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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
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?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
