For your little GOP toddler who has everything...

[Shockeye]

Help Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!

[daveNYC]

Lovely, they should subtitle it "People who don't think like me are bad."

Shit, people are rabid enough without being indoctrinated from age 6.  I can't wait until that generation starts voting.

[Dark Vengeance]

Other than the allegedly witty title, and the comment that the two reviews for it seem to imply that it is directed at kids, do we have anything to ACTUALLY SUGGEST that this is a children's book? Did I miss something? I don't see any sample pages.

Are there a whole lot of kids going to Amazon to buy "Unfit for Command" along with this one?

Don't let the short page count fool you. "Who Moved My Cheese" is an excellent book, in large part because it's message is simple and brief. "Rhinocerous Success" is also one of those short little books that almost even LOOKS like a children's paperback, but certainly delivers a message for grown-up professionals.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Shockeye]

"Who Moved My Cheese" is a very good book. It is worth reading for just about anyone except this guy. "Who Moved My Razor" might be more helpful for him.

[Mesozoic]

Customers interested in this title may also be interested in:

Wide Handle Bed Cane
Makes movement in and out of a bed easy with its steady support.
caregiverproducts.com

Yeah, I bet.  Is this because old people have trouble getting out of bed when accosted by liberals?

[daveNYC]

From the Xulon Press website.

Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! A Small Lesson in Conservatism is a wonderful way to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. In simple text, parents and children follow Tommy and Lou on their quest to earn money for a swing set their parents cannot afford. As their dream gets stuck in Liberaland, Tommy and Lou’s lemonade stand is hit with many obstacles. Liberals keep appearing from behind their lemon tree, taking half of their money in taxes, forbidding them to hang a picture of Jesus atop their stand, and making them give broccoli with each glass sold. Law after law instituted by the press-hungry liberals finally results in the liberals taking over Tommy and Lou’s stand and offering sour lemonade at astronomical prices to the customers.

Author Profile

KATHARINE DEBRECHT is a pen name for a mother of three. A former Washington DC intern who once worked on a national presidential campaign, she is a self-described political junkie and champion of conservatism. She resides with her husband and children in South Carolina.

It's a childrens book, I have no idea why Amazon stuck it in the political humor section.

[Dark Vengeance]

From the Xulon Press website.

Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! A Small Lesson in Conservatism is a wonderful way to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. In simple text, parents and children follow Tommy and Lou on their quest to earn money for a swing set their parents cannot afford. As their dream gets stuck in Liberaland, Tommy and Lou’s lemonade stand is hit with many obstacles. Liberals keep appearing from behind their lemon tree, taking half of their money in taxes, forbidding them to hang a picture of Jesus atop their stand, and making them give broccoli with each glass sold. Law after law instituted by the press-hungry liberals finally results in the liberals taking over Tommy and Lou’s stand and offering sour lemonade at astronomical prices to the customers.

Author Profile

KATHARINE DEBRECHT is a pen name for a mother of three. A former Washington DC intern who once worked on a national presidential campaign, she is a self-described political junkie and champion of conservatism. She resides with her husband and children in South Carolina.

It's a childrens book, I have no idea why Amazon stuck it in the political humor section.

Apparently the concept of tongue-in-cheek is lost on some people.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[daveNYC]

One of the many areas I have no knowledge in is childrens books titles.

[AOFanboi]

When I went to the page, Amazon recommended "W Ketchup", with the slogan "You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?".

How fucking anti can you get? I mean, yes, Theresa Heinz Kerry is in that family, but... Argh. Also, a "real American" ketchup is probably made from tomatoes picked by mexican slave workers. So what's the big deal?

Did they boycott peanuts leading up to the Carter election or what?

[Dark Vengeance]

When I went to the page, Amazon recommended "W Ketchup", with the slogan "You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?".

How fucking anti can you get? I mean, yes, Theresa Heinz Kerry is in that family, but... Argh. Also, a "real American" ketchup is probably made from tomatoes picked by mexican slave workers. So what's the big deal?

Did they boycott peanuts leading up to the Carter election or what?

I seem to recall there being a thread about "W" ketchup a few weeks ago.

It's a couple idiots with some ketchup, and a way to hock it as a novelty product. It's a symbolic gesture to basically give John Kerry and his wife the proverbial middle finger. It's on a level equivalent to the folks that started boycotting french wine and using the term "freedom fries".

Please, oh please, don't make it out to be anything other than "heh, that's kind of funny", because I don't think even the people selling it or buying it take it any more seriously than that.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[geldonyetich]

The amazon page to that children's book, through the incidious portals of "amazon recommends" and "customers who bought this book also bought", revealed enough greedy, loathesome ignorance festering in it's own paranoid delusion as to make my skin crawl.

But then, I think that about the entire Republican party, so I suppose that's only to be expected.

[Dark Vengeance]

The amazon page to that children's book, through the incidious portals of "amazon recommends" and "customers who bought this book also bought", revealed enough greedy, loathesome ignorance festering in it's own paranoid delusion as to make my skin crawl.

But then, I think that about the entire Republican party, so I suppose that's only to be expected.

Geld, don't you watch the Godfather movies? Never hate your enemies...it affects your judgment.

In all honesty man, I'd have a metric fuckton more respect for your opinions on politics if they weren't based on the premise that every member of the GOP is either grossly incompetent, or evil incarnate. It's when people don't believe that someone can even POSSIBLY be acting with good and noble intent, and doing what they believe to be their best that I consider their opinions to be invalid and worthless.

The difference is, I don't hate Kerry. I find his tactics in politics to be transparent, although he is certainly ambitious. I find his proposed policies to be unrealistic and overly idealistic. I find his character to be lacking, and find that the very personal record he is touting so strongly is rife with self-contradiction.

But I don't hate him, and I don't even hate some of the things he stands for....I'm all for a clean environment, and jobs for everyone, I'm not a big fan of Patriot Act, and I'm not looking for a constitutional ban on gay marriage....fuck, I even agree with what he has said in some of his critique of Bush.

Ultimately, I just see the zealous hatred of the current administration by hardcore Dems, and a candidate who is promising the world to the middle class, democratic special interests, and the core constituency of his own party...and basically everyone else that the party hasn't made a concerted effort to demonize (primarly, the devout Chrisitans, corporations, the GOP, and the rich). His strategy for all these great social programs and expansion of the military is to get it by taxing the rich and the corporations even more than today....while still believing that he can get them to create new businesses, create new jobs, and make us eneregy-independent while simultaneously raising the minimum wage, and clamping down on overseas outsourcing.

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point.....I just hope at some point you learn to get past the simple partisan hatred, and start taking a deeper look at politics....disagreeing with the right, simply BECAUSE they are the right (or vice versa with the left), is a level of ignorance the depths of which I'd prefer not to even fathom.

Bring the noise
Cheers..............

[Shockeye]

Oh come on, DV! If you're going to post things that make sense and provoke thinking then we're going to have get Haemish or schild to lock this thread before it becoming too informative.

[geldonyetich]

In all honesty man, I'd have a metric fuckton more respect for your opinions on politics

Impossible!  Oh wait, I'll let you finish.

if they weren't based on the premise that every member of the GOP is either grossly incompetent, or evil incarnate. It's when people don't believe that someone can even POSSIBLY be acting with good and noble intent, and doing what they believe to be their best that I consider their opinions to be invalid and worthless.

Well, I'll change my opinion about the GOP when I see some evidence to the contrary.    

Y'know, Bush Jr. decided to appoint an Republican sided Ex-Spy as head of the CIA lately.     If his intent was innocent, it was because CIA must be inadequette to the task if they couldn't stop something like 9/11 from happening, and so major changes must be neccessary.   However, this appointee   is by his own admission badly qualified.   I'm left wondering what motivation Bush Jr's administration would have behind putting a badly qualified new head of the CIA in place.    Since the new CIA head is a staunch Republican supporter, I can't help but think it's to cover their own tracks.

And then, there's the main focus behind Republican philosophy itself.   "Hey! The country needs to funnel power to the already powerful folks who know how to run it.  Everybody will benefit from the resulting trickle-down from rich folks who know how to manage these assets best."

The problem I have with this is that it doesn't seem to work.   Over the last four years, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been deported simply because those same rich folks are hoping to save money.    Insurance plans have been scrapped, and so people are being forced (on penalty of being fired) to work double shifts because it's cheaper than hiring two people to work a normal shift.   Taxes have been refunded to american tax payers everywhere, but in the same refund where your average joe made $300, somebody a few tax brackets up made millions, at the cost of a national surplus that could have been used for the good of the country.   The rich get richer, and they don't feel particularly motivated to help out the little guy.  The upper crust is demonstrating absolutely no interest in helping anyone but themselves.   The GOP's very focus seems to backfire into an obvious falsity where all they really want to do is exploit government proceedings to make money.    Is this really a way to run a country?

So, while perhaps you feel you would respect my opinions a bit more if I weren't so obviously biased, I find my bias appears to be justified.  I try to see the good in everything, but I'm having a very hard time seeing anything good about the GoP.   So please, enlighten me, and don't just tell me how their theories on how to improve the country is supposed to work: show me results.   Show me results besides that which anyone running the country wouldn't have done anyway, such as retaliating for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and enforcing better security.   Show me how they do anything productive for this country besides ask the best military in the world, wether it's under Republican or Democratic rule, to go kill some dangerous foreigners for them.

[Shockeye]

Insurance plans have been scrapped

Or copays like mine have doubled. Remind me not to get sick.

[Lum]

But then, I think that about the entire Republican party, so I suppose that's only to be expected.

So, someone finally told you who to vote for, then?

[geldonyetich]

So, someone finally told you who to vote for, then?

Only you told me who to vote for, Lum.

I haven't forgotten.

[Boogaleeboo]

I remember when you said "Would that little girl want to live in a world that required the level of oppression you ask for?" in reply to more cameras being a good thing when talking about a young girl that was raped and murdered because they couldn't find the guy that snatched her fast enough.

Your bias is justified?

I am willing to post to this site again for the express purpose of tearing you apart you ignorant little weasel. You've gone from flat out expressing "I have no understanding of politics at all" to "My political opinion is backed up by facts" in under a year?

Two things you've said almost word for word.

I'd like to hear how THAT one came about.

[geldonyetich]

You know, I actually anticipated you would show up, Boog.  What, do you hang around on #hate and whenever Lum has a conniption take it upon yourself to inform the offender that they're going to be gifted with an African necktie?   Listen, I've been unemployed for 9 months: I greet death at this point with a smile.

As to the topic at hand, it's time for a minor history revision.   For the offence that got me banned from Waterthread, I was saying nothing of the sort, but at the time all of #hate had rather negatively reflected in any little thing I said, and I wasn't terribly in the mood to correct you at the time.   (Well, I was banned, so I guess my mood had nothing to do with my inability to correct you at the time.)

Let me break it down for you how that worked out:

The subject: Little girl gruesomely murdered.
Line of thought on the message: Massive fascist measures to prevent such a thing from happening again should happen!
My suggestion: "In a world like that, I don't think a little girl would want to live."
You hear: "OMG! GELDONYETICH WANTS LITTLE GIRLS TO DIE!  WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF A LIFE!"
I meant: Think George Orwell's 1984, the kind of world such massive fasciest measures may produce.

Talk about fucking bias.   Of course, I don't blame them really, I was looking really bad at the time.   I had attempted, in an earlier political thread, to ask, "How well do we know our candidates, really, besides what they post in their campaigns?"   That's all.  No political knowledge implied: No political knowledge required for such a question.  For this, I ended up on the end of a full fledged Boog tonguelashing.  I'll tell you right now, Boog, you can really do a good tonguelashing when you want to, especially with some fellow #hate denizens to back you up.   Any semblence of reasonable argument I had left in me was quickly removed in that thread.   You totally castrated me in public.   Bravo.

I haven't forgotten.

Now, if any of you #hate denizens would like to stop telling me how much you would like to murder me for speaking, I would like one of you to take the time to tell me what makes the GOP so great such a way that a rational human being would be expected to.

[Lum]

Thanks for the helpful link to http://www.brokentoys.org/1989/">1984. None of us would have known what that was otherwise.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure none of the people you most dramatically "HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN" are voting for Bush this goaround, myself included. But don't let that stop you, this is fun!

[geldonyetich]

Sadly, I've been subjected to one too many "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers.  The Hate is Strong.   I seek answers.

And of course I haven't forgotten.   For some reason, that wasn't a particularly happy moment for me.   Do I get a "I'm sorry?"  No, it was fun!

[daveNYC]

But I don't hate him, and I don't even hate some of the things he stands for....

Get with the times man.  Modern politics has moved beyond disagreeing with the opposing viewpoint and into disagreeing with the opposing viewpoint's existence.  Compromise is for the weak and hate sells better than understanding.

[Comstar]

Does that mean Lum's voting or not voting for Bush? I'm confused.

[Boogaleeboo]

Line of thought on the message: Massive fascist measures to prevent such a thing from happening again should happen!
My suggestion: "In a world like that, I don't think a little girl would want to live."

More cameras. On say stop lights. Would have caught the van, would have saved the girl. You don't have the right, as it stands now, to not be filmed in public. You NEVER have. There are already plenty of cameras on stop lights NOW to catch speeders and the like.

It's a system already in place, that has been in place. People said if they just went no assed, rather than half assed, into it one more little girl would be in the world.

To which you said "OMG FACISM!!!". Had you left it there, you would have been fine. But then you asked if a little girl that was raped and murdered would want to live in a world that required that level of facism. Which is tantimount to saying "She would have rather been raped and murdered than have cameras at stop lights.".

And you feel bad that people jumped on you for it.

You also flat out said someone should tell you what politicians believe and inform you of what they stand for.

We keep logs, we save things like this.

And now you are saying the GOP is evil.

No shit.

Guess what?

The Democratic Party is too, just in different ways. It's as totally corrupt as the GOP. It'll do the exact same things to you the GOP will. We had stupid wars fighting brown people under Clinton, we had Haliburton making money on those wars, we had oil being involved in quite a few of them. Some of them against Muslims!

And yet the GOP is somehow special.

I'm not a Republican. Neither is most of #hate. Lum is one of the few that actually names himself a Republican, Soul used to. About it. Conservative, maybe, but a lot of Libertarian. A lot of indepedents.

What I want to hear is how John Kerry or the Democratic Party isn't going to continue, exactly, everything you don't like about Bush.

[geldonyetich]

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of what the original article was talking about.   They were having issues following a Van that could have been prevented if they had only filmed where the van was going?  Okay.

When it comes to 1984 angle, the question comes down to just where the line is drawn.  Cameras on stop lights - check.  Okay, lets say that's not stopping horrible things from happening.  Cameras on alleyways and all public locations - check.   Okay, some very bad things are still happening in the world.   Cameras in every room of everyone's houses - check.

Personally, I'd want to try an approach that tries to identify crimes before they happen.  A active, not reactive system.   Trying to set up a network of cameras to track traffic seems like a bandage for a bigger issue that such a dangerous sex offender was on the street to begin with.   Perhaps a higher level of community involvement would have been a better solution.   A level that would know if there's a wierd guy who has severe mental issues plotting things before they occur.   This is because the community is involved enough that this wierd guy has contact with a half-dozen people, and one of them gets worried and asks an investigation is done.  Ideally, that wierd guy gets mental help instead of going forth with an act that would end an innocent life and confine his own to jail for the rest of his.

As for the "The GOP is evil, eh who cares, the Democratic party is evil too.  They're all evil.  Who cares?" approach... well, that's the reason why political parties in a Democracy are voted into office.   Every politician had to start in office somewhere, and this means they are elected into office by folks like us.   When there's stuff we disagree about in our government, as a member of a democracy we do have some sway to do things about it.   When nasty stuff just slides, I'm left thinking that it's because enough of us simply didn't care.   Either that or the entire american citizen voting system is rigged.  Take your pick.

I suggested that maybe we, as american voters, should be given some better information to make informed decisions on who we vote for.   I don't have a fantastic solution as to how, because I don't know what unbiased party could possibly distribute that information.   You took this to mean I want to be told who to vote for, but this was again your choice of interpretation.   Wether or not you were aware of this, this is where I started enduring a severe tongue lashing.   It's really hard to make a coherant case when everybody in the room starts shouting at you out of a misunderstanding, you know?

Will John Kerry and the Democratic Party do a better or worse job than the Bush Jr. Administration?  Well, the Republicans had their turn at bat, and they thrashed the federal surplus and I've had a hard time finding the good that they have done.   Ive watched the Democratic National Party convention footage, and I like what their proposed goals are.   Time to change who's on the plate.   That's my vote, anyway.

The interesting thing is, to a great extent, the political parties at the top are influenced by the folks on the bottom.  They want to stay in power.   Lets say for example they start hearing, "Wow, the people really support that party because they LOOOVE butt kickin'!"   Now both parties say, "Okay, we want to get voted back into office - so we're going to have to make promises we're going to kill people."   It would appear that the evil at the top really reflects the ignorance on the bottom.   (All the more case that those on the bottom could use better educating.)

Sadly, I've been hearing the "butt kicking" sentiment a lot lately, especially from folks who are related to those who serve in the military.    I'm sure they're doing this because they want to be supportive of their loved ones in the armed forces.   However, I don't look at supporting a party in favor of needless wars as supporting our troops.   The reason is because it is better a soldier risk his or her life for a good cause than as politicial manuevering to get people to overlook mistakes.   I can't say that either party was particularly innocent of this, but it seems to me this is all the GOP did during the last four years.

[Boogaleeboo]

Personally, I'd want to try an approach that tries to identify crimes before they happen.

None that wouldn't be more intrusive than a camera in your bedroom. You'll take a genetic test and a psychological report, but you find it scary that the government could put a camera in your shitter?

And guess what?

Everyone could have known he was creepy and that he could try something. And they still couldn't have done anything after he grabbed the girl and ran away. Or are they armed?

So you've traded a police state for cameras on everything.

How isn't this the 1984 world again? People going around informing on other people, yeah, nothing like the book.

And the fun part about sociopaths is they generally seem like regular people. Mostly because they can show whatever emotion they want in any given situation and are as a whole good at lying. Short of intensive medical testing or having caught him fucking his grandma's skinned corpse, you aren't going to know who is and isn't one.

Which, once again, is invasive. You have the possiblity of being a drunk and a wife beater, should you be removed from society?

So now it's Gattica and not 1984. Check.

The GOP is evil, eh who cares, the Democratic party is evil too. They're all evil. Who cares?"

Not at all. It's "They are both evil, they are both wrong, they are both bad.". And then you take a look and decide which evil you can live with. The so called lesser of two evils. Never pretend there is a good choice in this election.

John Kerry wants more military spending, he wants more international involvement in Iraq [not no involvement, not pull out], John Kerry will continue all the so called blunders George Bush started. Do you think he can do a better job with them is the question.

When nasty stuff just slides, I'm left thinking that it's because enough of us simply didn't care.

Nasty stuff is a requirement of life. It's what nasty stuff we allow that is point of contention. There aren't two choices.

Some people inform themselves of the choices and make which one they can live with. It has nothing to do with letting nasty stuff slide or not caring.

Politics is a nasty business, and there's no way to make it fair.

None at all.

Your suggestion of "inform me" was patently silly. All the information is out there. You can check, right now, every single vote John Kerry made in the Senate. Ever law George Bush passed or supported. Most of their major speeches are saved.

You were yelled at for being lazy and stupid. You want someone else to tell you what the facts are, and think things are broken because they don't.

YOU are the one that doesn't care.

If you did, you'd look for the information yourself.

Ive watched the Democratic National Party convention footage, and I like what their proposed goals are.

John Kerry called for increased spending on everything.

Everything.

The military, social programs, funding for schools and space and innovation and this and that and the other thing.

And he's staying in Iraq.

And you expect him to spend LESS money than George Bush.

Yeah, that's not false hope at all.

It would appear that the evil at the top really reflects the ignorance on the bottom.

Or your inability to grasp certain people need to be killed.

The reason is because it is better a soldier risk his or her life for a good cause than as politicial manuevering to get people to overlook mistakes. I can't say that either party was particularly innocent of this, but it seems to me this is all the GOP did during the last four years.

So why did John Kerry and a large portion of the Democratic Party vote the President the power to go to war on Iraq?

Good thing you are trading the one guy that went to war for....the other guy that went to war.

Wouldn't want to have 4 more years of the same thing.

[geldonyetich]

How isn't this the 1984 world again? People going around informing on other people, yeah, nothing like the book.

The world in which you can call the police and ask them to investigate suspicious activity is already here.  

All I'm suggesting is the community gets to know their neighbors.   Your solution asks that people who you do not know spy on you whenever they want using devices they could, at worse, install in your own home.  

You have the possiblity of being a drunk and a wife beater, should you be removed from society?    So now it's Gattica and not 1984. Check.

Again, you're reading what you want to read instead of what I am saying.  I didn't say anyone would automatically be removed from society.  I said people would get the psychiatric help they need if they are identified as needing.    Only in the most dangerous cases would it be neccessary to remove people from society.  Again, this is exactly as we already have going on.   (Except perhaps there are some people who would have be free and sane had they recieved psychiatric help prior to committing a crime.)

The only fault I see in this is that there simply are not enough facilities in place right now for that level of assistance to be offered to our society.   This, of course, would require government spending.

I wonder exactly what would you do with them once they are identified as being a criminal on cameras?   Shoot them dead with an installed gun?  Far less invasive than actually having somebody come there to evaluate them, isn't it?

John Kerry wants more military spending, he wants more international involvement in Iraq [not no involvement, not pull out], John Kerry will continue all the so called blunders George Bush started. Do you think he can do a better job with them is the question.

Remember what I said about both parties supporting what the people seem to want?   Wether or not it was the right thing to invade Iraq, we're up to our knees in it now.   What's more, Iraq has some neighbors who would just love to take care of it's weakened condition.   Like it or not, we're in this mess now, and we can't gracefully pull out without throwing the entire Iraqi populace to the wolves.  

Taking out Saddam may have been the right thing to do considering he had litte love for us, but the fun thing about taking over another man's country is that his job becomes yours.   To hear Bush Jr. talk, it would seem he's not done yet.   Gotta love that little speech of his about "the enemies of America".   Next stop: North Vietnam!   I seem to recall a key point made by the Democratic Party Convention was to promote worldwide cooperation, not piss all over it.

You were yelled at for being lazy and stupid. You want someone else to tell you what the facts are, and think things are broken because they don't.

YOU are the one that doesn't care.

False accuasation do not suit us.   Caring is an interesting thing, isn't it?

You don't know me.  You don't know how informed or uninformed I am now versus last year.   And you certainly don't know if the average american voter cares any more or less than I do.    Yet, you have every reason to care, since their vote can cancel out ya'lls.

Submitted to debate: It's every American citizen's responsibility to try to not only inform themselves of the issues, but try to assure other voters are informed as well.   It's called true political activism.

"My responsibility?  Hell no!  I'm not going to go out there and tell all those lazy bastards how to vote!   I've got better things to do."

Ah, so YOU are the one who doesn't care.

See, that argument works either way, for the person who does not inform himself, and the person who does not wish to inform others.

Of course, informing yourself only counts for one vote...

John Kerry called for increased spending on everything.

Everything.

Good.

Government spending goes to the people.  Such as buying more psychiatric institutions, better health care, roads, ect.    Giving people a $300 bribe so you and your rich buddies can have a several million dollar supply of pina-coladas does not strike me as a better way to spend money.   But it boosted the economy?  No, a temporary $300 boost to the bottom level of economy is nothing compared to a sustained job market where many people are making $600 a week.

Not that the Republicans haven't done any government spending this term.   Heightened 9/11 security (which I suppose any party would do).   A couple of military campaigns (one of which was retalitory for 9/11).   They bought some nukes, I hear.   I am asking if anybody heard of anything better they bought into, but so far nobody's been forthcoming.

And you expect him to spend LESS money than George Bush.

No, I expect him to spend that money in a better manner.

Really though, he couldn't have misspent money much worse than George W. Bush did.   Trillions of dollars should not just dissipear like that.  

Or your inability to grasp certain people need to be killed.

Again, I'm not so easily baited by your false accusations.   My points read better if you don't make them up on the fly.

So why did John Kerry and a large portion of the Democratic Party vote the President the power to go to war on Iraq?

Remember what I said about both parties supporting what the people seem to want?  I hope so, I said it again a few paragraphs ago.

Granted, seeing how Kerry has actually seen military action, I wager he probably understands what it represents somewhat better than a draft dodger would.

[Boogaleeboo]

All I'm suggesting is the community gets to know their neighbors. Your solution asks that people who you do not know spy on you whenever they want using devices they could, at worse, install in your own home.

When did cops become another species? Cousins, aunts, uncles, all of them cops. How are they less my family for it? How are cops suddenly not more informed than your neighbor when it comes to crime?

Only in the most dangerous cases would it be neccessary to remove people from society.

They are all the most dangerous cases. There isn't a person that can do something like this and be fixed. You are willing to beat your wife, you are always that type of person. It's always a possiblity. You are a sexual predator, you will ALWAYS want to rape. It never goes away, and it can't even be treated well. We've had people chemical castrated that went on to rape.

You don't seem to understand what's really required to get what you ask for. If you aren't taking them away from society or watching them 24/7 they simply will do it again. And it's your fault for not dealing with the threat. If you are watching them 24/7.....

....how is cameras on stoplights more invasive again?

False accuasation do not suit us.

But it's not false. You decry the laziness of one group when by definition your problem is laziness. You want another group to do work you should be doing yourself. Informing you. It's YOUR responsibility to find facts and understand the world, not someone elses.

"My responsibility? Hell no! I'm not going to go out there and tell all those lazy bastards how to vote! I've got better things to do."

Of course as I use things you've actually said, you make up things that I would say.

What I say is it's a crime if you vote. It's the equivilent of shooting someone in the head with your ignorance. I'm telling you who to vote for.

Nobody.

See, that argument works either way, for the person who does not inform himself, and the person who does not wish to inform others.

Only in Stupidville.

Government spending goes to the people.

No, see, government spending COMES from the people. The more you spend, the more you take from the people.

And you can't buy more psychiatrict institutions without people to work them. "Better health care"? Everyone in this country has access to health care. Everyone. EVERYONE. What more do you want?

You know what doesn't boost the economy at all?

Taxing everyone.

You know how you get money for all the things you want without cutting some programs?

Taxing everyone.

Not that the Republicans haven't done any government spending this term. Heightened 9/11 security (which I suppose any party would do). A couple of military campaigns (one of which was retalitory for 9/11). They bought some nukes, I hear. I am asking if anybody heard of anything better they bought into, but so far nobody's been forthcoming.

See, that's what you don't get.

It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Republicans and the Democrats.

AND the Democrats you twit.

No, I expect him to spend that money in a better manner.

He's doing more with less?

That's never been the Democrats strong suit. And he's increasing military spending and making it cheap?

He called for a 50% increase in special forces. Flat out called for a 50% increase in special forces. Boggles my mind.

Really though, he couldn't have misspent money much worse than George W. Bush did.

Why, because you say so?

Not only can he, he can misspend trillons of dollars more. You seem to have this fucking childlike fantasy that nobody can be worse than Bush.

I'm going to laugh when you find out otherwise. Mostly because it'll be your out of work ass effected, not mine. I sold out already, I'm fine.

Granted, seeing how Kerry has actually seen military action, I wager he probably understands what it represents somewhat better than a draft dodger would.

What, you mean the action he bugged out of after a handful of months to come home and tell congress American soldiers were thugs and rapists?

Yeah, he's a fucking saint of the military.

Who are you talking about?

It's not John Kerry.

[geldonyetich]

When did cops become another species? Cousins, aunts, uncles, all of them cops. How are they less my family for it?

I said nothing of the sort.

How are cops suddenly not more informed than your neighbor when it comes to crime?

Ask the Cops that try to form neighborhood watch programs.

They are all the most dangerous cases. There isn't a person that can do something like this and be fixed. You are willing to beat your wife, you are always that type of person. It's always a possiblity. You are a sexual predator, you will ALWAYS want to rape. It never goes away, and it can't even be treated well. We've had people chemical castrated that went on to rape.

We're going to have to disagree here.   While I do agree that there may be people in this world who are broken to the point of no repair, I also believe there are many who can be rehabilitated.   New treatments are always being developed for sex addicts, for example.   The trick is to catch them before the crime is committed.   That's where community involvement works better than a reactive system such as using cameras.

....how is cameras on stoplights more invasive again?

"When it comes to 1984 angle, the question comes down to just where the line is drawn. Cameras on stop lights - check. Okay, lets say that's not stopping horrible things from happening. Cameras on alleyways and all public locations - check. Okay, some very bad things are still happening in the world. Cameras in every room of everyone's houses - check. "

Of course, if they stay on stoplights, it probably isn't an issue (unless people are using them to look in windows).   Except, I'm not sure what good a reactive system like that would do.   By the time you catch the perp, it's could already too late.

But it's not false. You decry the laziness of one group when by definition your problem is laziness. You want another group to do work you should be doing yourself. Informing you. It's YOUR responsibility to find facts and understand the world, not someone elses.

I've never said that I wasn't informed.  This time.  However, I did prove that it is even more of an impact of lacking political activism to be unwilling to inform others.   I could run it through a logical formula to prove the validity of that argument if you like.   Pity, that, it is your responsibility after all.   At least if you give a damn about the outcome of the election.   If not, well, you've pleanty of company.

Only in Stupidville.

Population: Humanity.

The day all of humanity is born with inborn omniescence that tells them everything they need to know about the political situation is the day in which political activism is no longer neccessary.   No, I don't honestly expect mass omniescence to happen any more than I expect the majority of voters to develop enough responsibility to thoroughly research the candidates they vote for on their own.    Here I thought I was supposed to be playing the optimist in this conversation.

No, see, government spending COMES from the people. The more you spend, the more you take from the people.

And then it GOES to people.  Or do you not like driving on roads?  Having police?  Recieving snail mail?

It's this line of thinking, "Taxes are bad!" that plays right into the Republican's money grubbing hands.   "Gee, you sure are right, Mr. Average Citizen.  Taxes are wrong - the government is stealing from the american people.  So, tell you what, I'm going to go take that several trillion dollar surplus and give it back to the American people.   We don't really need medicare or social security for the baby boomers anyway.   So, here's $300 for you, several million for me since I paid hella more taxes than you.   I'm sure glad you agree taxes are bad!   Now, because I'm your pal and gave you $300, you're going to vote for me next time around even if the country is in the somehow ends up in the crapper, right?"   And so the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker is applied.

It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Republicans and the Democrats.

AND the Democrats you twit.

That really depends on who voted for what.  Kerry, he says he voted to go to Iraq.  Did every Democrat?  Did every Republican?

Moot point, really - majority rules.   Of course, when the house majority is Republican, it's easy to blame them.   Perhaps not fair in select cases, but easy.

Why, because you say so?

Not only can he, he can misspend trillons of dollars more. You seem to have this fucking childlike fantasy that nobody can be worse than Bush.

I'm going to laugh when you find out otherwise.

Blow an offhand comment out of proportion, why don't you?  

Obviously, I can't see the future, but I can reflect on the past and say that Bush Jr. sure blew through a hella lotta cash doing not much at all.  The law of averages alone would suggest that Kerry could do better.  Clinton's administration, also Democrat, managed to amass a federal surplus while commiting to government spending while having military engagements going on.

What, you mean the action he bugged out of after a handful of months to come home and tell congress American soldiers were thugs and rapists?
Yeah, he's a fucking saint of the military.
Who are you talking about?
It's not John Kerry.

The point is, he didn't have to go.   He had just as much influence as Bush Jr. did.   That he went and found something very wrong with the way our own soldiers were acting on foriegn soil indicates he's willing to accept that our soldiers should be responsible for their actions.   That is an encouraging sign, particularly if you happen to live in Iraq.

[Boogaleeboo]

Ask the Cops that try to form neighborhood watch programs.

Ask the neighborhood watch catching all those thieves, muggers, and rapists.

Oh wait, they don't. That's the police.

I also believe there are many who can be rehabilitated.

And the medical and psychiatric institutes you'd have take care of these people don't.

Wonder who I'm going to listen to?

The trick is to catch them before the crime is committed.

There's no way to know who will be a rapist. None. Until they rape. And by then it's too late. What are you going to do that isn't as invasive as everything else suggested?

I forgot, your plan is dumb hope. There MUST be a way!

Except, I'm not sure what good a reactive system like that would do. By the time you catch the perp, it's could already too late.

No, because if you have the system you can check THAT MINUTE where he went and catch him quickly. Before harm comes to say the young girl he picked up.

Are you beginning to understand here?

At least if you give a damn about the outcome of the election.

No, in democracy it's your responsibility to inform yourself to get the representation you deserve. Now we have a constiutional republic, but the theory is the same.

It's not MY responsiblity to inform YOU. It's my responsibility to try and get what I want. That's it. If you don't want to get what you want, you'll have to make due with what I want.

What system of governence you been looking at?

Population: Humanity

No, population you. Plenty of people understand and accept how the system works. Just not you.

That's not a flaw with humanity, it's a flaw with you.

Personal responsibility has always been a problem with you.

And then it GOES to people.

No it doesn't. It gets wasted and it goes nowhere.

Or do you not like driving on roads? Having police? Recieving snail mail?

Good, now where's the other trillion dollars going?

No?

Yeah, that's the government fucking up. Of course you don't pay taxes right now, so it's not an issue for you. I do, with my job at the snail mail company, and I'd rather not have John Kerry taking more of my money so I can get less of it back.

It's this line of thinking, "Taxes are bad!" that plays right into the Republican's money grubbing hands. "Gee, you sure are right, Mr. Average Citizen. Taxes are wrong - the government is stealing from the american people. So, tell you what, I'm going to go take that several trillion dollar surplus and give it back to the American people. We don't really need medicare or social security for the baby boomers anyway. So, here's $300 for you, several million for me since I paid hella more taxes than you. I'm sure glad you agree taxes are bad! Now, because I'm your pal and gave you $300, you're going to vote for me next time around even if the country is in the somehow ends up in the crapper, right?" And so the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker is applied.

Taxes are good. Check.

We need to lose money to make money.

Only not, because I work for a living and don't require as many government hand outs as you.

So what you are asking for is me to pay for you. Because I don't need more government programs.

You do. Not roads, not police. This money is going to people like you who I want to die for being useless. It's going to make the military bigger, which it doesn't need to be. It needs reforms, not an orgasm of money. That's the tradition Democrat answer. Throw money at the problem.

So now you are taking ALL OF BUSH'S SPENDING AND A SO CALLED WEAK ECONOMY and you are adding INCREASED TAXES.

Yeah chief, that's going to solve the problem.

Kerry, he says he voted to go to Iraq. Did every Democrat?

Let me make it easy for you.

Two that did?

John Kerry and Edwards the wonder dog. AKA who'd you elect.

majority rules. Of course, when the house majority is Republican

And how many votes does it take?

Or don't you know?

Obviously, I can't see the future, but I can reflect on the past and say that Bush Jr. sure blew through a hella lotta cash doing not much at all.

You can also see that historically Democrats raise taxes and increase spending on social programs. They've been known to cut other programs to fund this, like say the military......

....only John Kerry has promised to grow the military.

So where is the money coming from?

Clinton's administration, also Democrat, managed to amass a federal surplus while commiting to government spending while having military engagements going on.

And there was no cut in military spending under Clinton. And the current economy downswing didn't happen under Clinton.

Not at all.

The point is, he didn't have to go.

And George Bush didn't have to serve in the Texas Air Nation Guard. Doesn't change the fact he didn't have to go to Vietnam.

Doesn't change the fact John Kerry is a lying fucking asshole that did more to shame the United States Navy than pretty much any other person in history.

Oh yeah, you know all his claims?

Not one was ever verified. Ever.

John Kerry lied before Congress, John Kerry has NEVER mentioned what he said after that point.

John Kerry is willing to sell out anyone and anything for power.

And yet he's the better choice?

No wonder you are unemployed.

[Comstar]

And George Bush didn't have to serve in the Texas Air Nation Guard. Doesn't change the fact he didn't have to go to Vietnam.

Bush ASKED not to be sent. He ticked the box to say he did not want to be sent overseas.

Doesn't change the fact John Kerry is a lying fucking asshole that did more to shame the United States Navy than pretty much any other person in history. Oh yeah, you know all his claims? Not one was ever verified. Ever.

Which claims are you talking about? His medels? They were writtin for and appoved for by other people, not him.

BTW, there are 3 retired Admirals and 7 Generals came out in Support of Kerry over Bush today.

[SirBruce]

How about just clarifying whether or not he was in Cambodia in December 1968, or at any other time, and whether or not he was under orders to do so, and by whose orders?  But no, he won't even do that, because he'd have to admit he lied about half the shit he said but the other half was true.

Bruce

[Comstar]

The candidates make thier comments.

First, John Marshell provides something about GWB:

I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, because ... I am most interested in finding out the truth. -- George W. Bush, 10/06/03

In January, Justice Department investigators asked White House staff members to sign a waiver requesting "that no member of the news media assert any privilege or refuse to answer any questions from federal law enforcement authorities on my behalf or for my benefit." But in February the Washington Post reported, "Most officials declined to sign the form on the advice of their attorneys." -- Salon, 8/13/04

--------------------------------------------------------

Now, Kebin Drum on  Kerry and Cambodia. The speaker is Kerrs biographer Douglas Brinkley. Drum is at the bottem:

   "On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

    ....He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

    "He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

So let me get this straight. Kerry did go to Cambodia — even though that was supposedly impossible, he did take CIA guys in — even though that was supposedly absurd, and he did get a hat from one of them — even though that was supposedly a sign of mental instability. The extent of Kerry's malfeasance is that instead of doing it in December, he actually did it in January and February.

Considering that he's mentioned this story only twice, most recently 18 years ago, and it turns out that his only crime is to have tarted it up with a bit of holiday pathos, I think I'll pass on following it any further down the Swift Vets rabbit hole

[Boogaleeboo]

Yeah, that's a sterling source.

So, about all those rapes and slaughters he witnessed.

You of course have a link to back THEM up, right?

[geldonyetich]

Ask the neighborhood watch catching all those thieves, muggers, and rapists.

Oh wait, they don't. That's the police.

I don't really need to tell you how a Neighborhood watch works, and why it's advantagous for the police to have them, do I?

And the medical and psychiatric institutes you'd have take care of these people don't [believe people can be rehabilitated].

Wonder who I'm going to listen to?

Show me where this happened.   I bet I could find a counterexample for each time.

Honestly, your approach is "Kill them all who are the least bit broken and get it over with."  It shows a certain lack of understanding.

I forgot, your plan is dumb hope. There MUST be a way!

It's a tad less self-defeating than your approach: outright nihilism.    I'm sure a little girl would like to hear that if she's the least bit broken she needs to die.

That's not a flaw with humanity, it's a flaw with you.

You sure are heavy on that, "lets turn this abstract argument into a particular problem with one of the arguers" angle.   It may make you feel better, but it proves nothing.   Even moreso when your accusations may be false.

[Re: Taxes]No it doesn't. It gets wasted and it goes nowhere.

Yeah Boog, the government taxes people to waste money.   Governments don't really need money.    They do everything through their people's overwhelming love for them.

So now you are taking ALL OF BUSH'S SPENDING AND A SO CALLED WEAK ECONOMY and you are adding INCREASED TAXES.

Yeah chief, that's going to solve the problem.

And there was no cut in military spending under Clinton. And the current economy downswing didn't happen under Clinton.

Not at all.

It's handy when you answer your own questions for me.   It comes down to this: Increased spending does not neccessarily mean increased federal debt.  

Increased taxes won't influence us down here on the bottom nearly as much as it will the folks up top.   Overall, the folks that stand to benefit from taxing the most are the guys on the bottom, because the government spends it on things that benefit everyone within the country.   (Well, except for those $2000 toilet seats.  I gotta get me one of those.  I bet they give full buttock massages.)

Two that did?

John Kerry and Edwards the wonder dog. AKA who'd you elect.

So you're attempting to establish that things could, just maybe, stay the same under Kerry and Edwards as they would Bush and Cheney.   I fail to see how they makes them a worse choice.

And how many votes does it take?

Or don't you know?

I don't know, Boog.   Maybe two thirds?  No, wait, perhaps less than half has to vote in favor for something to pass.   Yes, majority does not actually establish itself!   Now I see your point.

John Kerry is willing to sell out anyone and anything for power.

Why, because you said so?    If the worst skeleton you can find in Kerry's closet is that it's hard to verify some of his claims, I'm not impressed.