Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig 1246
Ethanol writes "Starting Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom we all remember from Eldred v. Ashcroft) is going on vacation, and his weblog will be guest-hosted by Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean. Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"
So we have to choose? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do people continue to vote for republicans and democrats anyway?
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:2, Insightful)
Karma is overrated.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually kinda like Dean, but saying that someone is a serious contender for the 2004 election because he's tied for the nomination at this point is kinda like saying your kid has a serious NBA future ahead of him because he's tied for tallest in grade 3.
Dean is an unelectable nutcase (Score:0, Insightful)
It will reprise the George McGovern fiasco. Say it ain't so--Arrggh!
Better Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
howard dean (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I haven't exactly caught Dean Fever yet, although we see eye-to-eye on many issues and I'm really impressed with the level of grassroots support that he has. It would be nice to have a president that isn't already owned before getting into office.
But, then, I'd settle for a president that can use the word "imminent" correctly. I think Dean rises to that challenge.
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dean is a moderate who has the balls to speak his mind, but when he was a governer his actions were very moderate.
He almost reminds me of Clinton.
The choice is simple. (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Because they're the ones who put their name out the most. America isn't too smart, and the average citizen does not look at all possible candidates, only the main ones. IMO, we shouldn't have political parties, because people tend to vote on party lines without even thinking about the person they are elected beyond their party.
Just my 2.
Re:Doesn't that suck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically you want a system that allows the voter to express more than just a single choice. There are several systems that would suffice; I myself like instant runoff voting because the process is easy to understand, and it lets me express my preferences in an intuitive "first choice / second choice / third choice" format.
Gonna get me some popcorn (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! Maybe that will help him get elected, and then we might just have someone with integrity in the White House.
He almost reminds me of Clinton.
How I miss the days when the worst thing you could say about the President was that he was getting sexual favors from the wrong person...
(yes, I fully expect 25 people to come up with worse things about him now... oh well)
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:1, Insightful)
I can see now how angry the right must have been when Clinton was in the office. They must have hated him so much their blood was boiling.
I hate Bush, but common decency (which the right doesn't appear to have) prevents me from wanting
to impeach Bush on the flimsiest of excuses, or find a way to recall him.
as for Dean being slippery, you've got to be kidding yourself. Bush campaigned as an outsider, yet he manages to rake in more campaign contributions for beltway insiders than Clinton ever did. He campaigned as compassionate conservative, and he is all for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. He is on track for dismantling Social Security and Medicare.
how is Bush a better of two evils? He may be a lying sunnavabitch, but at least he can pander to the right crowd?
Re:Kucinich is an unelectable nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.kucinich.us/ [kucinich.us]
Civics 101 (Score:2, Insightful)
So what if he does? The president is the head of the Executive branch, not a member of the Legislative branch. He does not make the laws. And his veto can't undo the dammage that has already been done. And while we could do a lot better with an elected president than with Bush, one issue hardly means the man would be a suitable leader or not destroy us with other policies.
Re:There's a thing (Score:2, Insightful)
"Foreign Affairs: Has asked for a received Congressional backing to attack Iraq. " Compared to a 15 line paragraph about John Kerry's foreign policy.bio [selectsmart.com] Where is Bush's position on Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, etc etc? The guy is the freaking president, and all we get is "Has asked for a received Congressional backing to attack Iraq."?? Someone is very selective about what they choose to hear on the news, and that someone is the webmaster of this joke of a website.
I would also question the way certain questions are posed... there's a lot of rhetorical bull$hit going on here. Don't even try to convince me this is some kind of nonpartisan "let me help you decide who to vote for" public service. Propaganda Propaganda Propaganda!!
Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they believe me? - Jack Handey
Re:I prefer Kerry myself (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kucinich is an unelectable nutcase (Score:2, Insightful)
But, given Dean's strong anti-war convictions, there could be nothing better for him as a presidential candidate than a retired 4-star general as his VP. And Wesley Clark would be a damn fine VP, too. Perhaps the combination, with either holding either position, is the winning ticket in 2004 for the democrats. We'll see. Bush certainly doesn't seem as invincible as he did 2 months ago. (speaking of which, this whole thing seems like one massive deja vu--maybe the Matrix is patching something...then again, maybe the 2000 election was the Matrix hitting the 'reset' button...hehe)
Re:Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:2, Insightful)
The only Democract who stands a chance of beating Bush is Liberman, but unfortunately, he's not liberal enough to win the Democractic party's nomination. It's a shame that the qualities that would allow him to beat Bush are the same ones that won't get him elected.
