RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


What do you read for news/politics/commentary?(61 posts)

What do you read for news/politics/commentary?128
Sep 27, 2002 5:48 AM
I wish I had time read more but I regularly read editorial in
-Washington post
-The New Republic
-NY Times
-Weekly Standard
-National Review
-The New yorker
and sometimes
-BBC
-the London Times and
-Washinton Times
Is there any GOOD conservative commentary out there?? Seems to me Nat'l review and Standard are smart ass Democrat baiters with rather poor attempts at conservative opinion.
I can imagine a much better conservative forum.
And now that Calvin and Hobbes have left the comic pages there's nothing there to read anymore!

Anyway just curious....!
on lineDougSloan
Sep 27, 2002 7:05 AM
I read David Limbaugh's column. I also listen to Rush if I'm in the car.

Having very little time, I usually read things on line, but no one thing or person regularly. If I'm feeding the baby or something, I'll watch shoes like Hardline, Meet the Press, etc. They are boring as hell, though, and I cannot tolerate listening to the shows in which everyone is talking at the same time and interrupting each other.

Doug
The Economist. nmSintesi
Sep 27, 2002 7:16 AM
MJ's reposts...mr_spin
Sep 27, 2002 7:16 AM
I actually avoid most political commentary. All the ranting and raving and lies and frauds and backstabbing and polticizing and positioning and power brokering just pisses me off. It also bores me to death. If a rotating trio of naked supermodels offered to read it to me in bed, I would still probably not be interested. Well, maybe for a few days. Weeks, possibly. Okay, maybe I'd just pretend to listen.
It's good to have an insider's view. nmEager Beagle
Sep 27, 2002 7:56 AM
MJ's reposts...BikeViking
Sep 27, 2002 10:17 AM
To rely on MJ's reposts is a sure way to get the view of why the world hates the USA, how its all our fault and how we should do more things (especially give money) to support the "world" community. I am sure he would say the same thing about me..."Don't take at face value anything that Laser-guided diplomacy, no Kyoto signing, ICC thwarting maniac would post on this board!!!". :o)
MJ's reposts...mr_spin
Sep 27, 2002 11:21 AM
Oh I don't rely on them. They're just the only political commentary I typically read. I see a post and have to see what misconceptions are being reported as fact.
not very nice... nmMJ
Sep 29, 2002 11:40 PM
The Economist nmPdxMark
Sep 27, 2002 7:29 AM
Wall St. Journal's op/ed page is intelligently conservative nmRoyGBiv
Sep 27, 2002 10:24 AM
Yeah, but all that means is you agree with it...cory
Sep 27, 2002 9:04 PM
When I read it, I see mainly pro-business rhetoric--a reactionary viewpoint unwilling to accept change, an anti-environmental bias and an emphasis on finding people who'll work cheaper than the people you have now.
Know thine enemy. nmRoyGBiv
Sep 30, 2002 8:17 AM
The Onion. . .js5280
Sep 27, 2002 10:57 AM
Only political and public commentry I need and it's dead on. Political shows and most editorials disgust me. This coming from a Poli Sci major. My passion was the philosophy and evolution of government. My parent watch political shows non-stop and I grew up on Rush. I've learned enough that the Democrats and Republicans are both full of $hit, more concerned about staying in power so they can dole out influence and money to their friends. Who, in turn, give that money back to keep their politicals allies in power and extort more from us. It's a downard spirial. The ruse of concern for their constituents to me is disgusting so I don't even watch it anymore. There are some good people in politics, but the system is so corrupt that any change they might make is only superficial. Then it's exploited to why we really need more government. I really believe we are reaching point of no return. This story sticks with me from my college years. . .

More than 200 years ago, while the original 13 colonies were still part of Great Britain, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote of the Athenian Republic, which had fallen 2,000 years earlier.

