There's a great diary by "Bill in Portland Maine" over at DailyKos, entitled "How wrong can you idiots be???" If you haven't seen it, you should definitely check it out, because it beautifully, perfectly, exquisitely sums up everything that's wrong with the "Knuckledragger wing of the Republican party," as the diarist calls it. To sum up, the "knuckledraggers" were all wrong they said that:
*Terry Schiavo wasn't brain dead. Turns out from the autopsy that her brain wasn't much bigger than a freakin' walnut! So who's brain dead here? I vote for Senator-Doctor Bill Frist.
*Saddam was behind 9/11, Iraq had WMD, Iraq would be an easy victory, Iraqis would greet our soldiers with garlands of roses, etc., etc. More than 1,700 U.S. military deaths later, we're still waiting for proof of WMD, signs of the "easy victory," and of course "mission accomplished."
*Global warming was not serious. Well, it is, and lying won't change that fact. Although putting oil industry lobbyists in charge of environmental policy at the White House was a clever move, if a bit heavy handed, I gotta admit.
*The "homeland" was getting more secure. Yeah, then how come we can never come back down to "Code Green?" Why can unauthorized private planes still come within a few miles of the White House? Why are ships coming into this country adequately inspected?
*Huge Bush tax cuts for rich people would a) stimulate the economy; b) not blow the budget out of the water; and c) wouldn't be a repeat of what Dubya's father correctly called "Voodoo Economics." "Whoops" on all counts...damn banana peel again. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whooooaaaaaa!!
*Privatizing Social Security was a good idea. Fortunately, almost nobody agrees with the "knuckledraggers" on that boneheaded idea.
*Etc., etc. , etc. The list goes on and on.
As "Bill in Portland Maine" concludes:
There isn't a duncecap big enough to fit your big fat arrogant heads. There isn't a corner big enough for you to take a time-out in. You guys have been so absolutely, positively wrong about everything that it boggles the reality-based mind. And not just wrong---but willfully wrong.I just wanted you to know that, you incompetent radical Republican nincompoops. Hope I didn't spoil your golf game.
The sad thing is, we could do almost exactly the same list for the Virginia Republican ticket of Jerry, Larry and Mo. Or whatever their real names happen to be. But why bother, when we've already got it all spelled out so well by "Bill in Portland, Maine?"
Welcome to the new party-building, youth outreach arm of the Democratic party. :)
If you're truly a democrat, then attack the republicans who are destroying our country. And get over the $15 million that couldn?t be spent after the convention. Kerry used it to fund multiple Christine Gregoire Governor recounts, and a recount for a Louisiana democratic congressman (both which we won) and has given more more to the party than any candidate ever did. including a million to Chairman Dean. He?s again funding the Gregoire defenses against republican apeals. He's had our back, and we should still have his back.
Kerry actually did bot lose by much in Virginia. He has also done a lot for veterans since the election and Virginia has many of them. His military family bill of rights is commendable, as is his fight for healthcare for all, even the poor. Virginians will back him if he runs again in 2008.
There are some programs on Air America that are worth paying attention to. Here is a website for the archives of one of them (no commercials, and you can download and listen to any of her programs any time at all.):
www.randirhodesarchives.com
She is a very smart lady who uses original documents as her source material most of the time. It would be hard to listen to an entire program from these archives and not be impressed by her.
Arlene Montemarano
Silver Spring, Maryland
So... you talked to John and Teresa together, and you talked to Bill by himself?
Look at it this way, folks: If you were trapped in an elevator with a presidential candidate for 16 hours and due to some inexplicable plot device could not talk about anything to do with politics, would you want that person to be John Kerry? Or Hillary? Sh*t no. I'd rather gnaw through the floor and throw myself down the shaft to certain death.
Well, the average normal American who doesn't think all that much about politics doesn't want to be trapped with them either. Give them a candidate they think they could stand, and you'll have a shot. Give them a candidate they think could turn it into a good time, and you'll have a winner.
I'm a lifelong Democrat who found John Kerry to be a pompous, self-absorbed anf hypocritical windbag who ran a hopelessly inept campaign against a very weak incumbent. Only a kook like Dennis Kucinich would make a worse candidate than John Kerry
WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry tapped campaign funds for Red Sox tickets and to pay nearly $300 in overdue Boston parking tickets in March, records show.
Kerry's Senate campaign committee wrote a $287 check to the City of Boston Parking Clerk on March 31, 2005. The Bay State senator listed ``travel expense'' as the purpose for the expenditure.
Kerry leased a car for campaign-related travel in Massachusetts that was cited for about a half-dozen parking tickets in Boston.
Most of the tickets were issued in October and November 2003 and not paid until more than 15 months later in March 2005 after accruing penalty fees.
``They were leftover tickets we only found out about when we closed out the lease,'' Kerry spokeswoman Jenny Backus said. ``The car was used for the Senate campaign by staffers and volunteers.''
Kerry, meanwhile, used presidential campaign funds for a $3,150 tab for Boston Red Sox tickets in July when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park before the Democratic National Convention.
A Federal Election Commission spokesman said congressmen are entitled to pay for parking tickets and other expenses from their campaign funds as long as they were ``campaign-related.''
If stuck on an elevator with Kerry, he'd climb through the ceiling and get help. Bottom line, he's a man of action, unlike most of the other lazy politicians in our country. He has fought for noble causes and won important changes for military families and widows, and small business. Since the election, he continues to stand for what's right, and I'll support him in 2008 wholeheartedly.
Kerry's military family bill of rights has already had portions passed this year. Widows will get a large sum of money to help them get back on their feet and will have a home on the military base for a full year rather than the 90 days they have now. Families of soldiers who die outside the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters will now qualify for the death benefits which were only for those who die in "combat". If a fighter pilot dies in a crash in the Pacific, his family deserves the same treatment, as his sacrifice was the same, his life. It is John Kerry who led the way and stood up for these people. Remember that before you push your rotten smears.
Kerry did not lose by much in Virginia in 2004. I believe Virginians of both parties will take a stronger look at him if he runs again in 2008 and I think he will win here.
William Murphy
Roanoke, VA
Red States need to support the national party platform more. Then the national candidate can win in those states. Southerners are brutally punished by the Bush agenda, but they vote against themselves because of Rove plants like Lowell.
BTW: Kerry was actually a serious threat in VA until the media pushed the ridiculous smears. Even then Kerry did not lose the state by much. Also he's done a lot for veterans since the election. The things Bush refused to do, like taking care of military widows rather than kicking them off miltitary bases 90 days after the spouses death. The Bible tells us to look after the least among us. Kerry actually walks the walk unlike other polician swho just talk. Virginians should back him fully if he runs again. I know I have his back!
John Kerry has to be one of the more embarrassing factors, within the ranks of the Democrat Party. In 2004 he ?won? the Democrat nomination to run for President of the United States, largely because he was the only potential candidate still left standing. Original front-runner Howard Dean had, already, destroyed his chances with his ?I have a scream? speech. Now, Senator Kerry has officially announced that he will be running for POTUS in 2008. Hmmm. I wonder how Hillary feels about his pronouncement. Guess this will mean a shoe-in for her! She must be smiling broadly, today.
The problem with Kerry is that he 1. thinks he really won the 2004 election and refuses to let it go and 2. has never stopped running for president, in the first place. Since the Presidential Election, Kerry has been fervently emailing those, on his huge and lucrative lists, who contributed large amounts of money to his 2004 ?campaign?. He?s asking them, yet again, to fill up his exhausted campaign coffers for his now planned 2008 re-attempt to take the position that has, already, badly eluded him. It appears that Mr. K will not stop, no matter how many have told him: ?We wouldn?t vote for you, again, if you were the last candidate on the planet!? And this is coming from members of his own Party.
John, it?s time to concentrate your efforts on the job you were elected to do (that of the junior Senator from Massachusetts) and to quit running after the elusive rainbow of the US presidency. You?ve previously shown that you have no clue as to where the pot-of-gold is located. It?s time to give it up, John, and move on. Besides, from what I?ve been able to glean, you?re not doing your senatorial job, anymore. You might want to concentrate on your senatorial reelection. Let your aspirations toward the presidency go, John. Just?let them go.
Warner maybe, but Edwards and Clark?! Edwards did ZERO for the Democrat ticket in the South. Bush won Edwards' home state of North Carolina by an even bigger margin than he did in 2000, and anyone who wants to subject the party to Clark's amateurish bungling has a screw loose.
Richmond Times-Dispatch
May 4, 2005
In 2002 jurisdictions in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads held regional referendums regarding transportation and taxes. Democrats generally supported the referendums as a device to measure local sentiment; many urged citizens to vote yes. Anti-tax absolutists not only opposed the packages but considered the referendums themselves examples of insufficient zealotry for their cause. If they had had their way, the referendums would not have occurred.
The referendums played a role in the 2001 statewide campaign. Tim Kaine, for instance, laid into his Republican opponent for opposing them. Kaine even called Jay Katzen's stand "arrogant." The victor in the Lieutenant Governor's race embraced the concept of regional referendums. The proposals went down in flames, which might explain some of this year's posturing.
Kaine is competing against the GOP's Jerry Kilgore in the 2005 gubernatorial contest. Kilgore's campaign was delighted to dig up Kaine's 2001 statements, especially after the Democrat ridiculed the Republican for introducing a transportation agenda featuring . . . regional referendums.
This is sweet -- and typical.
According to Kaine, four years ago referendums reflected enlightened policy; now they indicate a lack of leadership. And for their part, factions opposed to the earlier transportation referendums in practice as well as in content have not denounced Kilgore as a traitor or even as someone from Massachusetts.
Professional spinners likely are able to draw fine distinctions between acceptable referendums in one election and unacceptable referendums in another. Citizens see them as yet more blind curves in the electoral road. And although both sides have veered onto the shoulders, the my-way-or-the-highway tone of his rhetoric suggests Kaine has drifted farther off course.
The UMWA endorsed Kerry over Bush last year. Bush still won West Virginia by 6 1/2% and Virginia by 8% carrying the coalfields in both states.
This November, once again, the handful (sounds like 30) of the UMWA establishment will vote for the Liberal and the membership (in the thousands) will vote for the Conservative.
Peace is patriotic
P.S. I have a double Bush whammy. I live in Florida!
(Of course, I'm not too keen on John Edwards because he comes across as such a phony - in fact, I nearly went third-party as a result of Kerry picking this hairball).
However, Wes Clark is winning nearly every single one of the online polls - and most of them cannot be "freeped" because they're linked with a user name - and I see him spoken up in all grassroots settings. Only the media is screaming "Hillary!" and "Kerry!" - I know about two people who support John Kerry anymore and none who support Hillary. I have no idea where they find people who take these media polls - they certainly don't call me.
Wes has been participating in foreign policy debates, economic forums and testifying before Congress on the ills of the Iraqi War. He's also doing the "rubber chicken" circuit, including speeches at the California Democrat Convention, Cornell's 2005 graduation and the Georgia ACLU. I think as more and more people get to know him, he'll eventually be the stealth candidate the media never saw coming.
And this time, we'd better be prepared to fight the stupid memes the right-wingers will toss out about him and MAKE the media cover him this time.
This is the most asinine thing that a so-called Democrat could say.
If Kaine does not support this message he'd better wipe it pronto and put up an apology.
* if said apology is forthcoming and sufficient, I might take this back. If he earns it otherwise.
And don't you think that Kerry shouldn't have left $15 million unspent? Don't you think that if he'd spent it in Ohio, he would have won the election? Senator Kerry stood up to President Bush in 2004, but his campaign left something to be desired. I hope that Kerry keeps up his good work in the United States Senate, but that he doesn't run for President again. He got nominated because he calimed to be "electable." Now that he's proved that he's not, what else does he have left to run on?
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad that Kerry fought hard, and I'm very grateful for his service in the Senate, but if we nomiante him again, I'm terrified that we'll lose again.
However, if this is your idea of what a Democrat is, God preserves us.
Why would Lt Gov Kaine, a Democrat running for Governor of Virginia, find necessary to assault another Democrat in order to win his election.
I have read about Kaine and am not impressed at all, and this confirm my impression, and my vote will not go to him, that you can be sure.
We dont need Democrats like you.
Anyway, I think you should abstain of this type of posts in a blog that is aimed at having Kaine elected. For somebody like me who will support him with regret, this is not helping.
BTW, you may want to learn electoral laws, as Kerry could not use these funds after the Democratic Convention.
It's my understanding that the 15 million left over were from federal matching funds and could only be used after the convention. If I'm incorrect please let me know, but I think we can all agree that one way or another, the money should have been used.
Signed,
Kerry was my first choice, and there was nothing "inexplicable" about his win
They'd also know that's where the grassroots DNC money Howard just bragged about came from, at least in part, $1 million from John Kerry dedicated to building the grassroots.
Finally, this is so typical of Run Away Red States. Run away from the national party platform and then wonder why the national candidate doesn't come to your state. Well gee, because your "conservative" voters won't vote in the local candidates unless they run as quasi-republicans.
What's that Bible quote, take the log out of our own eye before you take the splinter out of mine. Yeah, that's it. Maybe you better focus on why Virginia can't elect real Democrats instead of trashing one who is.
I went to 3 or 4 Kerry rallies! I liked what I heard from Senator Kerry! I still do. Read his book, "A Call To Service".
I believe Kerry did represent and speak all those things you stated were good southern democrat values. However, a little more than half the country was duped by sleazy politics into voting for the other guy! I heard people say they only voted for Bush because he cut taxes, and now I think they are starting to regret it!