I think the Democracts will take another hit in Congress again this time because they are not allowing judges to be appointed.
Oh, if Clinton had done his job (instead of getting bjs from Monica) and went after Osama bin Ladin when he started bombing our embacies, we wouldn't have had 911, and we probably would be seeing all this big brother legilation that we are seeing introduced now. Not to mention Bill Clinton LOST HIS COPY OF NUCLEAR CODES!!!! He never found them. That's not a little thing.
PRIORITIES! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you want John Ashcroft for President (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, someone who will make up the laws as he goes along, exercise his power to enforce them, and then 'disappear' anyone who he personally considers to be a threat to his personal sense of order.
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
Re:Yeah ok (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm ashamed of Americans that can just look the other way and not feel horrible that their country killed many innocent people because their leader lied, or even supposedly didn't know he was lying, so he could have support in going to war. If people continue to vote for the lesser of the two evils or just along party lines we're going to have more of the same. If people actually voted for the candidate that represents their ideals most accuratly, maybe we'd be in a better situation....or are there that many insensitive Americans out there?
Socialism is not bad, socialism helps society as a whole. Yes, it does mean that the millionaires might have a harder time buying a fourth yacht, but it means the very large majority of the population lives comfortably.
Stop being so damn ignorant and far fewer ignorant people will be put in office. I'm damn sick of people telling me that the far left doesn't care about the country, is less patriotic, or whatever...I say caring about how the world views your nation and how your nation cares about it's people is being far more patriotic than chanting "bomb Saddam" until it becomes a constant thought. It's not unpatriotic to not like how things are going in your country, nor is it unpatriotic to try to take steps to change what you don't like.
Dean is not going to create a big-brother nation, you're thinking of Bush if he's re-elected. I'm sure I'm talking to a wall here, but if you truly believe that Dean is not a serious contender for the reasons you've mentioned, I don't think any amount of sense could ever get through to you. --posted anonymously for fear of ultra-right-wing moderators.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:0, Insightful)
How exactly is Bush doing this? Are you talking about tax cuts for people who actually pay taxes? When a person who pays no income tax gets a "tax cut", what you're really talking about is a welfare check.
Your statement makes no sense anyway; by definition the poor have no money to take.
Dean is a loser with a shit-eating grin.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the main things involving slipping with Clinton were women's panties. With our Chimp In Chief they involve things like wool and eyes. It's amazing how "outraged" some people managed to get over Bill's sex life, yet here the reasons for the Iraq war are being systematically deconstructed, and no-one seems to give a damn. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Re:Bush was a moron on MTP in 1999 (Score:2, Insightful)
What a shocker, someone on MTP being evasive!! I've seen Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice, all be evasive, not answering the exact question Russert raises, and he just shrugs and goes on.
Talk about objectivity. I stopped watching MTP after Dean's appearance.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:3, Insightful)
he's made the system damn near regressive.
Re:There's a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if you actually care about the issues as you claim, you should really do your best to support those issues. The 3% or whatever of the vote the Green party got in 2000 has done far more to hurt the enviroment than it has to help it.
If you care about the enviroment, and Nader is 100% good for the enviroment, Gore is 50% good for the enviroment, and Bush is 0% good for the enviroment, you should only vote for Nader if you think he has a greater than 50% chance of winning in order to maximize the benefit to the issue you care about. Well, to be technical, you should only vote for Nader if the probability of his winning is twice the probability of Gore winning or more.
I hate Bush for many reasons, and the things he's done and is trying to do for the enviroment is one of them. However there is a small evil and vindictive side to me that can't help thinking "take _that_ Green party!" every time he pulls some new enviroment destroying stunt.
If the Green party wants to transform the state of presidential elections in the US to a greater than two party system, they need to accept that unless a splinter party splits off the Republican side that is equal in size to their own, there is a fair chance that they will be condeming the US to the enviromental policies of the Republicans for however many election cycles it takes until the mainstream realizes that their party is viable. It's apparent that that number is greater than one, and for all we know it may not be less than infinity. Is it worth getting a Green president if there is no enviroment left to protect by the time it happens?
If Nader were smart, he would have tryed to hack a Parlimentary System approach to the problem by making a deal with Gore a few weeks before the election, that if Gore would agree to support certain Green positions (in writing of course) then Nader would tell all his party members to vote for Gore in the election, but to tell the exit pollers that they voted for Nader.
Thus they would have insured that the elected president had at least some intrest in the enviroment, a well publisized promise that he would support some of their issues, and still be able to point to the exit polls as a sign of their strength as a voting block.
not so well actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans for Dean! (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, like a lot of fringe candidates, Dean actually has a few good ideas [daybydaycartoon.com] - like copyright reform and his general clues with technology - that stand out from his normal wackyness. With luck, other candidates from *both* parties will take notice of Dean's relative success and adopt accordingly.
