Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 61

Journal by pudge

Unable

On Fox News Sunday, Bush advisor Matthew Dowd said yes, we need to make more progress in the economy, but asked what the alternative is. Would more taxes create jobs, give more home ownership? Kerry's advisor Tad Devine said:

The alternative is whether or not we want to go in a new direction or continue the failed policies of George Bush. Today, this country is spending $200 billion in Iraq. And that's why we can't begin to address the domestic agenda that the President puts forth in his ads. Until we stop spending $200 billion there of taxpayers money, we won't be able to address the problems here at home.

Kerry has said:

As complicated as Iraq seems, we've got three basic options: one, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; two, we can conclude it's not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn't happen in Iraq; or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world's major powers invested with us in building Iraq's future.

The problem is that Bush has been trying to do the third option as much as possible, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Kerry could improve on that (pop quiz: name one country that might provide troops who has thus far refused).

Let's just note for the sake of argument that it is very possible that Kerry will be unsuccessful at getting the troops out as he plans. Is he saying that if he is unsuccessful, that he won't be able to, as President, address domestic problems? Why yes, he is.

It's a neat strategy: preemptive excuses. As President, I can't fix your problems, because I was saddled with this war! But he has been saying he can fix the problems created by the war, and now he is saying maybe he can't. So why vote for him, if the only way he can fix our problems is to rely on the help of allies who have consistently refused to help, and have given no indication they are willing to change their minds?

Crazy.

Polls

No one has ever won the Presidency being down in the polls by more than a point or two in September. On the other hand, no televised convention has ever been held this late in the season. On the other hand, the few polls we've seen don't even fully reflect the result of the convention (Kerry's final "bounce" numbers didn't come in until Tuesday or so following his convention speech, IIRC). On the other hand, the results of the Time and Newsweek polls that put Bush ahead by 11 points are being questioned (I'd dig up a link, but we'll find out how reasonable they are over the next week or two anyway, as more polls come out).

Ratings

Preliminary ratings showed Fox News Channel (+7 million viewers) beat NBC, ABC, and CBS (+5m each). CNN (+2m) and MSNBC (+1m) followed. I watched mostly CSPAN and MSNBC. CSPAN does the best coverage of the speech, since they just show the actual event. MSNBC has some of the more interesting commentary IMO (I like the mix of Chris Matthews' shows, and they also had J.C. Watts).

I like the analysis on Fox too, but to a lesser degree, mostly because I have to work to avoid O'Reilly, and TV watching shouldn't be that much work (he says as he is taking notes while watching the Sunday shows ... :-).

Regardless, a cable channel beating the big three is pretty impressive.

Funny

Letterman: "On Monday, President Bush said we can't win the war on terrorism. Then on Tuesday, he said we will the war on terrorism. And earlier today, he predicted a tie."

Deceptions

Kerry's web site has 143 "lies" and "deceptions" from the GOP convention. The stench of desperation on this thing is so think it's triggering my gag reflex. The Democrat convention was probably pretty close to as full of the same kinds of "lies" and "deceptions," give or take a dozen.

(I am not saying the claim is false just because they do it too; that would be a fallacy. I am saying that the Democrats have no reasonable standing to make the claim, because they are just as guilty of it [just like their claim about Bush and illegal coordination with SBVT]. That is, maybe it's true, but I just don't care when it comes from them.)

Update: More Crazy

I forgot one more thing: on Meet the Press, new Kerry advisor James Carville addressed Zell Miller's speech last week at the RNC. Carville, who became a household name as an advisor to President Clinton, ran a campaign for Miller in the 90s, and Miller officiated at Carville's wedding to right-wing politico Mary Matalin.

Carville, wanting to attack the Republicans but not wanting to attack his longtime friend, blamed the Republicans for Miller's speech, saying they put him up there, they put words in his mouth, in the twilight of his career, and made him look like a fool. It's so sweet of him to avoid attacking his good friend by saying his a senile old man who couldn't possibly have really meant all those things. Matalin rolled her eyes and said Miller wrote his own speech.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:

  • LOL (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    Pudge, you keep taking tu quoque to new heights. My favorite is "you said X, so I will pretend not to pay attention when you say Y."

