|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2004 : 18:02:33 [Permalink]
|
If Nader cannot beat Bush, I don't care how wonderful he is or was or will be. All that matters right now is getting rid of Bush.
Screw what might be if a clear majority if more us were a bit more independent in our thinking. We can worry about that later. I'm for worrying about that later, honest!
While all those independents who don't vote democratic this time pat themselves on the back for having the integrity to not vote for the lesser of two evils, and the result is four more years of the worst president in recent history, or maybe in the history of our country, I'll be looking for you bastards. While your busy claiming that you didn't vote for that swine, who happened to win because you took a stand against the two party system, while the country burns, I'll be looking for you bastards. I'll be looking for those of you whose passion for politics compelled you to self righteously stand by, dicks in hand, leaving it to the rest of us to put out the fire.
Or maybe I'll just pack because I will no longer be able to live in a country where those who could have made a difference chose not to, for all the correct reasons. I suppose I should admire such political astuteness. But I might want to admire it from afar.
Or maybe I'll just want to find out what drugs those indies were taking when they pulled the lever for Nader...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 19:09:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As for Nader, he's done some great things (but I liked the Chevy Corvair. It was a neat, economical little car. My mother had one. Bad call, Ralph), but now he's gone 'round the bend. I'm hoping he'll get back to doing what he does best; keeping us from getting fucked by the powerful.
You know, I probably shouldn't be singling you out like this, filthy, because goodness knows you're not the first to say it, but I'd like to know exactly why you believe Ralph has "gone 'round the bend." I happen to completely disagree with your assessment, but, just once, I'd like someone to attempt some sort of rational explanation for saying such a thing.
Incidentally, I also disagree with your stated hope that he'll "get back to doing what he does best; keeping us from getting fucked by the powerful." I don't believe he ever stopped.
Also, I happen to believe he'd make a great president. 
Nader stopped getting us from getting fucked by the powerful in the 2000 election. However, I have no problem with him running then because no one knew what a rat-bastard Cheney/Bush would turn out to be.
Now, he has become a dillitante, if I've spelled that right. No matter how good a president he might turn out to be (at this point, I have some doubts), there is no chance of him even coming close to winning. As Dr. Thompson has said, our country is in trouble. Nader in the race ain't helpin' none.
Why is he running again? Is it an ego trip? I've read that opinion, but I don't know. I ask, why is he not instead busting the drug company's collective hump over the extortion they are laying on us for prescription medications? Why is he not tearing the EPA a new one over dismanteling enviornmental regulations? That is what he is best at, an advocate, and he needs to get back to it because at one time he was damned well a valuable advocate (except for the Corvair).
But now the point is moot. He is being spoon-fed money and support from members of the Republican Party and he is accepting the role of being a vote siphon. Sad. However, I don't think he will be much of a factor in this election. No good reason to think that, but I gots a feeling.
Hey Paladin, s'okay. If yer pickin' on me, yer leaving somebody else alone. 
Edited for weird spelling. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/19/2004 19:17:47 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 19:51:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Independents have a hard time understanding party loyalty. That you don't understand it or share it doesn't make it inherently wrong. Calling yourself an independent in the political arena is fine, but demanding that others see things the same way is neither fair nor reasonable.
At no time have I demanded that others see things the way I do. I merely made an argument for my position. Isn't that what you're supposed to do here?
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I never argued for blind loyalty to anything, BTW, nor do I think the Democrats should be beyond all criticism. What annoys me is when people start with the "all politicians are lying jerks" or "we need a third party" stuff, because it gets us knowhere. When ALL you post is blanket criticism, I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you have an axe to grind more than you want a rational discussion--which is OK, 'cause I'm that way sometimes too.