USA Not A Democracy (Score:1, Insightful)
Dennis Kucinich (Score:5, Insightful)
As President, I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.
He got a "66%" rating from the ACLU.
I couldn't find any ratings from the EFF on the various candidates, so I'm not sure where he stands on Tech Liberties.
Re:There's a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Smiley face.
I just lowered my opinion of Lesig. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a track record of how he might vote on something like the DMCA?
If you saw Dean's appearance on Meet the Press you can't possibly be too comfortable with him as President. If he aspires to the job he has a LOT of homework to do.
My guess is that Lesig is among the hard core liberals (surprise!) and all members of that group would gladly vote for Adolph Hitler next time around if it mean revenge for 2000.
Blind rage over what they feel was a stolen election will drive them to do totally irrational things until 2004.
I think it is irresponsible to turn over your blog to anyone else, particularly someone who has tremendous internet resources of their own. This is pure partisanship and has nothing that I can see to do with Open Source, DMCA, RIAA or any other issues for which Lesig is notable.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:3, Insightful)
> He is on track for dismantling Social Security and Medicare.
We can only hope. I'm convined that Social Security is the biggest scam in the history of mankind.
Think about it. What other scam has screwed hundreds of millions of people out of 15% of their life's income only to give them a piddly amount back if/when the retire?
If people would invest that in anything decent over the course of their lives, they'd be quite rich on retirement.
Re:Dean was governor of my state... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm of the opinion that there's not *much* you can do as a pres. to affect the economy too much, but there are plenty of things he hasn't done. Wtih all the focus on the crackdown on Martha Stewart and such we forget that most of the people involved in, say, Enron, are still away scott free. Furthermore, Bush supported SEC chairman Pitt until Pitt resigned from country-wide pressure. Bush should have taken a much firmer stance on all of this.
>>So he screwed us in scientific research how?
Stem cells.
>>So he screwed us in basic civil rights how?
You read
Re:The choice is simple. (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, better instruction is much more vital than better computers. Computers do not replace teachers. But they are something kids have to learn how to use if they are going to work in most of the jobs in the world today.
Check the history. (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't care about him killing his people when we were the ones selling him weapons. But now you think that it matters?
And where do you get off claiming that Bush is demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside of Iraq).
The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. The CIA even told the British that the info wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to push this war so he used information that was known to be bogus.
As for this being another "Vietname" or "quagmire", check the body count since Bush claimed the war was "over".
No, we did not have any "moral, legal and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein".
We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support our invasion.
As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until the first "elections" are held. Wait until they elect a radical Islamic priest.
You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis and Saddam's statue. That's because our government doesn't want you to forget it. It was shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of Iraqis. It was all a publicity stunt.
And you fell for it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/statue.html
And you're the one talking about closed eyes?
Re:There's a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I don't know, I always thought that whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing was a pretty good idea. Keeps us from turning into Iran too quickly.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
That's called creating a straw man. It's a fallacy of logic, to summarize it is taking someones words, then giving them new meaning. Usually followed by an attack on the new meaning.
rant rant rant rant
That's just my summary of you beating the hell out of the strawman.
Now you are attacking the person, and not their argument. Another fallacy of logic. Ontop of it, after your strawman, and a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical.
rant rant rant rant
Summary of the rest of your words.
Can someone mod the troll down?
Re:There's a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that American voters are forced to engage in this kind of strategic thinking (instead of being able to just vote for the candidate they think would do the best job) shows how badly broken our plurality electoral system is. A truly representative system would allow voters to speak their mind honestly, and respond by electing the most appropriate candidate. It wouldn't force them to play silly games.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure about you, but I don't like it when the reason we do something keeps changing depending on political winds. I didnt like it when Clinton changed stories, why should I like it when Bush does?
This is not about Bush vs. Hussein! What sane person said Hussein is a great leader? There are plenty of petty tyrants and mass murderers out there, but we see fit to ignore or even aid them, depending on national security.
We just dont like liars, or at the very least, people who change their stories. I would be 110% behind this if Bush said from the beginning "While there is no link between Hussein and 9/11 we need to do this, because people are dying and we have the moral obligation to protect people from mass executions". Did Bush say that? no, he said "Hussein poses an IMMINENT threat to the US" he was the one who brought the sense of urgency of attacking, saying the UN inspectors were either too slow or not doing their jobs. Is it any wonder some people criticize the administration for not finding the WMD when they disparaged the UN inspectors so much for not doing so themselves? I find it funny that NOW the administration is saying "finding evidence for WMD programs WILL TAKE TIME". Isnt that what Hans Blix was saying all the time? But we had to push him aside and attack anyway?