It was a close election and not perfect but maybe some of the others wouldn't even have done as well as Kerry did considering all that Bush and his croanies did to undermine the democratic candidate in the 2004 election. Why not give Senator Kerry some kudos for his campaign instead of being so critical, I plan to support him in 2008!
I hate say we have very little hope in the South, but I really see this as true. I think our focus as Democrats should be using our resources in the Southwest-a fast-growing region tottering on the edge of blue. Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado are behaving like swing states.
In the short term our presidential candidates will not win Virginia. We can close the gap but it will remain solidly in favor of the Republicans. In the long term, as Northern Virginia continues to grow liberal, we may be able to tip the balance. We simply do not have unlimited resources to spend in the South.
I will not reopen the debate on why we lost, but Lowell, I feel that assailing our past candidates is not the best use of our time. What is done is done.
AS I said, this money could only be used BEFORE the Convention. For the rest, I agree with kj and dont think posts like that will help Kaine at all.
I'm happy to come to Lowell's defense concerning his appraisal of Kerry's 2004 campaign. Well done and spot on. I can only hope you're as right about the 2008 selection...with Wesley Clark leading the charge!
That said I agree with one of the comments upthread, that I cannot see the relevance of your post to getting Kaine elected. I would think you'd be more effective if you were more diplomatic in how you post about other important Democrats.
Personally, I think there should be MORE Clark supporters - and maybe will join your groups to spread the word about him. I think the media discounted him too much and spread false info IF they talked about him, at all - which wasn't much. The offline community needs to somehow be reached - and explained to that they're being lied to by the media and shown how they can get more and better info from foreign newspapers online and blogs that provide detailed info of where and how they got their info than any television news show does.
I don't know anyone who supports Hillary, offline, either: Dem or Indie. They think she's a lighting rod who will not flip a red state, who may flip a couple of blue states TO red and who, well, let's enter reality, is a woman running during wartime, which, in this patriarchal country simply "will not do."
There is hope.
I've been campaigning against the Bush family since George The Elder took a run. That particular family makes me see red every time I think about them. Babs as well.
But, what will distinguish us in the end is by continuing to fight, as you said you were. Bravo for that!
I'm a "good liberal" as they used to say, and a very strong John Kerry supporter. He was my senator for six years. I'm extremely proud of his accomplishments and happen to think he is one of the finest people we have working in the political realm today. I know I'm not alone in that sentiment in the real world or the blogosphere.
He had my back in the campaign, he has it now, and I have his. My loyality to him runs deep.
And we will take our country back. Especially with people like Kerry, Clark and Edwards still out there on the stump... a fantastic thing for three ex-primary candidates to be doing at this point in time... and Howard Dean, and etc. etc.
We're stronger when we fight shoulder-to-shoulder I think.
His "concession" only hours after the last vote was cast was an action totally emblematic af all that has become wrong with the Democratic Party, in general, and John Kerry, in particular. No guts, no backbone, no balls, and no will to win. I'm sick of it and I'm sick of him.
I am also not crazy, as has been stated here by others that he is using the e-mail list and the money that was donated for a legal fight to promote himself for 2008.
John Kerry will never receive another vote from me -- not even if he runs for Dog Catcher. I want a candidate who wants to win badly enough to go out there and fight for it. I want a candidate who wants what's best for the little guy, and to hell with corporate interests! I want my great and free America back. And, that brings me to this point: Here in America, whether you agree or disagree, anyone can say so here and on any blog they wish. It not always be what you want to read, but they have a right to blog it.
And, I'm sure you don't care how you come across. After all, it's the internet! Duh! Rant is its currency!
So you say Falwell's books are good, but that he uses the Masonic Calendar.
I take it this is a sign you are coming around and Masons are ok after all?
Or just their calendars?
Two quick points though:
1- Impressive endorsment list? What County Supervisor isn't going to endorse the son of their collegue?
2- Your description of Marsden as a "dem heavyweight" made me throw up on my keyboard. :)
Thanks,
Dan Drummond
Chairman, Fairfax City Democratic Committee
Richmond Times-Dispatch
May 5, 2005
During the Clinton years, the American right had to endure the embarrassment of its wacko fringe -- the conspiracy theorists who were convinced Bill ran drugs with Ollie North and Hillary had Vince Foster assassinated. Today the American left has its wacko fringe that believes America is one step away from a theo-fascist dictatorship. The only difference between the two seems to be that the latter subset is much larger than the former.
The other day in Roanoke about a hundred people gathered in front of the Poff Federal building downtown to defend . . . the filibuster. "In all of my 64 years, I have never been as afraid for this country as I am today," said one participant. "I believe our whole system is in danger."
She's not alone. A letter-writer in the Newport News Daily Press says ending the filibuster would put America "well on the road to a corporate, fascist state." Over at The Nation, the editors are warning of "a Republican coup" at PBS -- said coup being carried out not by armed thugs or even a violation of standard operating procedures but by virtue of the fact that "a majority of the [Corporation for Public Broadcasting's] eight-member board . . . are now Republican appointees."
Visitors to The Nation's Website also can find a link to America 2014: An Orwellian Tale, a hilariously bad updating of George Orwell's 1984: "A judge in a black robe sat behind an enormous desk. Mounted on the wall behind him were large, framed inscriptions, one on top of another, circling a replica of the Ten Commandments carved in stone. The largest inscription said, 'In The Homeland Security Court, The Presiding Judge Is God!' Another read, 'In God Lies Freedom, But There Is No Freedom From God,' and under it, 'In God's United States, We Have No King But Jesus.'"
Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper's, has a new book out: Gag Rule: On the Supression of Dissent & the Stifling of Democracy. One would think that the ability to publish a book about how dissent is being suppressed would obviate the very point the book is trying to make, but apparently nobody called this to Lapham's attention.
Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Chris Hedges also is working on a book, this one about the incipient fascism being nurtured by Christian conservatives. "Right now, we're living in the equivalent of 1910 Germany," he recently told an audience of graduate journalism students at New York University. The Christian right, he says, is "a force working within our democracy to destroy it" and is using the language of violence as a presage to using the real thing.
Rick Perlstein, writing six months ago in "The End of Democracy," a cover story for The Village Voice, admitted "George Bush is not a fascist. He really isn't." When such a statement counts as an indicator of moderation, it's a sure sign the wacko fringe is on its way to becoming the mainstream.
This post about Kaine claiming he's no liberal makes the decision for me. I won't be volunteering any more, or signing up new volunteers.
If Kaine doesn't want me, then I don't want HIM. That kind of disloyalty to the Democratic base is no longer tolerable....and it's obviously a losing strategy.
Richmond Times-Dispatch
May 4, 2005
In 2002 jurisdictions in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads held regional referendums regarding transportation and taxes. Democrats generally supported the referendums as a device to measure local sentiment; many urged citizens to vote yes. Anti-tax absolutists not only opposed the packages but considered the referendums themselves examples of insufficient zealotry for their cause. If they had had their way, the referendums would not have occurred.
The referendums played a role in the 2001 statewide campaign. Tim Kaine, for instance, laid into his Republican opponent for opposing them. Kaine even called Jay Katzen's stand "arrogant." The victor in the Lieutenant Governor's race embraced the concept of regional referendums. The proposals went down in flames, which might explain some of this year's posturing.
Kaine is competing against the GOP's Jerry Kilgore in the 2005 gubernatorial contest. Kilgore's campaign was delighted to dig up Kaine's 2001 statements, especially after the Democrat ridiculed the Republican for introducing a transportation agenda featuring . . . regional referendums.
This is sweet -- and typical.
According to Kaine, four years ago referendums reflected enlightened policy; now they indicate a lack of leadership. And for their part, factions opposed to the earlier transportation referendums in practice as well as in content have not denounced Kilgore as a traitor or even as someone from Massachusetts.
Professional spinners likely are able to draw fine distinctions between acceptable referendums in one election and unacceptable referendums in another. Citizens see them as yet more blind curves in the electoral road. And although both sides have veered onto the shoulders, the my-way-or-the-highway tone of his rhetoric suggests Kaine has drifted farther off course.
The Virginia GOP's Dirty Money
Max BlumenthalFri Nov 4, 3:53 PM ET
The Nation -- Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore has made illegal immigration a centerpiece of his campaign, promising an aggressive crackdown on day laborers and undocumented immigrants attending state universities. "Will we reward illegal behavior with hard-earned dollars from law-abiding citizens?" he asked a campaign rally crowd this August. "I say the answer to this question should be an easy one: no!" While Kilgore accepts the financial support of an anti-immigrant group with racist ties, he also has taken massive contributions from companies notorious for exploiting undocumented immigrant labor.
Virginia Republican Attorney General candidate Bob McDonnell has declared himself "a drug dealer's worst nightmare," while appearing in ads slamming imaginary crooks behind prison doors and pledging to protect Virginians from sexual predators. McDonnell has not only financed his campaign through a possibly illegal slush fund but has hired three former associates of indicted Republican ?ber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. One of them, who once served as McDonnell's campaign manager, is now in prison for soliciting sex with a young boy.
With friends like these, it's hard to imagine how Kilgore and McDonnell expect their law-and-order message to be taken seriously. Without such friends, however, it would be difficult for them to plaster their message on TV screens throughout the Old Dominion. And so they have eagerly racked up contributions from controversial and at times contradictory interests, hoping that wedge issues and pseudo-populist rhetoric will paper over their sordid finances. Thus far, with Kilgore running neck-and-neck with his Democratic challenger, Tim Kaine, and McDonnell enjoying a comfortable lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds--and with less than a week left until election day--the strategy seems to be working.
he looks like an exact replica of a fetus. this reminds us all that fetuses are american citizens who should be given the right to vote, smoke, shoot a gun, and serve in the military, should they choose.
These days our "buddy" called Jim Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) has been in the news a good bit. Let's call him JG for brevity and convenience. I wonder if JG loves GWB (AKA Dubya Bush). After all, JG certainly did wind up hurting Dubya, at least in the sense of causing significant embarrassment. At the same time, brown-nosing JG says that he strongly supports Dubya in every way, which suddenly became all the more awkward insofar as JG is apparently also an active homosexual. Dubya is supposed to have won this last election because of the aroused anti-homosexual vote, remember? (Mixed non-evidence of the voting, actually, but that's a different question, though still related to confusions of truth.) Unrequited love? Perhaps. So what about moral values? Well, let's add in the little missing ingredient: JG is also a criminal. At least I hadn't heard of prostitution being legalized in Washington DC. Apparently JG has also indulged in a bit of tax evasion, too, but that's just sordid, not amusing.
Back on the home front, Dubya is always saying how much he loves America. More hurting the one you love? Isn't he paying any attention to what's going on? Dubya himself is doing all kinds of things that are giving all sorts of hurt to America. Or is it all a lie, and the only actual brownie points are for money and power? Dubya says he loves international cooperation, too--and just look at his latest hurtful appointments there, too.
Truth and lies? Who can tell these days? "Good journalism" was supposed to be some sort of impassioned search for the truth for the sake of the "public". Then you remember how this JG fiasco came to light. After Dubya struggles with a tough question about the need for "independent" journalism, he runs to his good friend JG for succor. Of course JG obliges with another of his trademark very friendly brown-nosing questions, but the curiosity gets stirred up, and it turns out that JG himself becomes the amusing story--and yet not the headline story.
Maybe that's the real point. After all, the JG saga seems to have all the usual ingredients for big headlines--the kind of story some real journalists were once eager to pursue. Presidential intrigue and secrecy, and for the tabloids there's kinky sordid sex thrown in on "top". Even weirder tin-hat speculations about CIA-sponsored kidnapping? Well, I can't resist the joke... If JG was brainwashed, someone obviously left him in the spin cycle for *WAY* too long. And yet the mainstream media obviously prefers to ignore it. Must cut too close to home. JG was apparently being accepted as a journalistic peer for several years--at the same time that critics are accusing the journalists of having become corporate prostitutes. This is one story that they'd rather forget, eh? Or just professional courtesy?
Anyway, that's all I can think of just now. Any suggestions or thoughts appreciated (via the Web site). I feel like a lot of the elements are here for a more substantive story, but it's still not as funny as it could be. Actually, it kind of reminds me of the joke about why it was so difficult to write fiction. Fiction has to try to be believable, but reality has no such concern.
In particular, I'm concerned about the death penalty, which was one of the questions Ms. Garvey left blank. Mr. Coyle, as a member of Ms. Garvey's campaign staff, can you tell me where she stands on that important issue? Mr. Englin's got it on his website, so he can be held to it - as a voter I'd like to see Ms. Garvey be as open.
>
I wanted to check before I replied to the above statement. Libby's campaign has not done any paid phone calling, so you must be remembering a different candidate. I can assure the call did not come from Libby's campaign.
Dennis
That's not an issue I've discussed with Libby but I can pass it on. As I stated earlier, we've been continually adding issues to the web site and we're already preparing a statement on party building that I hope to have online in a day or two.
Anonymous, Libby did talk about party building at the Virginia Partisans forum. I've been open about who I am. Can you tell us who you are?
Dennis
I've known Libby for years and joined her campaign team back in early March. Since the beginning, I've heard Libby talk about party building. If I didn't believe in Libby as the best candidate for the 45th, I wouldn't have spent so many hours designing and maintaining her web site. You now have two first-hand reports of Libby being a party builder. What facts do you have that Libby is a copy cat? We haven't covered all of the issues on the web site, but we've been adding issues as we hear from voters with new questions. I will contact our campaign manager and see if we can add this issue. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
What do you know, annonymous that suggests otherwise? I'm not critiquing David Englin at all- I have never met him. All I'm saying is Libby backed it up and months ago- whether or not that is something she has chosen to stress is a campaign strategy- but if she means it- I can verify YES SHE DOES.
