The Ridiculous LexisNexis Search that the Justice Department Used 589
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
Needless to say, when asked about it, Williams first said she didn't remember ever seeing it, then said she'd used an edited version just once. LexisNexis records show she used it, as shown, 25 times." Note that 'sex!' appears twice in the query. Must be VERY important.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:4, Insightful)
TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you wondering what that query is about and what it's being used for, here's TFA:
So there you go. The Justice Department was using a screwy LexisNexis query to try to determine the political leanings and affiliations of people they were looking to hire, because they were illegally filtering out applications people (non-repubs/conservatives) based on their political affiliations.
You really should drink more coffee in the morning before you start posting, Taco.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, whatever he decides to do in the last few days of his administration. Let's hope he only limits himself to the typical last-minute pardoning spree.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget, the Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are just as complacent in whatever damage has been done, by allowing it to continue and contributing their own malfeasance.
If the Ds really didn't want a war in Iraq, they shouldn't have given Bush the piece of paper authorizing military action.
GWB isn't any more evil than Pelosi and crew! The whole bunch is corrupt! So until you stop voting for the Republicrats, you get what you deserve.
I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They forgot.. (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't search for goatse. goatse finds you.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?
Yes, of course -- since it is illegal to take political views into consideration for certain kinds of career non-political jobs. Federal law is very clear on this. Read the PDF linked in the story for more information.
You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit, and everyone loves a good 'Republocrat' joke, but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties. Don't forget, the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in either house, and Republicans can win if they just filibuster.
Bush and company are qualitatively different from other politicians. It isn't just a matter of the amount of corruption. It is the type of corruption and the unmitigated, "What are you gonna do about it? hur hur hur," GALL of these criminal clowns.
Stealing a pack of gum and robbing a bank at gunpoint are both crimes. That does not mean they are both equally serious.
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a hippy litmus test. The Owl thing was something they used to pin on Gore, so if someone shows up in a newspaper article, with a mention of a "spotted owl" then there is some hippy crap going down.
Or, of course, the person could be using the term themselves to paint someone else as a hippy.
Classic Republican defense (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?
But... but Clinton!! *rolls eyes*
The fact that Clinton did it does NOT excuse the current administration. Both administrations are wrong for doing it. It's not a matter of who did it first. The fact someone else got away with it is not a permission to do it yourself.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Get over it. He'll be gone in six months.
Because, after all, the only reason to disagree with any of the things he and his cohorts have done is irrational hatred. It has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution he swore to protect, failing to prevent a major terrorist attack despite warnings, unapologetic law-breaking, stove-piping intelligence to justify a war of aggression and an occupation that's trashing our armed forces and our economy, gutting the balance of powers, alienating long-time allies, making the tax burden even more regressive, hamstringing prosecution of marketplace abuses, blatantly politicizing the Justice Department, rewriting science in the name of ideology, or any other similarly whiny little complaint.
Nope, those things are all just shallow excuses. It's all about the hate.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit
Is that like being somewhat pregnant?
You aren't being sensible here (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Third, the GP wanted this story gone. He wanted us to stop talking about the crimes committed by this administration. The justice department engaged in criminal and unethical behavior, and he obviously doesn't want that talked about.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
Re:Classic Republican defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much. And GP didn't post a citation of Clinton doing anything of the sort. I'd be personally surprised if he did, though; surely there'd have been a scandal, since Congress was owned by the GOP through most of his term.
I've argued with people who blew smoke and pretended ignorance about the difference between Clinton firing political appointees and what Bush does with careerists. I have a hard time deciding if they're trolling or they're truly that half-witted.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, that's the exact same thing conservatives were saying regarding Clinton regarding his illegal wars, bombings on negative news days, illegal fund-raising and secrets traded to China, breach of U.S. citizens rights to fair trials, and more...
So really, sorry, I have to concur with the idea that the politicians (both in the White House and the Big House) are just corrupt, scoundrels almost all of a similar coin.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is like being somewhat sick, or somewhat poor. There is a huge difference between the actions of the President and his band of thieves, and the minimally Democratic House and Senate.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the Vanity Fair article "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush" [December 2007] (1):
"our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush."
And, I believe it will be longer than that due to the stated facts in said article.
(1) http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties
No, there isn't.
