada after Dubya got re-elected. Man, life just keeps gettin' funnier."
Does anyone have any information about the emigration numbers of US citizens to Canada? Did GWB's elections influence this at all? Or is this another false claim by neo-cons like the fake war on Christmas? Is Rosemary a cobag for loving Dean Essmay and SeanS, or is it an ingrained love for people with '-ean' in their names?
I'm still concerned about ketchup chips...Uncanny any words of encouragement???
Geenie, to my knowledge, ketchup chips and hockey will remain unchanged in the new political landscape. The new government is all into capitalism and consumerisms, so no worries there.
I think people did study whether immigration of Americans to Canada happened in greater numbers following the election of Dubya, and I think the answer was a resoundingly null effect. I don't think it was corrected for any specific groups, so maybe small effects existed, but were diluted within the whole population.
Yeah, I didn't think so either, UC. Looks like another conservative claim came up empty.
Anybody else appreciate the irony of Santorum leading a charge against lobbying?
Thank you Rosemary for proving why again I plan to move to Canada with UC. That would be to escape ignorance and unimportant people who think they are important.
Rosemary: Chimpy McHitlerburton? Wow, that's classic. No, wait. That's core. Yeah, definitely core. Just wow.
Pinko: Thanks for the welcome. I've enjoyed the site for a while since stumbling on it from SadlyNO. Shortly after my first visit, I came across the "Tellin Lies*" comment thread. It still makes me laugh gregariously.
later.
Think about it: Rosemary's cheering increased infant mortality rates, increased pollution, increased crime, perpetual "war", the undermining of civil liberties and Constitutional rights, a craptastic economy, the failing of our public educational system, the crumbling of our infrastructure, unfettered corporate rule, and a lowering of the standard of living for all Americans.
But get this: we're the unAmerican ones.
I reserve the right to continue to be mean to her, no matter how well she ingratiates herself with the rest of you.
Ahhh... Much better. Calling The Queen out really loosened the gut -- I squeezed out a whole bushel of fat, wet, smelly grogans!
Nah, I think it's hardly the end of the world. Once the Libs shake themselves down they'll be well and truly back in the saddle. The Commons is still dead set against any major Conservative gains, and Harper knows it; civil rights almost certainly aren't about to take a knock. The worst you'll have to go through (I suspect and hope) is pro Bush sycophancy.
Somebody put some grogans in Teh's Wheaties this morning!
Ah, you've mistaken the meaning of "grogans." Understandable, since it's a very new addition to my vocabulary, as well.
Did I?
When are we going to read a new post? Give us our daily smack already.
grogans = butt nuggets.
Pinko: Who is SeanS?
teh: Think about it: Rosemary's cheering increased infant mortality rates, increased pollution, increased crime, perpetual "war", the undermining of civil liberties and Constitutional rights, a craptastic economy, the failing of our public educational system, the crumbling of our infrastructure, unfettered corporate rule, and a lowering of the standard of living for all Americans.
You're insane. You've just ascribed Democrat principles to me. I'm a conservative not a Democrat. If you think that diatribe is conservative in anyway, you are completely backward.
Apparently, Rosemary has no idea what has happened lately. Pollution controls have been destroyed by the Bush admin's policies, the Constitution has officially been shat upon, laws have been broken, the burden of proof is now on the consumer in credit/bankruptcy laws, the war on terror will proceed as well as the wars on poverty and drugs and crime is up since Clinton left office. Does anybody know who has been in charge since Clinton left? I'll give you a hint: they are the party that currently controls the legislative and executive branches of our government.
Oh and Rosemary, there is someone posting comments under that name at SeanS's blog of refried conservative junk. That tool can't even be botherd to write his own material, yet he claims that is the reason he started the blog. He is a giant, swollen cobag.
C'mon dear Queen, you cannot seriously believe such describes the Democratic principles-
Crappy economy and it's relateds you can maybe make a case for based on your own standards of economic success, and war/international interventions you can most certainly claim (granted, by my estimation Clinton was much more judicious with his use of the military than Bush) but c'mon, Civil libs, crime?
That ain't our calling card- that's the GOP, love it or hate it (or feel no particular love or hate, like me).
Rosemary, Darling, SeanS runs a bloggo called "Shoot A Liberal"- it has been claimed you were on a "happy new year!" thread there. We detest SeanS, almost as much as we detest...scrambled eggs!
