TomAiello

It still seems to me that's situational ethics (and PR spin), not racism. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

By nominating John McCain? How, exactly is that "leaving" the principles outlined there? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Didn't you hear the news? The Obama administration is going to start strictly enforcing anti-trust laws...oh, unless you happen to be one of their political allies, in which case you get a free pass. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Being repeatedly accused (either openly or by implication) of racism would tend to make you touchy, don't you think? no, you're just overly touchy. and anyone who doesn't understand the importance of race in the us and its history is being very silly Interesting comment, coming from someone in a country that is much more prone to xenophobia and ethnically based violence. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A Libertarian is an Anarchist with money. The real difference is that Libertarians believe in the Rule of Law, where Anarchists do not. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Being repeatedly accused (either openly or by implication) of racism would tend to make you touchy, don't you think? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Situational ethics and (perceived) self-interest? The tendency to so quickly cry "racist!" on any number of unrelated issues (torture, gun control, states rights) is quite silly and unproductive. This is especially true when there are any number of simpler, more logical, and often openly presented reasons. For what it's worth, your lumping of "righties" together as proponents of waterboarding (or other "enhanced interrogation" techniques) is, from my point of view, just about as ignorant as trying to classify people by race. I mean, come on, can you really say that the latest Republican presidential candidate isn't a "righty"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Seriously? Dude, you've been living in the big city for too long. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yet again someone is trying to inject racial elements into a non-racial issue in an effort to paint those who disagree with them as racists. I am truly astonished at the regularity with which this tactic is dredged up. "Burn 'im! Burn 'im! He's a racist!" "What makes you think he's a racist?" "He oppressed me." "Oppressed you?" "I got better." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Come now, we both know that those guys are totally square. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What kind of election? Nationwide? Statewide? City Council? Also, recall that in the US, parties, do not, in fact, _do_ at all in elections. Candidates do. It's only in PR style systems that parties are voted for/against. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Honestly, I think that number is garbage. As a generalization, everyone thinks that their own (possibly Republcan) representative is doing great, but that the generic "Republicans" are bad. You see the same kind of numbers if you ask people whether "congress" is doing a good job and then also ask them if their specific representative is doing a good job. Unless the US moves to a PR voting system, popularity polls for parties are pretty meaningless. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Ronald Reagan. I'm assuming you've heard of him? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

yes, it appears very likely that cheney was torturing not to get the 'truth' but to fabricate evidence - in this case terrorist links to iraq - what do you think of that? I think that we don't know the truth of that, one way or another. Obviously, Cheney is calling for the release of more documents (showing intelligence gained from waterboarding) because he believes they will vindicate his position (presumably by showing that actionable intelligence was generated). Having only one side of the story makes it hard to come to any clear conclusions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For what it's worth, I think Colin Powell is another example of a (big government) neo-con foreign policy hawk. I welcome any development that involves that wing of the Republican party moving across the aisle, hopefully to create a clearer (anti-statist) philosophy for the Republicans, and also to more clearly show the divide (statist v. anti-statist) that I'd personally like to have a major party firmly on one side of. But I don't entirely agree. I think that Arlen Specter, for example, is a political opportunist looking out for himself. I also don't think that "the republican party" is speaking with any kind of unified voice, so when one person says "we don't want you" it's easy enough to find another who says "yes we do." To say that John McCain isn't a "true" Republican is, I think, a tad far-fetched. If memory serves, he did win a nationwide primary to become the Republican standard bearer. Those who think he's not a "true" enough Republican might want to actually ask if they, themselves actually want to be Republicans. If you're looking for an easy excuse to switch parties and get into the new, hip fad? Then it's easy to point at Rush Limbaugh and say "boo hoo, he doesn't like me, I better run away..." Today, nothing is cooler than using your Mac to make a Youtube video about how evil corporations are poisoning the environment, while you drive your Prius with an Obama bumper sticker down to get a latte at (evil, corporate) Starbucks. Everyone wants to be cool. For some people, that's the sum of their political beliefs. For others, there is a real core of beliefs under there that they're not going to stray too far from. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You ought to clarify what you mean by "liberals" here. The least inclusive, most dogmatic, most highly prejudging people I've ever encountered almost universally self-identified as "liberal." It's been just the opposite experience for me. Where do you live? I have a theory that the people in the majority in any given environment tend to be the least accepting and tolerant. Having spent the majority of my life in quite left-leaning places (I lived in Davis, California for 12 years), I theorize that I've encountered more "liberal" dogma than "conservative." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If he is so bad for the R's why dont the D's shut up and let him kill the party? It's more effective to draw him out and length and get him as much air time as possible. So, they engage him to keep him talking, and in the public eye. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Why do you suppose the Democrats keep bringing him up? Because they want to identify the Republicans with him, knowing that he is unpopular amongst the center of the electorate, and that identifying the Republicans with him will damage them in future elections. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

