Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 481 To 490 Of 657 Comments
"This lack of faith in the genius of ordinary people is a pretty good base issue for Republicans to run against."
Now that I would vote for.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2008 @ 11:16
Careful though Mr. M . . . distill this inspiring sentiment down any more and you'll be accused of co-opting Obama-esque platitudes. Although considering how apparently successful feel-good sentiments are in this market (is my Internet broken or is he really within 10,000 of taking Missouri and 20,000 of taking NC?), something makes me think we're going to hear alot of inspiring slogans in 24 months at the next go-round.
@Nagarajan Sivakumar:
I'm well aware of the dangers of a filibuster/veto-proof majority, nor have I endorsed it as a good thing or something I want or the country needs.For some reason, you seem to think that if I favor Obama today, that means that I absolutely worship each and every idea, policy, and goal that either he, the Dem party (of which I am not a member) or the "Left" may subscribe to. Of the two choices (excluding the irrevelant also-rans), I personally do not favor Obama so much as reject McCain/Palin.
I'd also like to make this clear -- I'd have voted for McCain in 2000 if he wasn't robbed of the nomination (IMO). I had a hell of alot of respect for him, putting him in my top 3 trusted pols list along with Hagel (studied under his brother, and consistently admire his principles whenever he displayed them) and Specter (disagree on many issues, but strikes me as "fair", whatever that means). 3 Repubs -- no Dems. Don't know why you're all so terrified of the Donkeys -- they're so incompetent they could have all the seats and they still won't get a damn thing done except dedicate some new flowerbeds and establish "hug a tree day".
Again, I did not agree with McCain's policies 100% of the time, but I felt I could trust him to be honest . . . or as honest as a politician is going to be. The last year, I can't say that anymore: Straight-Talk John turned into Sniveling Lying Weasel #6,547 somewhere, and between the cariciture (sp) of a once great man he has become and looking at Palin waiting to be given the launch codes, Obama is the lesser of two evils. Disagree? Bless you your opinion. I've been wrong before, no doubt I'll be wrong again. But this "sinner/saint" binary absolutist mindset espoused by many on the Right is, respectfully, nonsense.People like me are the cause of the government's crushing debt? I assume you pin the nation's poor fiscal management on me becuase you think I'm a Dem-Leftist-hippie who wants to "go socialist" -- based on nothing more than not liking the current makeup of the Repub Party. I'll play along: What would you suggest? Give the Repubs the checkbook? After all, they've got such a good track record for fiscal responsibility. Engaging in two simultaneous wars while cutting taxes -- that's some M.B.A. thinking there.
Still, I suppose you're right that its all the Left's fault. After all, they're the ones that added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare (and made sure to write the rules so the government couldn't negotiate for a wholesale discount) potentially tossing another trillion plus on the debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html) . . . oops. Sorry.
Well, at least the Repubs intruduced those bills to abolish Social Security like you seem to want and lobbied hard for them, but the Evil Left just kept out manuevering them. Oh, they didn't? Well, they did investigate steroid use in baseball. I guess you have to have priorities.Listen -- both parties are stocked to the brim with liars, cheats, self-serving dirtbags, and chowderheads. I don't think EITHER is the "correct" party. Why do the extremists on either side blame every single problem with the other party? If "people like me" are solely to blame for the national debt, its people like you that took the "free exchange of ideas" and mutated it into "who can chant the loudest".
Not that you care, but do you want to know why I'm voting Obama (not that my vote matters -- I live in Cali now, and something tells me he doesn't need my vote to carry the state)? I want these wars concluded We'd have signed the SoF deal with Iraq if the Admin didn't insist on being legally able to use Iraqi-based troops to attack neighboring countries, then we can focus on Afganistan and finish what we started before somebody decided to pull the troops out to invade Iraq. I want Gitmo closed. Yesterday. It's going down as one of the greatest National embarassments and humiliations of all time.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.11.2008 @ 09:53
I think I have a better chance of seeing those two goals met with the Blue team this go-round instead of the Red team. Plus, as I said I have so little respect for the Blue's ability to trip and hit the floor, let alone accomplish anything, that I'm less worried they'll cause more damage than, say, U.S. Government 2000-2006. But I don't think the Reds are demonic (except for Cheney). I don't blame every failing of the government and society at their feet. To paraphrase Rick M -- if the Blues win, we aren't going to become socialist. The government and probably society will swing a bit to the left, then eventually it'll swing a litle bit to the right. The world will keep spinning.