I've never heard of SeanS and I've never been to his blog. If someone was posting under my name, that is news to me. I can assure you that it isn't me, never was me and will never be me.
It ain't gonna work Canada!
No matter how hard ou swing right, you can't scare away he hordes of leftie americans flocking out of the US, and you can't ever really treat people like dirt. it's just not your way.
If you want to keep rexpatriate americans away, a fence would work better than this attempt at making yourself look less desirable.
my keyboard is dying, a thousand apologies for the typos
About the rest, my point is that you have no idea what I believe in and if you want to make assumptions about my beliefs rather than discuss them, fine. You can continue telling me what I believe in and I'll leave you to enjoy your echo chamber.
I prefer to discuss actual ideas. That is the reason I just threw back your assumptions at you. Don't like? Then don't do it to me. I didn't walk in here and start calling you all baby killers and hatemongers, did I?
I'm here to learn about you, what you believe in and what ideas you have that could help bring us together. I don't hang out at conservative sites, I hang out at liberal ones. What I have found is that you can't just paint everyone with a broad brush, there are many, many differences within each party.
"teh: Think about it: Rosemary's cheering increased infant mortality rates, increased pollution, increased crime, perpetual "war", the undermining of civil liberties and Constitutional rights, a craptastic economy, the failing of our public educational system, the crumbling of our infrastructure, unfettered corporate rule, and a lowering of the standard of living for all Americans."
You're insane. You've just ascribed Democrat principles to me. I'm a conservative not a Democrat. If you think that diatribe is conservative in anyway, you are completely backward.
Rosemary, the Queen of All Evi | Homepage | 01.25.06 - 11:52 pm
How are these the principles of the Democratic Party? I'll admit that I don't know what your principles are, but you sure are willing to make statements about other's principles.
The best part of this conversation is that we are all assuming that the Right even has principles. Judging by the Abramoff scandal, the Ethics violations of Delay, Oh let's see Nixon and campaign reform through illegal activity, Reagan and Supply Side/Trickle Down Economics, Bush the First and his No New Taxes crap, Bush the Second and "The oil profits will pay for the war, not the taxpayer", and the unending stream of improprieties involving money, cash and hoes, these so-called Christianic Representatives and Senators have no concept of the teachings of a man(Jesus) they use to browbeat America.
Well, I just went in search of Soot a Liberal and I found thread I was supposedly in.
I don't mean to be insulting but are you guys all idiots? Do you think that maybe just maybe there may be more than one Rosemary in the entire effin world? Did you happen to click the name to see if was actually me? Nah, of course not, that would require an effort.
I would really appreciate it if before passing judgement on someone, you'd look at the evidence and do a teeny bit of deductive reasoning.
Perhaps you'd all rather just remain in your pool of closed minded bigotry.
I thought some of you were actually reasonable. That's what I get for keeping an open mind.
Shoot not soot. Misspelling really kills a diatribe.
How are these the principles of the Democratic Party? I'll admit that I don't know what your principles are, but you sure are willing to make statements about other's principles.
Y'all did it first Chuckles. I was just throwing th crap back at you guys.
Rosemary, I promise, if you will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about you.
You're insane. You've just ascribed Democrat principles to me. I'm a conservative not a Democrat. If you think that diatribe is conservative in anyway, you are completely backward.
Does anyone else notice how the past, oh, 13 years of history have just passed this woman by?
Pay attention to deeds, not words. Look at results, not rhetoric. Think, Rosemary, and you might just rethink your political leanings...
Rosemary, I for one was teasing. We always namecheck SeanS whenever we can. I did refer to scrambled eggs. THat doesn't sound very serious to me.
I did rethink them. I used to be a Democrat, Bush was the very first Republican that I ever cast my vote for and I voted in 5 Presidential elections.
There has been no candidate and no Party that I agreed with more than 50%. I've never had an ideal choice, I've had to choose the lesser of two evils most of the time.
The fact is this, you have let your prejudices color your thinking when it comes to people that you disagree with and I'm not gonna sit here and let you tar me with a brush that doesn't describe me.
We don't agree on things, that much is obvious, but you certainly have no idea where we disagree because rather than ask and discuss, you assume.
And everyone knows what happens to people that assume.
Pinko,
Okay. Thanks for that.