To get even more confused, check out Moore v. UC Regents. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are you talking about the conservative movement (which actually looks pretty active and energetic to me) or the Republican party? In any two party system (which is almost a foregone outcome of FPTP voting like we have here), the parties will always be big tents, often to a great degree. The current "Republican" alliance seems, to me, to consist of three major portions: Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Hawks: These guys are best exemplified by the Project for the New American Century. They are most strongly identified with a muscular defense and an assertive foreign policy. Dick Cheney is almost the embodiment of this faction. Personally, I have very little use for them, and I wish that the Republicans would jettison them (and trade them for the social liberals, like the gay rights activists). I'd argue that these folks are the antithesis of limited government, because almost all their objectives are supported by a larger, more powerful government. Social Conservatives (aka the Religious Right, or the Moral Majority): These are the people who genuinely believe in their faith, and in it's ability to guide public policy. Sarah Palin is probably their best-recognized face these days. I'm a bit uneasy with them (I'm an atheist) but I think that mostly what they want is to be left alone to run their own lives/families/churches in accordance with the precepts of their faith, and I can absolutely get behind that goal. I do wish they'd realize that they are usually in the minority on a national level, and drop any desire to impose their morality on others, but the truth is that most of the social conservatives I know personally have almost no desire to impose their morality on others, so I don't think that's much of a stretch. Libertarians: These guys pretty much hate government. They think that government almost universally does bad stuff, and is used as a tool by whoever controls it (the American Oligarchy, if you will) to oppress the majority of people and force them to do things that they don't really want to do. Think Ron Paul, but also (and less marginalized) Tom Campbell, Phil Gramm or Mike Huffington. These are the "less government!" types, and often include both fiscal conservatives (who don't want to pay taxes) and social liberals (who don't want other people telling them who or what they cannot put into their bed or their bong). I'm one of these. Obviously, there's a lot of over-simplifying here, and many people fall into more than one group. But the simplification is useful (and accurate enough) for many discussions. The reason that I vote for Republican candidates far more often than Democrats is because of the exact point you made: the unifying principle of the Democratic party appears to be a belief that government is the solution to our problems--which is the antithesis of my personal beliefs. In my view, the Neo-Con Foreign Policy guys (like Dick Cheney) are the ones who've lost the public's confidence. Because of circumstances (9/11) they were the leading force of the party in the Bush years, and are also bearing the brunt of the public's ire (fairly or not) over the various foreign engagements we're currently involved in. Because of this, they are exactly the wrong spokesmen for the larger group (the Republican alliance). What the Republicans ought to be doing is pushing forward the party's other faces, both because they can re-capture some public support and also because--let's face it--opposition parties don't make foreign policy, which is their area of expertise. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You ought to clarify what you mean by "liberals" here. The least inclusive, most dogmatic, most highly prejudging people I've ever encountered almost universally self-identified as "liberal." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

ALL politicians do that. I don't think the Bush administration was any more or less guilty of it than any other administration in the last 80 years (including the present administration). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Honestly, I think Cheney needs to shut up and let some other people get out in front of his party. We genuinely need more than one party, and his efforts appear to be aimed at discrediting the Republicans further, to keep a (stronger) democratic majority in power for as long as possible. I'd like to see a resurgent Republican party to balance the Democrats, and I think that there are numerous better options (John McCain, for example, or Charlie Crist, or Colin Powell) for a national leadership that will be much more likely to create that. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Mine is for suppressed use. An integrally suppressed .22 is the best thing I've found for teaching kids (or other people) to shoot, because it helps eliminate the initial fear of the loud noises and recoil. In some countries that's not an option. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Places like ammoman have 22LR for around $200/5000 rds...when they have it in stock. Not subsonic, though. The subsonic is usually more. Plus, I agree with the OP that most American .22 sucks compared to most Euro .22. I think it's because in some places that's all they can get, so it's viewed as a more "serious" caliber there. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's been fairly consistent between Reno, the multitude of Bush appointees, and now. Obama has pulled the torture policy, at least as far as official stances go. But we still seem to have the Patriot Act, and now moves to augment. And again, I have to ask; WHERE'S THE CHANGE? It really looks like, on most substantive issues, we're still following the same policies. George Obushma, Barack Obushma...same show, different lead actor. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com