I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag

[Snow]

I see that 13 democratic members of Congress petitioned the United Nations to send election monitors to the U.S. to safeguard against... whatever Oliver Stonesque-conspiracy-nut-job-perfidy they are afraid of.

The U.N. turned them down but Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is happy to oblige and is sending a team to ensure that liberty and justice for all prevail.

...this from the party that wants France's permission to utilize our military. Maybe we should ask Spain's permission before the Supreme Court rules on an issue or beg permission from Latvia before writing City code or regulations.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Who cares if you haven't actually found any voter fraud -- sue first, find the evidence later!

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

Seriously -- the DNC under Terry McAuliffe's leadership seems perfectly willing to reduce America to a banana republic if that's what it takes to return them to power. They are seriously undermining the country's confidence in its electoral process, and I'm afraid it's just going to get worse.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Snow]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 14 2004, 07:02 PM

Even if the Republicans ARE trying to confuse and intimidate voters, that is all part of the game.

Yes, and even if the democrats are really half-man, half-wolf lychenthropes that drink the blood of young maidens and worship Roddy McDowell, that is all part of the game.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Cal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 14 2004, 10:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 14 2004, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Oct 14 2004, 09:05 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Unorthodox@Oct 14 2004, 07:02 PM

Even if the Republicans ARE trying to confuse and intimidate voters, that is all part of the game. 

Yes, and even if the democrats are really half-man, half-wolf lychenthropes that drink the blood of young maidens and worship Roddy McDowell, that is all part of the game.

I'm not sure what you're implying.

But what I said goes for Kerry too. If Kerry goes mad with power, I'll support him just as I support Bush. That's what Patriotism is all about. Supporting your Tyrant Prince against the other Tyrant Princes.

War is like sports. Justification is irrelevant as long as the nation survives ("wins the game"). The strongest survive.

Something like that...

Let me comment by saying something that is really going to rile up the Repubs---If you wonder why the Demos have gotten so energized about canning Bush, just think back to the rapid ferocity with which Repubs hounded Clinton during his whole tenure as president. As soon as he was elected, and even before, he was subjected to every accusation the hound dogs could muster. Just about everything turned out to be bogus except for his womanizing (which by the way had nothing to do with his effectiveness as president, except for the fact that the Repubs, in their most hypocritical "family values" mode, insisted that it be a seminal issue (pardon the phrase) to be paraded before men, women and children alike.)

Bush on the other hand, in the opinion of most Democrats has literally betrayed the trust on critical issues of national security and the economic well being of the country. We've argued the details of those issue before, so we don't have to get into them again, but my point is that the Democrats felt completely justified in doing as their Rebulican counterparts did under Clinton, with the glaring exception that the Democrats , in my opinion, at least went after Bush on issues that really mattered.

Ok, Repubs--bring it on!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

Limiting yourself to mainstream Republicans (say, candidates, officeholders, syndicated columnists, regular TV talking heads), list some of those bogus accusations against Clinton.

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:

1. Whitewater. Real estate development venture with some shady overtones. Clintons ultimately cleared, though some of their business partners went to jail. If nothing else, a case of the Clintons' lying down with dogs and being lucky not to get up with fleas.

2. The Travel Office firings. Wanting to replace the long-serving White House Travel Office staff with their own people, the Clintons accused the staff of misconduct. The staff was ultimately cleared, as I recall, but the whole affair just made the Clintons look mean.

3. Perjury. Impeachment failed, as it probably should have: enough (bad) lawyers perjure themselves routinely that I'm afraid it's just not enough to remove a President for. Because of a quirk in our system, that leaves a President effectively able to flout "little" laws basically with impunity. (Although Clinton was ultimately disbarred, losing his law license.)

4. Troopergate -- the accusations against then-Governor Clinton about his womanizing in Arkansas. How did that ever sort out? Did any conclusive evidence ever come out one way or the other? I was busy knocking on doors in Iceland at the time, so I missed most of this.

What else? What was "bogus?"

I'm not counting the more bizarre rants of some backwoods talk-radio host about then-Governor Clinton permitting drug running in Arkansas, or had Vince Foster whacked. If you get to count those, then I get to count the really wacked-out Oliver Stone-style conspiracy thinking, with Bush supposedly blowing up the World Trade Center himself.

