Comments by momus
Page 1 of 22 | Next
Posted on October 6 at 1:16 p.m.
How about...
1. Deny the reality that the surge is economically unsustainable. How long can it keep working with a debt ceiling at 11.3 trillion and spending in Iraq at billions per month when we need that money to fix a myriad of problems at home.
2. The "patriotic" comment was in reference to those that avoid paying taxes through a variety of loopholes, like off shore PO boxes. By actually paying taxes, those using the loopholes would be paying higher taxes, but I think most people would say that making people pay at the same level as those without legal loophole teams is OK.
3. Ummm, aren't republicans trying to blame Obama for domestic terrorism because he sat on a fund raising committee for a school with a guy that was exonerated for his activities with a formerly violent organization? My point: hello Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.
Posted on October 5 at 9:35 a.m.
Clinton did attempt to hit Bin Laden in much the same manner we would attempt to hit him now. Get actionable intelligence, put ordinance on target and attempt to verify. If you're going to place the blame on Clinton for "not getting him", you might as well place the blame on the CIA and DOD for training (and arming) him and his collegues as resistance fighters against the USSR in Afganistan. Or, you could blame the Saudi's for not taking the nut job out after he said he would attack us and the Saudi government for allowing the US to stage an attack on Iraq during Gulf War I from Saudi soil. Or, you could blame anyone that used (or uses) opiates in any fashion, which is where Bin Laden gets a large portion of his funding. Or you could blame some conservative think tanks that, during the 1980's were proponents of a future strategy of using the US military to foster democracies in third world nations while acknowledging that the strategy failed to account for decentralized, insulated terrorist cells conducting asymetrical warfare. Or, you could blame the fact that we still don't have Bin Laden on Cheny and Rumsfeld's squabble during the beginning of the Afgan conflict, which essentially lead to a lack of force available to cut of Bin Laden's escape into Pakistan. Or, you could blame Bush for not putting enough stock in the report titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States" two months prior to 9/11. But, nope... It's all Clinton's fault.
Posted on October 4 at 8:41 a.m.
I thought the point of an interview was for the interviewer to ask questions, no? Otherwise, it’s just a face to face press release. Both Biden and Obama were asked about the Bush doctrine during the debates... they both new what it was and were not for it (surprise). But, you can't have a candidate that was drilling Obama on experience that then pick someone completely off the political map without any questions. And, when you make someone your VP running mate that people know little or nothing about, then limit media access, you bet she's going to get some long tough questions from the media (they don't know when or if they can talk to her again).
I do think that people are looking for an educated candidate that can handle our multiple problems in a logical fashion based on facts and reason. Maybe not in Kansas, but if Jesus ran for President as a democrat, he would loose Kansas ;). As far as Palin's connection, I think that most people throughout the nation are looking at the GOP's policies over the past four years and are smart enough to project the effect of McCain's policies over the next four. We are in a position as a nation that I don't want to be in, and we are putting ourselves in a worse position over the next four years if McCain is President in my opinion.
Posted on October 3 at 9 a.m.
Netloafer,
I don't think people are as interested in the "average person" divide as people like you and I might have initially thought. I do think that some people are fearfull based on our last eight years of having the "average guy" in the white house. The average Joe Six Pack may have more in common with Palin than with a Harvard graduate, but are we looking for someone whom we want to have a beer with or are we looking for a President? I'm not saying anyone is stupid for liking McCain, Palin, Obama or Biden. What I am saying is that we have some really difficult problems ahead of this nation, and we have a great model over the past eight years to show what happens when the "I like so-and-so" candidate gets into office. Do we really need to do that again? Can we afford to do that again?
Posted on October 2 at 10:16 p.m.
I think both were rather canned in their responses. At times, I felt like Palin was reading from a cue card that was written before the question was asked. I thought Biden stuttered too much, but can Palin say "ing" instead of "n'"? Call me elitist, but proper grammer???
Posted on September 30 at 9:10 p.m.
Both sides are playing politics with this issue, which is what's done during campaign season. Or, does suspending a campaign in order to get a deal done, only to restart a campaign without a deal not qualify as playing politics?
Posted on September 30 at 11:59 a.m.
I worry about the lack of communication between the two sides of this issue and their ability to compromise. Simply by bringing this issue into the public consciousness, I feel like the bars in particular are in a lose, lose situation. Let's say that the citizens against the ban have their proposal adopted and sinage is placed on the front door of businesses that allow smoking, while internally employees are made aware that they will work in a smoking environment. In essence, owners of smoking businesses will put a warning label on their front door and in front of their employees. This worries me because I know that the amount of lawsuits actually went up for cigarette companies after warning labels were placed on packages. Essentially, all smoking businesses would say "yes, we understand the potential dangers that some say could exist from the long term exposure to second hand smoke." If any additional data reinforces existing data concerning second hand smoke, that admission makes smoking businesses a huge target for any former employee or long time patron seeking to pay for mounting medical bills for any perceived smoking related illness.
I still think if current bar owners want to keep their establishments open to smoking they should simply pursue a grandfather clause and stay the heck out of the rest of the argument. And, because I like a lot of our bar owners, please don't open yourselves up to future litigation by broadcasting potential exposure via sinage or employee memo's. I'd hate to see someone in 10 years, desperate for cash to pay off medical bills go after someone like Corbin in retirement (maybe, but keep working as long as you want) for the chance at a quick pay day (they probably could get a non-smoking advocacy group to foot the legal bill). Please, people on both sides, try and get together and see if you can compromise. I'm not sure how many more divisive battles this community can take.
Posted on September 29 at 2:09 p.m.
I could understand why Christians may be upset with the original holiday of Samhain (the Celtic holiday), but Pope Boniface IV designated November 1st All Saints Day, or All-hallows (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints' Day) and is widely credited with the creation of the current Halloween (the eve of All Saints Day). This Christianized holiday resembles little from the original Celtic Samhain, or the Roman versions of the holiday that followed (although we do still bob for apples, homage to the Roman goddess Pomona). So, why would Christians be upset over the celebration of a Christianized holiday, other than the fact that corporations and movie execs try and make money off of the supposed "evil" of this holiday...?
Posted on September 26 at 9:38 a.m.
What oversight were the Dems supposed to give in a deregulated industry when every piece of legislation they've tried to "lead" on over the past two years has been vetoed? You can't create a situation doomed to failure, hand if off to the new guys and then blame them for the colapse. A lack of common sense oversight and a system that rewards corporate exects for short term gains at the long term expense of the company is to blame here. From what I'm reading, this isn't playing politics as much as ensuring that our tax dollars aren't waisted or going to fund golden parachutes for a bunch of irresponsible CEO's that caused this mess. If it takes a couple of more days to ensure the expenditure of $700 billion isn't wasted and has oversight, I'm all for spending the extra time. Call that playing politics, but I call it being smart.
Page 1 of 22 | Next
Posted on October 6 at 1:52 p.m.
Yes, because the only alternative beyond spending billions per month in Iraq is complete surrender... Or, we could do what the Iraqi soveriegn government has asked, what the people of Iraq have asked- have a 16 month phased pull out of their nation.
As for Ayers, I'll remember the next time I get invited to a committee meeting for any organization to make sure I do a criminal background check on everyone else in attendance. But, since Ayers wasn't found guilty of doing anything illegal, I guess he would have slipped past my check. Should I just ask if anyone has ever done anything that I would potentially disagree with at the beginning of any meeting I attend?
On Debate between vice-presidential candidates