I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
Meh, doesn't matter what sex they are as long as they can get the job done. Voting for a pretty face is damn retarded. Didn't work for Edwards in '04.
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
I have to admit I'm perplexed as to how a Democratic woman got elected in a conservative district that's right on the Mexican border and doesn't include Tucson.
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
I would like to encourage more women to enter politics, because the male dominance of the field both buttresses and is indicative of systematically reinforced inequality.
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
I would like to encourage more women to enter politics, because the male dominance of the field both buttresses and is indicative of systematically reinforced inequality.
But if that happens who will think fo the grouchy old men?
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
I would like to encourage more women to enter politics, because the male dominance of the field both buttresses and is indicative of systematically reinforced inequality.
But if that happens who will think fo the grouchy old men?
I will.
What's up with buttons these days? Why is my medicine so expensive? My stomach is cold. Someone make me some soup. Brittany Spears is a whore. My internet keeps getting lost in the tubes. Where am I? Why won't my grandchildren call?
Even when I know he's just doing exactly what the Administration wants him to, I'm honestly confused how the Attorney General of the US can say things like that and actually mean them.
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
I have to admit I'm perplexed as to how a Democratic woman got elected in a conservative district that's right on the Mexican border and doesn't include Tucson.
Just look at that belt buckle, man. Just look at it. Right size and everything.
Even when I know he's just doing exactly what the Administration wants him to, I'm honestly confused how the Attorney General of the US can say things like that and actually mean them.
Mentioning and supporting Gitmo at the same time as trying to say that ANYTHING isn't an affront to liberty is really politically stupid. I mean just peel the paint off the walls stupid.
People don't forget the outrage from pictures and the legal indoctrination of torture that fast Gonzales.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
Yeah for sticking to your point and doing what you think is right, but I think we're past the point where we need publicity stunts to point out how bad the war in Iraq is, and things like this just end up eating up debate time and political capital.
werehippy on
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Even when I know he's just doing exactly what the Administration wants him to, I'm honestly confused how the Attorney General of the US can say things like that and actually mean them.
Wait... what? That's freaking ridiculous. With that kind of logic, freedom of the press and co. could be ruled a grave threat, and taken away "for our safety."
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
Yeah for sticking to your point and doing what you think is right, but I think we're past the point where we need publicity stunts to point out how bad the war in Iraq is, and things like this just end up eating up debate time and political capital.
I don't think he sees it as a publicity stunt. I think he seriously thinks it is a good idea.
Even when I know he's just doing exactly what the Administration wants him to, I'm honestly confused how the Attorney General of the US can say things like that and actually mean them.
Wait... what? That's freaking ridiculous. With that kind of logic, freedom of the press and co. could be ruled a grave threat, and taken away "for our safety."
According to Justice Scalia, during times of war, freedoms can be kept to a "Constitutional minimum," and the War on Terror counts as a war.
It's also worth noting that we never have gotten an explanation as to why they can't just get the warrant, since they've got 72 hours after they start the tap to file the paperwork.
Because then they can't monitor all communications leaving and entering the country and use computer programs to sift the data.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
Yeah for sticking to your point and doing what you think is right, but I think we're past the point where we need publicity stunts to point out how bad the war in Iraq is, and things like this just end up eating up debate time and political capital.
I don't think he sees it as a publicity stunt. I think he seriously thinks it is a good idea.
Really?
I mean, I can see the practical appeal and the reasoning behind it, but I thought it was one of those publicity stunts that support a good but untenable idea, like barring the government from regulating marriages and make them deal exclusively in civil unions for everyone. It's the practical solution and would do a world of good, but it'll never happen because people would freak out.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
In 2003, several congressmen (Charles Rangel D-NY, James McDermott D-WA, John Conyers D-MI, John Lewis D-GA, Pete Stark D-CA, Neil Abercrombie D-HI) introduced legislation that would draft both men and women into either military or civilian government service, should there be a draft in the future. The Republican majority brought the bill up for a vote in the House of Representatives. It was defeated by a vote of 402-2.
Amazing how the MSM avoided that the Dems are out to draft folk 2004 election news...
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Seriously. The Bush administration has turned out so much better than anyone imagined, hasn't it? And the Democrats are really taking Rangel seriously, aren't they? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
I for one would like to encourage more women to enter politics. Frankly, I'd rather see campaign ads from her (Gabreille Giffords, Arizona 8 ) than some chubby middle aged guy.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Please try not to act like such a goddamned idiot all the time.