Did Clinton get called a Nazi or its equivalent by mainstream figures like Robert Kennedy, Jr.? Did he get accused of stealing an election, and suppressing millions of black votes? Did his opponents hint darkly that he would revive a draft? Did Elizabeth Dole speculate that Clinton was keeping Osama bin Laden on ice for an October surprise?

I know things got pretty nasty in '92-'94, when Republicans calmed down a little after they became a majority in Congress, so I may have missed a bit. It just seems to me that the Democrats have escalated things substantially.

[sgallan]

Trust me, there was stuff around about Clinton accusing him of murder. Lots of them. Among other things. The various radio programs were full of stuff. Both sides has plenty of poop. And it stinks on both sides as well.

You know PD, when you come off looking too partisan (and you do anymore), people like me tend not to pay attention anymore. You become just another party hack spinning to the choir.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott -- I think it's a total copout to look down your nose and say "both sides do it." No two things in nature are exactly equal; if you look closely enough, one side will always have more poop than the other. The responsible thing to do is to make a judgment which side that is.

Note that this is different from saying "my side's perfect and the other side's demonic." A mature person recognizes the things that stink on both sides. However, once I've decided which side I think is more right, it's not my job to make the other side's case, any more than it is to make the other side's case in law. There are plenty of people willing -- nay, frantic -- to dig up dirt on Republicans; when some of it sticks, I'm happy to see the miscreants in question hung out to dry.

You make my point when you note that the nasty "stuff" around Clinton (including the Vince Foster murder conspiracy) came from talk radio. Compare the mainstream voices of the Republicans in the early '90s and the mainstream voices of the Democrats today, and I challenge you to conclude they're the same.

Howard Dean -- a governor and a serious presidential-race contender -- gave credibility to the idea that President Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand and let it happen. That's fever-swamp stuff, like the Kennedy conspiracy theories and the "FDR let Pearl Harbor be bombed" crap. Find me a comparably outrageous statement by, say, Bob Dole, Lamar Alexander, or whoever else forgettably ran against Clinton.

John Kerry tells black audiences that Republicans disenfranchised a million African-Americans in 2000. Find me a comparable example of race-baiting by a Republican in the '90s. He keeps bringing up a totally scurrilous rumor that the draft is coming back. Again, find me something comparable. Michael Moore says the war in Afghanistan was all about allowing oil companies to build a pipeline, and gets seated in the VIP box at the Democrat convention. Did G. Gordon Liddy or some other Moore-comparable demagogue get seated next to President Ford in the Republican convention in Houston in 1996? Teresa Heinz Kerry says the war's all about oil, and that she wouldn't be surprised if Osama bin Laden's been captured and will be sprung in October to help the President's reelection chances. What comparable paranoia did Elizabeth Dole bring up in '96, at the height of "Clinton hatred"?

As I said, compare apples to apples. Mainstream Democrats are throwing the kind of crap at President Bush that only the fringes threw at President Clinton. Under Terry McAuliffe, the DNC has raised the bar. Convince me otherwise. I'm listening.

It is my considered opinion that while the average Republican is standing waist-high in poop, you can barely see his Democratic counterpart's eyebrows.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 15 2004, 11:49 AM

What else? What was "bogus?"

I think that you are referring to the vast right wing conspiracy that kidnapped Bill Clinton, drugged him, brainwashed him by making him listen to Joe Walsh music and then re-programmed him to sleep around indiscriminately. They made a movie about that called The Sleazechurian Candidate.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 15 2004, 01:35 PM

John Kerry tells black audiences that Republicans disenfranchised a million African-Americans in 2000. Find me a comparable example of race-baiting by a Republican in the '90s. He keeps bringing up a totally scurrilous rumor that the draft is coming back. Again, find me something comparable. Michael Moore says the war in Afghanistan was all about allowing oil companies to build a pipeline, and gets seated in the VIP box at the Democrat convention. Did G. Gordon Liddy or some other Moore-comparable demagogue get seated next to President Ford in the Republican convention in Houston in 1996? Teresa Heinz Kerry says the war's all about oil, and that she wouldn't be surprised if Osama bin Laden's been captured and will be sprung in October to help the President's reelection chances. What comparable paranoia did Elizabeth Dole bring up in '96, at the height of "Clinton hatred"?