I don't think we're talking about the same conversation. I never said, "all politicians are lying jerks" and my criticisms have been specific, not blanket (especially in regards to Edwards; there's been plenty of opportunity to have a "rational discussion" regarding whether it's okay or not for a lawyer to take a case against likely innocent defendants). To suggest that wanting a third party "gets us nowhere" is confusing to me. In America, choice is part of the reason why this is such a great country, why so many other people from all over the world want to come here. But you're saying people should have fewer choices when it comes to their representatives? I sure hope not, because that would be wholly un-American.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I depsise conservative ideology in all its forms (crony capitalism, pseudopatriotism, bigotry, archaic thinking, Bible-thumping, etc.). The best way to combat that is to oppose conservatives at every turn, and the best way to do THAT is to support Democrats. As it so happens, I believe deeply in Democratic and liberal ideology: helping the less well-advantaged, freedom of speech, protecting the environment, tightly regulated capitalism, equal opportunity, etc. But even if I didn't agree with those things, I'd STILL support the Democrats, because the alternative--especially Bush & Co.--is so dreadful.
If you truly value those things, then I suggest you leave the Democratic party. They've been guilty of victimizing the less-well advantaged (support of the death penalty and the drug war, welfare reform), suppression of speech ("free-speech zones" were created in the Clinton administration), decreasing protections for the environment (again, emission standards DECREASED during the Clinton administration), loosely controlled capitalism (crazy little thing called NAFTA that Clinton strongly supported). Of course, the Republicans are probably worse, but any standard of excellence which consists of "not as bad as worse" is hardly a standard worth aspiring towards.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
A third party candidate is not a viable option in America right now and I doubt it will be in my lifetime. I'm not terribly worried about that; I see value in the Ralph Naders and Ross Perots of the world in that they offer other ideas...but they would make lousy presidents.
Well, if the Democrats and Republicans continue to make it more difficult for third party candidates to run (they're the ones who make the unjust election laws), you're probably right that third party candidates won't be able to realistically compete.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
As for the War on Drugs, I didn't say I supported it. From what I've read, it has limited success. What I said was that it was better than doing nothing.
There has only been "limited success" in victimizing the weakest amongst us. Your assertion that victimizing drug users is "better than doing nothing" is baseless and I'm sure the good folks who have been thrown into prison with violent felons, who have been denied medication with threats of imprisonment, killed and otherwise victimized by incompetent and corrupt cops gone crazy with power, would disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Drug use costs all of us tremendously as a society: increased crime, increased medical costs, lost productivity, and the spread of disease. I can give you examples or statistics on that stuff (ie bringing more AIDS and Hepatitis into the heterosexual community) but I suspect you already know that stuff. Abortion saves society tremendous costs (financial, child abuse, crime, etc.) and costs about $300 to do. So I believe the state has a compelling interest to control drug use because the harm goes far beyond harming the individual.
Then I take it you're for making alcohol and tobacco illegal as well, since those cause about a hundred times more of the problems you mentioned above. If you don't, then I'm afraid your belief system is highly hypocritical. If you think the government doesn't own your body only when it suits you, then you're lock step in line with the most conservative thinkers in the country.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
And yes the above is highly biased toward my own belief system. And I don't care.
I thought this forum, having the name "skeptic" in it, would be about dissecting and rejecting bias, instead of embracing it. The fact is, your inability to hold your political party accountable for its ethical failings is precisely the kind of response I get when I'm having almost the exact same conversation with Republicans. There's just no difference at all.
 |
| Edited by - Les on 07/19/2004 23:49:37 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 23:33:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I thought about this today, Les, and hafta admit you're right to take Democrats to task to get them to be...better. More accountable. More...whatever, really. I guess I'm just weary of character assassinations ("murderer! drunk!" "because I said so!" etc.) taking the place of thoughtful dialogue about what's best for our country. Accusing Carter of murder isn't really thoughtful policy debate. And yep, I'm guilty too of lowering the level of political discourse. I'm trying to do better.
We should all be weary of character assassinations, I agree. And I really respect and appreciate that you've been thinking about it all.
But I didn't really accuse Carter of murder, but rather I pointed out that it's a documented fact that he aided and abetted mass murder. That's very different from an accusation.