"A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves a largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

From BONDAGE to SPIRITUAL FAITH, From Spiritual Faith to GREAT COURAGE, from Great Courage to ABUNDANCE, from Abundance to SELFISHNESS, from Selfishness to COMPLACENCY, from Complacency to APATHY, from Apathy to DEPENDENCY and finally back again into BONDAGE."

Without a doubt were at Apathy and making in-roads into Dependency quickly. If you want valuable insight into government pick up the orignal Calvin and Hobbes, Tocqueville, Jefferson, etc. and see how truly bastardized our political system has become. Ain't history a bitch? Government is not our savior, it is our master.
js5280, you are depressing the h3ll out of me.czardonic
Sep 27, 2002 11:40 AM
But I would rather be depressed by the truth than placated by lies.

Bravo!
That's why I read the Onion. . .js5280
Sep 27, 2002 11:53 AM
Today's politics are only a worthy source of parody. Excellent case in point of their spot-on commentary. . .

Last week, Saddam Hussein agreed to U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, but President Bush dismissed the offer as a cynical ploy. What do you think?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3835/wdyt_3835.html
partly trueDougSloan
Sep 27, 2002 12:44 PM
The path of democracy is a little over simplified, even if generally true.

While many people, far too many, may be apathetic these days, there are still a vast number of very concerned people in the U.S. who voice opinions, learn about issues, run for office, etc. It's not a homogenous group, especially when you are talking about 280 million people spread out over 3,000 miles on the continent, compared to some of the relatively small civilizations of ancient history.

Sure, there are lots of people who are dependent now, and lots of our government officials try to keep them that way, even if they'd never admit to it. It's still a small segment of the population, though.

So, it's not a bleak as your post suggests. While we may have many failures and unpleasant surprises along the way, I think the Republic is extremely sound and I'm very optimistic for the future.

Doug
Hmm. . .czardonic
Sep 27, 2002 1:57 PM
War, international terrorism, domestic terrorism, skyrocketing prison populations, rising poverty levels, decreasing wages, increasing debt, falling standards of living, abysmal public schools, an epidemic of obesity, rampant corporate corruption, vanishing voter participation. Are these the symptoms of a sound republic? Cause for optimism?

Sure, there are some good points too, but our list of shortcomings ought to be an embarrassment to the self-styled leader of the free world. Perhaps it should even give us pause before we impose ourselves on the rest of the world. In my opinion, what we need is pessimism, not optimism. People are desperate to be told that everything is going to be okay, because it absolves them from taking action. Reassurance is the life-blood of complacency, and complacency is a poison to free society. All too many Americans are content to believe that freedom and abundance are rights bestowed on them by god, fate or luck. Rather, as Jefferson admonished, they are the reward for eternal vigilance.

I'm not trying to slam you for your optimism, Doug. But, paradoxically, the more pessimism I see, the more acknowledgement that things aren't just "gonna be okay" if we stay our course and keep our fingers crossed I hear, the more optimistic I am about this country's future. Only the realization that this country is neither infallible nor invincible, and that the world is full of danger and always will be, can save us.

Anyone who says otherwise, politician or pundit, is selling you a bill of goods.
compare timesDougSloan
Sep 27, 2002 2:45 PM
Compare today with any other point in our nation's history, and put yourself in the state of mind you would have been then. Take 100 years or so ago: war, depression, no women's suffrage, rampant racism, few people going beyond 8th grade, polio outbreaks... see the point? Focus on all the nastiness of the times and you can always make it look really bad.

I'm not a polyanna optimist, as you suggest; rather, I'm an ambitious optimist; that is, I'm optimistic, but it will require a lot of hard work, courage, and dedication to make things better; I just believe that we are up to it.

Doug
I agree, but here is my concern. . .czardonic
Sep 27, 2002 3:26 PM
The measure of a society's success is its trajectory, not its state. There will always be problems. The question is, are they getting better or worse?

I think that the difference between today and 100 or even 50 years ago, times when the lot of the average American may have been worse than it is now, is that people recognized the flaws in our society and were working to change them. Today, people are too easily led to beleive that the problems aren't really there, aren't as bad as they seem, or that someone else will take care of them for us. People who speak up about the flaws and inequities that exist in our system are denounced as America-hating crackpots.