How can you say for sure the world is a safer place for Americans? There was no link between Hussein and: 1) Al Qaida 2) Nuclear materials
3) (for now) WMD. So how is the US safer?
Pardon my cynicism, but I find it hard to believe that republicans (or rabid pro-Bush supporters), who think nothing of dismantling social welfare programs (I'm not saying this is good or bad) are all of a sudden so concerned about the welfare of another country's people. Heck most conservatives would support legislation to BLOCK these same Iraqis from immigrating to the US, so I find it laughable that they show so much concern for their well-being.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Blather, blather. I didn't hear "your ilk" complain about that before the glimmer of war sparked in Dubbya's eye, the opportunity to showcase our fine military machinery, the greatest army on earth, yada, yada. I saw no holy indignation when 800,000 Rwandans killed each other, no urge to send in 200,000 troops to stop the savage butchery. Nor did I hear you complain about the goings on in the Congo, or in Liberia. Sure, let's set up some committes and feasibility studies about whether we SHOULD send some troops in. Where are Rummies snap "three minute decision[s]--and the first two just to get coffee" now? And how much did the indignation lead to military intervention when my country was exterminating Jews by the millions? Remember what it took for the US to mobilize its military? Yeah, having its interests threatened directly.
If you want to do good--and Lord knows Saddam was one draconian bastard worthy getting rid of--do so blindely, impartially, and consistently. When the very people you're trying to help ask you to please stop helping quite so much, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your strategy.
> You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism. No solutions.
Au contraire, my ilk and I have proffered our view of the Right Way for a long time, and it involved treating the root of the problem, not its symptoms. There are very simple and tractable causes for why the Arab world hates the West, but in particular the US. Remove those, and you're well on your way to mend things. But that would involve putting the Big Stick down and talking, something people with Big Sticks are loath to do. We're asking Isreal to refrain from retaliaton after suicide attacks in order to facilitate dialog and not endanger the peace process, yet how willing were we to do the same after the towers came down? Maybe a moment of introspection, of oh-my-God-how-come-they're-hating-us-so-much, instead of reaching for the guns and assuming with a mere shrug that they were simply jealous of "our way of life."
> United States had moral, legal, and political justification
Morality is a funny thing--it only means something when the majority agrees on its definiton. Otherwise I could define it as me coming over to your house and taking your car. The US forfeited its moral authority through inaction in many other similar cases.
> I'll never forget the images of those Iraqis beating that Saddam
> statue with the shoes off of their feet
Hmm, they seem to have forgotten them, because they're quite keen for us to go back home. Which brings up another interesting thing--the indignation amongst those American Righteous in favor of "the war" at the Iraqi's thanklessness for their own liberation. That begs the question, what exactly was the motivation behind this "liberation"--to earn thanks and admiration, or to merely help in an altruistic fashion?
The Dean Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
A bit more complex than that. (Score:2, Insightful)
In Iraq, Saddam had UN inspectors and the world watching him.
The graves we're finding are old.
Meanwhile, in other countries, thousands of people are being killed and we're doing nothing about it.
So, why are we so concerned about thousands of people who were killed in Iraq in years gone by?
Why are we so unconcerned about thousands being slaughtered right now?
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:3, Insightful)
This country, for decades, fed the power structure that kept Hussein right where he was. This most recent war was not about removing Hussein - it was about revenge and oil. G. W. Bush doesn't care about the people of Iraq, nor have any of his predecessors.
We are constantly helping oppresive leaders: Pinochet, Noriega, Papa Doc, the apartheid system in South Africa. We continue to hand trade concessions and the like to the Chinese - who are, arguably, guilty of more than Hussein could ever be. And don't forget that we also readily supported the Taliban and Al-qaeda against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
It's a shame you haven't opened your eyes to see that we did this to ourselves...and we knew what these people were like before. And, watch who you call a lemming, because you sound a great deal like a Dittohead.
Oh, and Chemical Ali was never in a lab - he ordered the gassing, he isn't/wasn't a scientist. Don't try to insult and one-up people when you can't properly form your statement with facts...it makes you sound like the village idiot.
wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
And what about those judges who actually decided the case (making "case law")? They're not legislators either! They're the judicial branch, and how do they get on the bench? Right, they are appointed by (ta-da) the president! The president's court appointments will have far-reaching effects not only on copyright but on every other branch of law. And Clinton, for all the good stuff he did (and there was quite a lot), was basically a tool of Hollywood as far as copyright was concerned. Bush doesn't appear to be any better.
