quote:Despite the success of the Afghan War and the misguided hesitance among some liberals about extending the war to Iraq, the Democrats are better suited to fight terrorism because of the GOP's intransigent stance on two key issues: the environment and trade.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
It's actually not that hard to find something Republicans have done wrong, or are doing wrong.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
How insightful. The reverse is also not hard to say, or prove. Both are accurate. (Go and get your hands on "Great Government Goofs." You can probably find it in the humor section of your local Waldenbooks.)
But this is irrelevant, as I'm talking about one specific issue.
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Americans, by a 55 to 25 percent margin, believe that Republicans do a better job of fighting terrorism.
Foreign or domestic? 9/11 happened under W's watch, as did the anthrax incidents. If your idea of fighting terrorism is to drastically restrict personal freedoms, then yes, I'd have to agree Republicans do a better job.
quote:By blocking efforts to raise fuel efficiency standards and failing to invest sufficient resources in renewable energies, Republicans increase American dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Even if Congress decided to increase production by allowing drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the fact remains that America's oil reserves are drying up while the Middle East is overflowing with petroleum. In the long term, American demand will have to be met with Middle Eastern supplies.
It's the "will have to be met" stance that I find fascinating, because of the staggering implications it entails.
quote:Oil dependency hurts the War on Terror by forcing the United States to form alliances with reactionary governments in the Middle East.
No shit, Sherlock!
quote:It is in America's interest to be seen as a liberalizing force that uses its power to create, not squash, opportunity. However, the United States cannot risk offending or destabilizing these repressive governments because of our dependence on their petroleum.
"A liberalizing force" - by installing puppet governments, I presume?
quote:As the opposition party, the Democrats have a responsibility to speak up when the government is not doing its best to win a vital war.
And when they do raise valid objections, they're immediately stigmatised as eeeeeeeeeeeeevil unpatriotic conspirators by those on the right side of the political spectrum. Bugger.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Who shops at Waldenbooks? I mean, really.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It's actually not that hard to find something Republicans have done wrong, or are doing wrong."
"How insightful. The reverse is also not hard to say, or prove. Both are accurate."
Indeed. The reverse, of course, being "it's hard to find something Republicans have not done wrong, or or not doing wrong".
Zing!
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
"or are"
Zang!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:It's the "will have to be met" stance that I find fascinating, because of the staggering implications it entails.
Why is this?
Certainly, energy demand WILL have to be met, unless you LIKE rolling blackouts.
Whether we meet it on our own or continue to put greater reliance on the Middle East is what is in question.
The author suggests that we would be better off pursuing alternate energy sources than continuing to utilize foreign oil, and he is entirely correct. I push for this myself, as there is nothing I would like better than to tell the Middle East to go screw itself, and not needing their oil would greatly enable that. It would also free us up to act from a position of far greater strength in the region, should our ire be incurred.
However, I think that the only way we will get to that point is if we elect someone who has no connections whatsoever to business or oil or industry, and who pushes science and technological development.
This removes most Republicans, and at least the last Democrat to run for the job. I don't see Nader doing it, either.
I, however, am willing to sell every share of stock I own immediately upon my inauguration as Dictator.
quote:"A liberalizing force" - by installing puppet governments, I presume?
As opposed to what? A Dictator is a Dictator.
quote:And when they do raise valid objections, they're immediately stigmatised as eeeeeeeeeeeeevil unpatriotic conspirators by those on the right side of the political spectrum. Bugger.
Whose stigmatizing this guy? His points are all valid. You're being paranoid again. You're just confusing the people making the invalid points with the people making the valid points.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I used to go to Waldenbooks. It was all that was available. But the guy was all "Dude, Enterprise! What do you think of Archer? I think he is a lot like Captain Kirk, don't you?" and I'm like "Please, for the love of God, allow me to slink out of here with a Star Trek Magazine in peace. I don't advertise your social stigmas, lispy."
Now we have a Borders. And what do I get there? "Hey, you like books? You should sign up for some Borders spam." Ugh and double-ugh.
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Certainly, energy demand WILL have to be met, unless you LIKE rolling blackouts.
Whether we meet it on our own or continue to put greater reliance on the Middle East is what is in question.