My problem is not that there is complacency, unemployment, low wages, corruption among our leaders and apathy towards the maintenance of our democracy. My problem is that these problems are getting worse instead of better. We are regressing. Putting it bluntly, by all accounts (surveys and studies both domestic and international) Americans in general get poorer, fatter, lazier and more ignorant every year. Participation in our democracy continues to dwindle. There is a popular backlash against civil rights, immigrant rights, worker rights; just about everything that made this country great.

It is exactly as the quote from Alexander Tyler predicts: The freedom won by past generations has led to entitlement, complaceny and apathy.
It's like a snowball rolling downhill.....rtyszko
Sep 28, 2002 7:16 AM
You know? Americans are getting lazier and more complacent and are therefore (IMHO) easier to manipulate through rhetoric and spin. It's appalling that few take the time read "alternative" media at all. I'm telling you, that's what scares me. I tend to be an optimist about many things but every day I see folks who take sides on an argument but could'nt tell you much more about the facts other than what their "leader" said on TV. If this Republic dies, that'll be why.

Bob T.
part of the problemDougSloan
Sep 28, 2002 1:32 PM
Part of the problem alluded to by both of you is that we have created a society of people dependent upon government, rather than on individual responsibility, initiative, and effort. Why learn to read, work hard, become involved, when you know you are entitled to be taken care of. It's amazing the numbers of people who firmly believe that they are entitled to so many things from their government, which really means from their fellow citizens. It may as well be a stick-up. It's also amazing the numbers of intelligent people who think that handing someone a check every month, or promises of whatever tax breaks, or whatever sort of benefits, is healthy. While the intentions of those doling out the dollars, whether to lazy, unproductive people or billion dollar corporations, is likely the best, I don't think either fully understand the consequences of their actions. Responsibility, whether individual or corporate, is no longer valued; rather, "How much can I get because everyone else is getting something?" is what too many think.

Yes, we need to be aware of these things and make changes. It might be painful, but it can be done. Vote Libertarian! If only there were candidates who stood a chance of winning. Meanwhile, at least vote for those who are capable of winning and share the values the most.

Doug
My answer to a "problem"rtyszko
Sep 30, 2002 5:10 AM
I'd consider voting libertarian except (among other things) I'm afraid of what the Supreme Court makeup would look like if I did. As I've told other people who are apathetic towards our political process, at the very lest you can attach meaning to your votes by voting for candidates that will help to shape your view of what the Supreme Court should look like. Every day they make decisions that have as big an impact on our society as either the legislative or executive bodies do.

Bob Tyszko
Are we getting poorer, fatter, lazier every year?Kristin
Sep 30, 2002 7:54 AM
Is that truly the case? Yes obesity is at an all time high, but the baby boomers are in their 50's now. Most people in their 50's are overweight, no? And a lot of it also has to do with all of the processed, fat laden crap that became all the craze in the 80's.

My experience is that many of use who grew up in the 80's and became fat or lazy for a time, but are now changing that. I crossed into the land of obesisty myself in 1999. But since then I've been pursuing a more healthy life-style on every front: physically, mentally, socially, etc... And I know lots of people who are doing the same thing as I am.

Since I began all of this, I've stopped buying most processed foods (mac & cheese and the like) and make almost everything from scratch. (I'm on a big Udon kick these days.) And I get out to exercise fairly regularly. I'm reading more and learning to be an informed voter. This weekend I am making another major life-style change. I'm throwing out my television set...again. So I guess that my experience is the opposite. I see my generation wising up to the errors of the past--the 80's was a horrible decade all around.
Meanwhile, obesity among American children is skyrocketingczardonic
Sep 30, 2002 10:07 AM
I was speaking more in terms of succesive generations.
Who would you choose as....moneyman
Sep 30, 2002 6:42 AM
The leader of the free world? Since you have no respect for Bush or anyone like him, who would you choose? Or would you choose a leaderless world? And just to make it a little more interesting, pick anyone you would like, dead, alive, or imaginary.

