I'm In! - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 01-22-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Why is there no falling over for Condy Rice?

She's a monsterous bitch.

dc_dux · 01-22-2007, 06:53 PM

...and she has demonstrated neither competence as national security advisor and Secy of State (a complete and utter failure as a security "expert" and a diplomat, mired in her obsolete academic background in cold war issues) nor character (lied repeatedly about the forewarnings she was given by the Clinton administration about the al queda threat and shamelessly spewing crap about mushroom clouds as an excuse for our invasion of Iraq).

Host..as far as Reagan and Clinton, I said my analysis was simplistic, but I believe Reagan was a decent man, but certainly not a great president. His shortcomings were in depth of knowledge driven by his own simplistic belief in a misplaced ideology. But his rhertoric was more strident then his actions, particularly as president.

Clinton has admitted his own character shortcomings, although I would suggest that he was the most compassionate president among those listed and the only one to truly understand the plight of the working middle class and the poor (not that he always acted on it).

pan6467 · 01-22-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Pan identified the one sure three-fer in recent years - Mario Cuomo. Too bad he never got his chance.

I have loved Cuomo since the keynote speech he gave in '84. The question I have always wondered is why he didn't want the Supreme Court when Clinton was president. I think that was his dream, not the presidency.

As for future Dem. power: I see Eliot Spitzer becoming very powerful, I think my guy, Sherrod Brown will wield some heavy power, Andrew Cuomo, may if he can recover from his divorce.

Personally, I think Obama and Clinton will destroy each other, not just the presidential hopes but a total political destruction. From the ashes, we'll see someone fresh and very charismatic, with a very respectable past and character that is almost unflawed. Someone who will be viewed by both sides with respectability, complimented on how fair and honest he works and has the intelligence to know the issues and plans to work them out.

Who will this person be? I don't know, I'd like to say Edwards..... Gore.... maybe Evan Bayh.... someone we all know but I think this will be someone very few outside of his state truly know.

Someone who has flown low on the radar screen. Perhaps, it's a dream.... but I truly see someone like that coming out of the shadows around this time next year.

host · 01-23-2007, 04:51 AM

The high profile surrogate attacks on Hillary, begin....

I thought that even a stopped clock is right, twice a day......

(...is the notion that terrorizing the rest of us is the Cheney family business, only in my imagination....or ???)

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/po...erland&emc=rss
Published: May 31, 2005

.....In February, Liz, 38, was hired as the No. 2 official in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, her second tour in the region. In March, her husband, Philip J. Perry, was nominated to be general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security.......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201103_pf.html

<center><img src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/01/22/PH2007012201082.jpg"></center>

<center></center>
Retreat Isn't an Option

By Liz Cheney
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; A17

Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.

In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.

I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:

· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.

· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.

· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2384943.shtml
Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he's handling his job.

Two-thirds of Americans remain opposed to the president's plan for sending more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq — roughly the same number as after Mr. Bush announced the plan. And 72 percent believe he should seek congressional approval for the troop increase......

· Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away.

What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community and halt his nuclear weapons program.

A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and Syria, he said, "Because they know Iran and Syria aren't going anyplace. We're not so sure about America."

· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.

I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much.

America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory.

We must be in it to win.

The writer is former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 07:00 AM

Guys, I don't know why you are in love with Cuomo. I live in NY and he was governor here for 12 years. I certainly don't care for him at all. The best thing about him is that his successor (George Pataki) was worse. However, Cuomo is an absolutely fabulous speaker and he has a very good "common touch."

pan6467 · 01-23-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

(...is the notion that terrorizing the rest of us is the Cheney family business, only in my imagination....or ???)

I think she did her hubby proud, it was almost like you could see Dick, W, Condi or numerous others mouth them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Guys, I don't know why you are in love with Cuomo. I live in NY and he was governor here for 12 years. I certainly don't care for him at all. The best thing about him is that his successor (George Pataki) was worse. However, Cuomo is an absolutely fabulous speaker and he has a very good "common touch."

Maybe people glorify Cuomo because of what we have had in Wash. (even with Clinton, great as he was the GOP tied his hands and he was scandal ridden) add with the fact we saw him give great speeches but most of us don't have any idea what living under his governorship was like.

roachboy · 01-23-2007, 08:09 AM

nostalgia for articulateness is strange: i watched a really bad film about crossword puzzles recently--wordplay--which featured a few segments during which bill clinton talked about his fascination with and devotion to crosswords--i felt a twinge of near-nostalgia for him during these segments, simply because he seemed intelligent and could talk articulately about stuff that actually interested him. quite a constrast rightwing one-dimensionality of what followed--quite different from the one-dimensional partyspeak characteristic of conservative talking heads in general, who in the main operate using types of language that seem modelled on leninism more than anything else (the "wooden language" of the party)....

but i didnt forget for all that that clinton was an appalling centrist politically (not at all the left militant that the inhabitants of conservativeland like to imagine him to be)---same would apply to cuomo. hell, the same applies to most of the horses who have launched themselves into the early stages of this very long sporting event that is the election cycles--because constructing brand loyalty takes times and repetition--and because politics in the states is a kind of shopping, brand loyalty is important. it's what gets you elected.

pan6467 · 01-23-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but i didnt forget for all that that clinton was an appalling centrist politically (not at all the left militant that the inhabitants of conservativeland like to imagine him to be)---same would apply to cuomo.

Clinton wasn't a radical Leftist but he was Left of Center.