Personally, I think it's very thoughtful to examine the actions of our leaders (especially leaders that are held up as examples) to make sure that they deserve our respect and admiration. If you honestly want to make the Democratic party better (or anything, really), then the first step is constructive criticism. I think it's reasonable to agree that aiding and abetting mass murder is never a viable option, even in wartime. But when Carter provided arms and training and money to Suharto in Indonesia and Somoza in Nicaragua while they were torturing and raping and murdering all dissenters and their families, that's exactly what he did.
When confronted with distasteful facts, it is the opposite of "thoughtful debate" to reject those facts out of hand.
Of course, it's not realistic to expect the Democrats to say at their convention, "We would like to apologize to the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of Democrat foreign policy during the Cold War. If President Carter is willing to apologize and admit that it was wrong to assist mass murderers, we'll be happy to allow him to remain in the Democratic party." It's equally unrealistic to expect the Republicans to admit the fact that Ronald Reagan supported terrorists and terrorism. It's not in their interest to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I have a vision of what I want the country to look like, and Democrats come the closest to making that happen. So independents and cynics baffle me a bit, because I'm not sure what their vision is.
Well, this independent has a vision of a representative government that is responsive to the needs of the people (knowing that it should serve the people and not vice versa), that doesn't attempt to control their bodies in arbitrary, hypocritical ways, and doesn't believe that it deserves more money and better health insurance than the average American (you might ask your Democratic representatives why they believe they deserve to earn almost five times what the average U.S. worker earns). I want a government that values human life regardless of nationality. Mostly, I want a government that has the moral courage and intellectual fortitude to take responsibility for its mistakes while striving to correct them.
You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.  |
| Edited by - Les on 07/20/2004 00:32:25 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 00:17:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
While all those independents who don't vote democratic this time pat themselves on the back for having the integrity to not vote for the lesser of two evils, and the result is four more years of the worst president in recent history, or maybe in the history of our country, I'll be looking for you bastards. While your busy claiming that you didn't vote for that swine, who happened to win because you took a stand against the two party system, while the country burns, I'll be looking for you bastards. I'll be looking for those of you whose passion for politics compelled you to self righteously stand by, dicks in hand, leaving it to the rest of us to put out the fire.
I'm sorry, what were you saying about "self righteousness?"
Ignoring your thuggish insults (and vague threats), your argument is very old and tired. It's been used by status quo loyalists for thousands of years.
If you honestly think that independent voters have more to do with the rotten state of this government than do the Democrats, you shouldn't talk about others being on drugs. Independents didn't vote to give this wretched, idiotic President unprecedented authority to make war all over the world. Independents didn't vote for the Patriot Act. Democrats did that.
And, let me get this straight, you're saying that people like me who don't vote for the spineless morons who, gazing at the polls, gave Bush and his monkeys the power they now flout, you're saying we're "bastards"?
You seriously need to rethink that.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Or maybe I'll just pack because I will no longer be able to live in a country where those who could have made a difference chose not to, for all the correct reasons. I suppose I should admire such political astuteness. But I might want to admire it from afar.
One doesn't "make a difference" by repeating behavior that has, for generations, assured us of corrupt and incompetent government. We've achieved the sub-standard government we now enjoy by repeatedly voting for self-serving opportunists because we think they're not as self-serving or opportunistic as "those other guys". The Democrats and Republicans can't stand for you to vote any other way. That's why we have a two party system instead of a three or four or five party system.
Basically, I believe that voting is like spanking or circumcision or even religious belief. Your first responsibility is to think long and hard about it. Once you've done that, then you deserve to have your decision respected. Now, I don't spank my son and I didn't have him circumcised and I choose to be secular and I'll probably not vote for Kerry/Edwards. But I respect people who do lots of things I don't as long as they've thought long and hard about it.