@Finrod:
Agreed you didn't mean hijacking as in stealing the election. I used that imagery to illustrate the point I was trying to make that a popular majority might back him, with no question as to whether it was a "majority".
If I understood you correctly, you meant "hijack" as in "force the country to change direction against its will or against its wishes". To me, that implies that America doesn't "want" Obama's policies or those of the Evil Left -- those policies will be forced upon an unaccepting public.
What I was trying to say was that just because you don't want The Evil Left's policies, doesn't mean that America doesn't. A (possible) landslide Dem victory tomorrow across all levels of the race (Pres., Cong., State/Local) would be a pretty strong sign that America may not all want to be granola-eating hippies, but if faced with a choice between The Goodly Right and The Evil Left the country would rather be Left.
Like I said before, I sympathize. I couldn't believe that America not only elected W in 2000, but re-elected him again in 04 after everything that went south in the first 4 years. It was inconcievable that rational adults would knowingly choose that over Kerry (twit though he clearly was). Hell, would choose W over a stale tin of baked beans. But they did. I still think America got it wrong, but being correct and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee at your corner gas station. Were his policy initiatives "hijacking" the country (setting aside Cheney and any alleged High Crimes and Treason)? I didn't agree with the "faith based" support groups funded at the government's expense . . . but it's not hijacking the country, just a policy I disagree with. Assuming the Evil Left initiate policies you disagree with, are they hijacking the country if they impose greater regulation on industry (as an example)? No. Its just a new direction, one some will disagree with but others don't. That's the way the game works. Let the Dems screw everything up, then the Repubs will come sweeping back into power . . . where they can screw up until the next switch of power. Sickening, but that's the system.
On the plus side, you'll probably be happy with the leadership 50% of the time, so it could certainly be worse.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.11.2008 @ 21:25
@finrod:
"I just don’t see how we can stop the left from hijacking the country. A gov’t controlled by the left can do as it pleases with little regard to my own personal ideas about America."
Welcome to how I've felt for the last 8 years.
Out of curiosity, assuming (a)Obama and The Evil Left wins; and (b) carries a majority of the popular vote (as opposed to simply ringing the 270 EC votes), wouldn't that sort of imply that "the country" was behind him? Not stolen, not hijacked, no hanging chads, no Supreme Court deciding when to stop counting votes . . . straight up popular support means that "the country" GAVE control to the Left. Willingly. Voluntarily.
Maybe, just maybe . . . someone who thinks otherwise is in the minority? Maybe thinking that The Evil Leftist Socialist Communist Terrorist Muslimist Boogey Monster is just around the corner isn't reflective of what "the country" believes. Hard to imagine I know, but its a big country, with lots of people (even if they don't live in "Real America"). Shame. I guess America doesn't know who she is. Thank goodness the "Real Americans" will be around to explain to everybody else how wrong the rest of society is. Its a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.11.2008 @ 15:34
@ David R Block:
I didn't mention religionin my comment, but I don't think it is an unfair term that you're using. If I were to describe the "religious" purity center of the Republican Party though, I'd use ther term more metaphorically (although there is obvious overlap between Theology and the Republican Base).
IMHO, the "religion" of the zealot base is the religion of the One True Faith, Republicanism -- Christian faith is merely the trappings. The "purge" has nothing to do with where you go to church on Sunday, but where you worship when you turn on the evening news. Do you demonstrate your damnation by watching godless, (perhaps more appropriately "Reganless") MSNBC, or Fox? As Rick mentioned in his "quit calling me a RINO" post, the inner core seem to have their political Bible, and like all ideas based on faith as opposed to reason either you accept them utterly and completely . . . or you are a heretic.
As Frank mentioned in #33, he's not a Dem but he and his compatriots are being ostricized because their political faith is not pure enough to satisfy the fanatical.
That was the "soul" I was referring to, ideological rather than theological purity.