Both are interested in increasing the power and reach of government, just in different directions.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike this argument not only because it's used in virtually every political discussion on Slashdot, but also because it appears to be designed to encourage complicity. Sure, the argument states that change is just as simple as deciding to vote for some third party, but all of the existing third parties tend to only appeal to a very limited fringe group, so that's really no solution at all.
So, dismissing the idea that simply voting for a third party will change everything as realistically unfeasible, we're left with the central part of the argument, which is that both parties suck, so you might as well just throw up your hands and do whatever you've been doing. Neither party will ever change anything, the argument goes, so just vote for whoever you've always voted for and go on with life. Of course, this argument is designed to assure the current party in power stays in power.
However, it contradicts actual reality. It's possible, given their complicity in GWB's antics, even probable, that the Democrats would not be any better if they took power. However, the evidence we currently have is that while Bush has actively sought to come up with new ideas to destroy the country, the Democrats are responsible only for allowing it to happen. Yes, passively allowing someone else to screw everything up is a bad thing, but is it really just as bad as actively screwing things up? Isn't it at least possible that the Democrats might screw things up less if allowed to implement their own ideas rather than just being content to allow someone else to implement his ideas?
In reality, what we have now is the fact that Bush and his cronies have done a monumentally shitty job. We also have a theory that the Democrats would do an equally shitty job. You seem to be content to stay with the people in power because a shitty job will be done either way. I, on the other hand, would rather not reward a shitty job with more time in power, and would instead rather give the other party a chance to prove they are capable of doing a less shitty job.
An individual's best bet for political change these days remains to pick the party that most closely aligns with them and attempt to change it from the inside (a difficult and time-consuming task to be sure). Simply voting for the Loony Toon Party, knowing that it will never get more than 3% of the vote, is just not a practical solution.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if all those stories are true, which they aren't, you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption. This isn't a game, son, this is our country and our rights. And blanket cynicism is even more pointless and harmful to our nation.
You seem to want everyone to believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. This is a disservice to your country, and a transparent attempt to excuse great crimes by pointing to petty misdemeanors.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you think everything is binary like pregnant/not-pregnant.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, the administration that does all that shit is worse. Come on! Yeah, the democrats are bad for letting them get away with it, but that doesn't make them the same.
Re:I think its (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe that they thought that query was so good it needed to be passed down. They'd have gotten a lot more benefit out of skimming a handful of articles that mentioned the guys name more than once.
That could also just mean that it was a "magic black box" that they didn't really (want to be bothered to) understand. If they'd kept it because it was good, I'd expect that they would have tweaked it occasionally to make it even better.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:2, Insightful)
but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties.
No. They're both a pack of greedy, self-serving, power-hungry assholes. There are exceptions in both parties, of course, but if you think that either party is so much better than the other you are seriously deluding yourself.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:1, Insightful)
So I'm curious, when Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys was he filling political or career posts?
The point is every president replaces career posts with political allies, they just do it in a much more broad way than Bush did (Bush replaced 8, total.) Frankly "fire everyone and then rehire just those we like" seems like a fairly shady way to skirt the law.
It's sad how cynical you are. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cynicism is a disease of the soul, it excuses inaction. It doesn't make you cool and hip and smarter than the average bear. It makes you an apathetic lump.
Re:I think its (Score:3, Insightful)
Keeping in mind the author was digging to find information on job candidates, it's not that surprising. Those words also appear next to sex! and fired; the author was trying to dig dirt on the candidate, and these were simply the non-political concerns.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
You have absolutely bought into lies. I know I can't change your mind; but I hope that you can at least let a seed of skepticism blossom in your mind. Maybe the Democrats really are just as bad as the Republicans. They both lie. They both are powerhungry. They both want to restrict the American people. The only difference is in the details of the corruption.
Just admit the possibility. Shedding party affiliation is a bit like shaking a religious upbringing; the hardest part is breaking the initial unshakable faith.
Re:You aren't being sensible here (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of condescending horse shit. What makes you think I blame everyone else or that my life is messed up? My life is probably better than yours. It is that way because I have taken responsibility for myself.
You sicken me. You excuse the abuse of power by claiming that no one can oppress others without their consent. This is true, but irrelevant. I suppose you blame rape victims for wearing purty clothing, and murder victims for not fighting back.
Why do you assume that taking responsibility for one's own actions precludes holding others responsible for their actions? You have a truly twisted sense of morality.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
is a very competent attorney who happens to be a neo-Nazi member of KKK and NAMBLA
That's a good question. Is he actually competent, or is he going to let running around with little boys in white hoods with swastikas on top get in the way of his work?