I'll tell you what I think the deal is. The media is so biased, sometimes subtley, sometimes not, that the populous become innured to the bias. When the conservatives are attacked, in the context of pervasive liberal bias, it isn't even noticed - by golly it is just reporting of the facts mamm. However, when the liberals are attacked, well now that's something noteworthy, it is treated differently, it's out of line... them republicans are hatemongers...

[sgallan]

PD -

You made my point with long lawyeristic argumentation that at it's core is just more spin. Partisan tripe. And rationalization. If either side could step away from it a little, lay out your own case, without feeling the need to trash the other guy with BS, I might not split my vote so often. But you can't. Neither can they. I'm not saying you are worse...... just the same.

Tell you what, here is your chance, I have decided I am not going to vote for Bush. I haven't decided I'm going to vote for Kerry either. I may just skip the part of my ballot, and move on to the next vote. Make your guys case. I am intensely curious as to the tone and tact you'll take. I want to see if you are capable of doing something besides reading from the playbook.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott,

rationalization

My stake young men's president used to accuse me of that whenever I asked questions about Church teachings. It's kind of funny to get hit with that charge from the other direction for a change.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott, again:

lay out your own case, without feeling the need to trash the other guy with BS ... Make your guys case.

Part of laying out my side's case is pointing to its differences from the alternative. The problem is that the other side will invariably object to your characterization of it, preferring its own polished version. Does that mean I'm throwing "BS" for stating the other side's case as I see it, rather than as the other side spins it?

For example: With regard to obtaining the support of other countries in the war on terror and other foreign policy, I think it's a fair summary to say that a President Kerry would defer significantly more to foreign opinion than President Bush does. Considering, as I believe, that many other countries have interests that conflict directly with American interests, I think that giving those other countries too much say isn't wise. On the other hand, you might believe that President Bush has needlessly offended our allies, and we ought to go more out of their way to placate them.

I think that any additional concessions to the French will do more harm than good. Kerry thinks not. There's the case, boiled down. Choose.

Tax policy: I know President Bush will not increase my taxes. Senator Kerry says he will only raise taxes on the rich. Trouble is, the last guy who said that -- Bill Clinton -- when he discovered that a tax increase on the rich wouldn't generate enough money for the programs he wanted as well as the deficit reduction he'd promised, raised taxes on the middle class, too. A person who refuses to raise taxes even on people making over $200,000 is even more unlikely to raise taxes on everyone else. This looks like a pretty clear-cut choice, too, between a 0% chance of a tax increase, and an unidentified chance.

Deficit reduction: You're hosed regardless of who you vote for.

Illegal immigration: Ditto, up to a point. Neither side wants to touch this one with a long pole. Republicans have a more recent history of taking up the issue, but don't look to have much interest in it anymore. Although I understand Arizona has a ballot initiative this year roughly reflecting California's betrayed Prop. 187.

Social Security reform: Here's one I can't address without slinging a little bovine fecal matter at Kerry, mainly because his whole policy is based on slinging his own. President Bush has proposed a reform of Social Security based on private investment of part of the FICA tax. This has been demagogued as "privatizing Social Security," which is the aforementioned bovine fecal matter to the infinite power. What is proposed is that today's workers would be able to elect to invest 20% of their FICA taxes in private, conservatively-managed investment accounts. Workers who did so would have their future entitlement to Social Security payments reduced by a corresponding 20%. However, the returns from their investment accounts -- even assuming unprecedently low rates of return -- would more than make up for it.

The 20% taken from ongoing FICA payments to fund the private accounts would have to be replaced, of course, since Social Security is pay-as-you-go; the system now works by giving the payroll taxes paid by today's workers to yesterday's retirees. In the overall accounting, though, there's no increased cost to the Social Security Administration, because these decreased up-front revenues are offset by elimination of the (greater) future liabilities of the participating workers' Social Security payments. (Part of the reason this debate gets complicated is because the government, as I understand it, uses only the cash method of accounting instead of the accrual method.)