If you want to vote for Kerry/Edwards because you believe it will solve the problem of Bush/Cheney, I'll assume you thought about it and I can respect your strategy for dealing with that particularly stinky problem. But when you start insulting (and vaguely threatening) people because they don't choose to vote the way you do, then you're approaching the mindset of the totalitarian and I feel forced to respond. Because I don't think you are a totalitarian. Elections just make people a little crazy sometimes. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/20/2004 00:29:29 |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 05:08:32 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Kil quote:
While all those independents who don't vote democratic this time pat themselves on the back for having the integrity to not vote for the lesser of two evils, and the result is four more years of the worst president in recent history, or maybe in the history of our country, I'll be looking for you bastards. While your busy claiming that you didn't vote for that swine, who happened to win because you took a stand against the two party system, while the country burns, I'll be looking for you bastards. I'll be looking for those of you whose passion for politics compelled you to self righteously stand by, dicks in hand, leaving it to the rest of us to put out the fire.
Kil, man! I guess we can safely say you don't like our fearful leaders...
I agree. This is no time to push third parties. This nation will not survive four more years of these power hungry, lackeys of corporate greed. Since Tom Ridge is already making plans for postponing the election in the case of a national emergency, we may not even make it to the next four years. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 05:20:12 [Permalink]
|
By the way, Les,I do not know of a third party candidate that I would vote for, any damned way! I am not voting for the lesser of two evils--I'm voting for the lesser of all the evil twits trying to move into the White House.
Plus, I'm no fan of the modern Democratic party. These guys are no less guilty of selling their souls to the mighty corporate dollar than the Repugs. But, because of the state we're in, I feel the Kerry/Edwards ticket is the best at this time. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 05:49:56 [Permalink]
|
First of, Les, I'm a skeptic, and I've been one most of my adult life. Thinking critically is one of the values I hold highest, and I believe in it strongly.
I have other values, too, and the Democratic values are more precious and important to me (freedom, compassion, etc.) Even though I've shown you well-documented proof that the Democrats have made those values happen (Medicare, etc.), you keep harping on a few fringe issues in which you feel they've failed those values. I don't agree with you. I think the drug war is a peripheral issue at best. I have little compassion for coked-up criminals, drunks, street junkies, or upper-class recreational turdlings like Rush Limbaugh. Addicts are vacuums on our society. I believe in treating them to protect the rest of us, but they inspire no great compassion in me.
You apparently believe we should do nothing about the drug problem, which is frankly an untenable solution. My parents' home was robbed by a junkie. My car has been stolen (probably by a junkie.) I watched someone drink themselves to death. I have specific experiences with drugs and alcohol that shape my views.
It isn't hypocrtical to see the differences in complex issues, and I'm also weary of the "hypocrite" label being placed on anyone whose views aren't black and white. I explained to you that drugs cost our society enormously, and abortion does not. If you drink yourself into oblivion and get into a car and kill someone, I have a vested interest in bloody well stopping you. If I have an abortion tomorrow, you can argue that the fetus is harmed, but no one else is. BIG difference.
You ARE insisting that I see things your way. You're insisting that I criticize the Democrats based on the way YOU see things and based on the issues that are important to YOU.
In reality, I'm under no obligation to criticize the Democrats at all. It doesn't matter if I disagree with them on some issues. It doesn't matter to me if John Kerry molests chickens (and I'm pretty sure he doesn't.) I also explained to you that I have values and a vision for what I want the world to look like, and the Democrats embody that. I don't NEED a third-party candidate to do those things because the Democrats do it just fine, thank you.
You're free to criticize whoever you want and you aren't wrong to do it. But you're not going to get very far. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 07:00:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Les:
Ignoring your thuggish insults (and vague threats), your argument is very old and tired. It's been used by status quo loyalists for thousands of years.
My thuggish insults were intended to make you smile. I don't really care if my argument is an old one. This time, with this president, we have to do what we have to do to get rid of him, even if it means eating some shit.
I have more to say in responce to your post, but I don't have the time right now. Darn... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 08:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...turdlings like Rush Limbaugh....
Heh. That's a new one!