    In this case X is illegal coordination between a campaign and 527s when, to your knowledge, there is no evidence that proves the case, to your satisfaction and in your opinion. And Y, of course, is whatever you feel like, but this week it's pointing out that the speakers at the Republican convention lied over and over.

    But by that logic, pudge, you have to ignore everything

    • Re:LOL (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Pudge, you keep taking tu quoque to new heights. My favorite is "you said X, so I will pretend not to pay attention when you say Y."

      No, I did not say I would not pay attention to X because of Y, as you defined them. You misinterpreted what I wrote. I gave Y as a separate example of why I would not listen to the Democrats about Y. I won't listen to X because they do X, and I won't listen to Y because they do Y.

      So no, I don't have to ignore what the GOP says since March, but I do ignore what they say ab
  • The Time/Newsweek poll has been attacked, but you included that.

    As to getting other countries on board. Half the population of just about any given country is adamantly opposed to George W. Bush. This makes it quite difficult for Bush to do much of anything, so long as these nations are beholden to their own electorate.

    Spain, France, Germany, most of Europe. Britain may shift in the next four years as well, especially if Blair is no longer PM.

    Russia has it's own problems.

    So the question, at least in

    • Re:Well (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by On Lawn ( 1073 )
      So the question, at least in my mind, is will foreign nationals react more favorably to Kerry than they do to George W. Bush?

      More likely Kerry will act more favorably to foreign leaders.

      I for one see France as playing a carrot here trying to influence US elections. They are doing their best to insinuate that they will send troops if Kerry is president, and they just might. But that forms two problems, 1) I'm not about to be carroted by France, 2) As the dissident frog quotes on his website, going to war
    • Half the population of just about any given country is adamantly opposed to George W. Bush.

      Him or the policies? I'm sure some are motivated by the ignorant kneejerk hatred which seems to drive a lot of American Kerry supporters, but most seemed to care rather more about keeping the neo-Nazi dictator in power in Iraq and the Taleban in control of most of Afghanistan. Why would they suddenly start liking those policies just because it's Kerry in charge of implementing them?

      Spain, France, Germany, most of

    • Re:Well (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      This makes it quite difficult for Bush to do much of anything, so long as these nations are beholden to their own electorate. Spain, France, Germany, most of Europe. Britain may shift in the next four years as well, especially if Blair is no longer PM. Russia has it's own problems.

      Right. It's very hard for Bush to get the help of other nations in dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, various counter-terrorist operations ... oh wait, they are helping. Never mind. :-)

      So the question, at least i
      • We're talking about western democracies here. The right leader does have a chance to persuade the electorate of foreign nations IF he can play to them. It's not much different than convincing the domestic electorate.

        Getting leaders on board is possible(and has been done to some extent), but only if it is politically sane for them to do so.

        Bush plays well in Idaho. We know he doesn't play too well throughout most of Europe.

        In other words. I think Kerry will "play" better in Europe, thus aiding us in g

        • Re:Well (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          The right leader does have a chance to persuade the electorate of foreign nations IF he can play to them. It's not much different than convincing the domestic electorate.

          But there is no indication Kerry would be able to get any troops from any country. If you have any, provide it. It's fine to assert that in the abstract, but I don't see it being borne out in the reality of Iraq, and you've provided nothing at all other to make anyone think otherwise.
          • Nope, I haven't. We have a known factor versus an unknown factor.

            We know the known factor isn't that good on this particular front.

            We have no idea how the unknown factor would pan out. Maybe we'll find out, maybe we won't.

            • Re:Well (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              We have no idea how the unknown factor would pan out.

              And this "unknown factor" is known to be extremely unreliable in his position on the war, such that I can't see why anyone should give him the benefit of the doubt. He supported the invasion of Iraq when it happened, and now he does not.

              George [Stephanpolous], I said at the time [I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq] I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam

      • Right. It's very hard for Bush to get the help of other nations in dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, various counter-terrorist operations ... oh wait, they are helping. Never mind. :-)

        Okay Pudge, I'm callin you out. :) You keep stating this, but how many nations are contributing how many troops and how much monetary support for this operation? How much of your vaunted support is little more than verbal, from leaders afraid to piss off their Bush-hating voters? How does this support compare t

        • Re:Well (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          how many nations are contributing how many troops and how much monetary support for this operation?