The problem in this country and you illustrate it very well..... as does Limbaugh when he talks.

If you are too far Left, even the moderate Left will be Right to you, perhaps too far Right.

If you are too far Right, even the moderate Right will be Left to you, perhaps too far Left.

You need to find balance in politics and in life, otherwise you grow into a very bitter, very negative person.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You need to find balance in politics and in life, otherwise you grow into a very bitter, very negative person.

Amen. Including balance in how much time you (or I, or anyone) spend obsessing about politics!

roachboy · 01-23-2007, 09:56 AM

pan:
so let me get this straight.
the "argument" in your post seems to be:

1. if i were to agree with you politically, i would be on the path to well-being, but if i persist in not agreeing with you politically, i am on a path to negativity and bitterness.

2. everyone who disagrees with you politically is the same, united in their disagreement with you. everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist.

so that

3.you are the center of the political universe. your positions are the absolute. everything about american politics is arrayed around you as its center.

i didnt know you were that important pan.
see what distortions a messageboard format can introduce?

mea culpa.

i think you could help me spare myself alot of work: why should anyone bother to think for themselves when they can just check in with you?

and if you do think for yourself and find yourself drifting unacceptably, you will inform them of this drift by throwing them out of the Big Musical.

dont get me wrong on this: i appreciate that you take time out from your important centering functions to throw me out of the Big Musical.
i take it as an example of your largesse, and i am suitably grateful.

but in order to reduce the time i may be spending flailing about in the Land of the Unacceptable and Bitter, why dont you let me know which positions of yours should i adopt in order to bring myself to happiness and well-being?

it'd help me become a better person, i am sure.

pan6467 · 01-23-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pan:
so let me get this straight.
the "argument" in your post seems to be:

1. if i were to agree with you politically, i would be on the path to well-being, but if i persist in not agreeing with you politically, i am on a path to negativity and bitterness.

2. everyone who disagrees with you politically is the same, united in their disagreement with you. everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist.

so that

3.you are the center of the political universe. your positions are the absolute. everything about american politics is arrayed around you as its center.

i didnt know you were that important pan.
see what distortions a messageboard format can introduce?

mea culpa.

i think you could help me spare myself alot of work: why should anyone bother to think for themselves when they can just check in with you?

and if you do think for yourself and find yourself drifting unacceptably, you will inform them of this drift by throwing them out of the Big Musical.

dont get me wrong on this: i appreciate that you take time out from your important centering functions to throw me out of the Big Musical.
i take it as an example of your largesse, and i am suitably grateful.

but in order to reduce the time i may be spending flailing about in the Land of the Unacceptable and Bitter, why dont you let me know which positions of yours should i adopt in order to bring myself to happiness and well-being?

it'd help me become a better person, i am sure.

Got to love ya RB.... you are almost a master of spin, Rove and the Clintons have nothing on you.

I'm not saying any of that. I am simply pointing out that people like you, Limbaugh and so on.... are so extreme in your political views you leave no room for anyone else's views.

If you are so far left that everyone else (say 90+%) is right of you.... you maybe the one that needs to move.... stop bitching how this person wasn't left enough for you.

If you are so far right that everyone else (again 90+%) is to the left of you.... stop bitching about how this person needs to move further right because he's not right enough for you.

If in politics you cannot balance to some degree and find middle ground to compromise.... you are obsolete, have no business in politics and are serving noone but yourself and your own self interests, no matter what color you want to paint it or how much perfume you put on it..... it's still one color and it still stinks and does nothing to better society.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 10:45 AM

I find it curious that mainstream rightwing thought is often characterized by those on the left side of the median line as "extreme." Here is a helpful rule of thumb: if it is the kind of idea that shows up without fuss in National Review, it's mainstream right. If NR tosses the speaker, as it did to Anne Coulter, and, I believe, to Pat Buchanan (whom many of the NR staffers regard as anti-Semitic) it's extreme right. Rush Limbaugh is mainstream right.

Trying to redefine the terms so that anyone X distance to the right of you is "extreme" isn't really fair. Plus, it's overly simplistic. I, for instance, don't particularly care for social conservatism or religious influence in politics. But I'm a quite adamant free marketer. Am I an extremist? There are plenty of people like me.

pan6467 · 01-23-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I find it curious that mainstream rightwing thought is often characterized by those on the left side of the median line as "extreme." Here is a helpful rule of thumb: if it is the kind of idea that shows up without fuss in National Review, it's mainstream right. If NR tosses the speaker, as it did to Anne Coulter, and, I believe, to Pat Buchanan (whom many of the NR staffers regard as anti-Semitic) it's extreme right. Rush Limbaugh is mainstream right.

Fair enough. I don't know I find most of the Republicans I know believe Limbaugh to be right of them.... definately not as far as Coulter, but more Right than they are.

Quote:

Trying to redefine the terms so that anyone X distance to the right of you is "extreme" isn't really fair. Plus, it's overly simplistic. I, for instance, don't particularly care for social conservatism or religious influence in politics. But I'm a quite adamant free marketer. Am I an extremist? There are plenty of people like me.

I don't think from your description you are an extremist.... however, all you have to do is answer this question (pretend you are a politician)...... If it were more beneficial to the country to compromise and give something to get something..... would you do it? Or would you hold firm and basically say "I know what's best for the country and it's my way or the highway."