"Tim: Of course I support more absentee voting
Consultant: You can't say that, you either take the other position, or you hit your opponent for your position.
Tim: Fine"
You agree lowell?
(a)This has investagation has been going on for how long
Not as long as you think. There's been a great deal of legal manuevering. The only actual investrigation was started a mere matter of months ago. Some people are extremely preturbed that the statute of limitations for prosecution hasd nearly expired before an investigation was actually begun.
(b) still no proof?no charges
The Jenkins-McMurray lawsuit was ended by both sides stating that the election was invalid, which brought that particular case to an end. Since then, CA after CA has refused to take the case - until now.
Quickie legal lesson for those of you who find yourself in the same boat as the wrongdoers in Gate City's election: capitulate at 10 invalid votes, so you can immediately stop even more testimony and evidence of wrongdoing from being exposed into the courtroom.
Once the Kilgore cronies agreed that the election was invalid - without admiting wrongdoing - depositions stopped; presentation of evidence stopped.
Calls for an investigation began ... and went unanswered.
Willie Mae may be innocent. But I think more likely Terry and Jerry and John and Junior are all guilty.
Message to Ken Mehlman and Kilgore.
Do porn stars like Mary Carey represent Republican Family Values?
Why Mr. Mehlman and Mr. Kilgore do you refuse to repudiate Mary Carey candidacy for Ca. Lt Governor?
Instead your party accepts her campaign contributions and embrace her smut as part of your party's family values.
Jerry Kilgore has offered an unexpectedly bold idea for addressing Virginia?s perennial transportation woes.
Kilgore, the likely GOP gubernatorial nominee, wants to let groups of localities set up regional transportation authorities with, and here?s the new part, clout to spearhead ways of paying for major road, bridge and mass transit projects.
Most far-reaching, the authorities could raise local sales or income taxes, subject to approval in voter referendums. Without voter approval, the panels could issue bonds, impose tolls, enter into public-private ventures, and manage assets, even including selling certain highways to private enterprises.
While details aren?t complete, the idea is stirring delight among some urban and suburban government officials in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, who have long wished for more ways to raise and spend transportation dollars at home.
It?s also prompted consternation among certain anti-tax Republicans, who hate even cracking the door on any form of higher taxes. And it?s sparked grumbling among some Democrats, who dislike seeing Kilgore get more credit for innovation than they think he?s due.
Those critics correctly point out that regional transportation authorities mean little if voters don?t sign on to higher taxes. Saying that authorities can issue bonds is hollow rhetoric, for instance, if there?s no revenue source to repay them. Tolls and private partnerships can?t begin to cover the cost of most major road projects.
And private entities haven?t exactly been lining up to buy themselves a road.
If the devastating defeats suffered on transportation referenda in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia in 2002 are indicative, then asking voters to ante up for roads is like asking a schoolboy to assign himself homework.
Still, here?s why Kilgore?s idea merits applause. It gets the conversation about Virginia?s mounting transportation problems unstuck. It puts a new idea on the table and from an unlikely source. When Kilgore, a favorite of the low-tax wing of Virginia?s low-tax party, suggests a new way to increase revenue for roads, even one with plenty of strings attached, then the idea merits serious consideration.
Democrat Tim Kaine has yet to weigh in either with his own transportation plan or a complete response to Kilgore?s. Maybe Kaine is waiting until more Virginians are paying attention, closer to the election. But Kilgore?s jump-start should force Kaine to reconsider that timetable.
Hopefully, some form of regional transportation authorities might show up on Kaine?s agenda also.
Some opportunities for debate: Do General Assembly members belong on the boards, as Kilgore proposes, or simply local officials? Why require voter referendums? Would regional authorities mean good transportation in regions with the ability to pay for it, bad transportation elsewhere? Is there a way to assure voters that money generated in a region will remain there?
All those points and more bear exploring. Jerry Kilgore deserves credit for getting the ball rolling. Now Kaine needs to lay out a counterproposal, and both campaigns need to schedule enough debates to let Virginians digest their answers.
Amidst growing and debilitating gridlock, business-as-usual won?t get Virginia moving.
hope to see you at the polls...
That being said - anyone who questions John Kerry's military service is a traitor to the US of America. They're selling out a soldier who volunteered to fight in a war and was decorated for doing so just so they can score a few political points. That's a traitor, in my view. It's sick, it's disgusting, and it's unamerican. I don't care if you do it to Democrats, Republicans, or anybody else who fought for this nation: something as intensely personal and selfless as military service is above this sort of political trash.
Johnny7 - you're a traitor. You're scum. You should leave the United States of America and go to communist China or join the Taliban where you can root against our troops with people who agree with you and have similar morals. My father and grandfather didn't fight for this country so that they could come back home and worry that some day they'd decide to serve their country as a public servant and fuck faces like you would make up lies about them to swing the polls a bit.
In summary: FUCK YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Yeah, dailykos is a "Democratic blog". Uh-huh. I think not. I'm sure Karl is very happy with his boys over there.
I guess he doesn't read this blog.
Or maybe he puts supporting Democrats ahead of personal feelings.
John Kerry was right in 2004 and still is. Bush and the republicans offer terrible leadership. We are indeed in trouble in Iraq. We have a massive deficit and the rich get tax cuts while the poor get benefits cuts. The environment is being destroyed and the senate is under attack by extremists.
I will vote for Kerry in 2008 because we desparately need him.
Go Kerry in 2008...I got your back and I'm reporting for duty!!!!
John Kerry was right in 2004. The electorate made a terribly wrong decision in 2004, choosing mediocrity overleadership. We are indeed bogged down in Iraq now, a war that needn't have been fought. We are running massive deficits with tax cuts for the top 1% and programs for the poor being cut. The environment is being attacked by relaxed rules for pollution on everything from Dioxin, Mercury and Lead. Logging in national forests is being realized.
I will vote for Kerry in 2008 if he is interested in the job. Come and visit my blog, "John Kerry for President 2008" at http://kerryforpresident2008.blogspot.com.
America may have another chance in 2008. There aren't too many chances left.
Bob
I saw Senator Kerry at a rally early in 2004 and people were inspired by him. You could feel the energy. I?ve been listening to lying politicians like Bush for years and I trust Kerry because he tells it like it is.
John Kerry is still fighting for us tooth and nail. The media smears him because it makes for fun reading. The truth is Kerry inspires Americans to fight on no matter what happens. Since the election, he's fought for veterans, families and small businesses with good bills which have been passed. He forced the republicans to vote to extend housing time limits for military widows and better death gratuity benefits for their families. He walks the walk unlike the republicans who just talk about supporting veterans. He also wrote a bill which removes restrictions which kept some who died in service overseas from getting these death benefits.
I appreciate that Senator Kerry tells the truth to America. Ihope he'll run again in 2008. I think many Virginians will realize we'd be better off with this great man leading our country.
I saw Senator Kerry at a recent event on his "Kids Come First" promotion tour and people still cheer and yell and cry just to see him and listen to him speak. I've never seen so many people with tears in their eyes crowd around anyone before like this in my life. I've been listening to politicians prattle for 37 years and have never seen such emotional outpouring for any candidate or elected official.
John Kerry is a good man, a patriot and a hero. No matter how bad things get in this country, I know that Senator Kerry is in there fighting for us. I don't have that hurt, empty feeling I had in 2000. John Kerry inspires me to fight on no matter what. Since the election, I've joined many organizations and I've kept up with what is happening in Washington. I watch c-Span like most people watch sports or sitcoms. When I get e-mail from John Kerry, I immediately spring to action. There are over 3 million of us on his mailing list: the list has actually GROWN since the election. When John asks, we roll up our sleeves and get to work. I've never called my senators and congressmen before, but I do now and on a regular basis.
I'm glad Senator Kerry doesn't deliver his message with a song and dance. To me, the truth and sincerity of his message does not need to be delivered by a third-rate thespian. That this man speaks from the heart is all that matters to me. Our world is in jeopardy and we need some serious help here. The last thing I want to see is someone get up and try to charm the audience. I don't want snake oil and I don't want to be manipulated by a smarmy personality. Give me serious and tell me the truth. Is that too dull for America? Should the truth be jazzed up by a little Hollywood glamour? Should John Kerry be considered less of a statesman because he's sixty-one and doesn't look 45? God, I hope not. If that is really the case, we are in worse shape than I thought.
Billy Murph
Roanoke, VA
In this case, the destructive behavior is applying an ideological purity test to candidates. The ironic thing is that part of the reason we lost is because our candidate was too liberal and liberals haven't convinced the country that they can lead the war on terror.
So how do we correct this? We purge the party of the people who are pointing it out (moderates) just because they piss us off.
We'll never get back into power with this attitude.
Psychiatrists... like policemen... are your friend.
The fact is, Dean had the most vibrant grassroots campaign all over the entire state. Clark was the only other campaign on the ground throughout Virginia as well. As early as midsummer 2003, the grassroots effort to get Dean on the ballot originated in the middle of the state and was led by leaders downstate. There were vibrant Dean groups in Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Staunton, Roanoke, Blacksburg, and numerous groups in the Tidewater area.
The only games on the ground of any substance that developed grassroots support around the state were the Clark and Dean ones.
The media-driven tsunami for Kerry happened quickly and wiped away all of the progress that the Dean and Clark campaigns had made (but not their activist networks, which remain today.) The final surge for Edwards was driven somewhat by Clark and Dean supporters who were looking for an alternative to Kerry when it looked like the gig was up.
I made thousands and thousands of phone calls for Dean from late 2003 'till our primary, and I can count on my fingers the numbers of people who were "1's" for Kerry in Virginia, until the tide turned during the last two weeks before our primary. In some areas of VA near the NC border, there was slightly stronger support for Edwards, but Dean and Clark were the clear frontrunners from ALL around the state up until the very end of January.
The key to the early support for Dean all around the state, especially in rural areas, is that we were talking about the REALITY of his record, not the cartoonish representation of him as an extreme liberal that the media later created.
The reality is that he was a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Governor who balanced budgets every year (though not required by VT law), turned a huge state deficit into a surplus, created jobs, and brought health care to all children in the state. He was a family doctor and understood health care needs. He was endorsed by the NRA in every Governor's race. And he opposed the war in Iraq because it was based on flimsy evidence and diverted us from the real war on terrorism elsewhere.
The real story is that's the kind of Democrat who could win in Virginia - a fiscal conservative who doesn't want to take away your guns, who creates jobs, and who makes a real difference in working people's lives by expanding health care coverage. Unfortunately, the Dean campaign was ineffective at dealing with the media distortions of his record.
Who was for Kerry all along in Virginia? A lot of the state central party leaders, from Larry Framme to Brian Moran. I guess they thought he was most "electable". Sad.
Exit polls early on, before they were tampered with and "blended" with machine results, showed Kerry leading in all states but Utah and Idaho. Remember also, that around the world it is exit polls that are used to determine the legitimacy of the voting.
Don't take the hispanic vote for granted.
Good luck...
It's interesting to see us expanding the "conservative-or-liberal" debate to other films. Now I'm gonna shoot off about the "Lord of the Rings" comment.
I'm not a die-hard Lord of the Rings fan (I am for Star Trek), so I may get names or spellings wrong. I simply thoroughly enjoyed the movies.
In the trilogy, Sauron and the evil eye tower and the ring is total evil. The ring must be destroyed. The armies of Mordor are ugly, wretched demons (they are!).
You are making the case that the trilogy is conservative because there's a black and white of good and bad. There's no room for diplomacy with pure evil. To you this is a conservative idea.
But to me this is simple fact. You advocate, say, sanctions against Sauron, because there may be that he's not evil (if this was reality). But this is to adopt Chamberlain's mantra that Hitler was just misunderstood. In effect, you would try to negotiate with Hitler (we saw how that worked, it's called appeasement).
But that IS the liberal point of view. How do you solve Saddam? Starve his people, and then let him bribe other countries and pocket oil wealth. How do you solve Jim King Il? Make him pinky-swear to Madeleine Albright that he won't make nukes. PINKY SWEAR! Good thing Lord of the Rings is only fantasy. You'd hammer a peace deal with Sauron, and he'd forge an army of 100 million Orcs, and then utterly destroy everything.
But my point is, that Hitler is Sauron. And this theory makes sense. Tolkein fought in WWII, and many have drawn parallels between the trilogy and WWII. The huge, stocky creature that smashes the pillars indoors in one of the movies is said to represent a tank. It is very likely that Tolkein relates his war experience in Lord of the Rings, and since the books are based on reality, you have therefore conceded that conservatism is based in reality. Thanks :)
Furthermore, in Lord of the Rings, there was massive coalition building. Diplomacy is an option, but not with evil. But amongst allies to defeat evil, it was used. The humans, Elves, the midget miners with battle axes, all ganged up to defend the White City against Mordor.
Those who think terrorists are not our number one threat do not understand evil. There are some people across the ocean who want to kill all infidels. That's just evil. It's not all Muslims, just a big bunch of crazies. But still, they're evil. They're not misunderstood or just pissed off. Even if we throw Israel to the wolves (I'm pro-Palestinian, by the way), they will still crash planes into our buildings.
They have to spread Allah's will over the world. Everyone who resists their radical interpretations of Islam must die. Infidels are not fully human. That's evil. No negotiations, you just have to bomb them and kill all the bad guys, and then try to rebuild their country to love freedom (a la Germany and Japan post WWII, we bomb the hell outta them, then rebuild them so they're prosperous business partners and everlasting peace).