$$
The free world does not need a single leader.czardonic
Sep 30, 2002 10:15 AM
In fact, the idea that a single man, or even country, can hold hegemony over the entire globe flies in the very face of freedom. Bush represent the ultimate in imperialist hubris. He thinks he knows better than everyone else what is good for them. What a happy coincidence that it is also happens to be what is most advantageous for himself and his cronies!
Leader does not equal dictatormoneyman
Sep 30, 2002 1:24 PM
Who would you have lead - not dictate? I am looking for more insight as to your political preferences.

$$
It does in Bush's mindczardonic
Sep 30, 2002 2:01 PM
Hence his stonewalling of Congress. Hence his contempt for international law. Hence the glaringly fascistic leanings of his administration.

At any rate, the United Nations (or some new organization that represents the interests of the world as a whole) would be the only fair arbiter of international leadership. The United States has proven that it can not be trusted to promote freedom and democracy where repression and totalitarianism better protect its interests.
FOCDougSloan
Sep 30, 2002 2:05 PM
That's sooo full of it, unless you want to say the same thing about every other U.S. President, starting with Clinton. He stonewalled Congress 10 times as much as Bush (remember that little budget issue?); he had contempt for ALL law. He hired an AG who burned resisters to a crisp.

No country on the planet does more to promote freedom than the U.S.

Doug
That is a lame defense. . .czardonic
Sep 30, 2002 2:33 PM
worthy of a lame president. So he is no worse that Clinton? That is cold comfort coming from a man who claimed he was going to change the tone in Washington. Instead, this "uniter, not a divider" has installed the most devisive and reactionary administration since Nixon's. Comparing him favorably to Clinton simply underscores how bereft Bush's apologists are of any basis to praise him. Anyway, you never heard me say that Clinton was any better qualified to lead the free world than Bush.

Of course, you are right. No country does more to promote freedom. Unfortunately, we promote it selectively, where it coincides with our ideological agenda. Where economics is concered, no country does more to promote repression, if not by policy than by its conviviality with reppresive regimes that line our pockets with raw materials and cheap labor.
The UN a fair arbiter?moneyman
Oct 1, 2002 5:23 AM
Hardly. The Anti-US attitude of the majority of UN members renders it inherently unfair when it comes to making any decisions.

Fascism is a pretty strong indictment.

You still haven't answered my question. But you are pretty good at that, aren't you?

$$
Could be. . .czardonic
Oct 1, 2002 10:01 AM
If its most powerful member wasn't doing everything it could to undermine its mission. You don't mention the Anti-UN attitude of the US.

Fascism is a strong indictment. We have an administration that favors strong, centralized control, suppression of opposition, secret arrests and trials and unapologetic jingoism. I call 'em like I see 'em.

As for the answers to your questions: scroll up or read on.

You asked who I would want in charge of the free world. I said that no one person should be in charge, and that leadership should be held by an international organization representing all of the free world, not just the interests of the United States. QED.
Examples pleaseDJB
Oct 2, 2002 12:52 PM
Please tell us exactly who is being suppressed. I hope you aren't mistaking criticism for suppression.

As far as "strong, centralized control" goes, the question is "strong, centralized control" of what? National defense? That's the most important job of the Federal government.

Webster's defines Fascism as being run by a dictatorial autocrat. To make that charge against any U.S. President is ludicrous.