How about the other extreme: a very competent attorney who has spent his life sucking up to the Republican party? If the theory is that the NAMBLA guy isn't going to work so hard to bust pedophiles, why should I expect the Republican to work so hard to bust Republicans, or the Democrat to bust Democrats?
Maybe the law should be rewritten to require that the people hired for these positions have never expressed a political leaning in any direction or held a membership in any club once they're too old to be a Boy (or Girl) Scout.
These folk hate America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
OH, gosh, that sounds BAD! Wait, one direction means helping the little guy, reining in corporate power, universal health care like all other first world countries have, and fixing social security rather than privatizing it. I can get behind that kind of increased government power.
The other direction is corporate handouts, tax breaks for the rich, government in our bedrooms, loosening workplace safety, environmental, and other regulations, crushing organized labor, and no bid contracts for military contractors. Not the same thing at all.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they can't. For example, how could a Republican filibuster have passed the FISA amendment to grant retroactive immunity? How could a filibuster "authorize the use of force" (and a metric shitload of money) in Iraq without a declaration of war?
Congress actively supported Bush's bullshit. Filibusters by a minority party could have prevented some of it, but could not have caused it. Our problem is not that Congress failed to oppose the president; it's that our Congress worked with the president.
In 2002, 2004, and 2006, when people voted for Democrat or Republican senators and housereps (with a few exceptions), they were voting for Bush.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy good, Clinton was able to enact fiscally conservative policies which reduced the total national debt to probably below 60% GDP. It might have been lower, but the fiscally irresponsible conservatives continued to waste money on frivolous things like investigating whether he got a blow job. Certainly important for the sexually spurred, but not an issue for those of us who ever irregularly are allowed to play in such reindeer games.
The issue is that Bush has really fucked up. The economy is tanking. He is forced to adopt socialist methods such as tax rebates and public financing or the private home equity market in order to keep the US from sliding to oblivion. Such socialist methods are quite reasonable to him as is shown by the first this he did when take office is use the French model to ruin an educational system that was admired throughout the world, not for the ability of the students to pass test, but for the universal access to a decent education by all students.
By surrounding himself with yes men, he has created a space where bad decisions were made, and money was wasted. We are now seeing the dollar slip and credit market dry up because, at least in part, the deficit will likely hit 80% GDP before his socialist policies can be rescinded. Two trillion dollars are being spend every week to provide corporate welfare to his friends, and we do not see any benefit. The national defense is disintegrating, and we are paying to train foreign forces to fight against our forces. And oil is still going up, and we are reaching a national energy crisis, even though Carter gave us the solution all those many years ago. Those solutions were good, I know because I see real conservatives use them all the time. And, to add insults to injury, Afghanistan, the state that provided safe haven for those that attacked the US, and Saudi Arabia, the State where many of the attackers originated, remains exactly at the same level as in 2000, which means such attacks are exactly as likely.
So it is not a matter or corruption or scoundrels. It is a matter of taking the job seriously, and believing that you can play it just like you did back in frat house, or if you need to grow up a little. We are not talking much, but realizing that there are valid views other than your own, a key learning outcome of the college experience, would be nice.
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:5, Insightful)
The law, which the practice was violating [...], is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit.
So you're saying that the guy in charge of upholding the constitution and the rule of law can, at his option, ignore any law that he pleases and do what he wants because somebody, somewhere thinks it is probably unconstitutional?
Because my crazy idea was that we had some sort of checks-and-balances system where only the legislature can make the laws, only the executive implements them, and only the courts interpret them. Maybe I was reading about some other country, though.
not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department
How is it that here you can recognize that only courts can authoritatively interpret law, but the rest of your jabber grants that power to the executive branch? I can understand making this mistake weeks apart, but you've managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:2, Insightful)
Civil servants have a much more narrowly defined range of the things they can or can't do with regard to politics. It is illegal to politicize certain career government positions, & this is exactly what Gonzales / Goodling did. Whether you think it's a good idea or not is immaterial.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Insightful)
"Or the next President decides to fire him because he doesn't like the way he clips his toe nails, which he is perfectly free to do."