This space will always be reserved for Rosemary to expound on her views regarding things that we care about:
Global Warming
Public Health Policy
Scientific Policy
Environmental Policy
Foreign Policy
US Budgetary Policy
So what was it about Bush that drew you to his side, Rosemary?
Ok, so I may have been wrong about the SeanS stuff. That was more meant in jest, but it was also more than a little nasty.
I still don't understand how a vote for Bush is anything but a bad idea for anyone who isn't a Fortune 500 CEO.
Rosemary sent me (as one of her regular readers) over here to comment.
As I've just explained over there, Harper and the Tories are pretty much still to the left of the US Democrats, so even though this is quite a tragedy to us Canuckistanis (of at least the red or pink variety anyway), it's still a relative paradise.
Times two, of course, as any legislation still has to get some support from one liberal party and two social democratic parties.
Besides, after about a year of Tory rule, and once a few of the more odd SoCon trogs start shooting their mouths off about gays, abortion, God, aboriginals, or immigrants, I think the electorate will be happy to throw them out on their asses.
Okay, done. Did I do good, Rosemary?
Rosemary:
I don't care what percentage of which party's platform you agree with, I'm curious as to how you justify supporting the results you seem to support. I don't care who says what; I care who has done what.
Republicans from Hoover through Bush have proven, quite simply that on the whole they do not know how to govern effectively. Democrats have achieved solid, laudable results (in governance, not elections or PR) with their policies. Republicans haven't.
Clarification: Democrats have a much better record of achieving solid, laudable results.
Republicans from Hoover through Bush have proven, quite simply that on the whole they do not know how to govern effectively.
Well, I gotta disagree with that Eisenhower was a very effective leader, and even Nixon managed a couple of decent things.
But I do think Bush will go down in history as an awful leader.
While I feel bad for Canadians, I have to confess to being eager to see the Canadian version of a pre-emptive strike. It would be the most polite invasion in history.
So Which country will the new government liberate first? Remembering my games of Risk as a lad, I would guess they will ask for permission to move through Alaska before launching an assault on Kamchatka.
Well Mr. Orwellism, I concede your points (the EPA, after all, was Nixon's baby, and a lot of the grief that was Vietnam can be hung around LBJ's neck), yet I will stand by my "Democrats have a better record..." statement as it remains the rule, and the exceptions have yet to really invalidate it.
And I agree -- I'm hard pressed to think of anything good that could come out of the Bush administration's policies.
...I will stand by my "Democrats have a better record..." statement...
We cross-posted and I missed the clarification, which I would agree with.
I would guess they will ask for permission to move through Alaska before launching an assault on Kamchatka.
Only a Risk neophyte would try to grab Asia without holding both North and South America in their entirety first.
Oops. Just dropped a grogan in Rosemary's comments. Hope she's got TP.
How long have I been working? There were like 20 posts when I left for work today.
Pinko, I know you are busy with the updates, but a quick new post would make my eyes happy.
Global Warming- I have concerns about it and I certainly believe that it is happening. I just don't think signing Kyoto would have done anything to help it since it was not making many of the worst offenders accountable.
Public Health Policy - Nationalized healthcare? I'm sympathetic to people being unable to afford care and I wouldn't be opposed to paying a higher medicare tax to extend Medicare coverage to those that can't afford to buy insurance. And legalize marijuana.
Scientific Policy - I think the govt should get out of the science business altogether. Privately funded research has always performed better and provided more results. The only thing the govt has proven, regardless of who is in charge, is that they screw things up more often than they get it right.
Environmental Policy - I like having clean air and water. I'm all for higher standards. Alaska, I don't much care about it, I say drill that sucker dry.
Foreign Policy- I like our current foreign policy. No complaints, I'm a 100% backer of the WOT and Iraq.
US Budgetary Policy - I want a balanced budget. I want that deficit to be lowered. I wish Bush remembered that he has veto power and start vetoing all that freakin' pork.
I'm also very pro-Same Sex Marriage. I think that the govt should either allow marriage equality or stop giving marriage tax incentives because it is completely unfair to a segment of the population who are being discrimated against.
I want to know wha it up with the rash apparently making many conservatives rather cranky lately.
what could it be? anticipation of a spanking?
Rosemary, I was content to stay out of this discussion, but would sufficiently provoked me with your last post.