Back to Star Trek. In the beginning, the bad guys were literally BAD. In the original Trek, the Klingons were a militant species. An imperial species. Remember in "The Trouble with Tribbles", a Klingon bragged that half the quadrant was learning Klingonese to prepare for their conquest.
Nowadays, Trek prefers the more noble "warrior" category for the Klingons. We see this trend in "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". They're dying, Klingons are people too. The dinner table discussion in Star Trek VI demonstrates this considerabley.
"Chekov: We do believe all species have inalienable human rights.
Klingon Chancellor's Daughter: Inalien? [scoff] If you could only hear yourselves. *Human* rights.
Klingon General Chang: The Federation is nothing more than a homo sapiens only club.
[...]
Klingon Brigadier Kerla: Anyway, we know where this is leading... The annihilation of our culture.
Dr. McCoy: That's not true.
Klingon Brigadier Kerla: No?
Dr. McCoy: No.
Klingon General Chang: To be, or not to be? That is the question we have to face, captain."
((All this is from the top of my head, so forgive me if it's oly 90% correct direct quotes.))
But look at the Klingons here. They're pissed off that we use terms like "inalienable" (cuz they're aliens) "human rights". They're no longer the militant race bent on empire for the sake of conquest, but a misunderstood culture of chivalry. They're afraid of dying out! They have emotions like fear too!
The Romulans in "Balance of Terror [TOS]" were just sneaky bastards. But in "Star Trek X: Nemesis", we saw their political workings. THe Remans in particular were introduced, and they had their plight. Even more telling is the TNG episode "The Survivor", where a Romulan is trapped with LaForge (the guy with the visor), and they discuss their cultures. The Romulan says that a blind child like LaForge would be killed, because it's a waste of resources. But he comes to understand that the blind engineer on the Enterprise-D is invaluable. Still, at the end of the show, the Romulan admiral is a lying bastard, because he openly lies to Picard's face about why a Romulan was stranded in Nuetral Zone territory in the first place (pilot error, my ass).
But the biggest baddest enemy is the Borg. Introduced in "Q, Who?" of TNG, Guinan says they destroyed her people's civilization and scattered the survivors. They scooped an entire planet's structures off the face of the Earth. Q gives a monologue on if you injure them, they repair. If you kill some, they get more. "They are relentless" he tells us in a chilling, ominous tone.
But in "Star Trek VIII: First Contact", we see in the debate between the Borg Queen and Data something more personal. Data remarks the Borg simply conquer. She replies:
"We are on a quest to better ourselves. By seeking perfection."
So, we still think the Borg are a little crazy, but we realize that's only from OUR point of view. They actually feel that they are doing something noble and beneficial for all those involved. So they're not evil, because evil does sin for the sake of pleasure from the destruction with a conscious and malicious intent. The Borg are doing this because they think it's the right thing, the same way (so goes the liberal mantra) the Federation does democracy because it thinks democracy is the right thing. There's no difference, according to liberals, between the Federation and the Borg, Hitler and Mother Teresa. They all think they're doing what's right, and that's all that matters.
Speaking of liberalism, the Borg are the uber liberals. Talk about big government, the Queen tells everyone what to do at all times. Remember the Borg make knowledge collective. Quite communist, actually. Not only is our private property collective, but so is our individual consciousness. Marx on cocaine.
Of course, I'm being harsh on libs here. Most liberals oppose Hitler. And he's not equal to Mother Teresa. Liberals concede Hitler is evil, but one 1 in a billion things are pure evil. The difference is, for conservatives, in a million things are evil. Terrorists are very bad, in liberals eyes, but pure evil is too far. Conservatives disagree.
But I completely disagree with the premise that Lord of the Rings is conservative. Evil does exist, and liberals acknowledge this when you bring up Hitler. Evil cannot be negotiated with, that includes Sauron. Nothing conservative about it. You idea of proposing economic sanctions on Sauron (who built an army of 10,000 behind everyone's back, compare to North Korea's nukes) is laughable. Mordor would rule all, and have the ring today. I shudder at the possibility. It's analogous to Hitler having the nuke first. (Did Tolkein intend that analogy? In which case, Frodo is Einstein with the Manhattan Project. Note the hair.)
As for your uber liberal race, I already said it: the Borg. But that's uber communist.
Uber tolerant races have existed on Trek. One that comes to mind is in Voyager, the race which is a planet dedicated to satisfying outsiders, and THEY LOVE STORIES and exotic food and all sorts of other cultural uniquities (is that a word?). THey also possess transporter devices capable of moving ships thousands of light years. When Voyager expresses interest in acquiring this, it turns out that the planet cannot give away advanced technology (i.e. the Prime Directive, leading Janeway to comment on how it feels to be on the "other side of the fence" or to be denied much needed technology by a superior race which the Federation does every episode). But some on the planet are SO hungry for stories (millions of which are in Voyager's database), they sell the technology on the black market to Voyager. THe technology turns out to be incompatible with Voyager's, but the fact is they loved to learn about other cultures. Also, when the VOyager crew visited the planet, they loved to serve the Voyager crew. Their president gave Janeway a tour, and assembled an entire wardrobe for her when she commented she liked a certain silky fabric. So, they'd be an uber tolerant (I love how liberals make themselves the sole possesors of tolerance. Tolerant does not equal liberal.)
I'll post if I think of any more.
"The economics of the future are somewhat different. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."
If I didn't love Star Trek, I'd say this comes out of Marx himself. The individual's pursuit of profit benefits everyone, according to free-market economics. This applies to the baker waking up at 5 AM to bake (allowing pastries for the whole town) or Bill Gates' billions (is not human civilization revolutionized by the PC?).
In conservatism, it's good to have rich people, because they hire poor people (who then get rich) and improve living standards with their products in competition.
However, we are applying two different eras here. Before 2063 (first contact with the Vulcans), humanity was divided and constantly fighting. Once we encountered another species with a larger difference than skin color or religion, we became more united as a planet. To quote Troi:
"It united Earth in a way humans never thought possible."
So, we can't all work for the common good today, because we don't see our humanity as our common link, because we're not pitted against another species. For example, the German princely states all quarreled amongst themselves until Bismark united them against a common foe.
In Star Trek, poverty, disease, war, hunger, and all other scourges have been abolished (Troi to Samuel Clemens in "Time's Arrow, Part II [TNG]"). Sounds like a Communist utopia. But it's also a conservative one, which is what we believe will be the result of free and fair trade.
If we all trade, we all prosper. Countries with McDonalds (i.e. capitalism) have never gone to war with other countries with McDonalds (except for the US invasion of Yugoslavia, another first for the Clinton Administration).
So, yes, the Federation could be considered liberal by today's standards, but realize Star Trek involves a whole different kind of human race from today's modern man's psychology.
All conservatives would love to be liberal. We'd love to think that handouts to the poor will fix the problem, but we do not realistically believe it works. We'd love to give everyone healthcare and food and shelter and electricity and transportation, but we don't think government can do this efficiently.
The best way to get this to everyone is capitalism (in our opinion), through your own self-initiative and falling prices due to new inventions and competition. The state is miserable at providing services (ever been the to the DMV or try to get your passport?).
Star Trek cannot have environmentalists, because we replicate our wood at the replicator. We can't have food for the same reason. We don't have healthcare because the ship's doctor takes care of it. But the two eras (ours and the Trekkian 24th Century) are so different, it would be a misnomer to call Sickbay "socialized healthcare".
Vegetarian? No animals are killed by replicators. Replicate your clothing, food, drink, and more. If you think illegal MP3s are out of control, wait for the replicator to hit the waves. No falling asleep.
Before 9/11, Bush campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy, which many conservatives STILL adhere to. This sounds an awful lot like the Prime Directive.
Well, I'm a huge Trekkie, and huge Republican. Thought I might defend myself from the nasaueting self-glorification by liberals ("we're the one who really care about people, so Star Trek is with us").
Either way, live long and prosper.
Feel free to rebut at
hunterrepublicans@gmail.com
--- Adam Farooqui
Chairman, Hunter Republicans
Member, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
1) The Borg was definitely pathologically conservative, and that classic episode where the planet is totally peaceful and harmonious because the punishment for breaking a window is death--that's sort of a neocon paradise. Were there ever any encounters with a culture that was too liberal on the Trek series? Like, where they had a kind of moral anarchy? Some sort of anti-Borg race that tried to get everyone to be as different as possible? If not, there should have been. :)
2) What was the role of gov't in the Trek series? In a conservative state, the government will only be in charge of enforcing rights. The mission of the Enterprise was not just rights-enforcement: it explored and stuff. In a conservative Federation, exploration would be left to, uh, private enterprise, and all the Enterprise would do is police. I don't know if there was universal health care, for instance.
These are the words of someone that sent innocent soldiers to fight an unrighteous WAR, were more than twenty-five thousand INNOCENT CHILDREN, YOUNGSTERS and ELDERLY men and women have been killed, because of his foolish VISION of PEACE in the Middle-East.
The WORD of GOD in Proverbs that is written says, ?A righteous man regards the life of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.? Moreover, ?He who hides hatred is of Lying Lips, and he who utters slanders is a FOOL.?
The WORD also tells as that, ?we reap what we sow? and ?we will receive according to our WORDS.?
America with all its given power has not acted in MERCY and LOVE toward their enemies, but has always used the same Weapons used by the enemies of PEACE, which are HATE, VIOLENCE, KILLING and LIES.
America Awake and say! NO MORE VIOLENCE! NO MORE KILLING! NO MORE WAR! NO MORE LIES!
?When a leader in power has spoken lies and done wicked things to people, he will try to twist his own words and actions. But, these will hunt him back until the Truth comes to Light according to his own Evil.? Thus say the LORD.
AMERICA! Open your eyes wide and read if you are blind and want to see, because the LIGHT is shining and HIS WORD is WRITTEN: ?I will make Darkness LIGHT before them, and CROOKED things STRAIGHT. This things will I DO unto them, and not FORSAKE them. Isaiah 42
?When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing follows not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; thou shall not be afraid of him.? Deuteronomy 18:22
The prophet which prophesies of PEACE, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD truly sent him.? Jeremiah 28:9
Now I say, ?Read the REVELATION for PEACE from JESUS CHRIST to the WORLD at, www.aleuzenev.com and Judge for your self, if I have spoken presumptuously or the things spoken have not come to pass, 9/11. It is also FREE, freely I have received and freely I must give to the World HIS WORD of TRUTH which is MERCY and LOVE for PEACE. Ivor Manuel prays for you and PEACE for the WORLD; prophet pillar branch of the LORD JESUS ALEUZENEV, HIS NEW NAME, LORD and SERVANT of all PEOPLE.
ALELUYA! AMEN! ALEUZENEV!
I will take the light of day common sense of Tim Kaine anyday over the recklessness of Jerry Kilgore.
We are fast approaching the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, you'd a thunk that Mr. Kilgore would focous on bringing tourism (ie. money/people/growth/jobs) to Virginia? Just a thought.
I would just be interested to know WHAT Kilgore has done for 'ME'? For anyone to apply for a Job as Governor of the State when he didn't IMHO and 'personal' experience perform his job that he was elected for as AG? When a AG is requested by a Government agency to issue an opinon - it doesn't take a year and a half to do so. It's called not performing your job duties.
It's not 'all about me'; but it is my vote and I haven't seen the man do ANYTHING other than not try to cause waves so that he could get to this level.
$6.99 is a bit pricey for a bumper sticker, IMHO, but I couldn't resist ordering one, so I'll have it in time for the rush to the theaters next weekend.
Have you seen how the Republicans will coin a phrase, put it out into the zeitgeist, find it doesn't focus group very well then take to insisting that it was a term used by Democrats? Private Accounts (oh no no, we mean Personal -- who said private? Must have been Michael Moore, he's fat you know.) Nuclear Option ( Oh no no, we mean Constitutional, who said Nookyaler? Must be that Center for American Progress who is just on TV all the time unlike our ignored spokespersons from the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, Focus on the Family, Center for Democracy, Hannity and what's-his-face, Bill (I've seen combat) O'Rielly, Eagle Forum, Liberty Univesity, the latest "Liberals Hate America" title from Regnery --- you want more Joe? Is it Democrats who are running this show? Is it Democrats who own everything? Do the people who OWN the media give their money to Ted Kennedy? Or do you think because a couple of copy boys at the Washington Post might vote for a Democrat if they even bother to vote at all that that right there proves some massive Liberal Bias? When was the last time you saw a Democrat get up on TV or send out a letter to supporters asking for them to pray to God to kill a judge? Democrats are full of hate Joe? Are you really this uninformed or are you enjoying the insanity of this projection just a little too much?
the point is we are all screwed, and luke skywalker aint going to save us!
the only thing that can save us is toal nuclear anhililation with no survivors. Then evolution can begin again.
I think the Governor of California better start preparing for some serious competition from our new hero in a few years, too.
A humble foot soldier,
Ruth
Yes...he definitely "gets it"!
"...has highlighted a major philosophical and temperamental rift within the Republican Party."
What rift? You Dems find it impossible to speak truth. (Oh. Well, maybe you don't know the definition of "rift.") Fact is, there is no split or fissure in the Republican party and you know it. But, you don't have a point unless you shade the truth, do you?
You will find in our party every major political point of view.(Unlike liberal coolaid drinkers)Do the Democrats have a John McCain? Nope. They march in lock-step.