          You're confused, I think. The argument offered was that other countries won't help the U.S. because they don't like Bush. I was saying "they are helping" in reference to the other examples, not in reference to Iraq. Many nations continued to provide support in Afghanistan who did not help in Iraq (e.g., Canada and Germany). Nations who opposed us on the Security Council for Iraq are helping us with North
          • You're not. Most foreign ministers are a lot more pragmatic than that.

            Not necessarily, look at the guy in France. :)

            And holy shit dude, I just posted this a few minutes ago. Am I talking to Tyler Durden and not Pudge? :)

            • Re:Well (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              Not necessarily, look at the guy in France. :)

              Ha! I actually almost said, "excluding France." :-)

              Am I talking to Tyler Durden and not Pudge?

              You don't want to know.
    • As to getting other countries on board. Half the population of just about any given country is adamantly opposed to George W. Bush. This makes it quite difficult for Bush to do much of anything, so long as these nations are beholden to their own electorate.

      Correct. Most people in my country (Canada) were opposed to the war from the beginning, and any government that tried to get us in there would have been voted out without mercy. What is key in terms of Canada participating in Iraq is having the operatio

      • Re:Well (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        What is key in terms of Canada participating in Iraq is having the operation be a UN operation. Canadians are willing to accept a peacekeeping operation, but - at least everyone I know, except 1 person - would never agree with a miliary occupation.

        Perhaps you missed the news, but last year, after the invasion was complete, the UN security council passed -- unanimously -- a resolution that made Iraq a UN operation. Specifically, resolution 1511 (October 2003) states: "[The UNSC] Determines that the provis
        • I'd forgotten about that resolution, but I was reffering to something different anyway. A UN operation is one under UN command, where the soldiers and officers wear the uniform of the UN, blue helmet and all. They report to the Security Council, and are funded through the UN general fund. The Iraq operation, as it stands, is a US-lead multinational force with UN authorization; the ultimate authority is the US president, the funding comes from national taxpayers in the participating countries, and the UN has

          • Re:Well (Score:2)

            by pudge ( 3605 ) *
            A UN operation is one under UN command, where the soldiers and officers wear the uniform of the UN, blue helmet and all.

            Canada participated in Guld War I without this stipulation. Why require it now?

            The Iraq operation, as it stands, is a US-lead multinational force with UN authorization

            That's what it was in 1991, too, when Canadaian forces were involved in combat.

            Not that I don't see differences between the two conflicts, but I see commonalities in all the things you mention here. :-) The one key d

  • LGF take (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by On Lawn ( 1073 )
    I like LGF's take [littlegreenfootballs.com] on Kerry's RNC convention list.
    • Many if not most of them are just ridiculous nonsense. The very first "lie or distortion" is to say Bush is good for Hispanics. What's wrong with saying that? Not only do they not say what's wrong with it, the fact is that this is an opinion. What this really is a list of is "things we disagree with," which is a big yawner.

      I didn't get into the specifics because they are boring compared to the general idea that we know there were plenty of lies, distortions, and half-truths from the DNC, and pots calli
  • (Yes Symantec has ruined my confidence to spell the other word correctly - stupid ugly viruses)

    I like you pudge but frankly you have been called out here in this entry and you danced when you should have simply taken the slap.

    You _have_ made your decision and nothing the other side says will sway you. And that's OK. Guldurnit by now everyone should know who they are voting for....

    Also you know all 527s are against the spirit of the McCain/Feingold Law but it's not their fault the M/FL is shytte.

    You ha
    • You _have_ made your decision and nothing the other side says will sway you.

      Look: the Democratic convention speeches had a lot of deceptions in them. So did the Republican speeches. For either side to come after the other for what they are both guilty of is stupid. And that is all I said, except I focused on Kerry, because he's the one who put out a stupid web page listing them all. And to attack me for making that simple point is stupid.

      Also you know all 527s are against the spirit of the McCain/Fe

    • Also you know all 527s are against the spirit of the McCain/Feingold Law but it's not their fault the M/FL is shytte.

      And when the republicans complained to the FEC back in Feb/Mar with nearly identical complaints, the democrates came out en masse shouting "first amendment!" and "protected speech".

      Both the left and the right are using the system to their benefit. pudge's point is that it's hypocritical for the left to point out and criticize the right for the very things they (they left) do. It's a VAL

      • Sounds good to me. I first advocated taxing political contributions in an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun in the late 80s.