Pirvately-funded research performing better than public-funded research? Are you out of your mind? I think it is fair to say that prior to the late '90s the amount of truly significant paradigm-shifting privately funded research was almost immeasurable. True, there has been plenty of high quality privately funded research since (I'm willing to say maybe 1/4 of good science these days), but many of those laboratories are still largely fueled by public research funds and the findings are built on basic research funded by public funds. I think PP can back me up on this (we are both scientists).
Most of the rest of your thoughts on policy are highly aligned with opponents of the current administration. Remember that the offical stance of the Bush government is that global warming is a myth and federal funds deserve to be spent harassing scientists that do the research proving global warming. Even your thoughts on foreign policy are echoed by a large number of democrats, all of whom signed-off on the war in Iraq (based on lies of course). And you must surely be disgusted by the out-of-control discretionary spending by Republicans. Man, talk about a bunch of fiscal liberals!
UC:
Yes, the fiscal policies of the current admministration give me indigestion.
Pirvately-funded research performing better than public-funded research? Are you out of your mind? I think it is fair to say that prior to the late '90s the amount of truly significant paradigm-shifting privately funded research was almost immeasurable.
I stand corrected. I will say that I didn't articulate my position clear enough though. I want govt out of science because politics is not what is needed to fuel research. Govt money comes with govt regulations and restrictions. I want the politics out of it. Scientists not politicians holding purse strings like bait should decide what is needed for research.
Is that better?
what could it be? anticipation of a spanking?
Nope, most of us like a good spanking.
Okay, so I too was pretty much content to leave well enough alone, merely to sit here agog that you could take the stands you've outlined above and yet still vote for George. But this:
I'm sympathetic to people being unable to afford care and I wouldn't be opposed to paying a higher medicare tax to extend Medicare coverage to those that can't afford to buy insurance. And legalize marijuana.
So why would you continue to support someone who recently managed to turn Medicare into an even sicker joke than it already is?
Rosemary, I think I'm understanding better with what you're saying about science. Kind of that it should be like the Clinton days when scientists ran the NIH and determined how money should be spent, and not like the Bush days when politicians decide that NIH funds should not be used to study human sexuality or human embryonic stem cell research. I agree that it is tragic that politics have been shaping our scientific agenda. This is how Republicans help create big government and meddle in our lives. It's just staggering to me how the GOP does the EXACT same thing it says it is against.
Where we may disagree is the extent of our science that is funded by the government. I would argue that all basic research should be government funded. Most basic research is not immediately applicable to anything that will ever generate profits and hence is of minimal interest to private science funders. In fact, supporting government-funded basic research is highly capitalistic. Without the government money, the basic research would not get done, and without the basic research, private science would have nowhere to go. NIH-funded research has fueled drug discovery and medicine and helped make drug companies wealthy. At the same time, most industry-funded research has proven to be woeful at best in making basic scientific findings. If the ruling Republicans had any long-term vision about science and the economy, they would not be killing the NIH budget as they just did.
I know why the relentless PR machine of our administration has convinced you that you favour Republican policies, but it seems that whenever we break down your political values, they are always ones that are best-served by Democrat administrations.
Our entire understanding of any disease or health-issue has arisen from basic research. This does not disparage the pharmacologists and medical researchers doing their thing, but it really is much closer to end-stage work (in the continuum of research from beginning to end). It is important that things with very long term payoffs (such as research and environmental policy) be controlled by the government. The free market does not look beyond a certain profit horizon, hence bad decisions or short-sighted ones. For example, Ford and GM will essentially become subsidized companies because they never chose to innovate or they were never forced to by increased fuel standards. Once they have been run into the ground the government will be forced to prop them up, and while a certain number of executive generations at those companies will do quite well for themselves, the American economy and environment take it in the head. The market is great for a lot of things long-sightedness in the face of massive investment costs is not one of them.
Sorry I was behind on the thread. It seems to me, Rosemary, that under every issue, you actually lean toward the non grover norquist/tom delay/jonah goldberg option, but that you're dealbreaker is the WOT?
OK.
I would just like to say that I fully supported Afghanistan and would have liked to see us do that right. I think Rumsfeld should have been shitcanned years ago.
"It is important that things with very long term payoffs (such as research and environmental policy) be controlled by the government. The free market does not look beyond a certain profit horizon, hence bad decisions or short-sighted ones."
I couldn't agree with Pinko more. As a medical researcher and child of pharma, I can tell you that nobody does their own research anymore. That's a good thing. Pharma is too profit driven for the benefit of the shareholders, not the patients. Most to nearly all new drugs on the market have come from goverment sponsored research. The research usually begins in university labs across North America. The university then sells their work to industry.