Both the Democrats and Republicans were for the Vietnam War for the vast majority of its duration. Both the Democrats and Republicans fully supported NSC-68 and all of its implications during the long years of the cold war. The relevance that has to this issue is slim at best.
In the modern political climate, the Republicans and Democrats' ideologies have shifted significantly.
So read up on some history before linking to something that happened decades ago and saying "olol looksee!"
I'll remind you that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1964. But no one in their right might would point that out as an example of the Democratic party's present ideologies, because the parties have come to stand for different things.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Please try not to act like such a goddamned idiot all the time.
Both the Democrats and Republicans were for the Vietnam War for the vast majority of its duration. Both the Democrats and Republicans fully supported NSC-68 and all of its implications during the long years of the cold war. The relevance that has to this issue is slim at best.
In the modern political climate, the Republicans and Democrats' ideologies have shifted significantly.
So read up on some history before linking to something that happened decades ago and saying "olol looksee!"
I'll remind you that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1964. But no one in their right might would point that out as an example of the Democratic party's present ideologies, because the parties have come to stand for different things.
So no. Not at all.
Reading your posts kills brain cells. Please place a disclaimer next time, thanks. Oh, and my main point it about current events which you failed to understand and the Dems & Pubs ideologies have barely changed since the 70s too. And why are you bringing up NSC-68 anyways? Moronic.
In 2003, several congressmen (Charles Rangel D-NY, James McDermott D-WA, John Conyers D-MI, John Lewis D-GA, Pete Stark D-CA, Neil Abercrombie D-HI) introduced legislation that would draft both men and women into either military or civilian government service, should there be a draft in the future. The Republican majority brought the bill up for a vote in the House of Representatives. It was defeated by a vote of 402-2.
Amazing how the MSM avoided that the Dems are out to draft folk 2004 election news...
Except that the bill in question wasn't supporting a draft, it was saying that should we actually need a draft in the future we think women should have to fight too. You know, equal rights and responsibilities and all that.
Did you even read what you quoted?
They weren't "out to draft folk", they were trying to make the draft a bit more fair. Unfortunately a combination of "my son can die in a pointless war, but keep your damn hands off'n mah daughter" and "lolz they'd fight like girls anyway" kept it from being even a possibility.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Also, in their defense, we were way more likely to see a draft post-2004 than we are to see a surrender in the War on Terror post-2006, so as far as "big, toothless scares" go, I think the Republicans win.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
Yeah for sticking to your point and doing what you think is right, but I think we're past the point where we need publicity stunts to point out how bad the war in Iraq is, and things like this just end up eating up debate time and political capital.
I don't think he sees it as a publicity stunt. I think he seriously thinks it is a good idea.
Really?
I mean, I can see the practical appeal and the reasoning behind it, but I thought it was one of those publicity stunts that support a good but untenable idea, like barring the government from regulating marriages and make them deal exclusively in civil unions for everyone. It's the practical solution and would do a world of good, but it'll never happen because people would freak out.
A draft is not nescessarily a practical solution to anything. Conscript armies, even American ones, are not very useful anymore. They are at best cannon fodder to be hurled against another uniformed regular army. EG: Pretty much exactly what America doesn't need right now.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Also, in their defense, we were way more likely to see a draft post-2004 than we are to see a surrender in the War on Terror post-2006, so as far as "big, toothless scares" go, I think the Republicans win.
Never too late to join the Air National Guard there, Thanatos.
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Also, in their defense, we were way more likely to see a draft post-2004 than we are to see a surrender in the War on Terror post-2006, so as far as "big, toothless scares" go, I think the Republicans win.
It's not weird that this popped into why head when I read that, right?
werehippy on
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
Charles Rangel is saying he wants to bring back the draft.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
Also, in their defense, we were way more likely to see a draft post-2004 than we are to see a surrender in the War on Terror post-2006, so as far as "big, toothless scares" go, I think the Republicans win.
It's not weird that this popped into why head when I read that, right?
There was a lot of that in the 2004 election, so it doesn't surprise me.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Some interesting news on the 2008 campaign starting to shape up.
First up, an analysis of the strength of the likely Democratic candidates, vs their current name recognition.
The short version is Hillary is the current leader in terms of absolute votes, but if you factor in name recognition, Obama moves into an extremely strong lead. If you factor in earlier polls showing an extremely strong negative reaction to Hillary, almost as strong as her positive, then Obama seems even more appealing.
