tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post4574617004115385468..comments2024-03-27T11:16:36.951-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Obama Mama vs. Big Daddy 'CainGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-29104442826178494922008-02-22T18:17:00.000-08:002008-02-22T18:17:00.000-08:00Mushroom said "To the left in general, rights are ...Mushroom said "To the left in general, rights are “gifts” from the government. The Founders wrote the Declaration, the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights, not as instruments granting rights, but as an enshrined recognition of inherent rights. The only conditions under which a government may undertake to violate or usurp those rights are when an individual has, purposely and intentionally, so violated the rights of another (criminally) or of the populace in general, i.e., acts of war, that the offender must be restrained. Even then, the effort to restrain must be isolated to the individual offender and not used as a pretext to usurp the rights of the innocent."<BR/><BR/>Now <I>There's</I> a Magic Mushroom, well said.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-90519855780799320122008-02-22T18:11:00.000-08:002008-02-22T18:11:00.000-08:00obumma-moo-moo said "This relates to mushroom's po...obumma-moo-moo said "This relates to mushroom's post; You assume that because the founders used the words and ideas that they did[a pretty good set, though not perfect] that they actually believed them and/or actualized them in reality."<BR/><BR/>Just a damn filth bucket moron. Sorry folks, been a long week and I'm deep into a pint, but this pre-chewed chomsky chum bucket is just disgusting.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-13787559203186392532008-02-22T18:03:00.000-08:002008-02-22T18:03:00.000-08:00obama-mama said "The congress passes retroactive i...obama-mama said "The congress passes retroactive immunity for corporations....administration asserting absolute, unilateral power to disregard such congressional oversight via the use of signing ...has suspended the Universality of Habeus Corpus [read the supreme court's decision on this you pernicious idiot, it's on their site, I'm so sick of the intentionally stupid mouthing this nonsense, nonsense which actually is dangerous to spread about]... this government has engaged in waterbording and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques "<BR/><BR/>Sigh. Not a thought expressed on your part here, not even an attempt at refuting an idea put forwards here, or the attempt to put forward one of your own. such juvenile sniping without content, is a surefire way to remain juvenile for life. Probably the intent.<BR/><BR/>Summed up – you are a emotional moonbat flitting about the fringes of serious though, being very careful not to come to close to them so as to induce actual thinking on your own part.<BR/><BR/>"If you think the Rule of Law is just empty rhetoric, you need to get out of your isolated, delusional bubble."<BR/><BR/>The Rule of Law is the most profound and important of topics, it is merely you who are empty and delusional. You are ready made fascist fodder for whoever might come along with such an interest – fix that. Start with the links I left above… it’s a stretch, but you might learn something.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16740976589294808802008-02-22T16:23:00.000-08:002008-02-22T16:23:00.000-08:00So, while you say that it is the left who wants to...<I>So, while you say that it is the left who wants to take our inherent rights away, historical reality demonstrates the paucity of your account.</I><BR/><BR/>The left would take away our Second Amendment rights in a heartbeat. The left would gladly restrict our First Amendment rights in the name of fairness and tolerance (see Canada). The left wing of the Supreme Court recently ruled to weaken property rights in <I>Kelo</I> -- which isn't surprising since the further left you go, the more contempt you'll find for the right of ownership. The leftist pro-abortion movement has its roots in the eugenics movement (another point that Jonah Goldberg makes well), which is the state deciding who has the right to reproduce. The left's love of taxation (versus conservatives who see it as a necessary evil) follows naturally from its low regard for the right to keep the fruits of one's efforts. Bottom line is that the left's priorities are "social justice", state-enforced equality, and extending the powers of Big Mother. Individual rights are secondary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-48332798534415793752008-02-21T12:09:00.000-08:002008-02-21T12:09:00.000-08:00ObamaSupporter, my friend, our disagreement is pri...ObamaSupporter, my friend, our disagreement is primarily on this point: who gets to make the decision? <BR/><BR/>The Founders said, to the extent possible, let the individual decide. Then let the locality decide, then let the state (as in states several) decide. Only in the extreme should the central government become involved. <BR/><BR/>We are simple people -- not brilliant and elite like the Obamessiah. Hence we ask you to answer a simple question.<BR/><BR/>Suppose someone could stand up today with the power to “act” and put all those words into practice. What would that person be called?mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50892491536465584502008-02-21T12:02:00.000-08:002008-02-21T12:02:00.000-08:00And that Obama embodies more wisdom than they did?...And that Obama embodies more wisdom than they did?<BR/>Please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76929651111922396662008-02-21T12:00:00.000-08:002008-02-21T12:00:00.000-08:00And do you think that the framers of the Constitut...And do you think that the framers of the Constitution were blind to how things would progress over time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70875248952762074292008-02-21T11:58:00.000-08:002008-02-21T11:58:00.000-08:00OBS,You never answered any of the questions asked ...OBS,<BR/><BR/>You never answered any of the questions asked of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34026496082687116062008-02-21T10:58:00.000-08:002008-02-21T10:58:00.000-08:00Everyone here will say[as will nearly everyone] th...Everyone here will say[as will nearly everyone] that they support the rule of law. But the issue is if you act in such a way to actualize it. If you don't, you professed support of it is empty.<BR/><BR/>Our current government loves to give lip service to American Principles, but then it goes on its merry way dismantling them with diligence.