Furthermore, almost all R and D begins in university labs as basic research. Drugs must be first show in preclinical models to be safe before human development can be designed. It takes years before approval to move forward happens. A high number of drug potentials fail during the pre clinical phase.
The FDA is an excellent organization that holds people and organizations accountable for lab, manufacturing and clinical practices in developing and marketing drug products.
Developing countries have modeled their process after the FDA and the other G8 nations follow similar patterns and frequently look to the FDA as a mentor.
The next time a drug saves your life, hug a scientist because he or she is responsible for it.
If the EPA could enjoy the same power to enforce corporate responsibilty, the world would be a safer and healthier place.
teh,
Well, read more carefully and you'll see it. Plus there are other issues out there that haven't been addressed that I lean more conservative on.
I'm gonna guess that you voted for or at least supported Bill Clinton. Does that make you a homophobic, anti-marriage equality schmuck because of the Clinton Administration's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act]?
Do you think that Europeans are worth more than Africans? Are you a racist? Because Clinton went in to Kosovo but ignored Rwanda?
How could YOU support a racist administration that ignored genocide in Africa?
Everyone ignored the events in Rwanda. The Houses of Congress passed no resolutions about Rwanda. Your claim of racism by Clinton is inaccurate. If you had declared our entire legislative and executive branches to be racist, then you might be right. Of course, some woman named Katrina came along and reminded us that as much as we may make claims of equality, we still have a long way to go.
Who was the author on the Defense of Marriage Act? If anyone knows, please post it. I wasn't paying as much attention to politics back then and all I can remember is the republicans screaming about some blowjobs.
Chuckie, you slay me! You slay me!
Rosemary: yes, I took issue with Clinton's inaction on Rwanda, his signing of the DOMA and backing of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." There are some of other major failings and minor mistakes as well. But on the whole, he was one of our finest presidents of the 20th century.
But that is in no way the equivalent of your support of Bush; you seem to oppose almost everything he does and stand for, except issues x, x, and possibly x, which are so earth-shatteringly important they eclipse everything else and therefore you must vote for him.
Huh? I mean, apart from not knowing yet what issues x, x, and x are for you (though I'm guessing some incoherent position on "TERROR!!!" fits in there somewhere), just how does your citizen's calculus work, anyway?
In other words, what Pinko put to you most recently upthread.
We're mad about Clinton too, that is why we have principles. Let me add that Clinton went into Kosovo under huge fire from "conservatives" and it was this huge pressure against that burned Clinton in Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda. Frankly I blame Clinton's spinelessness, but to hang Rwanda on Clinton is a little specious given that the Republicans said not a word except "don't even think about it"- the difference between Clinton and the Repubs over Rwanda is that he probably agonized about it. Also, I have no doubt that clinton would try to play the civil unions for gays route, keeping "marriage" for straights. I definitely don't agree with it, but it's not like he would shit himself over "Heather had two mommies".
Rwanda should never be brought up by a conservative with a straight face, nor Kosovo.
Everyone, please keep the attackos to a minimo, we're trying to engage here.
I think Rosemary has pulled out from this discussion like Bush won't from Iraq.
Who's attacking?
Oh now that isn't very nice, Chuckles. I have a job, two kids (one that is an infant btw), a husband and house to take care of. I can't sit here all day flinging poop with you guys, much as I'd like to...
Everyone: My point about Clinton was to show you that you can't just fling crap and blame at me because of Bush's actions anymore than you can be blamed for Clinton's or any president for that matter.
Also, I don't care what Congress did or didn't do, ultimately, anything the President does, says or signs is HIS responsibility. The only difference is War. The President can beg all he wants but he doesn't have the power to declare and go to war. That is for Congress to authorize and by giving their consent they share in the responsibilty. WOT and Iraq were given blessings by both sides of the aisle and claiming that they didn't know or that they are stupid or Bush lied to them is just a pathetic attempt to deny responsibility.
Regarding Clinton, I agree he was a great POTUS truly. He made some mistake but on the whole he did great things, he was able to work with the Republicans to accomplish a lot.
My support for Bush is still unwavering. I don't believe he "lied" about WMDs, I thought that he may have been wrong. Although recent events in the news suggest that all that intel may have been right afterall and the WMDs do exist and were moved to Syria during that 12 month "rush to war".
