Next Four Years: no policy is too right-wing

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

OK then lets let them build it and bomb us. That would be a lot cheaper.

This is going in circles. Now we are back to being pro-active on attacking those that look at us funny?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have a problem with denying Iran nuclear capabilities?

you have a problem with Iran defending its own borders from a US attack?

I believe ANY country has the right to defend itself.

In Iraq, we have conveniently starting calling the insurgents 'terrorists' nowadays, makes it easier to kill them, when in fact, they probabyl have/had nothing to do with any level of terrorism, they just want us out and their country back.

fundamentally, there is nothing worng with that.

Telling the world that 'we are doing it for their own good' sounds a lot like the Crusades - too much like the Crusades.

We DO NOT have the right to invade another country to disarm them, unless they attack us, threaten us with the same attack, or attack other innocents that request our help.

All I have seen out of Iran is the likelihood that they are building nuclear weapons. No threat of any use of same, nor any threat against any other country.

What would you say if the rest of the world told us to 'disarm or else', given that we have more nuclear weapons than anyone, we obviously are willing to invade countries that are of no threat, and we appear to be on a Crusdae to change the world to Christianity?

I hope Iran does not use them, but I hope they stand their ground with the right to build them (as long as we continue to do the same.....)

The USA can be so hypocritical sometimes.

What if you are wrong?

Rather like Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney were wrong about Iraq's WMDs? You didn't seem to have a problem with that, but then it wasn't your land being invaded.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,587]

Until very recently, utilities were heavily regulated. There is enough infrastructure now that much of it can be deregulated -- without the government, I seriously doubt that rural electrification and telephone access would have happened even by now. It's a steady income source now for companies smart enough to understand that a permanent steady income beats a couple years of lots followed by nothing.

Things that require a certain standard to be safe or effective can either use the market or the government to regulate. Since there are a lot of people who will buy whatever is cheapest regardless of quality, safety sometimes is dictated by the government. And, yes, a long-term investment in education is part of the national infrastructure. I honestly believe that to my core.

If all insurance companies were to leave a market due to catastrophic damage (e.g. the Texas gulf coast, or Florida), do you really think the government wouldn't ensure that someone was serving them? They wouldn't ensure the cost was the same, but obscene profits would probably be regulated out.

I'd like to see construction on land prone to flooding, and construction that exacerbates the problem of surface flooding eliminated. But right now, what we have instead is plenty of that, and rising costs for the homeowners who live in houses that were quite unlikely to be flooded when they were built and bought. But with all the subsequent construction, there's less land to absorb water, and therefore the flood plain has changed.

Expecting people to plan for the long run is pretty stupid. Many of them don't seem to be able to see that their personal gain might not be in the public good.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Th Three Strikes Law in California is wildly overreported by media as putting away a pizza thief. Some Public Defenders have taken to calling ti, "Three Strikes and a Foul."

I think the latter description is accurate, for foul balls can be caught. It should be noted that these are all felonies that a thrid strike can put people away for.

Let me ask this - how is stealing a piece of pizza a felony? When it is taken via armed robbery. Whether it's a slice of pizza or a carkacking, its still a felony robbery.

I like the idea that if they mess up just this much, then you're back. My guess is that most of us go through life without committing felonies. It is not hard to avoid felony raps.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Things that require a certain standard to be safe or effective can either use the market or the government to regulate.

Well, concerning medical care, the Right would like neither. They don't want government involvement, and they don't like market forces (aka liability lawsuits) to enforce standards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

So tell me again, how radical is it when the majority of people vote for it?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wmw999 2,587]

I would imagine that not everyone who voted for GWB agrees with everything he might conceivably do. If that were the case, it'd make for an awfully shallow voting public.

Just as not everyone who voted for his opponent thinks Kerry (or Badnarik, or Nader, or whoever) hung the moon.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

Wendy, you know I'm not BUsh's biggest fan, so I'll leave him out of it for now.

Let's talk about state level actions. When things go up for state-wide referendum, and the majority of people support it, then by definition, it's not radical, right?

What gets me is that someone looks at what the majority of people have supported, sets up a strawman, says the entire thing should be scrapped, and then calls everyone else a radical.


ps - I hate it when people post something that obviously isn't their own and dont give us a source for it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

So tell me again, how radical is it when the majority of people vote for it?

And the gov't is there to defend the rights of the minority as well.

Or did things change when I wasn't looking? Just because you voted "B" instead of "A" you no longer have representation?

ps - I didn't post the link because it was from an international source and I knew a few people on here would dismiss it just because of that (aka blind nationalism).

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

OK then lets let them build it and bomb us. That would be a lot cheaper.