Not reliance. I'd use a more descriptive term, if my vocabulary encompassed one. Wait... I may have found one. How's domination sound?
quote:The author suggests that we would be better off pursuing alternate energy sources than continuing to utilize foreign oil, and he is entirely correct.
Seems his suggestions are falling on deaf ears, but hey, that's Big Oil for ya.
quote:I push for this myself, as there is nothing I would like better than to tell the Middle East to go screw itself, and not needing their oil would greatly enable that.
Personally, I think the ME has been screwed over a little too often for the region to let the bad blood flow away as if decades of exploitation and powerplay never happened. You CAN'T simply pull out without there being some kind of backlash.
quote:It would also free us up to act from a position of far greater strength in the region, should our ire be incurred.
Oy. Ramifications? We don't need no steenking ramifications!
quote:However, I think that the only way we will get to that point is if we elect someone who has no connections whatsoever to business or oil or industry, and who pushes science and technological development.
'Tis a shame such people are generally not found in the political arena.
quote:As opposed to what? A Dictator is a Dictator.
What matters a great deal, though, is who's doing the string-pulling, and WHY. Particularly to those living under the regime in question.
quote:Whose stigmatizing this guy? His points are all valid. You're being paranoid again. You're just confusing the people making the invalid points with the people making the valid points.
There is hardly any room for confusion. Both parties routinely make invalid points, but the Reps are generally more adept and skillful at it. Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
The SmithBooks in the mall here was having a closeout sale. I got Cryptonomososicaon by the Pizza writer for two dollars and fifty cents. I also picked up the illustrated guide to Door construction and a novel by the young and studly Ethan Hawke. He is married to Uma Thurman! He is an author!
Long live closing out sales.
Also, today, I attend the Used Bookstore, where "Everything in the store is $1.49 or less." I will pad my Danielle Steele collection. Also, they seem to have a lot of the Dick that I don't have. Phil Dick, that is. And, there is a book on The Vatican conspiracy to hide the Arc of the Covenant from the world, while the Pope uses its power to create a bishop army.
Damn Pope.
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
YUCKY LITERARY TASTE!
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
If it's less than one dollar, I will buy it, regardless of content. ONE DOLLAR!
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
A small fortune, to be sure.
Also, how many novels has Danielle Steel written?
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Beats me. Five hundred thousand. This may come as a disappointment, but I'm not actually an avid reader of hers. I know she writes, and once she was on TV. I think she writes about "sex." Fabio seems to be on most of her covers. And UNDER THEM!
Oh my.
Why does Disappointment mean what it does? Shouldn't it be similar to Unappoint? If that was a word. Like Engage/Disengage?
English is poo.
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Intruiging linguistic conundrums.
[deleted "joke"]
[ August 28, 2002, 10:24: Message edited by: Eric Cartman ]
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
It's that type of thinking that started the war.
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I randomly picked a language from Babelfish's menu.
Ah, forget it. Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Shouldn't you know how to speak German anyway? Nestled next to them, and all.
Posted by Eric Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yep.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Also, how many novels has Danielle Steel written?"
Danielle Steel "writes" about three books a year, and I think she's been going since the seventies, or something like that. So, to answer the question: approximately fifteen Amazon rain forests.
Posted by Mr. Pink (Member # 621) on :
I've decided.
I'm going to be a standup comedian and my material will be composed entirely of jokes I steal from this board.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
56 novels.
14 childrens' books, spread across two series.
And you can read her monthly words of wisdom right here!! Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Wait! Also: two nonfiction books (that I could find) as well as a volume of poetry.
She is the most popular author to ever live.
Posted by Thoughtcancer (Member # 480) on :
Her daughter was in Playboy.
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
Gosh, I totally agree. Books about relationships are just soooo inferior to war and horror and sci-fi topics. I mean, who wants to read about men learning how to deal with women? Don't they ALREADY know that? And how dare these authors write down what good sex should be? Not that we don't fantasize about these things but writing them down is just sick and unacceptable because we all subscribe to Christian repression of sex whether we're Christian or not.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Danielle Steele's books are about relationships?
That's probably a new one, even to her readers.
Maybe true... if you consider a soap operas a guide to real life.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Many people on reality shows seem to....
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
Actually, I've never read a Danielle Steele book. I was talking about romance novels in general.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Romance novels?
