Right on, Rick. Logic and honest argument is the way to go, and everyone wins from it.Comment Posted By longz On 11.11.2006 @ 17:28
Because of this last election, I'd bet a pile of gold that the next president will be a Republican. Come 2008, voters will be well aware that combining the White House with solid Democratic majorities in Congress would court as great a disaster as the one we went through.
For that reason, I'd put my money on a Republican candidate who is willing to work with a Democratic Congress, instead of declaring total war on it.
I'd put my money on Hagel or Bloomberg.Comment Posted By longz On 10.11.2006 @ 12:06
Questions of party power aside, the new monoculture poses an even greater danger to the country as a whole. We just saw what happens when one party so controls the system that no questions are asked, no compromises made. The country needs two vital political parties to keep an eye on each other and forge a consensus across the political spectrum.Comment Posted By longz On 10.11.2006 @ 10:22
"explode a few cherished myths of the left about how close Saddam was to building an atomic bomb"
The myth isn't that Saddam never wanted to build an atomic bomb. The myth is that because of the sanctions, Saddam dismantled his bomb program and showed the results to the UN. This was verified by the UN, the IAEA inspectors and the three US teams of inspectors who went in after the war. There's nothing in the NY Times report to contradict that.
Also, in the lead-up to the war, it was the New York Times' reporting that gave the most cover to the spurious claims about Saddam's weapons programs.Comment Posted By longz On 3.11.2006 @ 23:25
Bob says: "Rush made a point today. He is deaf. Can people say anything about him? Is Rush free from criticism since he has a medical problem?"
Even more to the point, Rush has another serious medical problem that people do, in fact, often make fun of - his drug addictions.
But if Rush were to make an ad advocating for treatment of drug addiction, I think people would be way out of line to say he was simply exaggerating his problem. And if, say, Al Franken offered an apology along the lines of "If I was wrong, then I'm sorry," most people would doubt the sincerity of his apology.Comment Posted By longz On 25.10.2006 @ 13:58
No, there's a big difference. For Michael Fox, the tragedy is his own, to do with as he wishes. The fact that he wants to let people see what his disease is about is not a matter of exploitation or "being used to shill," since he has total control over how he is portrayed. 9/11, on the other hand, was a tragedy belonging to the victims and to our country.
Your next point, "Embryonic stem cell research has shown so little promise up to this point" is very funny. Does this mean you think scientific research is useless if it hasn't shown results already? No wonder there's a Republican war on science.Comment Posted By longz On 25.10.2006 @ 11:07
Okeydoke, Nelle. So along with incineration, you are also ok with the cells being buried. And whether they're buried or incinerated, the 256 cell cluster should be disposed of "respectfully" and not be used to develop anything that could save other lives. No need for me to attack your position, Nelle. It's reasonableness speaks for itself.Comment Posted By longz On 25.10.2006 @ 09:39
Ed says: "I donâ€™t see one whole hell of a lot of difference between showing Foxâ€™s palsy for political influence and repeated displays of the 9/11 attacks for political influence."
For starters, Michael Fox chose to go on tv himself while the victims of 9/11 were given no such choice.
For another, 9/11 was an event that both parties had agreed right after would not be politicized. Embryonic stem cell research has been a political issue from the start: Pro-life people believe stem cells should be incinerated, while pro-research people believe they should be used in research first and then, if necessary, incinerated.Comment Posted By longz On 25.10.2006 @ 08:49
I think your confusion has to do with the timeframe. In the early 1990s, bin Laden had not committed a crime against the United States. At that point, Clinton is exactly right - there was no cause of action against bin Laden, just a bunch of anti-US screed from him.
It was only after the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya that bin Laden broke US laws and could become a focus of US efforts.Comment Posted By longz On 24.09.2006 @ 09:54
"The Narrativeâ€™s power lay in the fact that it erased most history prior to January 20, 2001"
And your Narrative utterly ignores the fact that the Bush administration was warned, authoritatively and repeatedly that 1) al Qaeda agents were in the U.S., 2) that they would likely try to hijack an airplane and 3) likely try to attack a major building.
The Bush response? The Taliban offered Bush bin Laden in Feb. 2001, but he never followed up. Soon after he received the urgent warning on Aug. 6, 2001, he went fishing. Even after he was told the country was "under attack," he remained in a classroom watching children read a book.
No matter what you want to make of Clinton's actions or inactions, they pale before those of Bush's.Comment Posted By longz On 23.09.2006 @ 14:27
Pages (2) :  2