Before you call 'em like you see 'em, please open your eyes.
Let me see if I can explain this to youczardonic
Oct 2, 2002 2:24 PM
My statement was that the Bush administration has fascistic leanings. These leanings are evidenced by:
  • His preference for making unilateral decisions (seems pretty dictatorial and autocratic to me). Even in areas where he has no expertise whatsoever (Science, for example), he feels it is perfectly acceptable to disregard hard numbers compiled by people on his payroll that have devoted entire careers to their fields and draw his own conclusions.
  • His preference for chilling debate (opposition) rather than letting his point of view stand on its merits. How many times do he and his lackeys have to liken disagreement with his policies to sedition and treason before you admit that they are trying to supress criticism? Keep in mind that whether they suceed is immaterial. The intent is clear.
  • His draconian security policies. Secret arrests and trials are not part of the standard definition of Fascism. But insofar as they are in direct opposition to the Constitution, I think the point is germane. It certainly speaks to his preference for a more autocratic and dictatorial justice system.
  • His shameless jingoism, a classic symptom of the Fascist.

    So, since your eyes are so wide open, try pointing them at a thicker dictionary. (Free hint: Sometimes dictionary definitions extend beyond the first line. Keep reading, you might be surprised.)
  • Now it's "leanings."Sintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 9:52 AM
    I think your backing down and having to expand your definitions to accomodate all your far flung ideas.

    "lackeys" that's hysterical.

    Do you ever stop seething? You come across like your seething. You also sneer. Maybe you should try yoga.
    It always wasczardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 10:22 AM
    Check my previous post. (czardonic 9/30/02 3:01pm)

    In fact, it is my detractors who are hiding behind semantics and ad-hominem. It seems to me that if there were a cogent counter-argument to my assesment of Bush, I would have heard it.
    I see. I stand corrected.Sintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 10:27 AM
    Let me go look at your argument again two posts up. Bulleted Points!!
    Let's go with the first pointSintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 10:40 AM
    "His preference for making unilateral decisions (seems pretty dictatorial and autocratic to me). Even in areas where he has no expertise whatsoever (Science, for example), he feels it is perfectly acceptable to disregard hard numbers compiled by people on his payroll that have devoted entire careers to their fields and draw his own conclusions"

    I believe Bush works with advisors called a "cabinet." Issues are generally discussed, pro and con and then President Bush makes a decision based on the advice of the experts and his own judgemant. That happens to be his job. Regarding "hard facts" I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically. Furthermore, whatever decisions he makes towards are involvemant with Iraq is tempered, indeed has been tempered by Congressional debate (they are the one's who grant the powers of war). Already, the language of the Senate resolution specifies that diplomatic solutions must be exhausted before action must be taken and that disarmament is the priority not "regime change." If you listen to Bush's speeches since that resolution he has backed off of "regime change." Further yet, the return of inspectors to Iraq is a capitulation to the UN security council's authority. The French proposal of inspections first is being respected. Hans Blix has signed the agreement. It may not hold but there you are. One can hardly see all this as unilateral action on behalf of the US. Sounds like the Bush administration are the main actors, obviously, but can hardly be called unilateral. He's not the government, never was.
    Okayczardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 11:13 AM
    As for the hard facts, I was refering to his stance on global warming, which flies in the face of studies conducted by the UN, IPCC, DOE, and the EPA, who he specifically dismissed as "a bureaucracy". One can only conclude that Bush thinks he is more qualified to decide what the cause of global warming is.

    Although you have shown that the president can not legally declare war, and will resort to Congress and the UN as a matter of necessity, do you really believe that he would not go forward without their support? So far he has already tried to do an end-run around both domestic and international law by claiming that previous resolutions authorized his current plans. Insofar as his first resort is unilateralism, and insofar as he continues to threaten to act alone if his plans are not rubber-stamped by Congress and the UN, I think that both his preference and his belief in unilateralism is clear.

    Heck, he has made it clear that his ultimate goal is to make sure that no one strong enough to challenge the perogatives of the US can ever exist.
    Okayczardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 11:32 AM
    As for the hard facts, I was refering to his stance on global warming, which flies in the face of studies conducted by the UN, IPCC, DOE, and the EPA, who he specifically dismissed as "a bureaucracy". One can only conclude that Bush thinks he is more qualified to decide what the cause of global warming is.