I agree with Bush about Social Security, school vouchers, abortion, WOT, and the 2nd amendment. Not in that order and not just those but I'm pressed for time.
I disagree with the limitless spending, the prescription drug mess, stem cells, gay marriage, and a few others.
Rwanda should never be brought up by a conservative with a straight face, nor Kosovo.
Oh really? Why is that? I'm not allowed to voice dissent or criticize something because others in my Party didn't agree? Spare me your sanctimony, this is still a free country and liberals have no right to dictate who has what rights. We are all equal here. I'm not going to be bound by your prejudices any more than you should be bound by mine.
Rosemary,
In these discussions, it is difficult to argue many points at once. It is as if there are so many things to argue about we cannot have an organized flow of discussion. I don't think that the fact that Clinton can be criticized for mistakes he made renders George Bush immune from criticism. This is not an argument that comes down to belief.
Almost all the intel leading to the Iraq invasion was bad or prejudiced or both. This is not really debateable. I realize it comes down to "belief" but could talk about torture, we could talk about not taking resposibility even if there were WMDs, that wouldn't change 50 other deal-breakers we have with the President, a PResident I may add that has the presidencey by the slimmest of margins, and who has made no attempt whatsoever to reach out to the other side. As much as people want to hate Clinton, he was the President of the USA, all of it, not just half of it. He is an intelligent, flawed man, capable of sophisticated reasoning. Our current president is merely flawed, and his policies are currently undermining every facet of government. If as a conservative you think that government is incapable of handling its responsibility, its not really fair that you essentially make that fact true when you are in charge. It is dealing from the bottom of the deck. Beyond the issue of terrorist attacks, many more Americans will be hurt by this governments economic, social and environmental policies than by terrorist attacks. And if we do have a Cheney-sized attack, how would we be able to prove that wasn't because of this administrations incompetence in the WOT? Basically, this admin is a no win situation for large swaths of the American public.
Pinko,
First, I am having many discussion here because I'm getting hammered by all and all of you are asking different questions. I'm doing the best I can to answer everyone, everytime I write.
Second, I think you misunderstand my point. I'll say it again. You and your commenters are blaming me and all conservatives for the actions of our elected representatives. I am no more to blame for what Bush has done than you are for what Clinton did or didn't do. Do you understand now?
You can criticize Bush till the cows come home, that is your right. What you have no right to do is to tell others what they are allowed to do. We all have the same rights, you are no more special than I am and vice versa.
You can tell me that I'm wrong as I can tell you, but neither of us has the right to stifle the other.
Almost all the intel leading to the Iraq invasion was bad or prejudiced or both. This is not really debateable.
Au contraire, my friend. This is very debateable and it is right now being looked at again because there is evidence suggesting that WMDs were moved to Syria prior to our invasion. Only time will tell.
It doesn't matter how slim Bush's victory was. He won and btw he won with more than 50% of the vote total something even Bill Clinton couldn't manage. In any case, it doesn't matter. The minute he won he became our President. He has tried to work with Democrats and early on he did. But just like with Clinton the opposition party went insane and stopped being willing to work with him. You can blame Bush for that but so far the voters haven't since the Republicans have continued their stranglehold on the govt.
As for domestic policy, ah yes, I forgot to mention that I'm pro-tax cuts. Tax cuts belong to the people that work and earn money not to people that don't.
Beyond the issue of terrorist attacks, many more Americans will be hurt by this governments economic, social and environmental policies than by terrorist attacks.
Well, I guess hurt is in the eye of the beholder. Those affected by terrorism will be dead without choice. Those being cut off the govt teat will have a choice. Sink or swim.
You view that sink or swim thing as a choice, where it basically isn't. Fundamental inequality is essentially unimaginable in scope to someone making that argument. This is where we disagree. Corporations are not "cut off from the govt. teat" in fact, the ability of the wealthy to maintain or increase their wealth is almost locked into the current admins policies, whereas the poor underclasses are essentially put at a market disadvantage. The Bush admin and its supporters are actually bad True Capitalists, they certainly favor monopolistic tendencies. But that is for another day.
Anyway, no one is telling you what to think or believe. I will completely disagree with the statement that Bush tried to work with the Democrats. That is not true. We can go around in circles attempting to agree on what basic reality is, so that's not productive either.
"I'm not allowed to voice dissent or criticize..."