        - Robin
      • And when the republicans complained to the FEC back in Feb/Mar with nearly identical complaints, the democrates came out en masse shouting "first amendment!" and "protected speech".

        I don't think so. Democrats haven't complained about SBVFT because they are a 527 group, they're complaining about them because their claims are crap. Who's changed their stories from their origional accounts? SBFVT. Who's version of events do military records back up? Kerry's.
        • Democrats haven't complained about SBVFT because they are a 527 group, they're complaining about them because their claims are crap.

          That's false. Kerry's campaign filed a complaint with the FEC over allegations of illegal coordination between SBVT and the Bush campaign. Please, please, stop asserting things you don't know about.
          • That's false. Kerry's campaign filed a complaint with the FEC over allegations of illegal coordination between SBVT and the Bush campaign.

            You're confusing two entirely seperate issues here. Democrats have been complaining about SBVFT ever since the group popped up for their credibility [interventionmag.com] problems, their massive Republican [salon.com] funding, and their similarity to other smears of other [boston.com] candidates put out by people with connections to Karl Rove [salon.com]. And in case you dismiss all that as liberal hooey, here's another link
            • You're confusing two entirely seperate issues here.

              No, I certainly am not. I was talking only about the claim of illegal coordination. I was not talking about the other problems. You were the one confusing the issues, by assuming I was not talking about the claims of illegal coordination, when that is all I was talking about.

              their massive Republican funding

              Riiiight. Democrat George Soros gave more money to pro-Kerry 527s than all pro-Bush 527s have received combined. So has Democrat Peter Lewis.
              • No, I certainly am not. I was talking only about the claim of illegal coordination. I was not talking about the other problems. You were the one confusing the issues, by assuming I was not talking about the claims of illegal coordination, when that is all I was talking about.

                Actually it was another poster who brought it up in this thread, not you, so this is all rather moot. :)

                Riiiight. Democrat George Soros gave more money to pro-Kerry 527s than all pro-Bush 527s have received combined. So has Democrat
                • As you say, riiiight. First on billionare sponsorship: the Democrats have George Soros and Peter Lewis, and the Republicans have Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoc. But Soros is an investor and Lewis is in the insurance industry; neither has an established publishing empire. Which is more useful in a political campaign?

                  Yes, because we all know only people on the right have publishing empires. We are talking about 527s, let's keep focused here.

                  Second on 527s: you're compairing apples and oranges. M
        • I think you need to read the complaint filed with the FEC. They complained, not as you suggest, because their claims are crap, but because they claim the SBVFT violated 527 regulations.

          And as I stated, quite similar to the complaints filed with the FEC by the RNC earlier in the year.

          I don't think so.

          Perhaps you should think so -- as it's true.

          Who's version of events do military records back up? Kerry's.

          Except the Cambodia thing... and that no where in his honorable record does it show him, as he cla

  • How many billions get spent on the presidential races, particularly advertising. Just think if all those billions we're donated to the US Treasury instead. It'd certainly be a far superior use of the money, IMO.
  • "So why vote for him, if the only way he can fix our problems is to rely on the help of allies who have consistently refused to help, and have given no indication they are willing to change their minds?"

    The current president brought us to this sorry pass. Why not vote him out as punishment for past performance? The question here is not who voted for authorization or supported / didn't support - rather, it is solely prosecution of the war, which has been ham-handed, inefficient, Pollyanna-esque in its pred
    • Why not vote him out as punishment for past performance?

      That's perfectly reasonable and logical, if you believe he has done things worthy of being "fired." I don't, but I know many people who do, and it is a position I respect.

      But I was not speaking to that, I was speaking to Kerry's statements about why we should vote for him, not why we should not vote for Bush.

      The question here is not who voted for authorization or supported / didn't support

      That is the question, since it is my journal, and I aske
      • You didn't address one thing from the poster that I feel is very important this election season:

        Why not vote him out as punishment for past performance?

        The problem with this logic is that we, basically, live in a two party system. This means that a vote *against* one candidate is a vote *for* the other. Reveling in a bit of hyperbole, what if Bush's opponent were for segregation, against women's suffrage, pro use of nuclear weapons willy-nilly and wanted to annex Mexico? By your logic, we'd still vot
        • You didn't address one thing from the poster that I feel is very important this election season:

          Why not vote him out as punishment for past performance?