Read the entry again. The "stupid" Republicans are extremists, not moderates. Graham is listed under the moderate Republicans.
Sen. Graham does not want to abolish Social Security. He is conducting meetings with a bipartisan group regarding this issue. Sen. McCain is a part of this group. He is a strong suppoorter of private accounts, but thinks thay were oversold as a solution. He suggested an increase in the payroll tax cap to fund the transition and put more money into the system. Graham is the least ideological on Social Security. I trust him to find an amenable on this issue because I feel his personal experience with the system as a young man has caused him to appreciate. Him and his sister survived on SS Survivor's Benefits after thier parents died. He would like no more than to find a bipartisan solution becasue that is the only way it will pass the Senate.
However, If you have decided that Sen. Graham is stupid then I guess you would think I am stupid also because I am a supporter of his and admire him. I take offense at anyone calling names. He is not stupid, I feel he is extremely intelligent.
Please reforin form name calling becasue it is not necessary.
"Newt" and his ilk are still repeating Reagan's lines about bloated government being the problem. Reagan said that deficits proved government spending was out of control, so the answer was to cut government spending.
Unfortunately for "Newt" and the gang, who have never met an original idea, Clinton in the '90s (and Virginia almost always until Gilmore) balanced budgets and made revenues match, or even exceed, spending.
So in order to deal with surpluses but not have to come up with a new idea, Republicans cut taxes in order to create deficits, which, according to His Holiness Ronald Reagan, meant that government spending was out of control, so the answer is to cut spending.
The problem is that Republicans don't run on these ideas. They used to, and that's when Democrats ran everything. They run promising money for farmers, and teachers, and schools, and roads, and tax credits, and tax cuts.
Once they're in power, if they're in Virginia, they pass the costs on to the localities or institute "user fees" which are taxes guilty of breaking in and entering. At the national level they support a president who has pushed for irresponsible tax cuts yet has never vetoed a spending bill Congress has sent him.
But this thread is about illegal immigrants, right? OK. If Republicans have a problem with illegals getting "too large" a share of healthcare spending, why not deport all of the Wal-Mart and other low-income workers who also collect support because their employers are skinflints and throw them onto the mercy of the state? If we made illegals legal and got them paying taxes, then they'd at least contribute a bit to the pot they're being served from.
The problem is not illegal immigration; the problem is low wages and a lack of healthcare for low-income, service sector Americans. But those conditions are caused by "Newt" and his gang of fools promoting unrestrained free markets and the elimination of safety nets.
So "Newt" is sitting in the problem he and his cronies have created. What's his solution? Cut spending. How unoriginal.
"Newt" to self: The thinking that caused the problem is not the thinking that will solve the problem.
For example, I did not state that all spending should be cut, I implied that unabated growth in "government" spending cannot be the standard solution to every problem. I also pointed out some hugely deceptive DNC language, and mentioned at least one of the (many)weak and unstated assumptions about "budgets" currently forming the basis of typical Democrat Party musings about how to solve the problems we are facing as a society.
After a youthful period of thinking myself to be a Democrat, reality set in (somewhere in the '70s in California) when I discerned that behind the Democrat Party rhetoric there are huge inconsistencies and a giant core of hypocrisy in their approach to problem solving.
The problems I actually mentioned in this forum, e.g., illegal immigration and spending growth are very real. What is not real however is the assumption that "Government" alone can and must magically solve social problems. I respectfully but proudly stray from current "mainstream" (i.e. pretty far left) Democrat Party worldviews in that regard.
I do not believe Republicans or Conservatives always have a lock on good thinking, I just think the "leaders" of the Democrat Party are currently and rightfully ineffectual in influencing the direction of our country. Most of the "big ideas" of the 50's and 60's haven't failed because of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", they've failed because the big ideas assumed things about human nature and aspirations that are just plain untrue.
We are not sheep. If history has taught us anything, confiscating wealth or privilege from one sector or strata of society to give to another is not the answer to every problem (and never has been). We may be created equal, but equality after that point should be earned and not sanctimoniously confiscated and apportioned (with due regard given for the sick, aged, etc.,) according to the tenets of a failed leftist ideology and a few "thought leaders".
I want a functioning two-party system in our country, but it seems to me the Democrat Party of today is grossly disfunctional.
By the way, "free markets" are actually an essential element in achieving stated Democrat goals. A rising (economic) tide floats all (seaworthy) boats. The problem is that as the tide inexorably rises, Democrats argue that all boats should be considered equally seaworthy, especially the (misunderstood, oppressed or underprivileged)leaky ones. But that self-righteous and incessant jawboning is just a diversion to cover the fact that the leaking boats will ultimately sink if the owners don't plug the holes...
The far left's hold on the DNC is the source of the leaks in the Party boat. It might even be too late to fix those leaks. Perhaps a new, more realistic and principled party will emerge in the next decade...
Tax cuts were enacted because it was plain that the government was confiscating our (the Democrats beloved "peoples") money in excess of its legislatively determined needs. When the government has a surplus, that surplus represents billions of dollars no longer available to the marketplace where those dollars are far more efficiently allocated than any government entitlement. Instead that money is applied by the government to "pet" projects that are usually far from an efficient use of the confiscated dollars. And don't even talk about what happens to the "Social Security surplus"...
In my readings it is clear that the "tax cuts" are only small fractional contributors to the current deficit as their purpose was to simply balance requirements with revenues. Other "real world" events or government sleight of hand have contributed to the current deficit. It is only for the deliberate and idealogically inspired purposes of the American Left that the finger gets pointed at "tax cuts for the rich" as the source of deficits. Its pretty much another load of BS.
Its also pretty scary how multi-zillionaire Democrats now in control of the party are currently defining "rich". In calculations I've seen, any household making above about $60-70K per year must be "rich" because they are some of the bulk recipients of those cuts...
Let's talk about "low wages" and access to healthcare. I think that about 90% of the worlds population only dreams about having our "low wages" as their low wages.
Let's talk about access to health care. In one careful analysis I've seen, the actual number of persons (and that includes illegal aliens in their millions) without access to some kind of healthcare on any given day is closer to 15 milion than 40 million. There is a lot of "fast and loose" counting techniques employed by those with a vested interest in seeing that the number is high. I would like to see all of us have access to care, but I don't believe that this should be done solely through government fiat. The marketplace will, with well considered incentives, find a way to efficiently provide any needed coverage.
Confiscating more money from those who provide jobs and those who have jobs to fund a "government" healthcare solution is pure nonsense.
All I know is that -- any way you look at it -- being undercut by your owm running mate on your centerpeice campaign proposal would definitely hurt Tim's campaign big time.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it would really hurt Tim's campaign to have someone as his running mate who mocks his key campaign proposal.
I think the problem is that Bush could (half-honestly) say that he'd expanded stem cell research. Even though he'd only done it half-way.
I'm responsive to slippery slope arguments, but I don't think the stem cell slope is very slippery...
If one were to take a Minnesota Multiphasic and refused to
distinguish between a pile of sand and a desert or an acorn and an oak tree, one would be diagnosed as having a mental disorder. But one is not considered as having a mental disorder
if one declares an undifferentiated embryonic cell is a person.
The SORITES fallacy A grain or pile of sand is NOT a desert!
Dictionary: an argument consisting of propositions so arranged that the predicate of any one forms the subject of the next and the conclusion unites the subject of the first proposition with the predicate of the last.....
This fallacy claims there's no distinction between two grains of sand and a one-ton pile. The question posed is, "At what point do two grains of sand become a pile as we add grains of sand one by one?" The claim is that we can never draw a line that's legitimate.
Of course, this is silly. We draw lines constantly. Consider speed limits, retirement ages, driver licensing, and draft ages. This isn't an exercise in math. Lines usually are drawn for political or cultural reasons or even mere convenience. We say a boy turns into a man at 18. He can then be drafted and
sent to Vietnam to "die for his country." If he's 17 years and 364 days old on the day the draft is suspended, his life may have been saved by a span of 24 hours. These distinctions can have dramatic consequences, yet we constantly make them.
Roe v. Wade draws a line as to when a fetus becomes a human being. Many Christians draw the line at a temporal or geographical point between a sperm and an egg. The microsecond in which the sperm crosses the line and attaches
itself to the egg, a human being comes into existence. To deal with the fact that an embryo (such as 16 or 32 undifferentiated cells) looks no more like a human being than a grain of sand looks like a heap of sand or an acorn looks like an oak tree, Christians tell us something called the "soul" (no
evidence/referent for a "soul" therefore a reification) enters this newborn entity (called a morula) during this critical microsecond, instantly converting it into a human being. This niftily avoids dealing with such things as the acorn-is-an-oak-tree analogy used by atheists and other wicked people. I tell you these religionists are sneaky with their words (word
magic).
The religious tabooists say human cloning such a horrific concept that it crosses a line into the territory of Frankenstein and "Brave New World"?
Well, they said the same thing 27 years ago about in-vitro fertilization (test-tube babies), and that is now virtually uncontroversial. It has brought joy to millions. And it is politically unassailable, even though the in-vitro process produces and destroys far more "surplus" embryos than will ever be needed for stem cell therapy. The arguments against "therapeutic" cloning (cloning for medical purposes) tend to be abstract and poetical, concerned with the philosophy of humanity and stuff. But on the subject of stem cells, I am not in the mood for poetry. Scientists look for solutions. Although there are no guarantees, when you put more scientists onto a problem, you increase your chance of solving it. By contrast professional ethicists tend to look for problems. When you put more ethicists onto a problem, you can end up with more problems
Because they heuristically fantasize all kinds of "what ifs".
. . And Fear of the Unknown... Damnation,,, Heaven/Hell...etc.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kinsley22may22,1,956756.column?coll=la-util-op-ed&ctrack=1&cset=true
--------------
This brings us to the fallacy of reification, Certain folks thingize the word "soul." Since we have the word "soul," it surely must point to a thing in objective reality. Thingizing is extremely useful. It allows the ruling class to populate the universe with angels, devils, souls, ghosts, gods, wine-blood, bread-flesh, Heaven, Hell,
Purgatory, and so on ad nauseam. The flag burning argument is a current example of thingizing. It's clearly impossible to burn "the" flag, ("the" denoting a symbol - the symbol is not matter - you can burn "a" or "any"flag but not "the" flag) but this logical point will never be understood by our wise leaders. Alas, many laws have been based on reifications. The Supreme Court long ago, cloaking its decision with unintelligible legalese, covertly
admitted "pornography" is a mere reification.
stem cell imbroglio -
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/101604DeHart/101604dehart.html
This is my roundabout way of getting to the stem cell imbroglio. Have you thought about the following incredible advance in stem cell research?
Scientists have taken undifferentiated stem cells and nurtured them into becoming differentiated heart cells. What was truly spectacular was that these cells, living in a simple petri dish, actually were beating like a heart muscle! What incredibly exciting news! Scientists have coaxed a living,
beating, infant, human "heart" into being.
Now I want you to imagine the following script taking place in the near future. You are a happily married person with three kids. You need a new heart. Transplants are scarce. Even if one is found in time, your immunology will never be happy with this foreign body. Your angry immune system will
have to be narcotized and suppressed, with all the dangers this poses for your health.
Not to worry. Your doctor tells you science can clone your own cells and coax them into becoming living, beating heart cells that will multiply and grow within your heart, replacing damaged cells. Best of all, your immune system will completely accept the new heart growing in your body because it will truly be your heart made with your own cells.
Then the doctor socks it to you. He or she tells you it's illegal to clone cells in the United States. It seems the Pope and his minions have convinced our government to make such cloning illegal. God's true believers once again have used the power of the state to "preserve the sanctity of life."
-notice the absurdity of the church here.
Never mind that the cells in question are yours. Our government has never accepted the silly proposition that our bodies belong to us. Heck, it seems as though our bodies have belonged to state and church for centuries. Look what happened to poor Onan (onanism) when he "spilled his seed on the ground." He probably thought his semen was his to do with as he pleased the poor fool.
Faced with blue laws that might kill you, you end up going to England where a new and healthy heart is generated within your chest cavity, thusly saving your life and making possible a future with your spouse and children. Of course, this means you've "violated the sanctity of life." Because of this sin, you can no longer return to the US. You and your family will now be
political refugees in Great Britain.
Do you think this is a preposterous scenario? Consider that cloning cells is already illegal in the US, but legal in England. My older readers will remember the days when women were traveling in droves to Japan for abortions.
Many people wanted to prosecute these women when they returned to the US.
Such prosecutions nearly happened, and we might have ended up with thousands of American women living as political refugees in Japan and elsewhere.
During the entire history of medical science, Christian churches have stonewalled most of the great advances in medicine & science (Gallileo, etc.).
Autopsies, blood transfusions, vaccines, and so forth were strongly opposed. I can't think of a single great advance in medicine that hasn't been opposed by some Christian churches, with the Catholic Church in the forefront. Will it ever end? The sad reality is that we're in the 21st century only in a chronological sense.
The dark ages are still here.
This is how absurdly our religious proselytizers think:
Rev. Dr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, Mass. As an undergraduate he studied for five years in Rome where he did advanced work in dogmatic theology and in bioethics, examining the question of delayed ensoulment of the human embryo. He stated: therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell extraction are invariably and without exception immoral kinds of research activity, which should never be permitted in a civilized society.
MORALS (reifications) are a means by which one group gives itself license to attack another group for behaviors it does not like. Morals are abstract bunk not based in fact.
What is empirically legitimate is ETHICS (contracts) that civilization needs to have the predictability on which it functions.
Forget morals and stick with ethics.