Second is a great and bizarre quote form Gingrich:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem. I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." from Fortune
The short version is Hillary is the current leader in terms of absolute votes, but if you factor in name recognition, Obama moves into an extremely strong lead.
Senate first-timer Obama has greater name recognition than Senate veteran and former first-lady Hillary Clinton? What am I missing here?
The short version is Hillary is the current leader in terms of absolute votes, but if you factor in name recognition, Obama moves into an extremely strong lead.
Senate first-timer Obama has greater name recognition than Senate veteran and former first-lady Hillary Clinton? What am I missing here?
The general rule of thumb when polling people with different amounts of name recognition is you divide the percentage they get by the percent of people that know them, to get percent of people that know them that would vote for them. So the summary is Obama did pretty well with little name recognition, while Hillary did better with much more name recognition. If you factor out the name recognition aspect, it seems Obama does better, on an even playing field. I'm no expert, so check the link for details, but from a pure math perspective it seems to make sense.
It's tentative (since there's no guarantee the trends will hold as name recognition increases) but it's apparently the accepted way of looking at standings at this point.
Second is a great and bizarre quote form Gingrich:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem. I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." from Fortune
Let me translate:
"I am selling you the biggest line of bullshit the world has ever seen."
Thanatos on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Second is a great and bizarre quote form Gingrich:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem. I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." from Fortune
Let me translate:
"I am selling you the biggest line of bullshit the world has ever seen."
Might have gained some traction in, say 2000, but the overwhelming message I'm getting from the American public is that they just want shit to work again. Gingrich isn't all that concerned with making shit work; he wants to remake the world.
Second is a great and bizarre quote form Gingrich:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem. I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." from Fortune
Let me translate:
"I am selling you the biggest line of bullshit the world has ever seen."
You have to give him credit for delivering it in epic fashion. There are so many clauses in that last sentence that I'm getting tired just reading it, let alone thinking about trying to say it with a straight face.
Tangential, but I think this is the first time I've heard the phrase "win the future" used in a serious context, which is fantastic. I need to win the future more often.
werehippy on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Second is a great and bizarre quote form Gingrich:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem. I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." from Fortune
Let me translate:
"I am selling you the biggest line of bullshit the world has ever seen."
You have to give him credit for delivering it in epic fashion. There are so many clauses in that last sentence that I'm getting tired just reading it, let alone thinking about trying to say it with a straight face.
Tangential, but I think this is the first time I've heard the phrase "win the future" used in a serious context, which is fantastic. I need to win the future more often.
You need to make it the promo tagline for your upcoming time-travel sci-fi blockbuster.
Might have gained some traction in, say 2000, but the overwhelming message I'm getting from the American public is that they just want shit to work again. Gingrich isn't all that concerned with making shit work; he wants to remake the world.
Agreed. The current population doesn't want to move forward. They just want to go back to how things were in the late 90's.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Might have gained some traction in, say 2000, but the overwhelming message I'm getting from the American public is that they just want shit to work again. Gingrich isn't all that concerned with making shit work; he wants to remake the world.
Agreed. The current population doesn't want to move forward. They just want to go back to how things were in the late 90's.
I think that the correct analogy is that we've fucked up our game and we're wanting to go back to our most recent "save".
Posts
Meh, doesn't matter what sex they are as long as they can get the job done. Voting for a pretty face is damn retarded. Didn't work for Edwards in '04.
I'm just saying that all other things being equal I'd rather have her on my TV than a malevolent landwhale like Dennis Hastert.
I would like to encourage more women to enter politics, because the male dominance of the field both buttresses and is indicative of systematically reinforced inequality.
But if that happens who will think fo the grouchy old men?
I will.
What's up with buttons these days? Why is my medicine so expensive? My stomach is cold. Someone make me some soup. Brittany Spears is a whore. My internet keeps getting lost in the tubes. Where am I? Why won't my grandchildren call?
The follow up: Gonzales defines freedom as whatever the administration says isn't a grave threat to safety
Even when I know he's just doing exactly what the Administration wants him to, I'm honestly confused how the Attorney General of the US can say things like that and actually mean them.
I swear, that guy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's like a friggin wrecking ball.
Mentioning and supporting Gitmo at the same time as trying to say that ANYTHING isn't an affront to liberty is really politically stupid. I mean just peel the paint off the walls stupid.
People don't forget the outrage from pictures and the legal indoctrination of torture that fast Gonzales.
Yeah for sticking to your point and doing what you think is right, but I think we're past the point where we need publicity stunts to point out how bad the war in Iraq is, and things like this just end up eating up debate time and political capital.