It is exceedingly in our interest to get a president who has his act together about copyright and other legislative issues. They have a tremendous amount of influence in every area.
Re:A bit more complex than that. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, we should have done something a long time ago. Both parties are to blame for the inaction that resulted in thousands (millions?) dying in Africa, many civilian.
In fact, all countries of the world should have taken action long ago.
Re:Odd behaviour (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm, perhaps Lessig trusts him? Or perhaps this is an effort at getting exposure to a portion of the voting public they find valuable to their cause? Given that Lessig has recognition in this crowd (this did get posted on
Given the position the Democratic party is in right now with reasonable candidates, Dean has got my attention. While Dean is not an academic per se, he did go to Yale and then received his MD from Albert Einsten College of Medicine, so one would surmise he can think to some degree, unfortunately missing in certain administrations. Additionally, this guy actually worked for a living as does his wife as physicians so there is a certain intimate knowledge of how screwed up our health care system has become, particularly under HMO's.
All in all, I would say this strategy (if indeed this is strategy) has worked so far. They got my attention, and judging from the almost 400 posts as I write this, they got a few others attention as well.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Wouldn't it have been so cool if the administration had actually - oh, I don't know - used them to justify going to war? But no. We didn't go in because Iraq had violated the UN resolution. We didn't go in to "liberate" the Iraqi people. We went in because Saddam had a dangerous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and had recently purchased nuclear material to build a nuclear capability.
Whoops. No weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and it turns out he didn't purchase nuclear material. Our bad.
But, you claim, we helped the Iraqi people! Yeah, but when are we going to help people in Cuba, North Korea, China, Africa, Palistine...
There's plenty of evil in this world, and we can't be the policemen to the world. Did we help improve the situation in Iraq? Probably. (There's still plenty of time for us to mess things up. I hope we've learned past lessons and will remain there long enough to allow Iraq to become a stable representative government.)
Unfortunately, in reality, the ends do not justify the means. Likewise, a poor means does not injustify a good outcome. It is possible to believe that Iraq is better off without Saddam while also believing that the actions taken to remove him were poorly chosen. One does not contradict the other.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The choice is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
I heard a pretty interesting show on public radio a while back detailing two schools, one rich and one poor, and how computers were used there. It really did seem that it was the teachers, far more than the hardware or the amount of hardware there, that made or broke any computer using class. They can be really amazing tools if the teacher knows enough to make them something other than books on a screen, or of little value if that's all they can do with them.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
You would have a point if the Iraq war had been justified in terms of "We need to remove Saddam because he's mean to his people." It wasn't. The entire war was predicated on the supposed threat that Iraq posed to the United States, and its status as a "terrorist state" with massive stockpiles of "ultimate weapons" (President Bush's words.) Tony Blair even told the British parliament that Iraq had the capability to launch an attack on the UK in as little as 45 minutes. It's been months now since the fall of Baghdad, and the only thing we have to show for this war is a piece of a nuclear centrifuge that some guy buried in his backyard before the first Gulf War. That may justify the war in your eyes, but the families of the hundreds of American servicemen (and women) killed in this conflict might have some different thoughts.
I'm glad that Hussein is gone. Dead or alive, let's hope he rots in peace. But all of this "Well, Iraq wasn't much of a threat to us, but look at the mass graves! Look at the torture devices!" is Monday morning quarterbacking. It's great that the Pentagon has media-savvy people that are able to invent scary-sounding nicknames (i.e., "Mrs. Anthrax") for the people that it kills or captures, but at the end of the day I would have had a lot more respect for the administration if they had just been honest about things. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but the world is full of brutal dictators, and the last time I checked, the United States wasn't drawing up plans to invade Burma or Zimbabwe.
You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical.
Whereas you are obviously objective, clear-headed, and perfectly logical.
Everybody is sensible, so long as they say things that you agree with.
You have built your platform on the hopes that the United States will fail in its endeavours. That is disgusting.
I can't speak for the original poster, but do you want to know what's really disgusting? I have six friends who are in harm's way in Iraq right now. What's disgusting is people like you who implicitly suggest that I want to see harm come to them to prove a political point. I have no desire to see the United States will "fail" in any of its endeavours. That doesn't change the fact that there are endeavours that I would have preferred us to avoid in the first place. See, if it were up to me, these guys would be sitting in my living room and drinking beer with me instead of being stationed in a country populated by people that hate them even more than they hated the dictator that they just got rid of.
