FMBI

Enough said.

Agreed with Astro. It's very tempting to just move on and be happy and carefree, but the past has shown that these problems always turn up again, every couple of decades at the most - usually when the existing economic system starts to take a beating - and so, assuming Obama's recovery plan doesn't work out that well (or can be painted that way, as Krugman and others fear), we could very soon see a new generation of wannabe Pinochets pop up and try to expand their own power at the expense of our already-weakened democracy. I'm not for war crimes investigations, but I think the possibility of a truth & reconciliation committee should be taken very seriously. Even if it caused several years of domestic turmoil (as has happened in South Africa and other countries), it's well worth it in the long run, both to prevent the above-mentioned petty dictators from getting into power, and to improve international relations. Keep in mind that, although South Africa is still very segregated and unequal, the mere fact that they were willing to work to change the situation was enough to earn them massive amounts of goodwill, even after "Garlic" Mbeki. If Obama really wants to put the US back on top of the world, I think a T&R C is definitely the shortest distance between here and there. Also, did anyone notice that we have 3 essentially parallel threads running right now?

According to (I believe) BBC, several European countries are considering taking the prisoners, but they're having a hard time deciding whether to actually do it or not, due to political pressure. I think that would be the best option, though, since that way you can keep them from turning their resentment and insider knowledge of the US system into a real ability to perform terror attacks in the future.

It's hard to know exactly what he did manage to get through, which means we'll have to wait for a combination of independent analysis and Obama-administration investigations. But that's no reason to break out the champagne; in the meantime, we do know the general themes - undermining environmental regulations, screwing the poor and middle class, damaging efforts at government reform, and ensuring that the limited police-state infrastructure that's survived this far can stay together under the control of the spooks in the intelligence community. Assuming that only, say, 20% of the regulations he attempted to enact will make it, that's still a very scary assault on "American values," civil rights, and common sense. What makes it even worse is that, in 15 years, it seems all too likely that his newfound revisionism will be all that's remembered - after all, nobody today remembers the fact that Reagan, Champion Of Freedom, was criticized during his presidency for attacking the FoIA, censoring the press, and breaking the law whenever it was inconvenient to deal with Congress. So, let's just hope that this time, somebody actually cares enough that they are willing to spend as much time as necessary to clean up all this crap.

But you're again making the mistake of thinking this makes you a real independent person, when in actuality, the whole "hate the government but what the hell" mentality has been carefully nurtured by the conservative movement to both give them an excuse for constant attacks on government and cover their ass when they screw up ("We might be greedy, corrupt, criminals, but hey, those liberals are kinda suspicious looking too!"). Come on, take a chance. Get an opinion or two about politics.

Two petty notes I'd like to make here. Number one, that doesn't prevent ships from participating in the war - there's a big controversy in Japan because their navy is helping us with refueling operations on the Indian Ocean. Number two, Afghanistan almost got a coastline in the 19th century, but everyone ultimately decided it was a bad idea to try to take half of modern-day Pakistan away from the Sikhs and Muslims that had been living there for centuries.

Just remembered that I never replied to this post. o-o I've always liked luge, skeleton, speed skating, curling, and just about all the skiing events. One thing I'm worried about, though, is that with the faster downhill events, they just might not be worth it in real life. Anything that has winning margins measured in thousandths of a second would probably be hard to appreciate without a moving camera.