Is not the first holding true value to your office, being a true statesman and doing what is needed? While the latter, is pompous, arrogant and self righteous bs?

If you can put aside your own self interests to better the whole... whether in politics, business or life..... you have a calmer, happier life?

Granted there are some issues everyone has where you will be unbending, that is normal..... but to be Left or Right on every issue and to take them to the extreme that it can only be done your way..... is ludicrous, idiocy and suicidal to society as a whole.

Sorry, threadjack ending......

I find it interesting USA Today really went in depth over whether Hilary could win. The battle lines are being drawn.... sad really the people who will suffer the most are us, the citizens.

roachboy · 01-23-2007, 11:10 AM

i am not interested in continuing this, pan: but read your post and you'll find that you WERE saying that. it might not have corresponded to what you were thinking as you wrote, but i would have no access to your psychological state as you write--any more than you have any access to mine. there is just what you wrote.

but what is absurd is that you followed one post in which you said this with another in which you said the same thing, except in the second there is a denial that you are saying it.

i have other things to do.

host · 01-23-2007, 11:22 AM

pan....I thought that the article I posted, from the Atlantic, contained information that thoroughly countered your opinion that Ms. Clinton was as divisive as George Bush, and I was disappointed to see that so far, you have not responded to it.....

.....can you consider that it might be irrelevant where you consider roachboy or me, for that matter, to be located on your political "road"? If most of the US population has allowed itself to perceive, politically, that the black space between the double yellow line in the middle of the "road".....is the boundary where non-extremists dwell? Couldn't this just as likely be a reasonable "take" on what the "road" looks like, from the POV of a self described "centrist" in France or Germany?
___________________________________________________________
_________________________Left Shoulder________________________
 
Centrist EU voter.........host
 
____________________________________________________________
______________________________Yellow Line_____________________

_______________Extreme Left Begins Here__________________________
______________________________Yellow Line_____________________
 Bill Clinton Centrist Americans
 George Bush
______________________________________________________________
______________________________Right Shoulder_____________________
Rush Limbaugh

Willravel · 01-23-2007, 11:33 AM

_

______________________________Off the road completely_____________
Bill O'Reilly

mixedmedia · 01-23-2007, 11:40 AM

I wonder where host thinks I am on that chart.

It might be an interesting experiment for those of us in the political forum to place each other on host's chart. Just for kicks. We might be surprised to see where we sit on the left-right scale in other people's eyes.

pan6467 · 01-23-2007, 11:40 AM

Host, I didn't ignore it, I just got lost in my own self righteous BS. (I do that occasionally.... ok so more than just occasionally.... sheesh. hard crowd to please...)

The article does paint Hillary in a different light, but, and it's just my gut instinct and how I feel, Hillary would be every bit as bad a president as W. Perhaps my instinct is wrong.

My whole argument isn't about being Left or Riht... it's taking the issues so far one way that everyone else is to the opposite of you and you refuse to compromise.

host · 01-23-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I wonder where host thinks I am on that chart.

It might be an interesting experiment for those of us in the political forum to place each other on host's chart. Just for kicks. We might be surprised to see where we sit on the left-right scale in other people's eyes.

mm, I'll let you shape my opinion...this test is far from perfect, but I think that it's main value is that the results can be compared to the opinions we have all posted.

Many of us here have taken the test linked in the OP on this thread, my score was similar to rb's score, if I recall....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=3880

Willravel · 01-23-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

mm, I'll let you shape my opinion...this test is far from perfect, but I think that it's main value is that the results can be compared to the opinions we have all posted.

Many of us here have taken the test linked in the OP on this thread, my score was similar to rb's score, if I recall....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=3880

That's an excellent test. I'm an 8. I don't think Hillary is in the right place on that anymore.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

all you have to do is answer this question (pretend you are a politician)...... If it were more beneficial to the country to compromise and give something to get something..... would you do it? Or would you hold firm and basically say "I know what's best for the country and it's my way or the highway."

Pan, you're collapsing two issues here. One is whether a person's views are extreme, the other is whether a person is flexible. Two very different things. Ted Kennedy, for instance, is pretty far to the left (at least if you take his public pronouncements at face value). But he knows that if he insists everything has to be 100% his way he'll never get anything done, so he will accept half a loaf if need be. His views haven't changed - he just wants to get things done, which is how he's lasted as long as he has. Ditto for Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the leftiest members of Congress - she's smart enough to try to achieve what's achievable, even if it means some of the loons in her district will accuse her of selling out by not insisting that things have to be their way.

mixedmedia · 01-23-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

mm, I'll let you shape my opinion...this test is far from perfect, but I think that it's main value is that the results can be compared to the opinions we have all posted.

Many of us here have taken the test linked in the OP on this thread, my score was similar to rb's score, if I recall....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=3880

I scored a 9. One point more radical than Hillary.

desal75 · 01-23-2007, 01:47 PM

I scored a 26 on that test. Probably right where I would have guessed (no pun intended).

Maybe some day we won't be divided down party lines and we (and those in Washington) will examine each issue on its merits alone and not what are party whip tells us to think.

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in America who gets violently ill when people mention gun control but also thinks that a gay couple should be able to legally marry whenever they want to.

Willravel · 01-23-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desal75

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in America who gets violently ill when people mention gun control but also thinks that a gay couple should be able to legally marry whenever they want to.