The world is a safer place for both Americans and Iraqis today than it was a few months ago, and it cost fewer lives than anyone estimated.
You've got to be kidding me. At my workplace, some co-workers and I were scheduled to attend a May conference in South America, and the trip was cancelled out of war-related concerns for our safety. It has never been more dangerous to be an American traveling abroad, and the Iraq war only made this worse. The primary contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks was fundamentalist Muslim hatred of the United States, and if you have evidence that the Iraq war helped to mitigate this, then I confess that I would be curious to see it. I want to be clear about this: I do not subscribe to the theory that the United States deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policy; it was a heinous and cowardly attack that no nation on this planet deserves. But our foreign policy in the past year or so has done much to fan the flames of the same hatred. And for who? For what? Saddam Hussein? This is a third-rate dictat
Re:PRIORITIES! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:4, Insightful)
1) It could well be about the oil *if* the administration doesn't care about the financial solvency of the government, or considers it secondary to the financial wellbeing of the corporations that directly and indirectly are responsible for the administration's current power. Given the fact that the president has authorized contracts with a value of well over $7 billion to Halliburton, for example, without consideration of some rather inviting competing bids is something that indicates that this may be the case. If one considers the economic policy of this administration as a whole, including what should have been a scandalous "stimulus" package to Enron execs and tax initiatives that should speak for themselves, one begins to see a sense of financial priorities that does not have the United States and its citizens at the top of the list.
2) I think what the poster intended to say- or *should* have intended to say, had he or she been thinking more clearly- is that the sex life of any person should remain private and free from scrutiny unless it brings harm to parties involved. Clinton's indiscretions do not meet that test (as repugnant as I find his behavior).
One more thing: The cost of investigating Clinton's sexual activities and the entrapment that ensued was $40 million with some Congresspeople complaining that Starr was underfunded. Those exact same Congresspeople have attempted to eviscerate an investigation into the causes of the most heinous attack on American soil since the Civil War (Pearl Harbor was nothing to 9/11, in my opinion- may be the New Yorker in me talking). Clinton: $40 million. 9/11: $5 million, and it was a truly epic battle to get even that much. The same people were involved in supporting the Clinton investigation and denying support to the 9/11 investigation- and Bush and the members of his administration supported both.
That's hypocrisy.
Re:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether any of them can beat Bush is an entirely separate question (to which I suspect the answer is no).
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have many people living in the streets, those that do wouldn't be forced to if they didn't have other problems (drugs, alcohol). People shouldn't have problems with getting medical treatment because they mostly don't need to pay for it.
Without the social security system your society will resemble a dog eat dog jungle. Sure, those that are able to work, are healthy and are not unlucky will be getting larger paychecks, but there will be more poverty and suffering. I don't think anyone deserves to live in the street, endure an illness any more than anyone actually deserves to earn a billion dollars a second. Taking care of those that are weak and cannot manage by themselves instead of taking advantage of them is really one of the key defining things of being a human.
Re:WE WON THE WAR (Score:5, Insightful)
I think many liberals in the US are simply not convinced that the war has been won. A battle, yes. Saddam is indeed out of power. But the war?
Is America better-regarded on the Arab street for having toppled the regime? (I have a feeling many Americans would be surprised by the answer.)
Is Iraq better off today than when Saddam was in power? Today, mind you, without electricity, water, fuel or a police force that can guarantee the safety of daughters and sisters?
Is America's military better off today, being stuck in a very sticky situation as they seem to be, while every day the Arab media cries "occupier" in shrill tones across the middle east, further cementing the viewpoint that sees America and Israel as conjoined twins?
Assuming that Bush was right about everything so far -- that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam and his sons are dead, that the WMDs have gone to Syria or Iran and that Al Qaeda was linked to the Iraqi government (and I have my doubts about all of this), is America's population safer today now that none have been found? (Bush-ian conclusions: Hmmm, no weapons found yet... obviously they are in Syria and Iran... but Saddam and his sons are dead... so who is holding these WMDs in Syria or Iran? Well, Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda...)
It's obvious that the US has a lot of military might and has beaten up the Iraqi government and infrastructure. But does this really translate into a justifiable claim of "we won the war" on the part of Americans?
Which war?
The much-touted war on terrorism? Certainly not.
The PR war against international hatred of America? Not bloody likely.
The war against Iraq? Oh that's right, America was there to "liberate" Iraq (well, once the WMDs disappeared), not to wage war on it.