The operative phrase you're referring to is "should never," not "may not ever." Keep that in mind before you get all huffy.
I mean, Pinko's comment was speaking to taste and credibility, not that which is forbidden.
You're right, Pinko. It is pointless to have any meaningful discussion here.
I tried but I'd rather talk to people that want to express/debate ideas rather than lob insults at me personally. (Not you Pinko, you did try)
Enjoy the echo chamber, peeps. You guys are the very first batch of liberals that I've met in the blogosphere that couldn't just talk without being rude and disrespectful. Be proud of that.
Now I am sad. I feel that while people have been a wee aggressive, there were times when both sides could have de-escalated. I know I provided that for our side. Echo chamber doesn't really fit, what matters is if the echoes are true or false and that is where we disagree.
Enjoy the frozen wastes of Ann Arbor. I look forward to thinking of you taking Draco to that one place on Main that has the home-made thinly sliced fried potatoes. God damn those are good. He will like those.
Pinko, don't fall for it. The one person on this thread who came closest to being abusive was Chuckles -- and I've scanned through all of his comments, and frankly saw nothing all that untoward.
People disagreed with Rosemary, supported their assertions, and now she takes off as though someone has thrown acid in her face. A couple of times I caught her clearly misrepresenting what someone wrote in her replies to them. She was being dishonest.
I ain't buyin' it, and neither should you...
Ok, maybe, maybe the "pull out" comment was rude, but I find it hard to classify as a direct insult. I didn't know she was all that busy, mostly I was just extremely bored at work and very frustrated with her inconsistent views and rhetoric.
I find the sink or swim arguments for welfare to be hilarious. I find the rich people deserve tax cuts because they work harder to be insulting and extemely irresponsible. A successful person has even more responsiblity to be a guiding light in our society and help maintain the stable system that allowed them to become successful. A person can make it on their own, in a way, but no without our state being the way it is. This an extension of Socrates' arguments in the dialogue Euthyphro. You owe the state for your own existence and you should obey and work to improve the state. Tax is not a burden, it is an obligation of all who gain from being an US citizen.
Ah chuckles, so much more succinctly put than I could do it.
My argument against the sink-or-swim one is usually a variation on "well, DUH."
Rosemary and BLT both play the victim.
Nicely put gentleman. Thanks for the enrichment.
I am always happy to enrich a person. Usually that happens in my head and not in real life, though.
Wow, looks like I missed a humdinger of a thread.
If I could just throw my 2 cents in here, I don't think anyone here was overly offensive to Rosemary.
Jesus, if you compare that to some of the stuff I've been getting on right leaning websites lately, you guys were practically kissing her ass. (detailed on my latest post, I pulled a Rosemary just the other day at andrightlyso.com, but for a real reason, not this false victimization stuff.)
It looks like she just up and left because she got tired of having to defend the idea of voting for Bush.
Anyone who's even been following the news occasionally knows that Bush's administration has been a spectacular failure for everything and everyone save for the rich.
And as far as that WMD's moved to Syria stuff goes, that story's total bunk. Even in the astronomical chance that they were moved as the story claims, it would be mustard gas or ricine or something like that, not a nuclear bomb. I don't remember them talking about ricine much, "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" and all that BS.
Hell, Saddam likely wouldn't even have that if the US hadn't sold him anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism and the tech to reproduce it right up until March 1992, spanning 2 administrations because they were more afraid of Iran then.
Also, one quick word about the Canadian election, it really blows goats that the Cons get all their base while the liberals and the NDP have to split votes between them. Canada needs to pass the STV system to remedy this.
Nearly ever Con seat that was won, the votes went like
Conservative- 13000 votes
Liberal- 8900 votes
NDP- 7500 votes
Pretty much everyone who voted liberal or NDP would rather either one of those parties rule instead of the cons.
I'm sad to say, my rural area re-elected a con as well, but BC as a whole bucked the trend and took 7 or 8 seats from the cons and gave to the NDP, pretty much the most left leaning party there is this side of Marijuana and green.
I think she was forced to admit that she isn't nearly as liberal or as in touch as she thinks she is.
As the esteemable Mr. Colbert would say, "I was just asking her to open wide, baby bird, cause I got a big fat nightcrawler of truth for you."
Yeah, people don't even know what liberal means anymore.
The word has been demonized and exaggerated to the point on meaninglessness.
Commenting by HaloScan