That is utter bull shit. Seriously I love how your mind works, if someone isn't as far left as you, they're automatically a right-wing nut job. I view being a moderate as someone who holds ideals from both sides of the fence and can appreciate both sides of the fence. I mean as a moderate Republican I voted for Obama, how do you explain that, being according to you, I'm a right-wing nut? In fact in the last 3 presidential elections I've only voted republican once. Not what I said at all. I actually used both senses of the word, depending on what part of my post you look at. My point was that 99.9% of the people who call themselves moderates - and, believe me, virtually everyone I know is like this - can be beaten by the facts in any political argument, but they invariably end up saying "oh, this is a tough issue, let's agree to disagree" - before spewing more right-wing talking points half an hour later, and I'm getting kind of sick it. I guess I'm taking it out on Cancer since Ail isn't here. Oh, and Veg, one more thing. Us far-lefties (or at least those of us who aren't 19-year old rejects, anyway) think through our positions just as hard and just as often as any moderate - it's just that, seeing as how the facts usually back us up (drug war, Bush doctrine, civil liberties, cultural assimilation, separation of church and state, etc), it's hard to find a real reason to make a 180-degree change. edit - Oh, and one more thing. As far as your accusation of me disliking anyone who isn't far-left: I've always been a fan of David Brooks. He's what I would consider a real moderate, even though he actually calls himself a conservative; his articles during the campaign were remarkably balanced, and he didn't join the orgy of self-effacement among "conservative intellectuals" who suddenly forgot what the Bush doctrine was. And also note that in this edit, I'm bringing up yet another definition of "moderate" in politics, so I'll just make a list and start putting the number of the one I mean from now on: #1 - Someone who considers themselves a centrist but actually is just too ignorant to know what the real issues are; #2 - Someone who is just in the exact middle on most issues (which, due to the changing "acceptability" of political views over time, often leads these people to radically change their views whenever the 6 o'clock news is on); #3 - Someone like David Brooks, who openly admits to having one preference or another, but is always revising their position in view of the facts and new developments. Ultimately, in cases like this, what the person's preferred ideology is has remarkably little effect on their actual beliefs. Thus, (to use one of my favorite examples) a liberal can dislike immigration because of worries over the U.S.'s "carrying capacity"; a conservative can believe in fighting global warming because of worries over long-term economic and social health. Because of this, the people in this group can (in my experience) honestly see eye-to-eye, rather than coming up with some sad "I'll stop if you do" tacit agreement. edit2 - Also, sorry, Cancer, I didn't realize at the time I posted how rude that would sound. Again, it isn't insulting you, just a large (and, sadly, growing) group of Americans who reflexively assume that anything too far to either the right or the left is inherently bad - and since the right has dominated the country for the last 30-40 years, that means, essentially, that even Bill O'Reilly can call himself a moderate and get taken seriously by a lot of people. I allowed my general despair to prevail over common sense in my reply. :\

Note "pending". Obama also asked judges to suspend trials at Guantanamo, but that does nothing for the innocent people already convicted there, does it? This is just a microcosm of the Bush presidency - screw something up, while stalling until it's either too late or too complicated for anyone else to change it.

He's already gotten threats on many occasions, and they actually stopped a plot during the campaign. But with all the insane protection they're giving him, nothing short of a nuclear attack (literally) could take him out, unless a foreign country conspires to kill him when he visits.

Agreed with TJ, except that I wouldn't call it an agenda so much as boneheadedness on the part of some, and overreaction by others. Close, IMO, unless someone wants to take this thread in a drastically new direction.

Cancer, that's a good position except for the fact that, ever since Nixon and Reagan crushed the press, "moderate" in this country essentially means that you support the pro-corporate, pro-inequality, pro-religious - in short, right-wing - policies of the status quo, simply because you haven't thought about alternatives yet. You inadvertently demonstrate this through your arguments - the best excuses you can come up with to defend Bush are all Republican talking points with zero logical viability. So be a "moderate" if you want - but be forewarned that to truly do so, you're going to have a make a lot of changes to your philosophy, because right now you don't seem to be so much a moderate as an under- (as opposed to completely un-) informed person.

I watched it with one eye from 11 to ~5ish, and it was pretty damn impressive. Also, it's nice to see that, after all the millions spent on boosted security, nobody tried to take a potshot at him. As for the Official Inauguration Ceremonies Themselves (as opposed to the luncheon, the ride, and the parade): I thought his speech sucked. Sure, it "hit all the themes," but speeches like that always manage to sound hollow and forced out. Plus, it kinda bounced from one issue to the next, without really offering a general transition model. I've written better-flowing speeches myself. The girls were cute as always (and no, not in that way, sickos). His wife was beautiful, though the gloves were awful. I choked (literally) laughing when I saw Cheney being wheeled around. It was just so utterly appropriate, because, as someone I watched it with said, "He looks just like Mr. Potter from 'It's a Wonderful Life!'" Especially the part where he was at the bottom of the steps, and the Obamas and Bidens were standing above him, waving down - and as soon as they hauled him into the limo and drove him away, everyone on the steps started laughing. It was hard to avoid the impression they were making jokes at his expense. And I thought Bush was gracious, though he looked very close to crying from the time he walked out of the Capitol to the time he got on the helicopter. So that was fun. edit - clarified one point.