IMHO, it seems self-evident in (with repect) comments like #32. Conservatives theoretically subscribe to the "traditional" ideals in regards to politics. What is more Founding Fathers traditional than the concept of governing by consensus, seeking to find the common ground among disperate beliefs to (presumably) serve whole of the citizenry? #32 seems to be saying that they would rather weaken the influence of the Party by purging the political heretics (notice not "political heretics" as in Anarchists or Socialists, but heretical in the sense that their demonsterable conservative ideals "isn't conservative enough") rather than grow the Party by working with others who believe (just not totally) similarly. If the entire point of politics and political parties is to govern, what is the point of shrinking the Party in a system that requires (at least nominally) some form of "majority" acceptance before you get Power? From #32, it seems like it would be better for Republicans to shrink their party rather than be associated with the unwashed political heathens. Better to be pure than effective. To me, that's religion.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.10.2008 @ 18:42
ginsocal #32 said:
"We will be able to purge any remaining non-conservative and/or corrupt individuals from the party. This should include those who aren’t politicians, but are in the “appendage” category-pundits, analysts, even whole think tanks, if necessary. Many have recently revealed themselves to be fair weather conservatives, and should be dealt with accordingly."Frank the Tank #33 said:
" In fact, the evangelical wing of the party seems to relish in pushing my type away. That’s fine if you want a lock-step platform that is never challenged. That’s also fine if you never want to win another national election again."That sums it up for me -- the Alpha and Omega of the argument (purity through pogroms or selling your soul for fun and profit), and they were even sequential comments.
I may not agree with most of the text on this page . . . but I love this site.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.10.2008 @ 08:37
Mike Reynolds said at #9:
"Whenever I have 'Obama’s gonna lose!' vapors I look to the McCain camp. We may not be sure we’re going to win, but man they sure are sure they’re going to lose."
Not only the most succinct comment I've seen about this "No, really, its a tie" whilrwind that sprang up in the last 24 hours, but also the most demonstrably valid.
There's still dozens of potential fact patterns that lead to a McCain victory, ranging from "difficult-but-possible" to "divine intervention". If the McCain campagn is sending out resumes and starting the "we lost because of XXX, which is not my fault" background backside covering . . . well, I have to assume they decided that keeping up a strong team image took a backseat to saving yourself.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.10.2008 @ 08:42
Bailing on a campaign under these circumstances has to tar them professionally -- if they're willing to burn themselves just to make sure they have a way out they have to think the ship is going down, and just based on who they are and what they do I can't see them spooking at rumors of weakness or a tough final stretch. ALL campaigns are brutal . . . that's what these people consider their 9-to-5 environment. You don't bail before the campaign's over if you want to work in another campaign in the future. Man, there's something they see that's got to be even worse than the "liberal MSM propaganda" polling. I mean, Obama's up, and up substantially, but not "Mount Everest unscalable heights" up.
They'd rather be known as fair-weather caimpaign staff than as bulldog-determinied soldiers. Not a good sign.
WHO ARE YOU CALLING A MODERATE?
Man, take a couple of months away from the Nuthouse and look at all the drama I've missed!
I've said before on this site, I think Mr. M has zeroed in on a fundamental disconnect in the Right -- the distinction between Conservative and Republican. Perhaps the two words were interchangable in the past, but more and more the Repub identity has discarded (IMHO) the concept of "Conservative" for a litmus-test approach not too different from what Mr. M outlined above.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.10.2008 @ 17:51
A group numbering in the millions has to have some flexibiltiy in how it defines membership . . . there's simply too much individuality among Americans to expect mass conformity to a checklist (and thank God for that). The more the party has demanded absolute conformity, the more it has forced itself to exclude intellectual bretheren.
I know alot of Conservatives, and I know alot of Republicans. Over the last decade, those two groups have become distinct from one another, to the point that most of my Republican friends cannot explain why they believe the "talking points" except to call me a commie for questioning them, and most of my Conervative friends cannot explain why they feel a kinship with the Repuplican Part except out of a sense that they can't be Democratic or Independent due to some legacy obligation.
Conservatism will not die, but if the Republican Party cannot re-define itself it faces serious risks, and that's bad for the Country -- I don't want an unchecked Dem gonvernment anymore than an unchecked Repub government. Here's hoping some time in the wilderness leads to some productive soul-searching for the perty.
@Quinn:
I appreciate you taking the time to look through the links.