Then my previous post applies even moreso.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I've got nothing to say about romance novels. Most good novels have romance in them.
Steel's have bad sex, and bad romance, and are bad. Well, at least that is the extrapolation I make based on my admittedly limited sampling.
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
Sol: You've read her? I'm surprised.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
If a handful of pages counts.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It does. Which means that Simon must know at least 24 synonyms for the male genitalia.
Good grief.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
I knew a girl named Danielle Steel at CCRI.. if you even mentioned a romance novel around her, she'd punch you in the teeth.. she was so hot.. one of my favorite art majors..
anywho.
I actually watched a Danielle Steele movie adaptation with my stepmother during my trip home on Labor Day. i was just watiing for dinner, and my dad insisted i had a beer (or three), so i did.
It was Daddy. It had the father from Step by Step as the lead character, Captain Janeway was the mother, Kevin Uxbridge who killed all the Husnock everywhere was the grandfather, and the teen son was Bartleby the Angel, apparently before he had attained his everpresent 5:00 shadow (or his voice changing, to boot). and the music was done by Dennis McCarthy, and did include snippets of what would later become the Voyager theme. funny what you notice after a second Coors.
(BTW, i realize the above character list shows that i have absolutely no grounding in reality... i cant be bothered to remember actors names when i have such pertinent information such as who they played in my head)
The movie was awful, and every third scene ended up with people having sex and getting cut off before it got too graphic for mid 90s prime-time, or a really stilted melodramatic argument. And the worst acting ive ever seen (except for the pubescent Affleck). But the predictable ending of Patrick Duffy getting together with that chick from Dallas or Dynasty or whichever show that was she was in.
But my parents made a good grilled vegetable dinner while i was watching, and the satellite was screwed up so its not like i couldve watched MTV2 like i usually do.
What was i talking about? oh yeah.. this girl was a ceramics major.. and she was H-O-T.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Don't you guys get, like, 6 billion channels on cable alone? There's bound to be at least ONE educative documentary (complete with voluntary censoring of the more sensitive anatomic areas) on mating habits, or something. But, I'm sure you're even wealthier than you already were for watching that adaptation.
[ September 06, 2002, 00:30: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
well, it was a rare occasion where my stepmother was not beig openly hostile, probably since my brother wasnt there, and it was her TV.. chancging the channel like i still lived there has been the source of open warfare in the past.
it begs the question of why the hell ive never been able to enjoy cable for more than three months in my life. when i visited RI for the summers and stayed with my dad and her, id have cable but not be allowed to watch it often. then i went for another decade without cable after those two or three fateful summers, to have my parents get a satellite RIGHT BEFORE I MOVE OUT. ultimate slap in the face. my whole childhood, deprived of music videos except when a friend taped them for me, no beavis & butthead likewise, or cartoon network, or nick at nite. I was forced to READ BOOKS. grr. now i'm smarter than the rest of the kids my age, and know nothing of their music awards! and as such have no common ground with which to base a stable relationship! all my sufferings, to this one cause!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Books about relationships are just soooo inferior to war and horror and sci-fi topics. ... Not that we don't fantasize about these things [sex] but writing them down is just sick and unacceptable because we all subscribe to Christian repression of sex whether we're Christian or not."
Erm... Have you ever actually read a sci-fi book? They all have fornication in them. All of them. And, if they have the words "by Robert A. Heinlein" on the cover, you're in for even more of a treat.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
All of them? 2001? Foundation? The Caves of Steel?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Obviously, I was hyperbolizing. Though just barely. And Foundation was pretty boring, anyway, so what can you expect?
Posted by Thoughtcancer (Member # 480) on :
I don't think Issac Asimov expected there to be sex in the future.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Gods Themselves.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You listed Foundation as boring in a list that included 2001? I might have found a cure for my insomnia...
quote: the music was done by Dennis McCarthy, and did include snippets of what would later become the Voyager theme.
Which is great, especially since Jerry Goldsmith wrote the Voyager theme.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I didn't find 2001 boring. This is the book we're talking about, of course, not the movie. The movie was mediocre by comparison.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
Not if you were on two or three doses while watching, which most of the audiences were at the time of its release.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, yeah, that's roughly what it takes to make Kubrick watchable.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)