I suppose America won the war against Saddam Hussein and a few of his spoiled sons. Congratulations.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:2, Insightful)
MBA Harvard is somewhat educated eh? As compared to what? An Oxford Dropout? There is a saying amoungst professional poker [gamblers] players. "If you want to be successfull in business, surround yourself with smart people. If you wan't to be successfull in poker, surround yourself with dumb people". So far, I'll play poker with anybody that truly believes GW is dumb cause my first assessment of you that you are conceited and an egotistical elitist. The kind that I would like to surround myself with at the poker table.
Yes, I remember how brilliant CNN declared Clinton's statement of: "It depends upon what the meaning of is is". All I could think of is where is Mark Twain or Dorothy Parker when you really need'em.
Now, I'm not posting and responding to try and convince you of anything. I'm posting and responding to remind you that yours is just opinion and is no more correct or certain then mine.
Think about this: I want a President that is diligently and faithfully administering this country rather then one worried about where he's going to get his next blow job and how he's going to keep it a secret.
Re:Check the history. (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect. People who don't know the situation say this because thats all they know, but this is what happened: The Americans gave satellite inteligence to Iraqi, to support their war against Iran. Iran, which at the time was arguably a worst regime than Iraq was supported and funded by the Soviet Union.. In essence it was a Cold War by proxy. After the Gulf War, Sanctions were imposed on Iraq; out of the West it was France and Russia that continued trading with them, and had the most to lose from a war. Russia in particular had numerous billions worth of Oil contracts with Iraq. May i remind you, these were set up in the ninties, opposed to the US's, with where in the early 80's.
>>We didn't care about him killing his people when >>we were the ones selling him weapons. But now >>you think that it matters?
Simply because mistakes of the past had taken place, does not mean that we may not correct them TODAY. At the time, support (albeit limited) was to fight a greater enemy -Communism. Many people forget today forget the Cold War, but we won it, and although hard choices had to be made, we're better for it.
>>And where do you get off claiming that Bush is >>demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying >>Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside >>of Iraq).
Don't care
>>The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED >>the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. >>The CIA even told the British that the info >>wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to >>push this war so he used information that was >>known to be bogus.
Lets be honest here, the chances of find WMD in Iraq were always slim. Especially considering Saddam had about 8 months of time to get rid of them, while the US and Britain were arguing endlessly in the UN. What is clear though is that he did in the past possess them, use them on a civialian population, and was actively seeking more. Whats more, the recent advances in the Israel/Palastine peace process would not have taken place in the presence of the Old Iraq.
>>As for this being another "Vietname" or >>"quagmire", check the body count since Bush >>claimed the war was "over".
Though the recent body count has been disturbing, I would hardly by any stretch of the imagination call it a quagmire.
>>No, we did not have any "moral, legal and >>political justification for removing Saddam >>Hussein".
Actually we did... The allied victory in the first Gulf war stipulated a number of conditions for cease fire. These were, among many, that Saddam destroy his WMD program and accept and comply with its obligations to the UN. As of 1991 these had been broken, along with 11 mandatory resolutions -none of these had been met. Action was not only legal, but necessary if the UN's command was to mean anything.
>>We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support >>our invasion.
The lack of a UN vote was not in part to the opposed countries "care" for their fellow man -France the week earlier had hosted Mugabe of Zimbabwe, in contravention of an EU travel ban- but because of there own interests. The two vocal dissentors, France and Russia, had significant multi billion dollar Oil contracts with Iraq, both of which they would have lost without Saddam in power.
>>As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until >>the first "elections" are held. Wait until they >>elect a radical Islamic priest.
Elections = free democracy
Islam theocracy = not free democracy
Go figure
>>You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis >>and Saddam's statue. That's because our >>government doesn't want you to forget it. It was >>shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the >>US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of >>Iraqis.
I checked the history, and it says otherwise. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the nations who most supported him are the very ones that opposed the war.
More in the same vein [angelfire.com]
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
mr. bush, to a decent enough extent, has rose to the occasion.
for that i thank him, and regret nothing
I hope you know that Iraq had absolutley nothing to do with 9/11. So either you're just some dolt who wants to see someone else suffer because it makes you feel better or you're a racist. I hope you know that 7000 innocent Iraqi's died in the war. Now there is probably some equivalent Iraqi dolt over there just like you, hoping for more destruction and will in turn kill Americans. Now bacause of people like you, the violence will never end.
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is, the fact that we haven't found anything yet, and that the weapons inspectors found nothing, doesn't mean anything. Obviously these things were so well hidden that we should not expect to be finding them.