Presidents can't just fire civil servants. Their is a vast legal code to protect civil servants from politicians doing just that. The problem here is the same code is supposed to prevent the executive branch from hiring unqualified ideologues too. The Bush administration with their complete contempt for the law and government just chose to ignore that part, probably with the assumption the next Democratic president couldn't get rid of all the Republican only civil servants they were illegally hiring. They were trying to stack the civil service with their people which is against the law, for good reason.
The Bush administration in particular and Republicans in general hate civil servants because they are often unionized and hated for being "big government" and not easily held to account for their performance. It is possible they chose to break the law here in an attempt to completely corrupt the career civil servants at DOJ as their form of revenge, and replace qualified lawyers with unqualified ones with the proper ideological background
Goodling as an example wasn't really qualified for the lofty position she held. She was a graduate of Jerry Fallwell's Grade C law school which placed more importance on your Christian background than academic ability or knowledge of the law. If she was a good lawyer she should have known what she was doing was illegal and she would eventually get busted for it. I assume she figured the Republicans would control Congress and the DOJ forever so no one would ever enforce the law.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit
It depends what you are talking about... to pick some of the current heavy hitters:
They are completely complicit in our spending problems, as they solely introduce and pass to the president all government spending.
They are completely complicit in the invasion of Iraq, which passed the house and the senate by overwhelming majorities.
They are completely complicit in the Patriot Act, which passed nearly unanimously in the Senate IIRC.
So where do the parties differ? IMHO, mostly in rhetoric. The only places where they have substantial differences is on so-called "wedge issues". The country's well-being and survival are not dependent on gay marriage or abortion, and yet this is where we spend our energy. It gives otherwise similar politicians something to use to differentiate themselves.
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:5, Insightful)
What we're seeing here is one basis of Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority" that he bragged about in 2004. There are already instances on the books (sorry, I can't produce any specifics) of charges filed against Democrats shortly before elections, even at the time those charges were known to be baseless by less political employees, and after election were found to be baseless by due process of law. The counter to this would be charges against Republicans either not filed, or delayed until after an election. If you have the power to instigate and time prosecutions relative to election cycles, you have a powerful tool for influencing elections without touching the ballot box or counting mechanism.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption.
If you vote D or R, because you're pointing to the corruption of the other, than that is exactly what you're doing.
But that is not what I'm doing. I'm pointing to the corruption and saying that both sides are guilty and we need another option.
Both sides (D n R) are complicit because there is no real "opposition" party, save for the third parties. Both D and R parties have enough power and corruption that both sides turn a blind eye to the corruption, but occasionally toss the voters a sacrificial lamb.
If you think Senator Tubes is unique and the exception to the rule, you should take a look at the dealings of Feinstein and Pelosi on the other side. Most (if not all) ARE corrupt!
I hate them all, they're flushing america down the tubes (pun intended).
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you'd like to enlighten us as to the intricacies of this divisive issue, my sockpuppet would be happy to mod you off-topic.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:3, Insightful)
"I expect the next administration will think I'm a bad American"
A. Even if they do it should NEVER be a factor if you apply for a non political position in the government. I'm not saying liberals or Democrats are perfect but chances are high ranking lawyers in the DOJ in previous administrations knew what the law was and adhered to it, or didn't break it with open contempt like this administration. Its sad commentary on this administration and today's rabid Republican party that they let their ideology blind them and led them to breaking the law.
B. I don't have much more use for the corruption that is today's Democratic party than the Republicans, but if you look back over recent years, the worst of the hatred and partisanship has been coming from the Republicans and Conservatives not Liberals and Democrats. Start with McCarthyism, he was a Republican you know. Move to Nixon and his dirty tricks. Jump ahead to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, there are some partisan liberal talking heads but no one listens to them(with the exception of Stewart and Colbert, and their vitriol isn't in the same league as Rush and Bill. Then look at the Republican stunt trying to impeach Bill Clinton when they knew it wasn't justified and it wouldn't succeed just so they could maximize the damage to him personally, to the Democrats and the nation as a whole. It resulted in short term political gains which is why they did it but at what long term prices. All they did was insure bitter partisanship from that day forward, and put "blow jobs" on the nightly news for kids to listen too. Clinton's judgment was bad, but people do that when sex is involved. What the Republicans did was incomparably worse and damaged the country irreparably. By contrast the Democrats won't even consider impeaching Bush when they regained control of Congress, because they knew it wouldn't succeed and just damage the country further. This is in spite of the fact Bush actually deserves it for violating the Constitution and the law.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
But, to be fair, it was really really good gum.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
I can get behind that kind of increased government power.