Guns don't kill people, gays kill people? The two issues are far apart. No one has ever murdered a family of 4 and then themselves with a 12 gauge man wearing heels. Apples and rainbows.

desal75 · 01-23-2007, 03:17 PM

The two issues are worlds apart. I pointed them out for that reason. Most of my political views are fairly conservative but some are at the other end of the spectrum.

dc_dux · 01-23-2007, 03:22 PM

12....smack in the middle of a Bill and Hil sandwich

..or a pragmatic progressive, as I would described it.

In politics, it is often not how you perceive yourself, but rather how your words and actions (votes) are perceived by others.

Rightly or wrongly, Hillary's negatives are as high as her positives in most polls and it is far more difficult to change the perceptions of the negative naysayers, particularly when they are constantly being fed through mischaracterizations by the Limbaughs, O"Reillys and Coulters....which is why I agree that Hillary would be as divisive as Bush, although eminently more qualified.

reconmike · 01-23-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Guns don't kill people, gays kill people? The two issues are far apart. No one has ever murdered a family of 4 and then themselves with a 12 gauge man wearing heels. Apples and rainbows.

Exactly, just like no one has ever gotten aids by being sodomized by a M60 machinegun.

desal75, i understand your point, I am the same way to also include abortions, I dont believe in them but, I do not want to take away anothers right to them.

32 for me on the quiz....

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 04:39 PM

I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who said gays should be allowed to marry and keep a house full of guns.

pan6467 · 01-23-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=3880

Wow that brought back some interesting names and some friends gone but not forgotten.

BTW I scored a 16 now, back in '05 when I originally took it here I was at 12. I guess I have grown a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Pan, you're collapsing two issues here. One is whether a person's views are extreme, the other is whether a person is flexible. Two very different things. Ted Kennedy, for instance, is pretty far to the left (at least if you take his public pronouncements at face value). But he knows that if he insists everything has to be 100% his way he'll never get anything done, so he will accept half a loaf if need be. His views haven't changed - he just wants to get things done, which is how he's lasted as long as he has. Ditto for Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the leftiest members of Congress - she's smart enough to try to achieve what's achievable, even if it means some of the loons in her district will accuse her of selling out by not insisting that things have to be their way.

And while some may view Kennedy and Pelosi extremists... they aren't as you stated they are willing to bend to get the job done.

What I'm trying to get across is that there are people on these politics boards, and on the radio and in life, that are so tied to party line and their beliefs that they would refuse any compromise because it doesn't fit into "their picture".

As you said there are those extremists "loons" that think compromise is selling out.

Say Kennedy gives in on an issue to get something else through.... the extremists start crying how he sold out and isn't "Left" enough. Meanwhile they totally dismiss the fact that the GOP had to make sacrifices also.

Or Bush makes a deal and the extremists rake him over the coals talking about how he isn't "Right" enough. Again, dismissing the fact that the GOP may have gotten an item they really wanted.

Thus Kennedy and Bush would not be "extreme" enough and thus to the extremist even those 2 are too centrist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who said gays should be allowed to marry and keep a house full of guns.

Here I thought it was corporal Max Klinger on M*A*S*H

loquitur · 01-24-2007, 05:29 AM

my point was that whether a person is extreme would be linked to what his/her views are - you can have extreme views but also be practical about things. I have some extreme views about the free market but I also understand they're impractical in this country today.

pan6467 · 01-24-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

my point was that whether a person is extreme would be linked to what his/her views are - you can have extreme views but also be practical about things. I have some extreme views about the free market but I also understand they're impractical in this country today.

I think everyone privately holds extreme views on issues close to them.

roachboy · 01-24-2007, 11:04 AM

extremist.
there's that stupid word again: like kurtz in heart of darkness, eh?

some positions i argue for:

i think education should be free to everyone.

i think basic medical care should be universal.

i think that the contemporary pseudo-debate about migrant workers is framed in a manner that makes it nearly fascist in its tone and implications.

i think the iraq war was wholly unjustified and that the bush administration should be held to account for it.

i think the bush administration reveals a real structural problem with american pseudo-democracy as there is no way to get rid of them for another 2 years.

i think "free markets" are a type of fantasy formation tht have more to do with the history of capitalist political economy (cheerleading books about it) than anything in actually existing capitalism.

i think the existing rationality (the modes of dividing up information, the modes of reproducing knowledge shaped by them) is incoherent.

by extension, i do not think the present order coherent. i have little faith that it can adjust itself, that it can be adjusted. it is on the basis of this assumption that i can see the possibilty of revolutionary action. it is also true that i see no coherent position from which this action could at the present time be carried out. but in principle, i do not oppose revolutionary social change. sometimes i wonder if that follows from liking the word revolution, though.

i think a radical political critique of the existing order to be both politically and ethically important. fundamental even. it is a mode of political and creative action. it is something concrete that can be done.

i do not see any of this as extremist.
there is no connection between these positions and any inflexibility in debates or in how i might think about the world.

i think that the word "extremist" as pan is using it is meaningless, except as an inflammatory term which is used in recurrent attempts to exclude others from debate. it seems to structure projections.
it never comes with anything like meaningful argument: it comes only with a series of nonsensical assumptions that are held together only by the word "extremist" itself.

if you want debates within which there is flexibility, pan, maybe you should consider ending your relationship with the tactic you use and engage more in actual debate involving content, rather than relying only on assumptions. arbitrary assumptions no less, because the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else can reach around posts and get at the 3-d reality of the person who writes them. given that, you are simply making shit up, and "extremist" is the term you use to justify that. it poisons debate: and then you act all surprised and/or miffed if things unfold predictably from there.

pan6467 · 01-24-2007, 11:47 AM

For someone who said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am not interested in continuing this, pan: but read your post and you'll find that you WERE saying that. it might not have corresponded to what you were thinking as you wrote, but i would have no access to your psychological state as you write--any more than you have any access to mine. there is just what you wrote.

but what is absurd is that you followed one post in which you said this with another in which you said the same thing, except in the second there is a denial that you are saying it.

i have other things to do.

you sure are worried about my thinking you an extremist.