To REIFY is to use words (word magic) to define things (like "soul") into existence that have no evidence (no referent) of existing.
Ask a religious nut what a soul is. Ask for the qualitative &/or quantitative evidence.
.Soul - There's no evidence for a "soul" and If there's no evidence of a "soul", then one can't know what a "soul" is and therefore one doesn't know what they are talking about (referring to). Native Americans & negros were declared not to have SOULS by the early European newcomers and thusly slavery and atrocities to native Americans was condoned.
Now this reifier, based on heuristic fantasy, is trying to stop a potential cure for these terrible diseases.. withholding potential stem cell cures is another atrocity.
By example:
Go to "SOUL" in the dictionary and it refers to "SPIRIT".
Go to "SPIRIT" in the dictionary and it refers to "SOUL".
This is also called Circular Reasoning ( a favorite of psychotics and religions).....also called TAUTOLOGY.
DOGMA An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
There is no such thing as absolute truth. It only exists in heuristics or logic, not in the natural world. Try to empirically prove otherwise. There is only conditional truth not absolute truth.
The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line is a geometrical axiom but there is no evidence for a straight line since Einstein proved all space is curved.
"It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us." Peter De Vries
-----------------------
Religious nuts care more about 5-day-old blastocysts than about saving the lives of children and adults.
According to recent polls on the issue, around 62%-75% of
Americans ? depending on exactly how the question is asked ? are in favor of stem cell research to cure diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinson's, Juvenile Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.
================================
Stem cell taboos are based in religion (Arab culture & tradition)
Religions are a government sanctioned form of mass compartmentalized psychosis that brainwashed, gullible parents allow their defenseless children to be programmed into in order to perpetuate the insanity and fill the collection plate of the greatest feel good scam in the history of man.
Theology is cryto-heuristic fantasy about as valid as astrology.
REIFY - most lawyers.politicians, preachers, and the other people that make their living with words never came across this word and words are their basic tools.
re*ify (verb transitive) re*ified; re*ify*ing Noun REIFICATION
[Latin res thing -- more at REAL] First appeared 1854
: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing
A better definition is:
To REIFY (reification) is to use words (word magic) to define things (like "soul") into existence that have no evidence (no referent) of existing. The majority of the library is reification...esp. Law & principles, metaphysics (on which our
hazy, easily manipulated, Constitution is formed), pure math, theology, verbal fantasy,etc.
Religion, which uses REIFICATION as the essential basis for it's argument, is BUNK.
LET"S NOT PERPETUATE THE DARK AGES!
examples are: GOD SOUL PURPOSE EVIL GOOD
TRUTH (only on paper), MORALS etc.
(PS; Many principles are nothing but words referring to other words with no concrete referent such as a hard fact or observable event).
Purpose is a temporal term not a conceptual term. It means intention.
Good & evil are a substitute for like & dislike.
PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM (arbitrary boundaries), the flag (which is not combustible so you can't burn a symbol) are reifications.
A good analogy is "SOUL".
Metaphorical example:
Go to "SOUL" in the dictionary and it says see "SPIRIT".
Go to "SPIRIT" in the dictionary and it says see "SOUL".
This is also called Circular Reasoning ( a favorite of psychotics and religions)..... also called TAUTOLOGY.
It's also called DEAD LEVEL ABSTRACTING (Korzybsky) as well as reification.
See Ogden & Richards triangle:
richards.html http://www.sfu.ca/~muntigl/richards.html
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~com/griffin.pdf my favorite base model
If these URLs disappear go to www.google.com & type in the subject (above).
Ckeck out this book: "Tyranny of Words" by Stuart Chase (read this 1st)
It's User Friendly Reading note: Abstraction Ladder by by Alfred Korzybski and the Ogden - Richards "semantic triangle."
=================================
The rule is this: If something is logically impossible, it is empirically impossible.
(Of course, the reverse is not true. Many things are empirically
impossible but logically possible. This bothers the hell out of many people, but I figure they'll just have to deal with it.)
We assemble an evidential basis for a belief that strongly suggeststhat proposition X is true. When more evidence counts for X than counts against X,we choose to believe X. The strength of the belief will vary in accordance with the amount of evidence for and against X.
This ratio may change. With time, more evidence may come to count against X than for X. A rational person then abandons belief in X and embraces a new belief, say Y.
Science only takes a TENTATIVE ACCEPTANCE not a belief.
("TENTATIVE ACCEPTANCE" are better words for this than "BELIEF").
Put in a crude nutshell, a rational belief (TENTATIVE ACCEPTANCE) is one for which more counts for X than counts against X and which does not violate logic plus evidence (Empiricism) and which is readily abandoned when a shift in evidence and probability dictate a cognitive change.
Strong believers are cognitively challenged and fraut with cognitive dissonance.
Therefore a TENTATIVE ACCEPTANCE rather than BELIEF.
I reiterate:
Since the word "True" or "Truth" has been diluted to a transient term related to the context in which it's used, it provides exhaustive fodder for fictional and speculative masterbation. No such thing as truth (only on paper). Science takes a TENTATIVE acceptance based on fact, [for or against].
Belief is based on the TRUTH fallacy.
More On STEM CELL FALLACIES - A pile of sand is not a desert, an embryo is not a person!
A 5-day-old embryo is no more a person than an organ taken from a dead child.
Religionists argue that an embryo is different because it has a 'soul'. There's an interesting flaw lurking here. None of these people seem to know where the soul resides in the human body. Suppose it resides in the heart, as some cognoscenti of these matters argue. A heart donated to somebody in need of a
transplant, would be a person. I won't get into the complications this might create.
I'll leave to Hollywood's sci-fi comedies to imagine the possibilities.
Do you, by chance, find it interesting that this religious
claim has ended up being comedic material for the film industry?
Historically, religion has been the cruelest force in human history. It has killed more people than any other force, and it has done more to impede human progress than any other force. Fortunately, some degree of sanity still exists in places such as Great Britain and the Netherlands. I assume cloned
stem cell research will go on with fewer impediments in these countries.
I've argued for years that religiosity makes people more likely to be cruel, sadistic, and warlike. The Inquisition, the Crusades, centuries of brutal religious wars in Europe, the brutality of witch hunts during the Dark Ages, efforts to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, the brutal religious warfare in Northern Ireland, genocidal warfare in Rwanda, religious hatred between Jews and Muslims, and so forth support my view that religiosity, especially if it is fundamentalist, increases human
cruelty and intolerance. (also: killing abortion doctors, Buddists vs muslims in India & Pakistan, Al Queda, Xtians vs muslims in the Philipines, the KKK, etc. etc. - )
Eradicate religions, belief systems, ideologies, and all the other absurd and psychotic verbal constructions, myths and fantasies that cause war, personal and social conflict, legal and social oppression, irrational/unempirical thinking and we can take a giant step toward a more peaceful, rationally mature world.
WISDOM IS THE ART OF KNOWING WHAT TO IGNORE
__________________________________________________________________
INVINCIBLE IGNORance - nurturing a belief system irregardless of it's factual validity
A good example is when the reigning Church officials refused to look through Galelio's telescope to see the evidence that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.....like one who refuses to accept contrary or conflicting evidence that weakens his premise. (see Deductive Reasoning above)
Religions are a curse on mankind for the ignorance & suffering of their ancestors and Religions prey on ignorance (ignoring the facts).
After life - It's self evident that the mind does NOT continue on after your brain disintegrates. Try to prove empirically otherwise.After the Double Helix: Unraveling the Mysteries of the State of Being ? (New York Times ? April 13, 2004)
DNA discoverer Dr. Francis Crick and Dr. Christof Koch, of the California Institute of Technology, are exploring the neural states and processes associated with conscious awareness. They are gaining experimental evidence for what Crick has termed the ?awareness neurons? that enable us to see. While many scientists assume consciousness is a global property of the brain, Koch and Crick say they believe that perhaps only a few thousand neurons give rise to the feeling of conscious awareness. Crick believes the most profound implication of an operational understanding of consciousness could be ?the death of the soul,? as research begins to demonstrate that there is no awareness without the body, and hence no life after death.
God - An invisible man (anthropocentrism) running the universe - ya, right - like there's an intangible dragon that says I'm Napoleon ( same thing as saying there's an invisible man that says I'm divine). (Napoleon Complex and a Divinity Complex). What does the word GOD represent? Google 'Death by Qualification'. The universe is no more aware of you than you are aware of the ant you stepped on yesterday.
This is also racism at the species level (specism). Hierarchal prejudice against other species. ("God created man in his own image") Death by Qualification - What does the word "god" refer to? The ecosystem? An invisible man? an intangible dragon? etc. With no evidence you won't know what you are referring to. I don't believe in " a God" as such, but I do believe there is a devine power, but that it is The Earth itself. (Defining characteristic: a trait without which X is not X.)
Soul - go to the dictionary and it says see Spirit and you go to the word Spirit and it says see Soul...metaphorically speaking. That's circular reasoning (tautology & reification) as discussed above. There's no evidence for a "soul" and If there's no evidence of a "soul", then one can't know what a "soul" is and therefore one doesn't know what they are talking about (referring to). What are the qualitative and/or quantitative properties of a soul ...the tangible or observable evidence?
Native Americans & negros were declared not to have SOULS by the early European newcomers and thusly slavery and atrocities to native Americans was condoned.
All belief systems (deductive reasoning) NOT based in empirical analysis (inductive reasoning) are bunk. That includes ideologies like communism & capitalism and other forms of verbal fantasy. Interpreting the world on the basis of faith is like buying the Brooklyn Bridge on the faith the deed will
arrive in the mail. You don't analyze the world on the basis of faith and get the correct answers.
What are 'Moral Values? (Like or dislike) And Where are the Bushian Moral Values Taking Us?
As it becomes increasingly clear that so-called 'moral values' were factors for millions of Americans in casting their votes, I thought I'd sit down and tap out a few thoughts on the mysteries of morality and immorality.
I'll start by substituting 'good' and 'bad' for 'moral' and 'immoral.' These are essentially the same in meaning, although 'moral' and 'immoral' are customarily applied in somewhat different subjects. This can be handy, as in the case of 'good' sex versus 'immoral' sex. This is partly due to the fact that 'good' has more than one meaning in this context. Having said that, I believe I'm justified in generally using 'good' and 'bad' as rough synonyms for 'moral' and 'immoral.'
Let me start with the logical concept of reification. We reify whenever we assume without justification that a word points toward something in objective reality. I've probably said ad nauseam that flag burning laws offer a classic example of reification. To ban the burning of the American flag is preposterous because THE flag does not exist in
objective reality. We can burn A flag, but not THE flag because it exists only as a concept. A flag will normally have an objective form such as a colored piece of cloth, a piece of paper, an assembly of lights, and so forth.
A GOOD action is much like THE American flag. It actually exists only in our heads. You see, we simply DEFINE an action as good or bad. The goodness or badness of the action does not reside in the action. It resides in our heads, not out there somewhere among the vast furniture of the Universe.
So how do we go about applying the words 'good' and 'bad'? Studies by experts in semantics and psycholinguistics have shown that we apply the word 'good' to an action or event that satisfies certain interests we have. When an action or an event militates against a given interest that is dearly held, we tend to label it as 'bad'. Of course, 'bad' people are those who do things that militate against dearly held interests, and 'good' people are those who do things that further or simply agree with our interests.
If you bridle at this suggestion, I can only recommend that you
empirically test it. Whenever you find yourself saying so and so is a rotten son of a bitch, ask yourself if this basically because he has done something that runs contrary to certain interests you have, or is he bad in some mysterious metaphysical sense.
If I say Ted Bundy was an evil man, I'm unlikely to get an argument except from rational psychologists such as Albert Ellis plus a few semanticists. You may find it distasteful when I say this, but I'm going to say it. When I say that Ted Bundy was an evil man, I'm merely saying I don't like what he did. (If it will help matters any, I will say I intensely dislike what he did.)
To further complicate the issue, take note that in this hypothetical case I would also probably be implying he's evil because he did evil things.
That, in turn, brings up another problem. Even if he did evil things, it opens a whole can of worms to say HE was evil. The most 'evil' of 'evil' persons invariably does some 'good' actions in his or her life. Hitler was exceedingly kind to his dog. Most people would say this loving kindness toward his dog was a 'good' thing. Does that make Hitler a 'good' man? The most accurate statement would be that he was dangerous lunatic who managed to gain a huge amount of power and unleash a huge amount of carnage. To say he was evil adds nothing to our understanding or knowledge. Consider that those who gave him such enormous power were virtual accomplices. (Was Adolph's good buddy, the American icon Henry Ford, who was a major business supporter of Hitler, also a man of consummate evil?)
I must beg your pardon for doing this, but I want to repeat a much used example of what I'm driving at. Suppose I decide to make a lemon pie. I will need sugar and lemons. The sugar will be for sweetness and the lemon will be for tartness. I buy both at a local grocery store. When I get home, I discover my lemons are sickeningly sweet and my sugar is dreadfully sour. I will quite naturally say my lemon is a bad lemon and my sugar is bad sugar.
You see how this is an issue of simply answering to my personal interests? The 'goodness' or 'badness' of the lemon and sugar don't reside out their in objective reality. They reside in my head. (And probably in most heads in this case.)
When fundamentalists go the polls and vote in accordance with their 'moral values', they are thinking such things as, 'It would be immoral to allow two men who love each other to sign a civil contract (known as a marriage contract) that awards a host of civil rights. The moral or good thing to do would be to use the fundamental law of the land to prohibit such contracts from ever being okayed by the state and by imprisoning those who manage to sidestep the law to do so.
