foraker

Yeah, not like those 'women belong in the kitchen, hate all immigrants' right wingers..... That's about the dumbest thing I've heard you say. Though I can always wait until you open your mouth again.

seems mostly the religious right, but i've been too busy lately to keep up.

i don't give a damn if she's a martian, what bothers me more is the attitude of 'trust me, she's the best candidate' without giving any reasons why. this would bother me left, right, or whatever. more people should be upset by this. this is a lifetime job with incredible influence and they want to give it to someone about whom very little is known? would you vote for your mayor like that? i don't think so. bush should be more forthcoming about appointees like this and not invoke the cone of silence with a wink and a nudge. i'd think more of the mainstream republicans would be in an uproar instead of rallying round the wagons.

isn't that one of those 'emotional' arguments that KK keeps harping on about?

the salami?

If she can be inspiring, I agree she has a chance. I'd have to see her platform though and how they intend on implementing it. The tendency to drift to the center is not surprising if you need the other side in order to get even part of your agenda through Congress (unless you control Congress with enough votes too). As for her sending troops to Iraq, you can look at this in a number of ways. One is, she realizes we can't pull out until we stabilize thus we need more troops to do that as quickly as possible (whether or not you agree with that is something else). By doing so, she deflects any future criticism that, as commander in chief, she would not be willing to use the military if need be. Again, you may not like that per se but it is important to a significant number of people.

Maybe it is. BTW, your extrapolation about my assumption is false. You took what I said and expanded it into something I did not say. Try reading it again. I did not say 'everyone in America hates her'. I said, there MAY be sufficient groups on either side to preclude the candidacy of either one.

One might argue that the left won't nominate Clinton simply because they can't afford to alienate swing voters from the right. That's just a guess. Long way to go until then though and still plenty of opportunities for potential candidates to stomp out their brains by inserting foot in mouth. Americans have also shown themselves interested in voting for candidates that they feel 'comfortable' with...someone you like on a personal level, disregarding their politics. My gut reaction is that there are sufficient groups on either side who dislike both of them personally to make either candidacy untenable. Either that or they will both need major makeovers (no pun intended). It also depends on too many factors like how the economy is doing by then, how the war goes, what kind of platforms both articulate and how that does with 'focus groups', etc. And we can't forget the seeming inability of the Democrats to yield a fighting candidate with vision. To be honest, I'd really love to see a real spirited contest full of great ideas, winner take all kind of affair, but I expect more of the same timid platforms meant to cater to everyone and to no one and lots of mud slinging.

nice little angry knee-jerk response you had there.

FWIW, university is what you make it. Some of the brightest people I know went to state school. Some of the dimmest, elite private universities. Depends on the motivation of the student. So you know where I'm coming from: BS: Geophysical Science BS: Applied Mathematics PhD: Marine Geology and Geophysics Despite having gone to one of those private 'liberal' colleges (paid for by myself thanks kindly), the debates got pretty lively in history, philosophy, and even history of science classes. The profs were pretty good about slapping around anyone's preconceived ideas. They were also pretty good (the ones I had anyway) about not interjecting their own personal biases into things. The point was to get the students to think, consider, and express their views - not to make nice little carbon copies of themselves.

That must have been $16.95 well-spent...

Will someone please shoot this thread and put it out of our misery?

Seems some rich people don't think so So I guess maybe not everyone with a house and Volvo in Fremont are so easily pigeonholed. Disclaimer: I neither live in Fremont nor own a Volvo.

That pretty much sums things up I'd say...

Nobody has to throw shit. You just have to watch what's going on. Seems to me you guys threw plenty of your own shit anyway. As you say, equal time.

Does any of this change the fact that Bush is a liar? Um...no.

Ok maybe that was a little daydreaming going on over here.

Hypocrisy, Ferraris, and no-bid contracts- the hallmarks of neoconservatism.

So they're using up all the C4 but not touching any of the WMD's..... Clever! Very very sneaky.....

I'd like to know where they are too. You are not allowed to use the surname 'Clinton' in your reply. Anyone?

how can you get tougher on industry when you a) gut the EPA? b) gut the laws the EPA was meant to enforce? c) have industries writing laws applying to them? d) actively work to let polluting industries "self-regulate"? But, oh, that's right....Nixon started the EPA. I love how they trot that one out as if it's some sort of shiny gold star they can place next to their environmentalist credentials.

just looking at a job opp in boulder right now. :-P

Now now, he's just being a good little apparatchik.

Managed to avoid getting a lot better than I was last summer, don't want to peak too soon and then have nothing left to live for. My goal is to climb 5.14 just before I croak.