I'm spelling it out for you 1 last time, RB.
If you are so far left that everyone is right of you politically and you cannot compromise you are an extremist. (Either side)

RB I have come to the conclusion you are no more than an USTWO on the Left....... you are so self righteous and full of preaching what you believe to be the only way... you are blind.

Same can be said for me actually, in cases like this where I self righteously point out others shortcomings..... but this is politics and we all have those beliefs we hold and nothing can or will sway us unless we let it.

I can't be locked into "my way or the highway" anymore. I did that, made me evil and sick and mean. I prefer to look at things from both sides and work with people of differing views to come together and form a solution that can work and be helpful to the most people possible. I want my politicians that I elect to do that.... I don't want them to be self righteous and so full of themselves they get nothing done.... we've had 6 years of that with King George II and quite a few with Newt and the boys trying to bully Clinton. ENOUGH already.

I refuse to get into the hate politics anymore.... this is one reason Hillary and Obama do not interest me, right or wrong, I view them as hate mongers whether it is they that do the hating or the opposition that does it. Either way very little gets done to truly help the people.

host · 01-24-2007, 12:26 PM

pan....can you post something....anything....that we can "sink our teeth into".
Something that can be examined, held up to the light. I posted an article of eleven pages, written last november, that some are saying is the current definitive article on Hillary Clinton. It offers verifiable information....an example is her political opponent, Sen. Sam Brownback's reaching out to her, in a prayer breakfast of all places, her response of immediate, genuine, forgiveness, and the"proof"...the two went on from there to work together on legislative issues.

I don't have a horse in that race, pan. I don't even like Hillary. I liked your bold, red lettered rant, even less. Especially after your red lettered comments, it was incumbent upon you, to offer more than an "I feel this way......".

You've backed up nothing, pan. If moving towards the middle is simply replacing facts with feelings, it's a big disappointment to watch. I'm uncomfortable ever stating anything that I can't share the reasoning....the research behind. If that is "extreme", then call me an extremist.

If "I still feel" that such and such is such....and that is all that you've got, IMO it borders on an incoherent post. You say you have "grown" since the last time that you took the "left or right" test. To me, "growing" is an increasing ability to defend your arguments, even if it is to your own satisfaction.....but it should include an effort to include an increasing body of reliable sources to draw from to support your new found thinking.

Why aren't you sharing it with us?

pan6467 · 01-24-2007, 12:37 PM

I wish I could answer that Host. Just Hillary evokes much iirrational ire in me. Much the same way W, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR and so on do in others.

I wish I knew what it was Host.

Is it the way she looks? I think she looks like a bitch, but that doesn't mean anything.

Is the way she talks? It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, she's shrill and talks much but says little. (But I do the same thing.)

Is it the fact she has this power hungry reputation? Could be....

Is it that I see her more as a polarist than bringing together people to better the nation? Yes.... but it's just gut feeling and observation... I have no proof just the way I feel.

Can I give her a chance? NO.... because as much as I want to be open minded... I can't be with her. It's kind of like W, just when I think either one has something I can respect in them.... they open their mouths and disprove that idea.

Sorry to let ya down Host, but those are among my reasons... I can delve deeper but they're all my opinion and gut instinct and to be honest, I trust them far more than I will ever trust her.... but as you have implied, that is not good enough reason... so I'll be quiet on the issue and let those with knowledge speak.

roachboy · 01-24-2007, 04:16 PM

i'm hardly worried about it, pan: i just find it irritating.

i ended the post before the last one as i did because i had other things to do in 3-d.

when i got back to the thread, i was surprised--and i really dont know why--that you continued to post in the same vein, as if there was something to be taken seriously in your bizarre-o classification game.

if this was the only thread in which you decided to play this particular way, i really wouldnt have cared and certainly would not have wasted the effort on posting a response of any kind. perhaps it would have been better that way in any event, since "whatever" or its equivalent seems the only rational response. but it wasn't the only time: you do this same thing all the time.

i am not sure that i disagree with your politics because i see so little of them really that it is hard to say anything.

loquitur · 01-24-2007, 06:19 PM

I dunno, guys, I can't speak for anyone else, and as I said, I have come to have a good amount of respect for Hillary (I voted for her for reelection to the Senate last Nov) -- but I do remember why I didn't like her before. It was because I was convinced (a) she wasn't genuine in how she dealt with others, that everything she did was carefully calculated and calibrated, and (b) if you scratch through her exterior to look at what's underneath, deep deep down she's got a strong socialist impulse that skews her thinking.