Of course, fundamentalists not only engage in an arrant reification of evil when they do this, they also embrace a classic authority fallacy.
If the Scripture or their preacher tells them X is so, X absolutely must be so. The two fallacies combine to make a deadly duo.
Am I undermining any kind of value system with these observations?
Certainly not. Take one's political philosophy. What I and other
rationalists simply do is to imagine what kind of society we would like to live in. We will label those actions of our government that work toward creating that society as 'good' actions. Those actions that militate against building the kind of society we want will be labeled 'bad' actions.
Utopian novels are the grandest expressions of this approach. A positive Utopian novel selects those aspects of our society that the author wants to see nurtured and expanded. A negative utopia (such as '1984') will take certain aspects or tendencies of our present society and show how ugly they will become if they're allowed to grow in scope.
Each of us is a closet utopian novelist. We have a set of notions about how we want our society to be and how we don't want it to be. We reserve the term 'good' for that which promotes the one and 'bad' for those tendencies we want to shrink or abolish.
Rational people all seem to be people who care for logic and evidence as tools for mapping out their sociopolitical goals and to identify those things they see as enemies of the kind of society they presumably long for.
The rules for being rational are actually few in number and amazingly simple.
As for those Bush supporters who went to the polls and voted on the basis of so-called 'moral values', I have no quarrel with their seeking to build the society they long for. I do, however, strongly quarrel with the sources for their conceptual utopias. These are arrived at via authority, superstition, and blatant fallacy.
Their projected utopias, not surprisingly, are so misguided and faulty they will probably lead American culture into an abyss that even they will hate. They will quite likely one day regret where they and their leaders have taken this country, and like the much-quoted Bishop Martin Niemoller they will wonder how it was they could have been so foolish or indifferent to the road they were being taken down.
The bible (esp. the old testiment) and the Koran (adapted from the "old testiment") - are the most destructive books ever written!
They were written by a bunch of evasive, uninformed arab types from their culture & tradition and the USA social mindset a diluted form of it. That's one reason why women were 2nd class citizens for so long. Same for nudity & sexual behavior,
euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research,etc....all victims of religious tautology.
At this point in our social evolution we are still living in the Dark Ages.
Go to all the departments at the universities that examined religion....
paleography, sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc. and they will show you it's bunk.
David Hume & Francis Bacon essentially decimated the main theological arguments centuries ago, as mentioned above.
"Religion is Bunk!" - quote Thomas Edison
I bought a Bible on sale at the store today for $.99 because Charmin toilet paper was $1.25 a roll. So, I saved $.26 cents, did my business, and paid my respects to GOD all in one sitting.
Logic & Fallacies
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/carranza/study6.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm
~ Homer Simpson
Are you saying that one cannot be a Christian and pro-choice? And/or that someone like me (a pro-life Dem) who supports some pro-abortion candidates is a bad Christian? Abortion is one of the many issues I care about, but I always go for the candidate who I most agree with on most of the issues.
And would you call President Bush, whose war in Iraq has ended thousands of innocent lives "pro life" just because he's against abortion? Also, did you know that there have been more abortions in President Bush's first four years in office than in Clinton's? Unfortunately, both major parties tend to use issues such as abortion and gay marriage to "rally the party faithful" and divide the electorate without always living up to their rhetoric.
Tim Kaine is an expert in health insurance, are you sure? I read what he said in your link. Tim Said, "Nationally, nine out of ten people who have insurance receive it through their workplace." I'm sure nobody is going to buy that. I also read his "panels" suggestions. Let me assure you this is nothing more than a way to force more people onto dangerous group employee plans, it's pathetic. Tim Kaine talks about education of the health care consumer. I have a good way to do exactly that. I suggest that the consumer needs a warning when enrolling onto one of Tim Kaine's group health employee plans. How about:
Warning - Warning - Warning -- If you get ovarian cancer and get too sick to work the manditory 30 hours per week, to continue your health insurance, you will be put to a short COBRA extension for insurance termination on this Tim Kaine, and tax payer supported, small group employee plan. If you still want a dangerous plan like this SIGN HERE X____________
I'm licensed so you can trust me.
PS - If your employer goes broke you lose your insurance too. So don't get diagnosed with anything.
Tim Kaine will have to consider what is best for the citizen. This health care issue is not going away. So all politicians better start educating themselves on health care. Otherwise, they could look pretty goofy in a debate with a knowledgeable opponent.
Remember these people have children. Shouldn't the consumer be in charge instead of some employer who only cares about the bottom line and could go belly up?
Mr Kaine discusses that panels views but not his own. And the panel has 3 goals.
1. Create a new insurance pool (When HSA insurance is already available for under $170 a month per family (30 year old couple and 2 children in Richmond). It is already on file with the state's Insurance Department.
2. Tax cuts to help business afford health insurance (This encourages citizens to get employee insurance that they are put to COBRA for insurance termination if employees become to sick too work)
3. Tools to help business owners and their workers become better health care consumers.
I'm sorry but real thinkers have more to say about health care reform than this web link that you posted. I am hoping that you are correct and real health care reform ideas will be discussed here. Group health employee plans are losing market share rapidly and leaders must consider new ideas from those who do have a clue. The Des Moines Register reports that Howard Dean supports a single payer system. I am impressed that Mr. Kaine has not supported Howard Dean's ideas.
Governor Vilsack (D-IA) of Iowa just signed legislation allowing HSAs in Medicaid. I'm sure Governor Vilsack will run for President as being a moderate for endorsing President Bush's health care reforms.
Mr Kaine does say health insurance costs is businesses' number 1 issue. With that thought in mind, what are his solutions?
People who ask questions are welcome here aren't they?
All states need a leader who has an understanding of health insurance today. If Mr. Kaine can't take care of his own employees how can he possibly take care of the entire state's. Mr Kaine has no ideas about healthcare. I'm afraid Mr Kaine will fall in step behind Howard Dean and want a Socialised or Single Payer system simply because Mr. Kaine has no ideas of his own.
Taxes are not always the answer. President Bush's tax free HSAs are never taxed and money that is never taxed will last longer in retirement. In Richmond a family of four can get HSA health insurance for under $170 a month (30 yr old couple plus 2 children). Tax payers who cannot afford health insurace for their own families pay four times that for Mr. Kaine's coverage. It's not fair.
Let's forget about Max Cleland and let's talk about Mr. Kaines ideas for getting uninsured citizens insurance. Surely he has some ideas.
You have no right to say who is or isn't a Christian.
If I used your own rationale, Bush, as well as anyone who supports him, is not a Christian because they support murdering children, born and unborn, in Iraq. But I don't use that idiotic rationale. I will say though that anyone who supports Bush is NOT pro-life, not in the least.
Oh my, imagine thinking of Iraqis as HUMAN BEINGS! How UN-CHRISTIAN of me!
Tim Kaine is an expert in health insurance, are you sure? I read what he said in your link. Tim Said, "Nationally, nine out of ten people who have insurance receive it through their workplace." I'm sure nobody is going to buy that. I also read his "panels" suggestions. Let me assure you this is nothing more than a way to force more people onto dangerous group employee plans, it's pathetic. Tim Kaine talks about education of the health care consumer. I have a good way to do exactly that. I suggest that the consumer needs a warning when enrolling onto one of Tim Kaine's group health employee plans. How about:
Warning - Warning - Warning -- If you get ovarian cancer and get too sick to work the manditory 30 hours per week, to continue your health insurance, you will be put to a short COBRA extension for insurance termination on this Tim Kaine, and tax payer supported, small group employee plan. If you still want a dangerous plan like this SIGN HERE X____________
I'm licensed so you can trust me.
PS - If your employer goes broke you lose your insurance too. So don't get diagnosed with anything.
Tim Kaine will have to consider what is best for the citizen. This health care issue is not going away. So all politicians better start educating themselves on health care. Otherwise, they could look pretty goofy in a debate with a knowledgeable opponent.
Remember these people have children. Shouldn't the consumer be in charge instead of some employer who only cares about the bottom line and could go belly up?
Every state needs a Governor that has a clue about health insurance costs. Governor Vilsack (D-IA) has just signed a bill to make available HSAs in the Iowa's state Medicaid program.
The tax payers suffer paying for over priced health insurance for government employees. Sure the existing insurance company's with the government contracts don't like reform but many tax payers don't have insurance on their own families. Governors should consider the tax payer and consider low cost alternatives as an option.
President Bush says, "Become empowered with a tax free HSA."
Dean and Clark just tell the truth and they THINK it's hell.
Dean will always speak plainly and effectively. To see elected Dem officials complain of it is revealing and disappointing. No wonder so many worked against him in the candidacy, he threatens the status quo that all too many find so comfortable/profitable.
Religion is a lever they use to propel their real agenda: corporatism. All the noise about "life," "gay marriage," and "values" is designed to garner votes, period. Their actual policies are far, far from Christian in any way. Lying, cheating, stealing and killing are not Christ-like. Helping the poor, healing the sick and creating peace are so far from their agenda, I'm amazed anyone who considers themselves Christian goes along with this crowd. The idolatry of Bush as a "Christian" is mind-boggling.
So yes, Howard Dean is a great leader for our party, and General Clark is a phenomenal combination of intellect, courage, and compassion. Both have more insight, honesty, and political bravery than the majority of GOP politicians combined. I'd love to see Clark become our candidate in 2008, with Dean leading the charge!
This is not the Republican Party that I grew-up with. This is why I am now a Democrat.
Give'em hell, Howard!
Howard Dean and Democrats do not advocate "killing unborn babies," as you choose to frame it - please, this violent, inflammatory language coming out of the republican party and the so-called Christian church is wholly un-Christian, uncivilized, un-American and completely hypocritical. If "killing" was your real reason for calling people "un-Christian," then George Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, and all of the neocons who have doomed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death in a war of their politically-motivated choosing would be at the center of your wrath. The fact that you support a war, especially one that garnered its support with continual lies to the American people, the very people who are dying, tells us enough of your "Christianity."
So, no, Reverend - we don't believe you - because your "arguments" are not believable - and they are un-Christian and they are un-American.
Jesus Christ railed against people like you who stood up in the public square and criticized others for not being holy enough - while in secrecy and in the darkness of their hearts committed the most heinous of crimes.
=======
There are some programs on Air America that are worth paying attention to. Here is a website for the archives of one of them (no commercials, and you can download and listen to any of her programs any time at all.).........Incredibly convenient:
She is a very articulate, smart lady, with extraordinary common sense, who uses original documents as her source material most of the time. It would be hard to listen to an entire program from these archives and not be impressed by her.
Arlene Montemarano
Silver Spring, Maryland
I think it is better to less politicise this issue and just look at the facts.
Sara
Tim Kaine is an expert in health insurance, are you sure? I read what he said in your link. Tim Said, "Nationally, nine out of ten people who have insurance receive it through their workplace." I'm sure nobody is going to buy that. I also read his "panels" suggestions. Let me assure you this is nothing more than a way to force more people onto dangerous group employee plans, it's pathetic. Tim Kaine talks about education of the health care consumer. I have a good way to do exactly that. I suggest that the consumer needs a warning when enrolling onto one of Tim Kaine's group health employee plans. How about:
Warning - Warning - Warning -- If you get ovarian cancer and get too sick to work the manditory 30 hours per week, to continue your health insurance, you will be put to a short COBRA extension for insurance termination on this Tim Kaine, and tax payer supported, small group employee plan. If you still want a dangerous plan like this SIGN HERE X____________
I'm licensed so you can trust me.
PS - If your employer goes broke you lose your insurance too. So don't get diagnosed with anything.
Tim Kaine will have to consider what is best for the citizen. This health care issue is not going away. So all politicians better start educating themselves on health care. Otherwise, they could look pretty goofy in a debate with a knowledgeable opponent.
Remember these people have children. Shouldn't the consumer be in charge instead of some employer who only cares about the bottom line and could go belly up?
Aren't we forgetting the living.
It is one thing to oppose legislation on ethical grounds; quite unethical to misrepresent a patient advocacy group's position on this issue. PAN (Parkinson's Action Network) favors all stem cell research.
Donaldson says outright that Big Business is held in disrepute by the investing public. I don't think we'll hear Chris Cox make such an admission.
Donaldson, in other words, will be sorely missed.
Bear the hardship, pay the price. Come back whole!
Keep in mind that it was Donaldson who gave us Reg-SHO & it's Naked Shorting. (counterfeiting of shares & No matter that Naked Shorting has been illegal since the 1933 Securities Act.) Along with that is "Arbitrage Hedging" & it's "price advantage" language.
Is it any wonder that the US MMs & Specs got 100s of companies listed on the Berlin-Bremen exchanges so they could naked short them in the US markets ?? They did so w/o the knowledge or permission of the Co's involved. Even relisted them when some Co's sued to get delisted from the German exchanges.
Then there's Reg SRO...(HA) That's like asking the Mafia to regulate its self. Maybe that's why the exchanges will waive the 5 day cover rule on naked shorts ??
It has become a favored tactic for MMs to "mark Up" the BxA on an issue then Naked Short it back down, then cover. The MMs & Specs have been bleeding the individuals equity ever since Reg-SHO. Think that may be a reason the brokerage house stocks are doing so well ??
Let's not forget the Bush family's involvement in the Carlyle Gp & the UDI deal. (an end run around the laws against "political influence peddling".)
Then Pres Bush wants us to put our SS $$ into the market where the Insiders & brokerage houses can get at it. Hell, how about a joint bank account with "thief of the day" ??
Now, Pres Bush wants a Pro Business type to head the SEC ??