You're no better than the idiot that says the same thing to fight the "evil doers".
Until you realize that compulsion under any circumstance is evil, you're part of the problem! Why should I be compelled to take care of the idiot who eats 3 Big Macs every day and suffers from Diabetes and Heart Problems?
Because the next thing you'll tell me that NOBODY can eat a Big Mac. And on and on the list will get bigger until we have ridiculous laws put in place forbidding people from selling legal items in certain places.
You think this is a joke? LA and SF both did this recently, one said "no more fast food" trying to define what is, and isn't fast food, and that drug stores can't sell cigarettes.
You see, one person's freedom isn't another person's responsibility. People are trying to avoid the consequences of their actions by compulsion by government guns.
I don't want your universally bad health care. I want disparity in choice. I don't want the freakin government to tell me what is or isn't good for me.
Don't violate my rights please. Don't compel me to comply with what you want me to do, that is nothing more than fascism!
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, one direction means helping the little guy, reining in corporate power, universal health care like all other first world countries have...
Erm, if the side you're speaking of is the one I'm thinking of, the LAST time they "tried" to give us universal health care "in the first 100 days!" they ended up bringing us HMOs and PPOs... which, from a guy who worked for years in a medical office, has done far more damage to American health care, and many of us STILL have no coverage. That's not even mentioning handing over health care to people who don't give a tinkerer's damn about our health. Reining in corporate power indeed.
I'm not a member of either party, and so am happy to call "shenanigans" when either side tries to shaft us.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean while in the minority they voted for stupid acts that the american people were in favor of. Politicians can't cure stupid you know.
It is cowardice for more of them not to have voted against it, but at the time it was legitimate to think that if the democrats had opposed it, the public would side with the republicans thinking the dems were in favor of selling america to Osama. In those days, Bush was bulletproof and most of this country believed he was our only hope of defeating terror.
A good politician in the real world knows when he can lead the public to rational, good decisions and knows when he has to get out of the way of the public making very stupid decisions.
Of course, in retrospect it seems pretty sure that voting against the patriot act wouldn't have been a pointless self-sacrifice, but hey, if the dems could tell the future, the butterfly ballots in florida wouldn't have been an issue.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really know, but anytime I bring up the heinous acts of the current administration, some idiot has to pipe up about how both sides are corrupt, as if that negates my complaint. And they never point out the crimes of both sides as you imply, reread those posts. They only pick on Democrats, as if that means there is no difference.
Maybe excuse isn't always the right word. Some times, they are just trying to make everyone feel so cynical that no one feels that anything can be done. Its as if they are saying, "all politicians are corrupt, there's nothing you can do about it, so shut up about Bush."
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. The 'big mean government is coercing me with guns' argument is so old and tired. If you don't like it, go some place else. There's plenty of uninhabited land in the world where you can set up a homestead and no one will ever even know. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you participate in society. You do so because you benefit more by doing so than by leaving, and you know it.
The thing that gets me about you libertarian types is how hypocritical you all are about coercion. It's perfectly okay to use coercion to enforce your unilateral ideas about property and take away MY rights to go wherever my legs will take me. That's okay, but using 'coercion' to ensure that everyone has enough to eat before allowing anyone to profit outrageously from the hard work of other people is communism.
You people do not believe in individual responsibility. You simply support the individual's right to amass power and use it against others with less power. You hate any method such as democracy or rule of law that the less powerful can use to band together to protect themselves against the more powerful. You see yourselves as superior to the rest of us, and the right you want protected is your right to prey on us.
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:3, Insightful)
But with Congress having created things for him to run already, the President is the head of the Administration and responsible for its successes and failures. It is not called "President's Name Administration" for nothing.
It means nothing! Nothing I tell you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative means that the belief holder is against change and wants things to stay roughly status quo. They feel that things are good they way they are in a if it ain't broke; don't fix it. kind of way.
Classical conservatism (original Republicans) had nothing to do with liberty, it had to do with protecting the rich Northern industry and winning the Civil War for the US at any costs. Hence protecting the status quo for the North.
Neo-con is similar in that it is pro-big business and war-hawkish which is actually just an excuse for no-bid contracts; hence more pro-big business. Unfortunately their fiscal policy tends to align with the compromises of those goals which lends itself to fiscal irresponsibility. They tend to mouth their support of social restrictives like the religious right and some times even throw them a bone, but it is mostly a ploy to get their votes.