Well gee, looks like it's London instead. Oh well, me and Emit and root can go and have fun and snuggle up and dance naked while the rest of you stay home.

Will you be going? As far as I know, the vast majority of people on here are from Canada, the US west coast, or near the Canadian border. So it seems like, statistically, there's a decent chance somebody's going to be there. Personally, I'm considering it, and if anyone else is, maybe we could [creepy grin] organize a convention?

Sorry, but this has been out for about a decade : Snopes link Still good, though.

I'll quote Peggy Noonan for $500, Alex : "Political bullshit." I'm sick of all this revisionism. The man did his damnedest to destroy the country and the world, and now he's urgently trying to sabotage Obama, all while pretending that it's still the 2000 campaign, and he hasn't been exposed as a wannabe-fascist with the brain of a 12 year old yet. Oh well, at least we can rest safe and secure in the knowledge that Pelosi deliberately blocked any attempts at impeachment, and Obama will refuse to prosecute him for war crimes, or anything else for that matter. At the risk of sounding hostile to the man: Burn in hell, Bush.

Haven't you read any left-wing books from the early 90s? Environment + civil rights + economic equality are all wrapped up together, if only because environment-destroying corporations + right-wing authoritarians + more corporations are allied against them. Plus, most of the individual people who care about the environment (other than the kids who "grow out of it" and end up hating the movement) are interested in civil rights, it's just that civil rights aren't going anywhere for a while, whereas the environment is kind of a low-hanging fruit. Plus, there's cross-over recruitment, for the reasons already specified. Change a lightbulb, change a world! PS, forgive my rambling, I've been up for 20 hours.

Hold your fricking horses. Somebody needs to make a big deal out of it, yes, but that doesn't mean that she has to be the one to do it. While in the long run this policy can result in things being endlessly pushed back (1866-1960s, anyone?), it's pointless to start a minority/majority war unless you have at least some power brokers from the majority on your side - and while it's likely that a lot of bleeding hearts will come out of the closet during the Obama years, during the course of the Bush presidency, Lou Dobbs and his ilk have enjoyed ascendancy. So while you can take the macro view (as I've been doing in other posts) and say that somebody needs to stick their ass out, that doesn't mean you can accuse someone from the minority of failing personally just because they aren't doing it.

If only that were on MySpace, you could slaughter millions of unsolicited "friend" bots. AFK earning a whopper.

<3 Onion If only their stuff were real - last month they overturned Bush v Gore. :\

He did say something worse, several times, in several threads. It's just that his posts were deleted. It's just that he and I have a longstanding in-game ideological feud, and he decided to drag it on to the forums for some reason. :\

TJ, the reason I brought up all the other examples was because those were things that used to be "bad" but are now recognized as normal. Essentially, we (or I, at least) are arguing for the rule of law and reason to prevail over temporary "this is the way it is" measures that tend to lead to mob rule and stripping of the rights of minorities. Also, we (or, again, at least I) have conceded in the course of the argument that people in certain situations should be careful what they say if it involves something truly illegal - however, if, as in this case, the statements are not only legal but entirely innocuous, and observers, through their own racism and bias, decide to misuse the system for their own ends, then there is absolutely no justification for minorities keeping silent about their mistreatment. A spectacular lawsuit, a couple of new foundations, and a powerful lobbyist movement tend to arise from the more evident cases, and rightly so - otherwise, there is no reason to believe that treatment of the affected minority will be any different in the future. Good things don't "happen" by themselves - anti-racism requires a dual effort from the educated portion of the enfranchised / dominant majority and the educated and/or affected minority. I don't know where you two are getting the idea that I'm some starry-eyed idealist who doesn't believe that racism still exists - I've engaged in many arguments with people who do believe that (and who, shortly after giving up the argument, make some racist joke to "lighten the mood", generally), and I'm sick of it. That's why I'm taking the position of the minority here, and in general. Also, according to the good ole triplets, sociology, psychology, and anthropology, since I am of the dominant majority, I can never really personally understand what you go through, LOSA. However, thanks to the same science, I can impartially point out "solutions" - the question is whether my solution makes any sense. Obviously, I think it does, or I wouldn't be harassing you about it. So, forgive my zealousness. And my propensity for self-gratification via the use of oversized words. But may it be here recorded that I think my avatar looks better than yours. :\

Link In 3 months, everyone's going to be getting "pakirolled".