As an unrecovered alcoholic who speaks from hard experience, I think booze is the #1 dangerous drug in the country. It wrecks more families and kills and cripples more innocent people, including children, than any other. Smack, crank, crack and blow all put together can't even compete.
So, what's to be done? Outlawing anything that might addle the brain? Nope. 'S already been tried with disasterous results -- organized crime became a major power in this country during the Prohibition madness. And if anything, there was more hooch available during those dark days. Today, the above drugs are illegal and we have a 'war' on them. The importers and dealers love that war! It puts large dollars in their pockets, and who gives a rat's ass if some street junkies OD or are poisoned by crap, or get busted? Or even if those injured are kids doing the idiot experiments that kids do.
You'll note that I've left pot out of the list. This is due to a tiny ray of sanity showing it's self at last. But still, the prisons are filled with mostly harmless vipers who's only sin is having a having weed or a bong on the premisis. Tommy Chong comes to mind, and it looks like I'll never get a Chong Bong.
I myself use a fair amount of pot (illegally), but mainly to help control pain. Thus I seldom have get into the harder medications (entirely legal. I have an oxycodin prescription that Rush would suck a rattlesnake's hemipenes to get), although I always have some on hand for when it gets really bad.
So, where do we go from here? I do not envy the next administration (Kerry's). The drug control question is a Gordian Knot that will take a strong sword to cut. Thus far, that sword has yet to be forged.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 09:38:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I have other values, too, and the Democratic values are more precious and important to me (freedom, compassion, etc.) Even though I've shown you well-documented proof that the Democrats have made those values happen (Medicare, etc.), you keep harping on a few fringe issues in which you feel they've failed those values.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? Again you point out the good things the Democrats did 30-40 years ago and I point out the problems they have past and present. You ignore those problems and focus on the good things, which is the opposite of how problems get solved. Hey, you know, the Republicans ended slavery and created the National Forest programs! Those are my values, too! Where do I sign up?
And why on earth would you think that foreign policy, drug policy, criminal justice reform, and environmental policy are "fringe" issues? Because they don't affect you? I'm just wondering.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I think the drug war is a peripheral issue at best. I have little compassion for coked-up criminals, drunks, street junkies, or upper-class recreational turdlings like Rush Limbaugh. Addicts are vacuums on our society. I believe in treating them to protect the rest of us, but they inspire no great compassion in me.
So much for "liberal" values.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
You apparently believe we should do nothing about the drug problem, which is frankly an untenable solution. My parents' home was robbed by a junkie. My car has been stolen (probably by a junkie.)
Probably by a junkie? That sounds like a bigoted comment to me. Be careful, now.
Your parents' home was robbed by a junkie because, prepare yourself, drugs are illegal. If they were legal, taxed, and regulated, the cost of the drugs wouldn't cause addicts to break the law. Addicts commit a very low percentage of violent and property crime. I can tell you're unaware of this because you've allowed your own limited experiences with drug users to mold your opinion. That's the opposite of skepticism.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
It isn't hypocrtical to see the differences in complex issues, and I'm also weary of the "hypocrite" label being placed on anyone whose views aren't black and white. I explained to you that drugs cost our society enormously, and abortion does not. If you drink yourself into oblivion and get into a car and kill someone, I have a vested interest in bloody well stopping you.
It's ironic that you would admit that the drug problem is "complex" without apparently having done one iota of actual research on the problem. You believe that a person should be able to legally kill themselves with tobacco and alcohol (most alcoholics don't end up killing people in cars, by the way). And you believe that a person shouldn't be allowed to legally kill themselves with heroin or cocaine. That's hypocrisy. It's as hypocritical as Jimmy Swaggart or Bill Bennet or Rush Limbaugh.