A neo-libertarian (what is now called libertarianism) is anti-tax and small government but mostly ends up removing long-standing laws written to protect the public from the conflicting interests of big-money, and hence ends up actually removing freedoms from the populace. This is because they tend to ignore that the lack of a legal framework leaves the weak prey to the strong, like all anarchism does (why should fiscal anarchy be any different?)
A liberal is someone who is for a change, be it women's sufferage, equal rights, decriminalizing drugs, etc. Pure and simple.
right and left wings refer to fascism and communism respectively.
The Democrats and Republicans of today would not recognizable to voters around the civil war times although I think the terms actually meant something then and not shifting meanings based only on the speaker's starting political leanings.
This is all like having some idiot try to explain away the differences between nerd, dweeb, dork and geek. (Hint: they are all synonyms, but if you ask 10 people you'll get ten equally idiotic answers depending on what social group they belonged to in high school!)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
"...there is a HUGE difference between the two parties."
The difference, though, is not what most people think it is. Both parties are beholden to corporate sponsors, but those sponsors are different as well. At heart, the distinction is based on the way the two sides see the social contract. Republicans tend to see society in a hierarchal fashion, with one group dominating another for whatever reasons are presented, while the Democrats see a kind of partnership arrangement among people as the way things 'should be'. George Lakoff goes into some depth about the deep frames that define the two sides in his book, "The Political Mind".
In a strange reflection of that, I'm also reading an old book called "The Chalice and the Blade" which views all of history as a continuing clash between these same to ways of seeing the social contract. The author of that book made up some terms for them. The hierarchal perspective is called Androcratic, since it is typically rule by alpha males, and the partnership perspective is called Gylanic, which is a kit-bashed thing referring to the properties often associated with the female half of humanity.
P. Orin Zack
---
I write short stories at http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:1, Insightful)
IF you want universal health care, move to Canada, and don't come back here when it takes you two months to get your quad-bypass done.
Why should I move? Why can't you move to wherever it is you think is better than here? If it is so much better elsewhere, which is your basic point, you should go.
The thing about you Liberal types is that you can't realize you're just as fascist as the people who hate evil doers.
As for your rights, the more government we have, the less rights we have. I'm not about to tell you where you can or cannot go. Just stay off my lawn, if you want me to stay off yours!
I don't care if someone can't afford to eat. That's what charity is for, and it freakin worked just fine before the government was involved. Nobody in the US is starving, unless they are a child of a lazy idiot bimbo, too stupid to go to the nearest food bank.
And yes, I do care about those poor kids, and the parents should be arrested for neglect, and the kids given to someone who actually gives a damn.
I do believe in individual responsibility. But that means you can screw whomever you want, but don't blame the world for the diseases you catch and spread doing so. And don't expect me to rescue the local whore from her AIDS.
You know, life sucks. Get over it, man up to your mistakes and quit expecting others to take care of you.
As for your definition of democracy, no thanks. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
The problem with your "protected" groups is that they end up abusing whatever power they have, often creating "rights" for themselves that nobody else has. Some people are more equal than others, i guess.
I don't see myself as anything but an equal, which means that you can't do anything that you don't want me doing. If you want universal health care, I want everyone to be able to own and carry a gun at all times. One is actually found in the constitution, the other isn't. Yet which one are you for, and why?
You want protection? Carry a firearm, and protect your own self. Quit depending on everyone else to do what you should do for yourself!
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Using "compassionate" to describe George W Bush is like using "snuggly" to describe Dick Cheney. The President who let the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts get and stay that fucked up for as long as they did; isn't compassionate. The Commander in Chief who makes excuses for torture isn't compassionate. The brilliant diplomat who famously said "Goodbye, from the world's biggest polluter" when leaving a summit discussing the huge amount of human and environmental damage being done by pollution, is not compassionate. You rightly use "machiavellian and power hungry" to describe Neocons which is an accurate descriptor of Dubya, a power hungry Neocon.
Liberal/conservative false dichotomy shibboleth (Score:2, Insightful)
A conservative is someone who believes in continuing whatever is already shown to work; he "conserves" in a social or political sense. Conservation is the fundamental conservative ethic - never throw out the baby with the bathwater, you might need that baby, after all we've needed them before.