          I did address that: I found it to be reasonable. And yes, it is not in itself a reason to vote against Bush, but if they are similar on most issues (as I think they are), and if you lean more toward Bush on those issues, then I can still see someone voting for Kerry as punishment against Bush.

          If your point is that the principle is not that simple, I ent
  • You say
    The problem is that Bush has been trying to do the third option as much as possible, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Kerry could improve on that,

    You should have stopped at "The problem is Bush" and you would have been correct.

    Face it: a majority of the world hates what Bush did when he invaded Iraq. Because of his actions, no other world leader will stick his/her neck out for him.

    By having Kerry in the Whitehouse, it'll give some of the world leaders the figleaf needed t

    • I can foresee countries like India agreeing to help out.

      Based on what?

      There are a lot of countries that are sitting on the fence, wanting to help out the Iraqis but afraid of coming out in support of Bush.

      Name others, and given reasons why you think they would be willing to help, beyond "because Bush is not in office."
      • Name others, and given reasons why you think they would be willing to help, beyond "because Bush is not in office."

        I assume, since you have embarked on creating a political journal, that you are an observer of politics and, in particular, international politics?

        We have seen many times that a head honcho of a country will be replaced, and soon aid from other countries will follow (aid which was denied earlier due to the policies of said head honcho).

        In this case, the situation will be similar. Bush bei

        • Look, every nation someone mentions that might help, I look at them and I can't see why they would. Germany and Spain promised they wouldn't, so I believe they won't just because Bush is gone. Germany has no available troops anyway; so even if they wanted to help, they simply cannot. France has said so often they could not help, going back on it would be nearly impossible. Russia can't afford to. India almost never lends military aid to US and UN operations, and I can't see any reason why they would no
  • The problem is that Bush has been trying to do the third option as much as possible

    I disagree. This whole fiasco is a cascade of problems created directly by the current administration. It begain by drawing a line in the sand with the "axis of evil" angry rhetoric. Then it was followed up by invading Iraq. Once Iraq was invaded, troops were placed to protect the real reason we are there -- the oil facilities. The museums containing thousands and thousands of years of history weren't and were promptly
    • This has not one damned thing to do with what I wrote. I was talking about Bush's efforts to increase the involvement of other nations and strengthen the Iraqi military, now that we are in Iraq. In your supposed rebuttal, you mentioned none of that, and talked only about the build-up to war in Iraq. I am going to insist you do not respond to my responses to you, because you are very off-topic. But I am going to respond briefly to your points.
      • His rhetoric did not cause any real problems with anyone, i
      • "His rhetoric did not cause any real problems with anyone"
        That's your opinion. Mine is that painting the world in strictly black & white terms ("you're either with us or against us"), with theological overtones, causes great damage.

        "Saying we are there for oil..." ..is blatantly obvious from a casual inspection of troop deployments. The fact that the US isn't hauling it out of the country in pirate ships and black hats doesn't disprove the intent of securing access to it. Global oil production is
        • Did you miss the part where I said this is off-topic?

          I would ask if you are able to read, but the fact that you think Bush said combat was over answers that.
          • I missed the part where you said you were going to enforce having the last word by declaring anything you don't want to discuss offtopic, blocking people that take the time to take you seriously and respond, and the part where flaming is offlimits but you'll go around calling people stupid and illiterate.

            The OP was perfectly ontopic. He disagreed with WHAT YOU WROTE "that Bush has been trying to do the third option [get the Iraqi people and the world's major powers invested with us in building Iraq's futu
            • I missed the part where you said you were going to enforce

              Sorry you missed it. It's right here [slashdot.org].

              You may disagree, or believe that the runup to war has nothing to do with the current situation, but that's YOUR opinion.

              Yes, it is. It is my opinion that it was off-topic. This is my journal: who else's opinion about whether it is off-topic matters?

              Your complaints here are just nonsense. If I followed my own rules, I should have just banned both of you from the journal immediately. Instead, I was merc
              • Bush said combat was over. Not ALL combat, but MAJOR combat. You could've just clarified the distinction (because everyone reading it, including you, knew exactly what he meant) but you'd rather sidestep the point altogether. Well, since "major" combat was declared over, we've gone from just over 3 deaths a day to ~2 deaths a day. "Mission Accomplished" indeed.