The other side doesn't even address these arguments -- or if it has, I haven't seen it. It only talks about "privatizing Social Security," as if current retirees are going to be thrown wholesale into the stock market, where Granny will lose her shirt, or nightgown or whatever. Total distortion. Current retirees won't be affected at all, the investment accounts would be purely voluntary, and the overall health of the system wouldn't be jeopardized. What does jeopardize the system is leaving things as they are. The present long-term liabilities of the system (the benefits to be paid to future retirees, which would be reduced by use of private accounts) are projected to start exceeding FICA revenues in 2018, and the deficits are projected to increase indefinitely. In other words, there's a structural problem in the system, not just a temporary shortfall because somebody's "looted the lockbox" or some other nonsense. Benefits will have to be cut, or FICA taxes will have to be increased -- repeatedly -- or the government will have to resort to vastly increased borrowing that will make today's deficits seem like petty cash.

John Kerry's solution to all of this? Economic growth will take care of it all, by increasing FICA receipts. It's a pipe dream. The economy would have to perform at unprecedented levels, without any recessions or slowdowns, forever, for that to work. Assuming John Kerry is capable -- unlike any of his predecessors in the history of the world -- of repealing the business cycle, his Social Security plan is a fantasy. He's promised not to cut benefits, which as a practical matter means he'll have to increase payroll taxes. (Or, more likely, just hand the issue to the next President; the crisis isn't projected to happen on his own watch.)

So, Scott -- is that enough dry, non-BS-slinging wonkery for you? I've got more where that came from. B)

[sgallan]

You: For example: With regard to obtaining the support of other countries in the war on terror and other foreign policy, I think it's a fair summary to say that a President Kerry would defer significantly more to foreign opinion than President Bush does. Considering, as I believe, that many other countries have interests that conflict directly with American interests, I think that giving those other countries too much say isn't wise. On the other hand, you might believe that President Bush has needlessly offended our allies, and we ought to go more out of their way to placate them.

I think that any additional concessions to the French will do more harm than good. Kerry thinks not. There's the case, boiled down. Choose.

Me: Fair enough. A good breif analysis that gives a snapshot of a much larger debate. It is a choice.

You: Tax policy: I know President Bush will not increase my taxes. Senator Kerry says he will only raise taxes on the rich. Trouble is, the last guy who said that -- Bill Clinton -- when he discovered that a tax increase on the rich wouldn't generate enough money for the programs he wanted as well as the deficit reduction he'd promised, raised taxes on the middle class, too. A person who refuses to raise taxes even on people making over $200,000 is even more unlikely to raise taxes on everyone else. This looks like a pretty clear-cut choice, too, between a 0% chance of a tax increase, and an unidentified chance.

Deficit reduction: You're hosed regardless of who you vote for.

Me: These two are much the same thing. I would note that either Bush will be forced to do something this term, or the next President will have too no matter what..... like Bush and Clinton had too. I am always amazed at how people say Bush because of the taxes thing, but don't seem all that concerned about the deficit. Then again, look at how many people run up their credit cards. It is the one side where your choice looks unrealistic. I am not so sure Bush won't address the problem. But if he doesn't he looks naive. You did lay it out fairly though. I would note - with a Republican Congress for cover - the previous occupant of the White House showed more fiscal responsibility than this one. Would Kerry? Like you, I have my doubts. Clinton was more the centerist.

On the SSI thing..... it is a good reason. The details could be problematic, but it isn't being realistically debated as of yet. It also doesn't have a bats chance in hell in this political climate. Which is why I take you to task from time to time. If the climate continues on - and I have seen nothing from either guy that suggests they could change things - issues like this will not even get aired.

Anyhow, I knew you could do it. You addressed the issues, made good points, without a single bit of spin or BS. And as a result, I read the entire post, carefully, and reread some of it for further understanding.

[Matt]

All I know is that the British equivalent of the Reupublicans the Conservative Party always promise "we will not raise taxes."

And, every time they get in, guess what? yes. They raise taxes. Purchase tax called VAT was 8%. The Tory way of not raising it was to double it!

Then they found ways of apparently decreasing income tax, whilst in reality, they increased it.

Republicans and Tories are government by a crooked street magican. By the time you realise the little sleeze has stole your watch, and your trousers, it's too late, as he has gone o to the next mark.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A little red-meat partisan BS-slinging ("RMPBSS"). I couldn't resist -- buying votes with crack cocaine was just too delicious:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm