Muggaz wrote an article "Real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes," – Bush. Both the article and the responses are interesting, but the focus from the start was on personalities... the extent to which a President or a Congressman or a rich person or a Democrat is to blame. That "personal blame" slant is implicit in the original topic. I am more in
If you are talking about taking the vote away from people, well, you're pretty much outside the realm of anything I would consider. Democracy is one of my core beliefs. However, this part of your article was more interesting, and I think it is your real point: Allow them to,
Well, I scored out as a liberal, but it seemed like a lot of my answers were isolationist, too. Not an ounce of neocon in me. Every question, the neocon answer screamed out as the one totally unacceptable response.
My one gripe about this quiz is that it doesn't have anything specifically about free trade versus protectionisism, which is a pretty major component of anyone's view of how nations should relate to each other. That was my first reaction, too, but a lot can be explained by: <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" a
The Roman republic fell apart when their elections deteriorated... to endless litigation... That's about where we're at. Actually, one step beyond that. The litigation itself became increasingly corrupt in Rome. I cannot think of a worse outcome in 2000 than the party line vote in both t
For most candidates, the answer is that yes, they win at all costs.... The problem is that people want power. I agree, but I think that that part is basic to human nature. The would be leaders have always been motivated by thirst for power. In my mind, the worrisome part is that, by my read of it, the method
I have made my decision whom I will vote for in the upcoming presidential election. However, my concern goes far beyond who wins. Over the course of my lifetime, I have become concerned at the direction of our political system, which has always been democratic in spirit, if not technically a democracy. I suppose that there is disagreement over the most important causes of America's greatness, but I have always felt that our political system
A fun game to play, if nothing else. I like to tease those friends that it is not true that I ma for anyone but Bush. Out of 280 million Americans, there must be at least one million of them who, if they ran against Bush, I would vote for Bush. Your list of nine would be among them, although Rumsfeld and Robertson would at least make me think. Cheney and Ashcroft would be at
I think you raise the most important issue facing America at the moment. However, when you say In all fairness, however, the greatest incompetence in the sharing of information lies with the politicians I have to disagree. On the ground, it is politically suicidal to speak at length about information. <br
I think middle is synonymous with "well rounded In my case, it meant that I know next to nothing -- I only knew what they were talking about in like five questions... so I am in the middle.
Madine, I honestly wish you are right, but you are practicing self deceit. I fervently pray that 5-10 years down the road it will turn out that I was wrong and you were right., but, in the meantime, I am going to go with #8.
That's a rediculous argument. Do you really think the terrorists wanted us to overthrow the one government that was giving them sanctuary? Do you really think the terrorists want us to build a democr
What is it about our diplomacy that terrorists should fear? I think it is important for us to encourage other countries to detain terrorists and freeze assets within their borders. You have partly but not completely answered your own question. We are the mightiest country in the world, but we have nowhe
As you worded these, #8 comes out on top. In the long run, we will wish that we had excellent foreign policy more than we will wish for anything else here, even #7. The terrorists have more to fear from us, if we excel in diplomancy than if we excel in any striclty military arena. However, you leave out a lot. You ruin the economic policy choice by turning it into s
Back to your original point, it seems to me that the role of a constitution is to be a check on the principle of democracy, kind of a circuit breaker on short term decisions that violate agreed on principles. It's not that you cannot decide to place a limit on freedom of expression. It's that the courts will take a dim view of any substantial imposement on that limit, unless it is very narrow and clearly a part of public policy. As you say, the law
I saw much speculation. But a far more reasonable explanation. You would prefer to fight with an oversimplifaction than to deal with a quite likely middle ground that leaves your man not so blameless. Not speculation: We identified the 9/11 attacker as Osama Bin Laden. Almost certainly true: Presi
I have had this happen alot: 1. Someone makes an argument 2. I post statistics that counter that argument 3. The other person starts downplaying the validity of the statistics. Recently on another board, there was a discussion about marketing and its effect on people. One person said that despite the
When you're dealing with the lower end of the intellectual spectrum, Democrats and Republicans tend to become pretty similar. Their reasons for voting are often equally uninformed or irrational. Equally based on TV, image advertising, and entertainment values <img src="../images/smiles/smile.gif" border=0 ALIG
So, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Iraq had WMDs, but only Bush lied because he stated that Iraq had WMDs even though many others stated the same thing? See my post above. Both sides of this argument are oversimplifying the sequence of events.
If Kerry wins and the economy contiues to recover RadLibs will probably say that it was "buyer confidence" spurred on by the belief that Kerry would win. If the budget tanks a few months after he wins, they'll certainly blame it on Bush, though Ve
President Bush's fatal errors were these: When faced with the 9/11 calamity, he and the people closest to him decided to pour a huge percentage of our response into attacking Iraq. He sold this to America as being primarily a matter of Saddam Hussein having WMD and of the unsatisfactory nature of the international inspections. I heard this with my own ears, and I cannot imagine what would convince me that this did not take place. Is
For minority or gender issues to effect the election you have to believe that we are basically safe with either candidate, and beleive that the real difference is going to be the social and economic progress of the nation. I don't think people have that luxury this time. People who vote for Kerry seem to be genuinely concerned fo
No Don, your problem is that you came expecting to read a bunch of liberals agreeing with your own views. Pretty ugly statement, Brad... The old "I know so much better than you that I even know your own mind." It also happens that you are wrong. I came here to hear
Bill O'Reilly loves distorting things in ways that appeal to a certain brand of conservatives. Michael Moore loves distorting things in ways that appeal to a certain brand of liberals. They share the goal, and the hope among their respective followers, of converting the uncoverted using a mix of entertainment, fact, distortion, and convenient excisements from the record. I don't know if they convince people or not, but they both turn a nic
Well, let me tote up myJohn Kerry scorecard: The plusses: * his environmental beliefs * his plan to take the money away from a high income tax cut and use it to extend health care benefits The minuses: * he looks silly in a NASA suit * he is silly about complaining regarding an unflattering picture Geez guys, this is such a close call, I just can't decide whether the plusses or minuses carry more weight.