heretic on 12/6/2008 at 01:00
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Libertarian thought sounds good sometimes - I wouldn't mind a bit of that kind of thinking injected into our politics over here. But privatising everything (or almost everything) is a bit nuts. Go on about BIG GOVERNMENT WASTE RARG all you want, it still sounds nuts. And there's stuff like environmental concerns that I have no faith in the free market to deal with.
Know what else is (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews) nuts?
Ghostly Apparition on 12/6/2008 at 01:40
Quote Posted by heretic
..but that accusation coming from someone who calls National Defense "military self-defense" is not that effective. It's a simple mistake really, but for one accusing others of being misinformed it deserves mention.
I meant National defense as well you know. If you are going to nitpick typing mistakes you really are grasping at straws. But I have looked up the technical definition of neo con and it says a liberal who has moved to the right. While never being specific as to how far.
What I do know is there is a greater difference between a true liberal and what the current U.S. administration is. The last Democrat (Clinton) governed as more of a moderate than a true liberal. But by any stretch saying Bush is anything comparable to a liberal is a stretch. In fact I would compare what Bush has done in office as more along the lines of fascism, then either conservative or liberal.
heretic on 12/6/2008 at 01:46
I wasn't nitpicking (reread rest of sentence in question) and that second bit appears to have no semblance whatsoever to what I have been attempting to discuss.
BEAR on 12/6/2008 at 02:16
Quote:
There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses.
I think this puts it pretty plainly. Business has shown very little initiative in terms of public safety, or workers safety and rights. When profit happens to coincide with supplying good service, you will get good service. If profit increases with decreases in safety and conscience, we all know what happens, the workers suffer, the environment suffers.
Non-profits have a similar problem. Some things don't need to be run with a bottom line mentality, but when you lose that, you lose some of the motivation and efficiency.
Jennie&Tim on 12/6/2008 at 14:52
Here's an interesting opinion article on Obama by Thomas Friedman, who is apparently in the MidEast at the moment.
(
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004471918_friedman12.html)
The attitude he's seeing there is a bump in approval for the US for being willing to nominate a dark-skinned man with Muslim family ties.
Aerothorn on 13/6/2008 at 00:34
Quote Posted by Stitch
That article clearly reflects a pre-election Obama, but taken as a whole it hardly contradicts his dismissal of Ferraro's statement. Acknowledging that his race elevates his story is not exactly the same thing as somebody else claiming his race is the sole reason he's winning. I'd also be curious to read
his actual words, since the article doesn't quote them.
Agree with you on the actual quote. But, um, Ferraro never said it's the sole reason he's winning - that would be ludicrous. She said that it's what put him over the line - that is, he obviously wouldn't be where he was were it no for his masterful political skills, public speaking ability, etc, but neither would he have achieved his initial celebrity (which was used as the launching point for his campaign) if he were white. Disagree with the notion if you will, but he and Ferraro are saying the same thing - and I find it difficult to understand how someone CAN disagree with the notion.
Stitch on 13/6/2008 at 01:04
Because it's ludicrous. A year ago a black man named Barack Hussein Obama seemed unelectable but now it's suddenly the selling point? Please. It's far more complicated than that. It's obviously part of his story, but it's it's a mixed bag in terms of voter appeal.
Her exact quote was, ""If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
C'mon, Aero. It's a silly, over-simplified statement. I wouldn't exactly call it inherently racist--and neither did Obama--but I do think it displays poor analysis and judgment (of the kind, incidentally, that has cost Hillary the nomination).
As for Obama's words, like I said I have no idea what the original context was or even what the words were. Someone saying that the country is caught up in the concept of a candidate's race isn't the same thing as admitting that race is part of what makes one's story unique.
Yeah, I'll grant you that's a messy one. Obama's quote certainly shows a candidate-in-progress.
Ghostly Apparition on 13/6/2008 at 03:05
Quote Posted by heretic
That's not what I said...but in terms of what actually gets done when they are eventually elected, that is basically correct.
It's not much of a reach considering that I didn't mean that the parties are moving centerwards together, only that they are both moving to the left.
Todays Republicans are yesterdays Democrats, I'll leave it to you to discern what todays Democrats are.
(
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jon_faul_061116_conservatism_v__demo.htm)
heretic on 13/6/2008 at 03:42
Does this horribly written and amateurish oped somehow change the fact that we've covered this allready? (
several posts ago you entered the same quote)
Did you bother to read the comments after the article, including the authors response to said comments BTW?
Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are we just trading reading material at this point?
Starrfall on 13/6/2008 at 04:10
the point is that YOU'RE WRONG HA