The quotes that you refer to in your later comments are from Rick . . . not me. Those links were the first few I was able to get my hands on, and wer'nt specifically designed to address his claim about "hundreds, if not thousands" of torture victims. The only link of the 4 that was intended to directly relate to the issue of torture was the waterboarding link (the first one), and I don't think anybody is allegingthat waterboarding was used hundreds or thousands of times on prisoners.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.08.2008 @ 16:22
Due to some time-sensitive pressures at my job, I'm limited in the ammoutn of time I can assign to finding torture-specific links. I will certianly see what I can find, and I'll put links to it when I do. As I said before, I respect 100% skepticism without evidence, so your (and others') doubt about the facts is laudable. I also understand the suspicion of "Liberal" or "Leftie" or other biased sites. Unfortunately, before digging too much farther I can virtually guarantee that most of the information detaling with these issues will be found on sources like these, if for no other reason than they are the ones focused on getting and presenting the information. The DOD site didn't provide the information on their site by choice, nor would I expect them to. Again, I'll try to find sources as "non-leaning" as possible, but the topic is going to limit that to some degree.
Without speaking for Mr. Moran, I think his "hundreds/thousands" assertions are based on a combination of factors. First, we did torture prisoners -- at least the 3 acknowledged waterboarders, as well as multiple allegations of other torture (chaining up prisoners to the ceiling, extended,prolonged cold, beating, etc.) on many other prisoners. Second, there were/are thousands of prisoners in situations where the torture occured. Third, the Administration's handling of the questions regarding these situations (reditions, "ghost prisons", etc.) has been at best less than informative, which as a general principle usually suggests some level of concealment . . . which usually implies something to conceal. Do these three points "prove", like a mathematical equation, thousands of examples of torture? Of course not. But they certainly do make that answer for more likely than "Its all a complete fabrication of the hippies", and with each new piece of onformation that gets out the situation looks worse.
I get the impression that, based on all that has come out, and how it all came out, Mr. Moran has ultimately decided that the collective evidence makes the widespread torture scenario the believable one, and that to come to another conclusion is unsupported. Much like any court case, at a certain point Occam's Razor needs to be applied. Sure, all the evidence didn't "prove" OJ Simpson killed two people -- it is possible to explain everything away, but with the evidence presented, the simplest explanation is that he's a murderer.
Again, I'll see what specific evidence I can find re: torture of prisoners.
@Quinn:
"Sorry, Rick, but your sourcing is awful. You claim incredible things and link only to a single blog and a single NY Times book reviewer you admit is a liberal."
I've posted these links (and others) in these threads before . . . the usual response is to ignore them, but if you'd like sources that you might find less objectionable philosophically, would you at least consider:
Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy SERE facility in CA. The SERE training officer who was in charge of using waterboarding on our specialist trainees? Most of the "support" for waterboarding I hear from people echoes some version of "we do it to our troops, so it can't be too bad." This conservative military officer, who has waterboarded more people (all Americans) than probably any other American is imho a credible source as to what it is:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
As to the argument that "everybody in Gitmo is a battlefield-captured, shooting at Americans, hardended terrorist", Here are the freedom of information releases of the transcripts for "classification" hearings held there. Military transcripts. Hundreds of pages. If you click on the link, you'll see the site is hosted by the Department of Defense. Hardly liberal. certainly not second-hand. Case after case of the "battlefield conditions" the majority of these prisoners were captured under (such as the very first one . . . cooking dinner if I remember correctly).
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html
Article from the Natinal Journal. Even if you consider the organization Left or Liberal (I don't that that's a reasonable view, but to each their own), the reporting is pretty detailed, cite-specific, and relies on military, FBI and government employees.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm
I'm sure you'll decry this next link -- as you can see from the link, it leads to the ACLU site. However, the page linked is a collection of FOIA documents. Skip all the "leftie propaganda" if you like -- the collection of .pdf files is straight military and government; autopsy reports of prisoners beaten to death, acknowledgement of renditions and abuse, details (lots of details) of what has happened. If you discredit the site, again I disagree but understand. But do consider the documents prepared by the military politically biased against themselves?
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/logs.html
There are, sadly, more. Lots more. This information isn't hard to get your hands on if you look.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.08.2008 @ 18:25
You refer to the allegations as "incredible". I agree. You want to see more impartial, more substantial proof than "it was in a book" or "the reviewer said the liberal said". I can respect that.
Here is proof. First hand evidence. One click away. Military specialists, official military records, transcripts. Thousands of pages. No "someone said that these incredible allegations are supported" -- view them with your own eyes and make up your own mind.