Now, if you care to actually do a little research and refute the fact that alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of times the people that illegal drugs do, that they cost us thousands of times more money, then perhaps you wouldn't be a hypocrite on the issue. Then again, since it's impossible to refute the fact that alcohol and tobacco are so much, much more destructive than all illegal drugs combined, the point is moot. When you want to wage a war on people who use alcohol and tobacco (and prescription drugs which kill 100,000 Americans every year, nearly a hundred times the number of illegal drug deaths), then, even though I'll still disagree with you, you won't be a hypocrite.
And since you haven't tried to argue with facts or numbers (only opinions), I have a hard time believing that you're a skeptic, despite your claims to be one.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
You ARE insisting that I see things your way. You're insisting that I criticize the Democrats based on the way YOU see things and based on the issues that are important to YOU.
In reality, I'm under no obligation to criticize the Democrats at all. It doesn't matter if I disagree with them on some issues. It doesn't matter to me if John Kerry molests chickens (and I'm pretty sure he doesn't.) I also explained to you that I have values and a vision for what I want the world to look like, and the Democrats embody that. I don't NEED a third-party candidate to do those things because the Democrats do it just fine, thank you.
Please quote me where I'm insisting that you see things my way. I don't think you can. Again, I'm merely making arguments to support my positions. I'm sorry that you feel like I'm "demanding" that you agree with me, but that's not how rational arguments work.
It goes without saying that you're under no obligation to criticize the Democrats, just as Republicans are under no obligation to criticize the Bush administration. BUT! If you claim to be a skeptic, as you do, then you are obligated to look at things objectively instead of subjectively.
If you think the Democrats were justified in aiding and abetting mass murder during the Cold War and that they should never have to admit that it was a mistake you and I have very different "vision" of what the world should look like. If it doesn't bother you at all that Democrats have voted to give themselves nearly five times the average U.S. salary, that they voted to give Bush all the insane power he has, that they vote regularly to serve their large corporate donors, hey, that's your perogative. But people who brag about voting for such profound mediocrity shouldn't really wag their fingers at the people who, having skeptically thought about the issues, have chosen to vote for people and organizations that haven't proven themselves to be self-serving. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 09:40:59 [Permalink]
|
Tim, I can totally respect that. Hell, I don't even know who I'm going to vote for, yet. If I can find someone who just isn't an asshole, I'll be thrilled.
Kil,
If you were joking and I took it too seriously, I apologize. My arguments for independent voting and thinking, however, stand. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 10:05:14 [Permalink]
|
I should note that, looking at the original article, the source is ridiculously biased towards Republicans. I did a search for causes of cerebral palsy and found that there are any number of causes. Considering the biased source for the article, it's not likely that we'll get all the pertinent facts for the cases in question from there, but I'll keep looking. So, as far as I can tell, the article itself is from too biased a publication to take seriously. The doctors it quoted were not terribly satisfactory in an objective sense. I want research scientists, dammit!
So, without sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'll give Edwards the benefit of the doubt until I have reason not to do so. Especially since he's got that cute li'l baby face. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/20/2004 11:53:13 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 11:59:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And why on earth would you think that foreign policy, drug policy, criminal justice reform, and environmental policy are "fringe" issues?
Well, within the context of this discussion.... I'll take democrat foreign policy over republican.
Iran-Contra
Taliban (direct result of Reagan's assistance to Afgan in fighting the USSR)
Saddam (Assisted into power by Bush Sr. when he was head of the CIA, ect..)
Noriega...
War in Iraq now.... Do I need to explain to anyone what a disaster this is?
The dems have done some doozies also... but nothing as bad as the republicans in recent decades.
There have been some successes on both sides also, but the negatives always overshadow them. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 13:08:30 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I also prefer Democrat foreign policy to Republican, which is, for me, like preferring rotting fish intestines to raw human waste.
That said, Democrats supported Hussein in the 70's as much as Republicans. They also supported the Taliban (remember that they controlled Congress when Reagan was President). And it's essential to remember that when Bush asked for the power to invade Iraq and to pass the Patriot Act, the Dems gave him everything he wanted. It was only when the support in the polls began to slip that they decided to oppose Bush's policy. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
