Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dr. Milton Wolf running for U.S. Senate in KS

Comments Filter:
  • Pat may be popular, but Obama isn't in Kansas. I don't think you can count on a shoe-in. Maybe he should go try Colorado, they're still pretty happy about Obamas Federal non-interference. Now I could imagine Sam Brownback making a Republican bid for the White House a couple elections away, but I don't see anyone associated with Obama getting much of anywhere. The DNC should know better, don't they have some kind of global environment computer cluster rededicated to finding the "messiahs"?

    • Point taken, but do note that Pat condescended to supporting Ted Cruz's 21-hour speech, as noted in the video. Might not mean much, but then again, it could mean something.
    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      Now I could imagine Sam Brownback making a Republican bid for the White House a couple elections away, but I don't see anyone associated with Obama getting much of anywhere.

      Admit it: you didn't see Obama getting much of anywhere in 2012, did you?

      One number to keep in mind: 500,000. That's how many more votes Democratic congressional candidates got than Republican candidates in 2012. The fact that Republicans held the House shows that gerrymandering is working. But the thing with gerrymandering is it

      • The basic fear is the demographic "threat" [usnews.com]*. People are running around in a panic as if the coffee machine broke. They are scared of suddenly finding themselves on the wrong side of the tracks and the ensuing ancillary "benefits" of becoming... *gasp!*... a minority! This fear runs very deep, to the point of being biological in nature. And to some extent is justifiable, considering our animal instincts still run the show as the principle motivator. The new "dominants", if you will, are going to act the same

      • Curious what you think about http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ [thirty-thousand.org] and the idea of term limits.
        Among the over-arching issues with the U.S. is that it's a defacto aristocracy.
        I think more citizen involvement and less careerism are essential to fixing our woes.
        • I think more citizen involvement and less careerism are essential to fixing our woes.

          And I will repeat that your point is meaningless unless you include the military. It will help reduce the "us vs. them" mentality and the elitism that is rampant in all circles of authority.

          • First, I don't agree.
            But second, I think that restoring the original Constitutional proportions may accomplish your point en passant as having more direct feedback from the people will, I think, make it harder for the Ruling Class to run roughshod over us.
            In particular, I think the whole foreign adventurism thing gets harder to accomplish.
            The question though is: 'If you are not the hegemon, then who?'
            • First, I don't agree.

              Then you will fail in whatever it is you want to accomplish. That is absolutely, positively guaranteed. Military careerism is every bit as evil, if not more so, than that of the civilian public sector, too much power in too few hands. There is real danger there, and we (not you, of course, because you are swimming in it) are seeing it firsthand. There is no logical reason to have it. And those who desire such careers are the least qualified to have them. It is a downright psychotic desi

              • Military careerism is every bit as evil, if not more so, than that of the civilian public sector, too much power in too few hands. There is real danger there, and we (not you, of course, because you are swimming in it) are seeing it firsthand. There is no logical reason to have it. And those who desire such careers are the least qualified to have them.

                I think there is a degree of merit to you point. Team America: World Police/The Military Industrial Complex are overgrown. You have enough Admirals to crew every ship in commission with a Commanding Officer & Executive Officer who is an Admiral.
                So I can buy a "top heavy" argument.
                As for the individual power that flag officers wield? I give you a big: meh. I worked at U.S. Forces Afghanistan HQ in Kabul. If you really want to know where else our government is top heavy, look at the SES [wikipedia.org].

          • by gmhowell (26755)

            I think more citizen involvement and less careerism are essential to fixing our woes.

            And I will repeat that your point is meaningless unless you include the military. It will help reduce the "us vs. them" mentality and the elitism that is rampant in all circles of authority.

            Service guarantees citizenship!

            Would you like to learn more?

            • I'm not against service. Draft everybody, for both military and civilian (including political office). Put them all trough basic training, KP, and latrine duty. What the hell, medic too. I just don't think it should be a career. It's not right. In and out, nobody gets hurt. That's how you keep the corruption down. For the military, everybody is kept on reserve where they can be called back if things go badly during a war. But desk jockeys and drill sargeants being promoted to general for being at it so ling

              • by gmhowell (26755)

                One problem today is the 'up or out' policies of the military. Anyway, universal conscription might lead to the populace gettin' all uppity and singing a few bars of "Alice's Restaurant" at the draft board.

                • That's not a bug; that's a feature. I'd contend that 'up or out' is tantamount to a term limit, and crucial to our military never coalescing into a junta.
                  Hm. Maybe an up-or-out mechanism, whereby if you don't win re-election by 5% more of the ballots cast for the seat, you're precluded from running for it again, would help our hapless Congress. . .
                • One problem today is the 'up or out' policies of the military.

                  That's why it should be just 'out' when the basics are done. If we are not at war there should be no standing army, aside from the training, with very rapid rotation. Hmm, maybe that's why the US has always been at war with somebody. It's a career in itself. I do find it notable that they still occupy Europe and Japan, and the Middle East can look forward to the same fate it has suffered for the last few millennium. It's like the Roman army never

                  • Hmm, maybe that's why the US has always been at war with somebody.

                    Not really. Mostly just since the National Security Act of 1947 created Team America: World Police.

                    • Yes, really, since the invasion of Native American lands. Since Mexico in the 1800s. Since Central America and Roosevelt's Corollary throughout the early 1900s. You will not find a single instance where the US was not meddling militarily somewhere it didn't belong long before 1947. Things have only escalated since then.

                      Like you said about hegemony, if not us, then who? It's always best to be the dominant (empirical) power, no? Do you not approve?

                    • You will not find a single instance where the US was not meddling militarily somewhere it didn't belong long before 1947.

                      You're making a different point than mine, which was: prior to 1947, when not meddling, the U.S. did not retain substantial standing forces. You can argue that Teddy's "Great White Fleet" queers my point, but I'd content that was merely an hors d'oeuvre.

                    • Substantial? That's your argument? Let's not get mired in details. Standing forces were as big as they could afford, and growth was never in question.

                      ...when not meddling...

                      Again, name a single instance when they weren't...

                    • And so the real cancer not under discussion, of course, is the entitlement spending. Or are you unfamiliar with how military spending has been on a glide slope, whereas the entitlement spending, all locked in (while the Congressmonkeys roar about "not binding future Congresses") grows unbounded?
                    • What you call "entitlements" (notably you conveniently don't consider corporate welfare AND the military machine's bureaucratic promotions for the careerists as "entitlements"), The rest of us near retirement call earned, fully paid for (and stolen by, or given to Wall Street) benefits. And military spending is not decreasing, it's merely being contracted out, again, to cook the books. The money still comes from our labor.

                    • The money still comes from our labor.

                      Except for the borrowed part, which is a substantial chunk.
                      But you're mischaracterizing my views. The corporate welfare & military spending you bemoan will be obviated by following my other reform prescriptions.

      • by flyneye (84093)

        No, actually I figured he was the "golden child" , when I heard about the binge drinking he was doing with Hillary and McCain in a Washington Bar pre-nomination. There was something definitely creepy about it and the way the press was oozing about it. Repubmocrats coming out of the closet and plotting in public.

        500,000 votes that mean nothing really when you consider that there is no worthwhile difference between Republicans and Democrats. They may put up a showy argument today , but, tomorrow, what one pa

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...