                "This is my journal: who else's opinion about whether it is off-topic matters?"
                The other participants' if you want to have anything resembling
                • because everyone reading it, including you, knew exactly what he meant

                  False. The original poster I was responding to clearly did not, and then you responded to me as though that weren't the context.

                  "Mission Accomplished" indeed.

                  Yes, you're still proving you can't read. It's kinda silly to complain someone is attacking your intellect when you're saying ridiculous things. The mission that was accomplished was the invasion operation.

                  The other participants' if you want to have anything resembling a r
      • Fine, I'm game. Let's talk about Bush and the involvement of other nations in Iraq.

        Bush has a "I am right and you either agree and follow me or you are wrong and are an enemy of the United States" policy. If I was the president of any country I would tell Bush to go outside and play a game of hide and go hump himself. Which, in essence, is exactly what they did I guess. Since there is such little involvement from other countries, Iraq has become a huge sore spot for him in his re-election efforts.

        We s
        • I asked you to stick to the topic of the journal, and you once again went after the reasons why we were in Iraq, which I specifically asked you not to do. You're out.
  • and we'll be a hell of a long time getting out of it. Deficit spending started small under Kennedy, balloned under Reagan, and just kept climbing from there (with the notable exception of the Clinton era - due basically bipartisan consensus that deficit reduction was an important priority).

    The problem now is, barring another decade of explosive growth (another IT boom is not likely, and there's a hell of a lot of personal debt out there), we'll have to do the worst of all worlds - tax and not spend to get
    • As a plan for governance, tax less, and govern less does not work very well.

      Yes, it does.

      Especially at the federal level, where most "governance" that they perform is unconstitutional abuse of the limits of its power as per Article I Section 8 and Amendment X.

      Case in point: if one or both parties don't intervene in healthcare in a way that undistorts the market, the country's economy is going to drown paying for it.

      I basically agree, but see it as the exception that proves the rule, not the other way
      • As a plan for governance, tax less, and govern less does not work very well.

        Yes, it does.

        No, it doesn't. Having less government for the sake of less government is just as bad as having too much government. There's a better test for any government agency, program or law: are people going to be better off with or without it? I'd say we're better of with the FDA, OSHA, GASB, and the FCC (the signal rationing part, not the coporate shill or moralizing part) than without them.

        And lawyers break the market
        • No, it doesn't. Having less government for the sake of less government is just as bad as having too much government.

          That doesn't make any sense. If the goal is less government, how can less government be just as bad as too much government? If you get less government, that achieves the goal ...

          Of course, the real goal is not less government per se, but more freedom, which in most cases means less government.

          There's a better test for any government agency, program or law: are people going to be better
          • That doesn't make any sense.

            Sure it does, but let me restate. Any worthy goal should have a worthy justification. The problem with the "less government for the sake of less government" crowd is that the goal is the *same* as the justification. So they don't need to justify repealing this law or abandoning that program, because it all falls under the umbrella of "less government".

            Of course, the real goal is not less government per se, but more freedom, which in most cases means less government.

            Gene
            • Any worthy goal should have a worthy justification. The problem with the "less government for the sake of less government" crowd is that the goal is the *same* as the justification. So they don't need to justify repealing this law or abandoning that program, because it all falls under the umbrella of "less government".

              So?

              The problem you have is recognizing that less government is itself a worthy justification.

              Generally. Of course, more government can also give you more freedom and privacy, like laws on
              • The problem you have is recognizing that less government is itself a worthy justification.

                That's not justification, that's circular reasoning.

                I am for less government overall, not for blindly chopping away at whatever is in front of me.

                That's good. What I get tired of is the blind waving around of the government-cutting chainsaw and lack of specifics.

                That has nothing to do with my question.

                No, that was my sarcastic response to your overly acerbic statement "Better off how? Your definition of bett
                • That's not justification, that's circular reasoning.

                  You're wrong. Don't tell me I cannot value small federal government as an end to itself, especially when the Constitution and Federalist Papers say it is itself a goal.

                  Your definition of better off may not be mine. That you don't understand that is why you are having problems understanding."

                  Not only do I understand that, I already asserted it.

                  Now, why should her husband be content with her wages for the next 50 years, assuming she worked there for

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close