What brought me around was the realization that being calculated and calibrated can actually be useful and help you get things accomplished. Even if she's not genuine, she's smart, she works hard and she's well informed. And she's very talented - in different ways from the way Bill is talented, but talented nonetheless. She'd probably be a good president precisely because she's so careful and controlled. But lots of people would be good presidents. I'm not sure she's right for the country because of her baggage. That said, if the election for Senator was tomorrow I'd vote for her again.

desal75 · 01-25-2007, 07:32 AM

Loquitur, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. I can completely see your point and I will admit that her connections and national prominence have probably helped NYS a couple of times in Congress. I just felt somewhat perplexed that she chose our state to run for Senate in considering she had no prior connection with us. I know very few Senators and Representatives live in there state but the majority at least hail from that state or have, at some point, lived there.

Of course, us Western New Yorkers probably have a completely different outlook on it than those of you in NYC. We do tend to think all state politics are biased towards the City and downstate but a lot of that is just perception.

loquitur · 01-25-2007, 07:59 PM

Desal, I didn't vote for her in 2000. I did vote for her in 2006. In 2000 I thought pretty much the way you just described.

As for NY state politics.......... well, I think we have one of the worst state governments in the country, possibly the worst.

mo42 · 01-25-2007, 11:44 PM

Something about Hillary rubs me the wrong way. While Obama is inexperienced, his charisma and idealism are just what I think the country could use right now.

I also think that we could use more discretionary spending so that we're not in debt up to our eyeballs, but that's a different topic.

View Poll Results: Who Do You Vote For?
Hillary Clinton	9	23.68%
Barak Obama	29	76.32%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

01-22-2007, 06:53 PM	#42 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	...and she has demonstrated neither competence as national security advisor and Secy of State (a complete and utter failure as a security "expert" and a diplomat, mired in her obsolete academic background in cold war issues) nor character (lied repeatedly about the forewarnings she was given by the Clinton administration about the al queda threat and shamelessly spewing crap about mushroom clouds as an excuse for our invasion of Iraq). Host..as far as Reagan and Clinton, I said my analysis was simplistic, but I believe Reagan was a decent man, but certainly not a great president. His shortcomings were in depth of knowledge driven by his own simplistic belief in a misplaced ideology. But his rhertoric was more strident then his actions, particularly as president. Clinton has admitted his own character shortcomings, although I would suggest that he was the most compassionate president among those listed and the only one to truly understand the plight of the working middle class and the poor (not that he always acted on it). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-22-2007 at 07:17 PM..

01-23-2007, 07:00 AM	#45 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Guys, I don't know why you are in love with Cuomo. I live in NY and he was governor here for 12 years. I certainly don't care for him at all. The best thing about him is that his successor (George Pataki) was worse. However, Cuomo is an absolutely <i><b>fabulous</i></b> speaker and he has a very good "common touch."

01-23-2007, 08:09 AM	#47 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nostalgia for articulateness is strange: i watched a really bad film about crossword puzzles recently--wordplay--which featured a few segments during which bill clinton talked about his fascination with and devotion to crosswords--i felt a twinge of near-nostalgia for him during these segments, simply because he seemed intelligent and could talk articulately about stuff that actually interested him. quite a constrast rightwing one-dimensionality of what followed--quite different from the one-dimensional partyspeak characteristic of conservative talking heads in general, who in the main operate using types of language that seem modelled on leninism more than anything else (the "wooden language" of the party).... but i didnt forget for all that that clinton was an appalling centrist politically (not at all the left militant that the inhabitants of conservativeland like to imagine him to be)---same would apply to cuomo. hell, the same applies to most of the horses who have launched themselves into the early stages of this very long sporting event that is the election cycles--because constructing brand loyalty takes times and repetition--and because politics in the states is a kind of shopping, brand loyalty is important. it's what gets you elected. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-23-2007, 09:56 AM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan: so let me get this straight. the "argument" in your post seems to be: 1. if i were to agree with you politically, i would be on the path to well-being, but if i persist in not agreeing with you politically, i am on a path to negativity and bitterness. 2. everyone who disagrees with you politically is the same, united in their disagreement with you. everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist. so that 3.you are the center of the political universe. your positions are the absolute. everything about american politics is arrayed around you as its center. i didnt know you were that important pan. see what distortions a messageboard format can introduce? mea culpa. i think you could help me spare myself alot of work: why should anyone bother to think for themselves when they can just check in with you? and if you do think for yourself and find yourself drifting unacceptably, you will inform them of this drift by throwing them out of the Big Musical. dont get me wrong on this: i appreciate that you take time out from your important centering functions to throw me out of the Big Musical. i take it as an example of your largesse, and i am suitably grateful. but in order to reduce the time i may be spending flailing about in the Land of the Unacceptable and Bitter, why dont you let me know which positions of yours should i adopt in order to bring myself to happiness and well-being? it'd help me become a better person, i am sure. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-23-2007, 10:45 AM	#52 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I find it curious that mainstream rightwing thought is often characterized by those on the left side of the median line as "extreme." Here is a helpful rule of thumb: if it is the kind of idea that shows up without fuss in <i>National Review</i>, it's mainstream right. If <i>NR</i> tosses the speaker, as it did to Anne Coulter, and, I believe, to Pat Buchanan (whom many of the NR staffers regard as anti-Semitic) it's extreme right. Rush Limbaugh is mainstream right. Trying to redefine the terms so that anyone X distance to the right of you is "extreme" isn't really fair. Plus, it's overly simplistic. I, for instance, don't particularly care for social conservatism or religious influence in politics. But I'm a quite adamant free marketer. Am I an extremist? There are plenty of people like me.