A liberal is someone who believes that new problems, or problems that do not respond to conservative measures, should be solved in a new way. Progress is the fundamental liberal ethic - we've got to be free to move onward and upward to a better tomorrow, and we'll need new ideas and bold initiatives to get there, we can't let ourselves be imprisoned by obsolete ways of thought and action.
You will notice that these terms are not mutually exclusive. People who use them in a mutually exclusive sense are sometimes just misinformed, but usually (in the USA, at least) have had their minds infected by harmful memes that prevent them from thinking clearly about anything that can be cast as part of a fictional liberal/conservative dichotomy. In the worst cases, you have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who openly call for the murder of their chosen enemies, and people like Jim David Atkinsson who follow the orders of these people.
The divisive hysteria that has characterized the United States for most of my life, starting with Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin and more recently continuing with Coulter, Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and many others, is akin the "Tulip Madness" of 1634-37. It's a mental abberation that has infected millions of people, that is being promoted by people who think they can ride the tiger to wealth and glory.
Someday, we'll just wake up, and nobody will be able to understand why it happened, because we will have passed the stage where we can be used in this fashion.
Or we'll all kill each other.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously didn't understand my argument, if the timber industry went bankrupt it would prove my point wrong. The fact that they clear cut and move on proves me right. The workers and the environment get screwed.
Your view of human nature is wrong. Modern economic experiments prove that people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, and only act selfishly because they see everyone else doing so. Google 'fairness reciprocity economic research' for some good papers on the subject, or look up 'ultimatum game' on wikipedia for a description of one of the experiments.
Pure free market capitalism has no checks and balances. Money equals power. The more money you have, the more power you have to dictate market conditions and accumulate more money without working for it. You can use money to skew the market. There is such a thing as economic oppression. When someone is offered only the unfairest of deals, it matters little to them that the free market will correct the situation given twenty years or so.
The free market is also prone to well known failure conditions, namely, externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopolies. Even Adam Smith stated that a free market needs government regulation in order to remain free. You libertarians want to do away all the government checks and balances that keep sociopaths from using the positive feedback loops of free market money accumulation to enslave the rest of us.
And you seem to want to make it very hard for people to protect themselves from economic aggression proactively. Only after one has been economically harmed, and has fewer resources to fight back, can one take one's case to the legal system. Not to mention, you all gloss over how THAT is supposed to work. Sure, injustice will be fixed by lawyers looking to get a cut of the fines. That could never go horribly wrong.
In short, libertarianism provides simple solutions, that don't work in the real world, to complex problems that have been better solved through other means. The only reason anyone still buys into it is because organizing libertarians is like herding cats, and no one can ever get their crazy ideas implemented in the real world. So libertarianism only really exists in libertarian fantasies, where it always works perfectly. In the real world, not so much.
Re:Bzzzt both parties sold out the environment for (Score:3, Insightful)
Salvage logging--removal of dead, diseased, or insect-riddled trees--is a good thing for old growth forests. It makes them less vulnerable to wild fires and creates room for new trees to grow. The actual writing of the bill, combined with a judge in the pocket of the loggers, left massive loopholes in what should have been a protective measure for the forests. And you can't genuinely blame Clinton: the Congress gave him a choice between shutting down the government or allowing 15 months of selective logging in specific areas. There's no correct answer for that choice.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please do not confuse people who call themselves "compassionate conservatives" with people who can actually feel compassion.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:3, Insightful)
Now this is a very different issue than the President firing attorneys. And yes, if it comes out that anything remotely related to what you described happened, then Bush needs to be impeached ASAP. We can't allow Presidents to use the Justice Department (or any other agency) to go after political rivals.
Re:It means nothing! Nothing I tell you! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a good correction to the parent poster.
In addition the "left" side of the political spectrum has historically emphasized egalitarianism, both in the political sense (equal rights for all) and in an economic sense (opposition to vast disparities in wealth). The hard left (Communism) wanted to establish economic equality forcibly (through confiscation) while the moderate left favors achieving it through tax and social policies.
For most of the last 50-60 years, Conservative in the US has implied strong opposition to Communism (while that was still a going concern) and pretty rigid opposition to even the moderate left program (what Europeans term social democracy).
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you understand that you are already showing force, and that is what North Korea and Iran are responding to when they try to become nuclear ready? They know its the only thing you are afraid of, and they need to obtain it to defend themselves.
Re:Bzzzt both parties sold out the environment for (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the wildfires took care of it? Wild forest fires are actually a part of the natural cycle of a forest.