    Although you have shown that the president can not legally declare war, and will resort to Congress and the UN as a matter of necessity, do you really believe that he would not go forward without their support? So far he has already tried to do an end-run around both domestic and international law by claiming that previous resolutions authorized his current plans. Insofar as his first resort is unilateralism, and insofar as he continues to threaten to act alone if his plans are not rubber-stamped by Congress and the UN, I think that both his preference and his belief in unilateralism is clear.

    Heck, he has made it clear that his ultimate goal is to make sure that no one strong enough to challenge the perogatives of the US can ever exist.
    Hard facts...DJB
    Oct 3, 2002 6:46 PM
    As for the hard facts, I was refering to his stance on global warming, which flies in the face of studies conducted by the UN, IPCC, DOE, and the EPA, who he specifically dismissed as "a bureaucracy".

    Thank God for Bush.

    If you really think that Kyoto is all about science and is free from politics, well, the world just doesn't work that way.

    Last year, Bush asked the National Academy of Science to do a study of climate change in preparation for his decision on Kyoto. The media reported that the study totally affirmed Kyoto, remember?

    Here's the address of an article by one of the members of the academy who helped prepare the report.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

    Make sure you read the last 3 paragraphs.

    Maybe Bush made his decision based on all of the facts, not just those reported by CNN.
    Here they are. . .czardonic
    Oct 4, 2002 9:07 AM
    Taken from the article:

    "(1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds)."

    The increase in greenhouse gasses, and their potential effects on global temperature are not at issue. The only disagreement is whether this is something that the international community should do something about now, or something that Bush can hope will go away.
    False choiceDJB
    Oct 4, 2002 7:01 PM
    False choice

    The increase in greenhouse gasses, and their potential effects on global temperature are not at issue. The only disagreement is whether this is something that the international community should do something about now, or something that Bush can hope will go away.

    As you define the 'disagreement', you ignore the paragraph that followed the 3 points that you listed:

    "But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a
    position to confidently attribute past climate change
    to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will
    be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media
    impressions, agreement with the three basic statements
    tells us almost nothing relevant to policy
    discussions."

    Remember, I originally commented on your statement:

    "As for the hard facts, I was refering to his stance on global warming, which flies in the face of studies conducted by the UN, IPCC, DOE, and the EPA, who he specifically dismissed as "a bureaucracy". One can only conclude that Bush thinks he is more qualified to decide what the cause of global warming is. "

    The point of the article is that we DON'T know what is causing global warming. Or even if there is anything that we can do about it. Global warming and cooling has been going on since the beginning of the planet. There also seems to be a lot of controversy over the fact that warming can only be found on the surface, not the atmosphere that models of the greenhouse effect predict.

    The bottom line is that the doom and gloom, "man is guilty" rhetoric is being driven primarily by the media, NGOs, and U.N. types. A bureaucracy.
    False interpretationczardonic
    Oct 7, 2002 9:51 AM
    Regardless of the cause or effects of global warning, the point is that Bush is in no position to offer a definitive opinion on the issue. When Bush scoffed at the "bureaucracy", he was not reffering to the media, NGOs or the U.N. He was reffering to his own EPA. If there is a disagreement about the science (and there is, despite what your single scientist may opine), it should be left to the scientists to figure out.

    Until Bush figures out how to pronounce "nuclear", I'd prefer he defer to the experts on issues of science. But, as was the point of this thread, he acts alone.
    Point two.Sintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 11:17 AM
    "His preference for chilling debate (opposition) rather than letting his point of view stand on its merits. How many times do he and his lackeys have to liken disagreement with his policies to sedition and treason before you admit that they are trying to supress criticism? Keep in mind that whether they suceed is immaterial. The intent is clear. "