01-23-2007, 11:10 AM	#54 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am not interested in continuing this, pan: but read your post and you'll find that you WERE saying that. it might not have corresponded to what you were thinking as you wrote, but i would have no access to your psychological state as you write--any more than you have any access to mine. there is just what you wrote. but what is absurd is that you followed one post in which you said this with another in which you said the same thing, except in the second there is a denial that you are saying it. i have other things to do. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-23-2007, 11:22 AM	#55 (permalink)
host Banned	pan....I thought that the article I posted, from the Atlantic, contained information that thoroughly countered your opinion that Ms. Clinton was as divisive as George Bush, and I was disappointed to see that so far, you have not responded to it..... .....can you consider that it might be irrelevant where you consider roachboy or me, for that matter, to be located on your political "road"? If most of the US population has allowed itself to perceive, politically, that the black space between the double yellow line in the middle of the "road".....is the boundary where non-extremists dwell? Couldn't this just as likely be a reasonable "take" on what the "road" looks like, from the POV of a self described "centrist" in France or Germany? ___________________________________________________________ _________________________Left Shoulder________________________ <br><br><br> Centrist EU voter.........host <br><br><br> ____________________________________________________________ ______________________________Yellow Line_____________________ _______________Extreme Left Begins Here__________________________ ______________________________Yellow Line_____________________ <br><br><br><br>Bill Clinton<br><br><br><br>Centrist Americans <br><br><br>George Bush ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________Right Shoulder_____________________ Rush Limbaugh

01-23-2007, 11:33 AM	#56 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	_ ______________________________Off the road completely_____________ Bill O'Reilly

01-23-2007, 11:40 AM	#57 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I wonder where host thinks I am on that chart. It might be an interesting experiment for those of us in the political forum to place each other on host's chart. Just for kicks. We might be surprised to see where we sit on the left-right scale in other people's eyes. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

01-23-2007, 11:40 AM	#58 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Host, I didn't ignore it, I just got lost in my own self righteous BS. (I do that occasionally.... ok so more than just occasionally.... sheesh. hard crowd to please...) The article does paint Hillary in a different light, but, and it's just my gut instinct and how I feel, Hillary would be every bit as bad a president as W. Perhaps my instinct is wrong. My whole argument isn't about being Left or Riht... it's taking the issues so far one way that everyone else is to the opposite of you and you refuse to compromise. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-23-2007, 01:47 PM	#63 (permalink)
desal75 Psycho Location: Western New York	I scored a 26 on that test. Probably right where I would have guessed (no pun intended). Maybe some day we won't be divided down party lines and we (and those in Washington) will examine each issue on its merits alone and not what are party whip tells us to think. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in America who gets violently ill when people mention gun control but also thinks that a gay couple should be able to legally marry whenever they want to. __________________ The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

01-23-2007, 03:17 PM	#65 (permalink)
desal75 Psycho Location: Western New York	The two issues are worlds apart. I pointed them out for that reason. Most of my political views are fairly conservative but some are at the other end of the spectrum. __________________ The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

01-23-2007, 03:22 PM	#66 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	12....smack in the middle of a Bill and Hil sandwich ..or a pragmatic progressive, as I would described it. In politics, it is often not how you perceive yourself, but rather how your words and actions (votes) are perceived by others. Rightly or wrongly, Hillary's negatives are as high as her positives in most polls and it is far more difficult to change the perceptions of the negative naysayers, particularly when they are constantly being fed through mischaracterizations by the Limbaughs, O"Reillys and Coulters....which is why I agree that Hillary would be as divisive as Bush, although eminently more qualified. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2007 at 03:26 PM..

01-23-2007, 04:39 PM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who said gays should be allowed to marry and keep a house full of guns.

01-24-2007, 05:29 AM	#70 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	my point was that whether a person is extreme would be linked to what his/her views are - you can have extreme views but also be practical about things. I have some extreme views about the free market but I also understand they're impractical in this country today.