With more deals like that from Pres Bush & Congress, we will all be broke & living on the streets...
(except for the Brokerage House Co Insiders of course.)
It's clear to me, that be you a working taxpayer, voting citizen, or market player; were "being played".
Also see http://www.bristolwatch.com/
Go get'm Rex!!!
And "Hi, Christi"....pardon me, I guess I was trumped. Yes there are many people interested in the things you listed. I agree. But there are many events and projects going on in the area that are NOT covered by the paper. Point taken, but I still have the right to disagree with the spin on the truth he sometimes prints.
John McCain has done plenty to make us question whether he is really the straight talker the media calls him, but in this case McCain said what needed to be said.
Beamer, now there's a good route to take ...
"So Kerry was off by a couple of days..."
ROFL. A coupl'a DAYS? How 'bout "it never happened"? Lessee, NONE of his Commanders ever authorized such an incursion, to use a PFC would be an absurd selection for such an incursion, NONE of his crew (to include his BOB) will back him up on his claim, he's presented not a scintilla of evidence supporting such an incursion...and all we have is the word of a self-confessed liar and embellisher that it occured. Yeah, wanna by a bridge in Brooklyn?
As to the "military record", well...take a look at Kerry and his SF180 saga to answer THAT question...or perhaps you might want to read Joan Vennochi's recent article in the Globe. Or, perhaps you'd rather not.
Thank you for this article.
Noel Schutz
Associate Professor
National Chi Nan University
Puli, Taiwan
(Formerly working at HumRRO in Alexandria, Virginia in years past; home address in Oregon; vote in California - yes, Barbara Boxer is my senator.)
Also, thanks for the post in general. I have long believed that the GOP has gotten a bye on this issue. The GOP has always put out that they were strong on defense and national security - they say it over, and over, and over again. I suppose if you repeat something long enough people eventually believe it.
What I want to know is when more of the military will see that the GOP really doesn't support them, and many don't really respect them.
We are into over 40 years of the Military Industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. Why would the US want a member of the Military Industrial Complex as president?
Reason #2:
Wesley Clark led the illegal (unapproved by the UN) bombing of Serbia which was another PNAC adventure (http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm)
as well as being based on lies.
Surely out of 150 million men in this country we can come up with someone more qualified to lead us into peace.
I know, details, details.
From the BBC- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4608949.stm
It also said that there were a number of cases where detainees had desecrated the Koran by ripping pages, urinating on it and trying to flush it down a toilet.
Evan Bayh may be a strong candidate for the Democrats. I think Kerry is worth another look.
Bob
Links that should be in the list above. :)
Learn more about BYH BECAUSE i CAN FEEL A RUN FOR IT IN 08.
BEST WISHES MARIE
Check it out if you want to see totally childish "analysis".
Let's hope the candidates can stay on the wagon and out of the mud.
That move (a) saves us from looking egg-faced when we get one letter wrong, (b) reminds us that both Kilgores are Err-or prone, and (c) further reminds us that to err is human, not ignorant ... and Kilgores are not divine.
Funny story, a few weeks ago Terry was at the MEOC walk-a-thon, an event that raises thousands of dollars to help seniors with their heating bills. (Rex was also there, as he is every year, along with Senator Puckett.)
Anyway, soon after the walk began, Terry disappeared behind a nearby building, never to return to the walk. Many people at the event noticed this and commented on it.
He wants to appear at events, but not participate or sweat, no matter how worthy the cause. What's sad is he thinks everyone is too stupid to notice.
Michigan has a Democratic Governor that has led the state to the highest unemployment rate in America. That's why it is so important who you vote for. Governor Granholm didn't mention health care one time in her state of the state address.
GM is going to close down their Lansing plant. It is weird that HSA health insurance for a 30 year old couple and two children costs $150 a month in Lansing, in the free and open market. GM is spending $4 an hour for single health insurance, that's over $640 a month. President Bush says, "Get low cost individual HSA insurance and combine that with a tax free HSA and you got yourself affordable healthcare."
Usually Democrats don't have much to say about heath care unless it's something about stem cells. All Governors should have some idea about health care or don't elect them.
BTW, I actually like the graphic you have up there. It straightforward and makes me laugh. Well, any picture of Larry Sabato makes me laugh.
Gun Control
It is well-known that in Virginia that when you want to do something in politics, but you haven't convinced your colleagues, you STUDY it. Kaine wanted to sue gun manufacturers but hadn't gained the will from his colleagues, so what did he ask for? A study! Studies=policy.
"In God We Trust"
They haven't address the fact that Tim Kaine called posting "In God We Trust" at schools "ridiculous." Is that because he said it?
But honestly I found this press release to be tremendously disappointing and depressing in its zeal to establish how much Kilgore ABHORS abortion, especially the "all life is sacred" line. And it veers dangerously toward Kerry's position, which was basically, "I hate abortions, I'm against them, but I'm pro-choice." Sorry, but that makes no sense. Furthermore, he unquestioningly repeats right-wing framing on so-called "partial-birth abortion."
Not once in this press release did the Kaine campaign point out the truth about Democrats and abortion -- that sound and pragmatic Democratic policies on access to contraception, accurate sex education, and improved access to health care result in FEWER abortions. If you're pro-choice and believe in reproductive freedom, you ought to vote Democratic. If you're against abortion and you want to see fewer abortions, you ought to vote Democratic.
Instead, a release like this only further inflames anti-abortion zealots (making them focus on what they see as "hypocrisy") and only further alienates strongly pro-choice voters who don't believe Kaine will strongly fight for privacy and reproductive freedom.
So maybe Kaine scores one point with pointing out Kilgore's lies, but for me he just lost a half dozen points for these disturbing statements on abortion.
BTW, I heard that Not Larry Sabato was actually two people, a man and a woman, both political journalists. Heard from somone else it was Dave Albo's legislative aide.
My favorite commenter on the site is "Larry Sabato's Hairpiece". I can't remember what that person said, but I chuckled about the name for hours. :-)
BTW, I think you have a "great site" too. Sorry I wasn't able to complete your life, though!
His actions speak louder than his words and his words are TOO DAMN LOUD!
...and teach your kids to sing,
"Tom DeLay
Has a way
Of messing up
The U.S.A"
OR
Shock therapy is doing wonders for Mildred Richardson's sex life.
I hadn't thought of Mandala as a qualified candidate even before the mailing. I thought she was a nice person who was just in over her head in this race. Now I know that she's a NOT nice, quite nasty, pitiful, negative person who is in over her head in this race. This has been a very positive campaing up until this point. Mandala has lost any respect I might have had for her. Shame on you, Laura. Kudos to the other candidates who have stayed positive and cordial. You can guess who I am voting for. You don't have to guess that it will NOT be Mandala.
On the subject of endorsements, I have inside information (I will not reveal my sources as much as a cop out as it may seem but my pledge is my bond) that some of Laura's endorsements were not voluntary.
Although I have minor quibbles with your criticism of Garvey (that she'd eat lunch with Republicans). I'm all for that. We're in the minority in the HoD and we need to work with them to get things done.
... being a (guest or otherwise) blogger is a bit like being an alcoholic: if you say you are one, you are
What makes a blog a blog?
I'm very encouraged by your site - it provides a working model of how it is possible to combine participation in Democratic party politics with honest and effective blogging. Integrity and political are not mutually exclusive, as you are demonstrating.
Keep up the good work, and best of luck in the election.
1) It is virtually impossible for Kilgore to play the part of a moderate that can also represent the "anti-tax zealots and religious fundamentalists" that run the party. Potts has secured that spot. Plus, it can't be done. The conservatives are single issue voters who only care about one of those two issues. Furthermore, the Republicans constantly preach to the choir (no pun intended), and likely won't realize until it's too late that the moderates can put Potts over the top.
2) The winner of the race only needs 33% of the vote and if he does win, they will all come from the middle, both Republican & Democrat.
3) Kaine/Potts debates with Jerry AWOL could spell doom for the ultra-conservatives. It would show how out of touch they are with everyone except themselves and make it a two way race. It's a very likely scenario with Kilgore saying he's only going to debate 3 times.
http://vamoderate.blogspot.com
Why did I think that 9/11 "changed everything"? Maybe because the press kept repeating that mantra, over and over again. What happened since then? Is 9/11 and the Terrorists and the Iraq Invasion no longer issues. Did Bin Laden get captured or something and I missed it? Have the North Korean, Syrian, Iranian and Ubekistani threats been resolved? Considering that the Republicans' trump card has been National Security for the last two elections, I don't understand why Democrats continue to ignore this as a prerequisite. I do believe that the Bin Laden Tape trotted out on 10/29 (the press forgot to call it the October surprise that it was) certainly did it's job.
So why are is everyone forgetting about National Security for 2008 now that the 2004 election is over?
I wonder sometimes what in the heck is going on with the media, the Democratic strategists and the "Insiders"? Here we are in 2005, yet Mark Warner is heralded. It appears that Democrats have decided to return to the winning 1992 strategy, and therefore are promoting a Clinton or a moderate governor from a small red state. Problem with that is that 1992 is an era gone by.
These reports I keep hearing and reading by the press highlighting Hillary "my Hubby was Prez" Clinton, Mark "1992 Candidate w/t dough" Warner, Bill "Dr. Lee" Richardson, John "I've got programs, even if we don't have money" Edwards, and John "I lost, but so what?" Kerry are scaring me to death.
As a Democrat, I would suggest that we focus on candidates that can win by neutralizing the key issue that Republicans consistently use(War Hero Kerry didn't lose because of his National Security creds--He lost because of his actions re Vietnam, his lack of agressiveness in responding to attacks on his war records, and other factors...including media complicity).
Democrats always win on the domestic front, but it will be the GOP that will be in charge of the White House and they will be the ones defining the issues of the 2008 election...and you can bet your bottom dollar that balancing a budget will not be the issue tht they push to the forefront!
He worked for Senator Christopher Dodd (Conn Dem) in his DC office, later settled in NoVA.
Noteworthy fact: Warner passed the bar exam in Connecticut and never took the VA bar exam.
~ the blue dog
All four of these candidates are outstanding Democrats and each has made significant contributions to our party and Virginia.
Today I will be voting for Mr. Puckett as I believe he is far and away the strongest candidate for the ticket -- and will be the biggest help to my friend Tim.
Jim Rinker
Let's not get excited just yet.
Ben
Got to get some sleep, but we should definitely discuss later...
He's a pretty good candidate, but what carried him is the fact that his grassroots network is twice as good as any other down-ticket candidate. His network is amazing, and I've seen that first-hand.
Baril had money and nothing else. McDonnell had (has) money, and an unrivaled group of dedicated activists behind him. He will be a formidable candidate in November.
Even Better that Viola came in second!!
It is time my friends to move forward, as Tim says, in driving D if for Democrats and Drive, and R is for you know and Reverse!
Leslie Byrne will keep us moving. She is inspiring, and I am so happy one third of the primary voters agreed!
Virginians for T.L.C. in November!!!!!
~ the blue dog
How can you say you never said that he was your delegate when you clearly did? And I will ask again. Why did you say he was your delegate when he is not?
Sheesh. Look at the facts. Gallop says 82% of Republicans identify themselves as white Christians (as opposed to some 52% of Democrats). Dean was completely factual in his statement.
I'll go Dean one better. I'd be willing to bet a large percentage of white Christians identify themselves as Republican precisely because they see the GOP as a white Christian party.
And for what it's worth, Obama did NOT say he was "worried about Howard Dean." If you listen to Obama's complete comments (Ed Shultz played the tape), he was quite complimentary of the job Dean is doing.
Senator McCain calls Howard Dean, "The gift that keeps giving and giving." Tim Kaine would do himself a favor if he had the courage to follow Obama's lead. Sure the Deaniac's love all the name calling but they have a very long history of losing.
You guys are barking up the wrong tree on the office issue. Legislators get $1,000 a month to cover: rent, phones, office equipment, postage, etc. With that pittance, it is not surprising (nor is it out of the ordinary) that many legislators set up an office in their homes.
Unlike many people I dont blindly believe anything that is handed before me without researching it. I thought this fact was funny:
Christian Grantham, who apparently went to Delegate Marshall's house, stated on Bruce Roemmelt's website "I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be paying my delegate a visit with..." yet he is infact a registered voter in Delegate Michelle McQuigg's district. Why doesn't he tell the truth?
Most of their members live more than 12 miles from Bob Marshall's house in the 13th District, but unlike Bob, these brave men and women earned the trust of the people they serve by serving everyone equally with focus and sound judgement.
Marshall's top legislative priorities are the exact opposite: voting against funding the top priorities of the people in the 13th District and stripping the rights of others. Bob Marshall has squandered the public's trust with ineffective leadership.
We aren't just out-raising Bob Marshall in the 13th District. With the help of Team Roemmelt, we're knocking on thousands of doors and meeting the voters every single day.
Bob Marshall simply isn't.
We know that every door we visit and every voter we meet is one Bob Marshall continues to ignore as a Delegate. Team Roemmelt makes the difference, going the extra mile when and where it matters the most. That's the kind of leadership the people of the 13th District deserve.
Where I live doesn't change how comfortable I?d be paying my delegate a visit with a "no trespassing" sign on the front steps. I'm willing to bet my delegate doesn't have one on her district office like Bob Marshall does.
*Waves to fans*
I can't really say 'thanks for the link' - but maybe 'Thanks for the laughs'?
I imagine he took the site down after he discovered that it existed. No doubt he'll start communicating with voters via carrier pigeon, decrying the evils of the internets.
Nice, heartfelt post.