    I'm not clear what you mean by "chilling debate." If you are referring to the tangle with Tom Daschle (sp) Bush never mentioned Democrats or accused them of being unpatriotic. He used the word "congress" and suggested they were more interested in politics than passing a resolution concerning Iraq. He used a bully pulpit to kick them in the ass. And know what? it's working. BTW, that's debate provoking not chilling. I'm hearing nothing but chatter about this issue on both sides, I don't see the chilling so much. Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein have been vocal. Dick Armey? Are you listening? Maybe it's true some politicians are afraid their constituents will see tham as weak if they oppose action in Iraq but isn't that a sign of their own personal character? Why does it have to be Bush's fault? Who is being called seditious and treasonous? Who are the lackeys you're talking about?
    On point twoczardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 12:06 PM
    I don't think the distinction between Deomcrats and Congress is valid, since he has been at odds with both. Noetheless, Bush's clear implication on more than one occasion was that anyone who was not ready to rubber-stamp his war agenda was playing politics at the expense of the saftey of their constituents.

    I would consider Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott and Rep. Thomas Davis (head of the Republican House Campaign Committee) among Bush's lackeys, and both attacked Daschle's patriotism for questioning the war in Afghanistan. Lott said "He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united." Wouldn't such devisive action during a time of crisis be akin to sedition? According to Reuters, Davis claimed that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country." Sounds like an accusation of treason to me.

    But even if you think my definitions are too harsh or too much of a stretch, lets bring this back into the realm of Bush's preferences: Based on statements made by him and on his behalf by Rumsfeld and Card about reports and Congressmen who ask to many questions, do you really beleive that these people welcome debate?
    Definitely too "harsh" and too much of a "stretch."Sintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 12:38 PM
    Your rhetoric is pretty strong and obnoxious. A dab will do ya.

    I think in many ways you're right. Bush & Co. want to get down to brass tacks (whether he's ultimately wrong is another matter)and don't want a lot of static, but then again he's only a president. I'm being a little facetious, but as powerful as he is he has to obey the law, he will be checked by opposition and opposing debate. One way of looking at it is in a systemic way rather than being bogged down by personality. The Presidency will has a natural, historical tendency to try and maximize its power but this in turn is checked by the slower acting (but ultimately more powerful) powers of the Legisture and the Judiciary is the referee. It's give and take just as the system was designed. The guy's not bigger than the constitution, I'm not even slightly worried about that.

    Those two guy's (Lott and Davis) you proffer are not accusing anyone of sedition and treason. You're putting words in people's mouths. They might be questioning Daschle's wisdom and scoring brownie poiints on the side but I think that's as far as it goes. Sedition and Treason are extremely strong words (look them up) you can be executed for treason.

    I'll tell you one thing czardonic. I don't think you have any idea what a fascist state is like. How incredibly benign and good Bush is compared to say a Franco or a Pinochet or a Mussolini. You have a good thing here. Put him amidst the people you accuse him of aping and then rejudge.
    Checks and balances. . .czardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 1:15 PM
    notwithstanding, none of this speaks to Bush's preferences or his intent ("leanings", if you will) as evidenced by his own words, those of his proxies, and the policies that he endorces.

    I am not putting words into anyone's mouth. Davis specifically said that Daschle was in effect "giving aid and comfort to our enemies". Giving aid and comfort to your country's enemies is the definition of treason in both the American Heritage and Webster's Dictionaries.

    Bush's theoretic ranking among history's Fascists (or whether he even belongs on the same scale) is immaterial. This is the United States. I judge Bush based on the disparity between his ideologies and those reflected in the words and spirit of the Constitution.
    Pont 3 and the semi point 4Sintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 11:40 AM
    "His draconian security policies. Secret arrests and trials are not part of the standard definition of Fascism. But insofar as they are in direct opposition to the Constitution, I think the point is germane. It certainly speaks to his preference for a more autocratic and dictatorial justice system."

    I think there are a handful of US citizens being held either as combatants or conspirators of america's enemies, namely Al Quaeda. The rest are illegal immigrants or non-citizens. This point is perhaps the strongest you make. I agree that there are excesses but it is a mottled affair. Not all examples can be construed as constitutional violations nor can it be seen as a wholesale privation of constitutional rights upon the citizens of the US. Those people being held over this last year without charge must be released, deported or cleared. This is not acceptable, however in the history of the US there have always been suspensions of rights during wartime the most famous probabaly being Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. My point being that all presidents have done similar during war, Wilson, Roosevelt, LBJ, take your pick, and the Constitution survives utterly. Bush should be judged in association with his peers not peacetime leaders.