01-24-2007, 11:04 AM	#72 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	extremist. there's that stupid word again: like kurtz in heart of darkness, eh? some positions i argue for: i think education should be free to everyone. i think basic medical care should be universal. i think that the contemporary pseudo-debate about migrant workers is framed in a manner that makes it nearly fascist in its tone and implications. i think the iraq war was wholly unjustified and that the bush administration should be held to account for it. i think the bush administration reveals a real structural problem with american pseudo-democracy as there is no way to get rid of them for another 2 years. i think "free markets" are a type of fantasy formation tht have more to do with the history of capitalist political economy (cheerleading books about it) than anything in actually existing capitalism. i think the existing rationality (the modes of dividing up information, the modes of reproducing knowledge shaped by them) is incoherent. by extension, i do not think the present order coherent. i have little faith that it can adjust itself, that it can be adjusted. it is on the basis of this assumption that i can see the possibilty of revolutionary action. it is also true that i see no coherent position from which this action could at the present time be carried out. but in principle, i do not oppose revolutionary social change. sometimes i wonder if that follows from liking the word revolution, though. i think a radical political critique of the existing order to be both politically and ethically important. fundamental even. it is a mode of political and creative action. it is something concrete that can be done. i do not see any of this as extremist. there is no connection between these positions and any inflexibility in debates or in how i might think about the world. i think that the word "extremist" as pan is using it is meaningless, except as an inflammatory term which is used in recurrent attempts to exclude others from debate. it seems to structure projections. it never comes with anything like meaningful argument: it comes only with a series of nonsensical assumptions that are held together only by the word "extremist" itself. if you want debates within which there is flexibility, pan, maybe you should consider ending your relationship with the tactic you use and engage more in actual debate involving content, rather than relying only on assumptions. arbitrary assumptions no less, because the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else can reach around posts and get at the 3-d reality of the person who writes them. given that, you are simply making shit up, and "extremist" is the term you use to justify that. it poisons debate: and then you act all surprised and/or miffed if things unfold predictably from there. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-24-2007, 12:26 PM	#74 (permalink)
host Banned	pan....can you post something....anything....that we can "sink our teeth into". Something that can be examined, held up to the light. I posted an article of eleven pages, written last november, that some are saying is the current definitive article on Hillary Clinton. It offers verifiable information....an example is her political opponent, Sen. Sam Brownback's reaching out to her, in a prayer breakfast of all places, her response of immediate, genuine, forgiveness, and the"proof"...the two went on from there to work together on legislative issues. I don't have a horse in that race, pan. I don't even like Hillary. I liked your bold, red lettered rant, even less. Especially after your red lettered comments, it was incumbent upon you, to offer more than an "I feel this way......". You've backed up nothing, pan. If moving towards the middle is simply replacing facts with feelings, it's a big disappointment to watch. I'm uncomfortable ever stating anything that I can't share the reasoning....the research behind. If that is "extreme", then call me an extremist. If "I still feel" that such and such is such....and that is all that you've got, IMO it borders on an incoherent post. You say you have "grown" since the last time that you took the "left or right" test. To me, "growing" is an increasing ability to defend your arguments, even if it is to your own satisfaction.....but it should include an effort to include an increasing body of reliable sources to draw from to support your new found thinking. Why aren't you sharing it with us?

01-24-2007, 12:37 PM	#75 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I wish I could answer that Host. Just Hillary evokes much iirrational ire in me. Much the same way W, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR and so on do in others. I wish I knew what it was Host. Is it the way she looks? I think she looks like a bitch, but that doesn't mean anything. Is the way she talks? It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, she's shrill and talks much but says little. (But I do the same thing.) Is it the fact she has this power hungry reputation? Could be.... Is it that I see her more as a polarist than bringing together people to better the nation? Yes.... but it's just gut feeling and observation... I have no proof just the way I feel. Can I give her a chance? NO.... because as much as I want to be open minded... I can't be with her. It's kind of like W, just when I think either one has something I can respect in them.... they open their mouths and disprove that idea. Sorry to let ya down Host, but those are among my reasons... I can delve deeper but they're all my opinion and gut instinct and to be honest, I trust them far more than I will ever trust her.... but as you have implied, that is not good enough reason... so I'll be quiet on the issue and let those with knowledge speak. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-24-2007, 04:16 PM	#76 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm hardly worried about it, pan: i just find it irritating. i ended the post before the last one as i did because i had other things to do in 3-d. when i got back to the thread, i was surprised--and i really dont know why--that you continued to post in the same vein, as if there was something to be taken seriously in your bizarre-o classification game. if this was the only thread in which you decided to play this particular way, i really wouldnt have cared and certainly would not have wasted the effort on posting a response of any kind. perhaps it would have been better that way in any event, since "whatever" or its equivalent seems the only rational response. but it wasn't the only time: you do this same thing all the time. i am not sure that i disagree with your politics because i see so little of them really that it is hard to say anything. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-24-2007, 06:19 PM	#77 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I dunno, guys, I can't speak for anyone else, and as I said, I have come to have a good amount of respect for Hillary (I voted for her for reelection to the Senate last Nov) -- but I do remember why I didn't like her before. It was because I was convinced (a) she wasn't genuine in how she dealt with others, that everything she did was carefully calculated and calibrated, and (b) if you scratch through her exterior to look at what's underneath, deep deep down she's got a strong socialist impulse that skews her thinking. What brought me around was the realization that being calculated and calibrated can actually be useful and help you get things accomplished. Even if she's not genuine, she's smart, she works hard and she's well informed. And she's very talented - in different ways from the way Bill is talented, but talented nonetheless. She'd probably be a good president precisely because she's so careful and controlled. But lots of people would be good presidents. I'm not sure she's right for the country because of her baggage. That said, if the election for Senator was tomorrow I'd vote for her again.

01-25-2007, 07:32 AM	#78 (permalink)
desal75 Psycho Location: Western New York	Loquitur, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. I can completely see your point and I will admit that her connections and national prominence have probably helped NYS a couple of times in Congress. I just felt somewhat perplexed that she chose our state to run for Senate in considering she had no prior connection with us. I know very few Senators and Representatives live in there state but the majority at least hail from that state or have, at some point, lived there. Of course, us Western New Yorkers probably have a completely different outlook on it than those of you in NYC. We do tend to think all state politics are biased towards the City and downstate but a lot of that is just perception. __________________ The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

01-25-2007, 07:59 PM	#79 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Desal, I didn't vote for her in 2000. I did vote for her in 2006. In 2000 I thought pretty much the way you just described. As for NY state politics.......... well, I think we have one of the worst state governments in the country, possibly the worst.

01-25-2007, 11:44 PM	#80 (permalink)
mo42 Insane Location: California	Something about Hillary rubs me the wrong way. While Obama is inexperienced, his charisma and idealism are just what I think the country could use right now. I also think that we could use more discretionary spending so that we're not in debt up to our eyeballs, but that's a different topic. __________________ It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.