Case in point -- A couple weeks ago, an Iraqi scientist turned over a bunch of nuke parts and documents to the US army. These were all left over from Iraq's nuclear weapons program. He said Saddam had ordered him to keep them hidden until some later point, at which they would presumably be used to re-start the program. He had these things hidden in an oil drum, buried in his back yard under a rose bush.
How would we ever find that? We can't go around digging up every square inch of the country looking for weapons! And, no, we can't just expect these people to come forward -- the guy who did had to leave the country and take his whole family with him because he feared Saddam's henchmen would come get them otherwise (after he told).
Why would Saddam kick out the weapon inspectors several years ago if there were no WMD's? Why did he consistently try to hinder their efforts as much as he could? Why did Iraqi scientists refuse to be interviewed unless an Iraqi government rep was present (to insure that they didn't spill the beans)? I think they had WMD's, but I don't think we'll ever find them. (Obviously we already have proof that they were planning on making nukes, which should be good enough anyway...)
Regardless, this is all irrelevant. Most of the Iraqi people were happy to see Saddam removed. The WMD thing was just an excuse, because if Bush had gone into the UN and said "We have to liberate Iraq from tyranny", he would have just looked like an arrogant ass, even though that's exactly what we did.
Not that I like Bush. Obviously he fucked up the whole "diplomacy" thing.
Re:There's a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, why have a mere elected President, when you can have a King?
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:4, Insightful)
This solid evidence has now disappeared in a puff of pixie dust and Donald Rumsfeld is saying, "We may never find WMD's" now.
I was always under the impression that going to war was a solution only to be used under the most compelling and immediate of causes.
Charity and love prevails... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. A government is not human. Individual people should be in the business of charity and love, not governments.
Re:Riiight (Score:3, Insightful)
> Since when did the waste stand for capitalism?
Since the very idea of capitalism was invented and added to the Western tradition by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
> Its the truth, just like people are too stupid for a true democracy.
There is a subtle error there. Democracy is the stupid idea, and America's Founding Fathers were smart enough to give us a Republic instead. While I wouldn't trust Joe/Jane random neighbor to directly vote on most issues, I do trust them to elect representatives. In fact I MUST trust them as a article of faith, because the alternative is too horrible to consider. If "The People" are not fit to rule then some smaller subset must be selected, and WHO selects?
It is a matter of time and specialization more than intelligence. I am a computer geek with an interest in politics. I know nothing of auto repair, but manage to pick a mechanic. All Jo Bob is being expected to do is select from a list a candidate one that approximates their values. In spite of a dedicated century long effort to undermine our fair Republic by the left, a corrupt press and education system and other handicaps too numerous to list they have managed to keep the numbers of enemy congresscritters small enough they haven't voted our Republic out and created a Worker's Paradise. And it looks like the trend lines are actually getting better. We could actually be the first Republic in recorded history to descend as far into chaos and empire as we have and recover. (Not ready to bet serious quantities of FRNs yet, but hope springs eternal.)
> Not only that but people are also too stupid to know when to retire.
Free people are free to retire whenever the hell they want. Mandatory retirement laws are an abomination.
> IF people are really so responsible, Gore should be president because
> he won the popular vote, drugs should be legal, and guess what, the
> representative government should be destroyed in favor of having the
> people decide all the laws.
See my comment above on direct democracy. If we must have a government, and I'm of the opinion we unfortunatly do, nobody has come up with anything better than a Republic. And by the established rules of our Republic the Electoral College is the law, and one I agree with because it succeeds in balancing the interests of the small population heavy states with the large resource heavy ones.
As for legalizing drugs I'm all for it but I suspect you would be disappointed were it put to a national referendum. Of course my support for abolishing the drug laws is conditional on abolishing the Welfare State. Do all the dope you want but don't send armed tax collectors to take my wealth to pay for your rehab/welfare/etc when you fuck up your life with crack.
> You want class warfare? If education is not free, thats what will
> happen, either classwarfare, or most people in this country will move
> to canada.
YOu won't find class warfare on my side. That is a specialty of the left. As for free state sponsored/mandated education being desirable, all I will say is LOOK AT THE RESULTS. If you can look at the horrors that the government is demanding parents submit their children to and not be dismayed, I pity you for being an uncaring bastard. And remember, children tended to get educated BEFORE the government started meddling. Your problem is you see issues in terms of the government, as in if the government doesn't not only provide education, but drag teh kids in by force then children just wouldn't get educated.
As for welfare clients moving to Canada, don't let the door hit ya on the way out. But don't expect Canada to actually ALLOW any significant numbers of deadbeats migrate. Harsh? Perhaps, but remember that most Ameri