This is going in circles. Now we are back to being pro-active on attacking those that look at us funny?

Nope, we were talking about whether it would be cheaper to stop them from developing nuclear capabilities or to just let them go ahead. I'd rather stop them before they get a bomb.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Until very recently, utilities were heavily regulated. There is enough infrastructure now that much of it can be deregulated -- without the government, I seriously doubt that rural electrification and telephone access would have happened even by now. It's a steady income source now for companies smart enough to understand that a permanent steady income beats a couple years of lots followed by nothing.

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, however I don't think it relates to rethinking our entire approach to education. I think in the past some govt incentives were properly applied. I don't think the same rules apply today. A good example is satellite television. The companies who operate these systems made the investment into the satellites because they saw it as a long term investment. There has been no need to regulate DTV as there has been for cable TV because it doesn't involve the same financial commitment to infrastruture. While it's true they used the Space Shuttle to launch these systems, the Shuttle wasn't pupose built for this task and the govt is recovering the money by charging for the launch and by the taxes they recieve from the subscribers.

Quote

Things that require a certain standard to be safe or effective can either use the market or the government to regulate. Since there are a lot of people who will buy whatever is cheapest regardless of quality, safety sometimes is dictated by the government. And, yes, a long-term investment in education is part of the national infrastructure. I honestly believe that to my core.

I agree and in fact this support my view on returning education to the private sector. Why is it acceptable for the govt. to set standards for electrical appliances, automobiles etc. but not OK for them to set the same standards for education and then require testing to ensure a minimum standard is maintained?

Quote

If all insurance companies were to leave a market due to catastrophic damage (e.g. the Texas gulf coast, or Florida), do you really think the government wouldn't ensure that someone was serving them? They wouldn't ensure the cost was the same, but obscene profits would probably be regulated out.

I'd like to see construction on land prone to flooding, and construction that exacerbates the problem of surface flooding eliminated. But right now, what we have instead is plenty of that, and rising costs for the homeowners who live in houses that were quite unlikely to be flooded when they were built and bought. But with all the subsequent construction, there's less land to absorb water, and therefore the flood plain has changed.

I'd like to see the govt. through FEMA stop subsudizing people so they can continue to rebuild their Dreamhome at the beach etc, only to have it destroyed by flooding and then rebuilt over and over. Why do I have to keep subsudizing this? Why do I have to keep subsudizing a poor educational system?

Quote

Expecting people to plan for the long run is pretty stupid. Many of them don't seem to be able to see that their personal gain might not be in the public good.

Only because they know there's always the govt. there to bail them out when they screw up. I believe reliance on the govt. has become cultural in this country and it's going to become a generational task to undo the societal harm.

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

When things go up for state-wide referendum, and the majority of people support it, then by definition, it's not radical, right?

Depends on whether it's entirely a relative term from within the context of the people. After all, a majority of people in Italy supported Mussolini at one time -- was he radical? I'd say he was, regardless of the number of people who might have supported him.

Quote

ps - I hate it when people post something that obviously isn't their own and dont give us a source for it.

Um -- are you referring to what I wrote in the post you responded to? I'm afraid I made that all up in my own little head. The other posts, too, unless I credited them in some way.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

but not OK for them to set the same standards for education and then require testing to ensure a minimum standard is maintained?

The number of kids who would have to all be individually tested would make that difficult. As it stands, there's a whole lot of electrical and other work that's done by individuals that's not up to code, that isn't discovered until something is inspected or burns down or falls down. Do we want that to happen with the education of children whose parents don't care enough or know enough to ensure they have a good one? Parents who think that once their kids can write and cipher they know enough? Or parents who had trouble with school when they were kids, and so just kind of blow it off for their kids?

Yes, it's happening now; but not as much as if there were no penalties, and not as much as if there were no free public schools with some sort of standard.

Quote

Why do I have to keep subsudizing a poor educational system?

I submit that the educational system, while certainly not ideal, isn't as poor as many say. It doesn't compare with the education at the high end of any country. It can't -- the children of the "vast masses" won't have the same resources as those of parents who have money, and care about the education of their children. That's why schools with dedicated parents, even in poor neighborhoods, do better.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Depends on whether it's entirely a relative term from within the context of the people. After all, a majority of people in Italy supported Mussolini at one time -- was he radical? I'd say he was, regardless of the number of people who might have supported him.

Maybe Il Duce wasn't so radica;afterall. I don't think you can apply "radical" standards acorss continental lines. Considering that so many people did in fact support fascist military expansion, it might not qualify as all that radical. Consider how so many of our actions must look when viewed from the Orient. To us they are not.

---

I didn't mean you with the ps. That was for the original post. You've been contradicting me long enough that I can tell that your post was your own.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

In Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board last week approved the teaching of a newish twist on creationism called "intelligent design" - ...

...Two things have now changed, however. First, religious fundamentalists are succeeding in making their influence felt on school boards across the nation - everywhere from Colorado Springs in Colorado, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to the rural Midwest (not only Wisconsin but also Ohio).

8 of the 9 Dover school board members who voted for ID in the classroom were up for re-election. All 8 (Republicans) lost the election (to Democrats). I guess parents really do care about education.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

In Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board last week approved the teaching of a newish twist on creationism called "intelligent design" - ...

...Two things have now changed, however. First, religious fundamentalists are succeeding in making their influence felt on school boards across the nation - everywhere from Colorado Springs in Colorado, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to the rural Midwest (not only Wisconsin but also Ohio).

8 of the 9 Dover school board members who voted for ID in the classroom were up for re-election. All 8 (Republicans) lost the election (to Democrats). I guess parents really do care about education.

That is awesome. Here is a link to each candidates ideas on ID:

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3171822

Note that the former members all simply support it and that it is supported by "many" scientists.


The now elected candidates mostly say that ID SHOULD be taight as well, but in history or comparitive religion.

"During the trial it emerged that one of the main proponents of the intelligent design policy, Mr. Bonsell, has previously tried to get creationism on to the local curriculum. Of all the candidates up for re-election, Mr. Bonsell recorded the fewest votes, the NYT reports."

source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/09/dover_school_board_booted/

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

On the other hand, Kansas and ID:

"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5401577,00.html

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

I'm more afraid of a swore enemy of the US, who is persuing nuclear capabilities, than I am of our President. Silly me.

I find myself more in agreement with these guys:

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

"The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both." -- Christopher Hitchens

“I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.” -- H. L. Mencken, "Why Liberty?" January 30, 1927

"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837


I don't think you are silly. I think you are blindered by your genuine love for your country ...and therefore a danger to what you love.

jen

"Patrick Henry did not say, 'Give me absolute safety or give me death.' " -- John Stossel

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Gravitymaster 0]

I have the political and common sense to know the President isn't "all powerful" and know that there are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent extremism from either ideology. Unlike the "Bush is Satan" group.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

I have the political and common sense to know the President isn't "all powerful" and know that there are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent extremism from either ideology. Unlike the "Bush is Satan" group.

I not only do not believe he is satan, I don't even believe is is much in control of what is happening around him. Be that as it may ...

Would you agree (regardless of what either you or I believe will or will not happen) that the political climate of today provides more fertile ground for the possibility of a right wing coup?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I have the political and common sense to know the President isn't "all powerful" and know that there are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent extremism from either ideology. Unlike the "Bush is Satan" group.

What checks are those? The republican house or republican senate?

The fact that GWB has still not vetoed a SINGLE BILL...the first president in history to be able to claim that he didn't veto anything during an entire term, now going on two, is evidence enough that the checks are lacking these days.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Would you agree (regardless of what either you or I believe will or will not happen) that the political climate of today provides more fertile ground for the possibility of a right wing coup?

Your comment is based on the idea that only one party is out of control. I think that's flawed. (though, frankly, I'd have guessed, wrongly apparently, that you would have claimed the coup already occurred).

Actually, with the polarization of the extremes becoming a larger portion of the public, we might consider worrying about a coup from either wing. As stated elsewhere, let's hope that the overall environment pushes people to more centrist positions and results in politicians more aligned with the regular guy rather than just the loud and public special interest groups. That would be better than one extreme or the other gathering too much influence.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The fact that GWB has still not vetoed a SINGLE BILL...the first president in history to be able to claim that he didn't veto anything during an entire term, now going on two, is evidence enough that the checks are lacking these days.

GravMast - Come on, this is a great point, tie that to the horrible decisions on property rights by the supremes, uncontrolled spending by both parties when in control, the completely partisan basis of attack on every single issue, lack of journalistic integrity of nearly all the major news sources, etc is a pretty compelling argument that every aspect of our check and balance system has been degrading for quite awhile........ (my only point different than Jenflys is that I don't lay on just one party, it's been happening for a long time)

It's a good model, but the people aren't making sure we uphold it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,111]

>that there are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent
>extremism from either ideology.

Right, like the constitutional requirement that the US congress explicitly declare war on another country before commencing said war. Who declared war on Iraq?

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

>that there are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent
>extremism from either ideology.

Right, like the constitutional requirement that the US congress explicitly declare war on another country before commencing said war. Who declared war on Iraq?

The didn't have to fund it.