    "His shameless jingoism, a classic symptom of the Fascist."

    Can you say "hyperbole?" Give it a rest junior.
    Touchéczardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 12:16 PM
    "Give it a rest junior"

    I call a president who advocates perpetual US hegemony over the entire globe as a means to ensure security a jingoist, and your only response is to patronize me.
    PleaseSintesi
    Oct 3, 2002 12:47 PM
    I responded point by point as you asked and you accuse me of patronizing you over a little jab. How many sneering, mocking posts have you layed out anyway? You act so superior and self-righteous you can't be older than 22, now can you, junior? Do you feel violated having been "patronized" so. I'll try not to be so "rough" next time.
    Wasn't that the point of this excercise?czardonic
    Oct 3, 2002 12:58 PM
    I said that when my detractors ran out of cogent arguments, they inevitably resorted to either semantics or ad-hominem.

    QED
    One problem, I never ran out of argument.Sintesi
    Oct 4, 2002 6:11 AM
    All your lobs are being returned.
    I merely suggested that you're young and a bit of a windbag who is prone to hyberbole. Now you run it up the flagpole like I stabbed you in the heart because I can't respond to your overwhelming intelligent arguments. All you do is mis-characterize, impugn and keep safely superior. You're into looking down at people is how I read you.
    Et tu, Sintesiczardonic
    Oct 4, 2002 8:50 AM
    Stabbed in the heart? Please. I simply pointed out that you were patronizing me. A glancing blow at best. The reason that I "ran it up the flagpole" was that it was the point where you ran out of arguments and instead of conceding the point or simply agreeing to disagree, decided to take shots at my credibility.
    Touche'Sintesi
    Oct 4, 2002 11:42 AM
    Whatsamatta, you don't like hyperbole, mischaracterization and over statement now? You fall pretty easy don't you.
    That's an odd straw to grasp. Hang in there! (nm)czardonic
    Oct 4, 2002 12:16 PM
    Whatever that means. nmSintesi
    Oct 4, 2002 12:21 PM
    re: The Independent UK.jrm
    Sep 27, 2002 12:43 PM
    Washington Post and NY Times.
    These are particularly good...Matno
    Sep 27, 2002 3:03 PM
    The Federalist Possibly a little more harsh than you're looking for, but it's actually mostly just quotes from various public figures (who make themselves seem dumb!)It's a free email subscription. Link to -- http://www.Federalist.com/subscribe.asp OR if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: and you will be subscribed automatically.

    Claremont Institute http://www.claremont.org
    Excellent commentary on current issues. Also available as an email newsletter.

    Conservative Review is also good. To subscribe, go to http://www.shagmail.com/sub/conserv.htm (I have no idea what the "shag" part is all about, certainly not related to the content of the newsletter).

    Anyway, you can check those out and see if you like them...
    Mother Jones (online/monthly), NY Times, Boston Globe (nm)rtyszko
    Sep 28, 2002 7:19 AM
    Democracy and Capitalism incompatible??128
    Sep 30, 2002 11:59 AM
    Probably more accurate to speak of our system as a representative republic, not a true democracy, but either way, maybe capital interests hold undue influence over the democratic process, diverting the will of the people in favor of the monied interests. Maybe our storied optimism rooted in opportunity and equality is balanced by our paranoia of oppressive governance, the U.S. psyche is laced together with built in contradiction: fear and freedom, opportunity and systemic prejudice, rugged individualism and united we stand, the House and Senate, Laurel and Hardy. No wonder we're a nation of critics!
    I'm optimistic that the current system will improve if we continue to be pessimistic enough about that which we are optimistic.
    Well, anyway.........how bout that new BK Value Menu?