Wait... what? That's freaking ridiculous. With that kind of logic, freedom of the press and co. could be ruled a grave threat, and taken away "for our safety."
I don't think he sees it as a publicity stunt. I think he seriously thinks it is a good idea.
Because then they can't monitor all communications leaving and entering the country and use computer programs to sift the data.
Really?
I mean, I can see the practical appeal and the reasoning behind it, but I thought it was one of those publicity stunts that support a good but untenable idea, like barring the government from regulating marriages and make them deal exclusively in civil unions for everyone. It's the practical solution and would do a world of good, but it'll never happen because people would freak out.
I think its ironic how all the anti-war voters may get drafted by the same folk who voted them into power. I remember in 2004 the big scare was vote Bush and we'll see a draft, never happened. In fact, it took Nixon and his Republican party to end the draft back in the early 70s.
From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_draft#Vietnam_War
Amazing how the MSM avoided that the Dems are out to draft folk 2004 election news...
http://www.votelinnea.com/
Both the Democrats and Republicans were for the Vietnam War for the vast majority of its duration. Both the Democrats and Republicans fully supported NSC-68 and all of its implications during the long years of the cold war. The relevance that has to this issue is slim at best.
In the modern political climate, the Republicans and Democrats' ideologies have shifted significantly.
So read up on some history before linking to something that happened decades ago and saying "olol looksee!"
I'll remind you that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1964. But no one in their right might would point that out as an example of the Democratic party's present ideologies, because the parties have come to stand for different things.
So no. Not at all.
Reading your posts kills brain cells. Please place a disclaimer next time, thanks. Oh, and my main point it about current events which you failed to understand and the Dems & Pubs ideologies have barely changed since the 70s too. And why are you bringing up NSC-68 anyways? Moronic.
Did you even read what you quoted?
They weren't "out to draft folk", they were trying to make the draft a bit more fair. Unfortunately a combination of "my son can die in a pointless war, but keep your damn hands off'n mah daughter" and "lolz they'd fight like girls anyway" kept it from being even a possibility.
Wow, wrong AND grammatically incorrect.
I don't think it's wrong. I have no doubt that reading posts containing facts and based in reality has a negative impact on LondonBridge's brain.
A draft is not nescessarily a practical solution to anything. Conscript armies, even American ones, are not very useful anymore. They are at best cannon fodder to be hurled against another uniformed regular army. EG: Pretty much exactly what America doesn't need right now.
Never too late to join the Air National Guard there, Thanatos.
It's not weird that this popped into why head when I read that, right?
There was a lot of that in the 2004 election, so it doesn't surprise me.
First up, an analysis of the strength of the likely Democratic candidates, vs their current name recognition.
The short version is Hillary is the current leader in terms of absolute votes, but if you factor in name recognition, Obama moves into an extremely strong lead. If you factor in earlier polls showing an extremely strong negative reaction to Hillary, almost as strong as her positive, then Obama seems even more appealing.
Second is a great and bizarre quote form Gingrich:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem. I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." from Fortune
Senate first-timer Obama has greater name recognition than Senate veteran and former first-lady Hillary Clinton? What am I missing here?
The general rule of thumb when polling people with different amounts of name recognition is you divide the percentage they get by the percent of people that know them, to get percent of people that know them that would vote for them. So the summary is Obama did pretty well with little name recognition, while Hillary did better with much more name recognition. If you factor out the name recognition aspect, it seems Obama does better, on an even playing field. I'm no expert, so check the link for details, but from a pure math perspective it seems to make sense.
It's tentative (since there's no guarantee the trends will hold as name recognition increases) but it's apparently the accepted way of looking at standings at this point.
"I am selling you the biggest line of bullshit the world has ever seen."
Might have gained some traction in, say 2000, but the overwhelming message I'm getting from the American public is that they just want shit to work again. Gingrich isn't all that concerned with making shit work; he wants to remake the world.
You have to give him credit for delivering it in epic fashion. There are so many clauses in that last sentence that I'm getting tired just reading it, let alone thinking about trying to say it with a straight face.
Tangential, but I think this is the first time I've heard the phrase "win the future" used in a serious context, which is fantastic. I need to win the future more often.
You need to make it the promo tagline for your upcoming time-travel sci-fi blockbuster.
Win The Future, July 19
Agreed. The current population doesn't want to move forward. They just want to go back to how things were in the late 90's.
I think that the correct analogy is that we've fucked up our game and we're wanting to go back to our most recent "save".