<BR/><BR/>This relates to mushroom's post; You assume that because the founders used the words and ideas that they did[a pretty good set, though not perfect] that they actually believed them and/or actualized them in reality. Its not enough to just put the idea of equality and inherent rights into a text. You actually have to act as though those things are true. The fact that a massive portion of the human beings in the United States at the time of ratification were Slaves makes the idea that the founders actually believed in inherent rights which are given by God and not the Government a bit hard to swallow. The actual history of our nation has been a struggle between those who merely pretend to believe in our professed values and those who actually work to make them a reality.<BR/><BR/>So, while you say that it is the left who wants to take our inherent rights away, historical reality demonstrates the paucity of your account.<BR/><BR/>If you want substance, you can go to Obama's web site and spend the next three weeks reading the texts of his speeches and reading detailed policy statements. You think that because you are too lazy to seek out the information that it doesn't exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-26289666268229725942008-02-21T10:33:00.000-08:002008-02-21T10:33:00.000-08:00OBS: Everyone here already believes in the rule of...OBS: Everyone here already believes in the rule of law. Next thing you'll tell me that Obama is pro- critical thinking, pro justice and pro Federal Republic! He Loves America!<BR/><BR/>You don't get it; we don't disagree that there should be more transparency, that practicality is a good thing, that Rule of Law is important and necessary. It's just that he's not saying anything by saying that. It's like having a speech on how you like giving speeches. 'I'm very pro-speaking,' you would say. And then people criticize you for that, because it is mostly substanceless; And you would say to them, "You must be anti-speaking!"<BR/><BR/>No.. they are Pro-Substance, which you obviously aren't.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-18986734985102713792008-02-21T10:15:00.000-08:002008-02-21T10:15:00.000-08:00Beautiful!Beautiful!Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-71200462004957838002008-02-21T10:08:00.000-08:002008-02-21T10:08:00.000-08:00Interesting that the Obamasupporter frames Obama i...Interesting that the Obamasupporter frames Obama is the anti-Reagan. RWR was hardly a saint, yet he clearly recognized the necessity of the vertical. Government is the horizonal. "Government," Reagan said, "is the problem."<BR/><BR/>The left may mean well, but they consistently fail to recognize that the law of unintended consequences is more fixed -- if occasionally more subtle -- than the law of gravity. Who was it who said that "no man's liberty is safe when Congress is in session"? The <B>only</B> way government can effect change is through coercion. Obviously, coercion is in opposition to freedom, but -- as noted in Van's quote from Rousseau -- the obvious is often lost in the feel-good sophistry of the left. <BR/><BR/>The whole idea of compassionate conservatism is lost on me. Of course I am moved by suffering, especially when it is not directly the fault of the sufferer. Compassion means that I am a "companion in the passion" of another. Sometimes all a friend needs to do is sit and let the other know they are not alone. When Job's friends arrived, they did the right thing for the first seven days. They just sat and wept with him. They could not heal him. They could not restore his children. In the end, as Job is restored, kind and compassionate friends and relation come and hand Job pieces of money to help him out. I have the horrible feeling that if Job's three friends had been "compassionate conservatives", they would have gone out and forced people to give Job money at the point of a sword. Jackboots had not been invented at the time.<BR/><BR/>To the left in general, rights are “gifts” from the government. The Founders wrote the Declaration, the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights, not as instruments granting rights, but as an enshrined recognition of inherent rights. The only conditions under which a government may undertake to violate or usurp those rights are when an individual has, purposely and intentionally, so violated the rights of another (criminally) or of the populace in general, i.e., acts of war, that the offender must be restrained. Even then, the effort to restrain must be isolated to the individual offender and not used as a pretext to usurp the rights of the innocent. <BR/><BR/>The left acquires power by promising to restrain, not criminals or terrorists, but the bogeymen: the fictional rich, the fat cats, the corporations, the racists, the chauvinists, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance. The freedom pushed by the left will ultimately be only the freedom to be one’s worst, to be immoral and unproductive. All the other freedom will have been crushed by a tank with UNITY painted on one side and DIVERSITY painted on the other.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-39630550744864906622008-02-21T10:05:00.000-08:002008-02-21T10:05:00.000-08:00Is that all your collective hive-mind could muster...Is that all your collective hive-mind could muster?<BR/><BR/>Lets summarize what you've given so far;<BR/><BR/>-Barack only wants to help drug users and lazy, stupid people, and is against hard work.<BR/><BR/>-Barack is a Fascist<BR/><BR/>-Equality, competency, transparency, pragmatism, rule of law, these are all all meaningless terms or mere platitudes/they are actually contrary to the constitution and the bill of rights/they are already written in the constitution and bill of rights so we don't need to actualize them in reality or guard against them being dismantled by those who see them as standing in the way of their own power.<BR/><BR/>-Barack is somehow not sober or grown up and that neither he nor I could possibly understand your profound criticism [despite the fact that Barack graduated from Harvard Law, was editor of the law review, and taught at one of the best law schools in the world].<BR/><BR/>-That a better candidate would be a hacky blog writer who spouts new age, christian-ish psychobabble.<BR/><BR/>-Small minded, divisive ideological conflict is timeless, necessary and inherently American<BR/><BR/>-Barack's ideas sound nice, but they'll never work.<BR/><BR/>If those are the ideas you want to work with and run on, be my guest.<BR/><BR/>A few remarks on The Rule of Law, which is to me the most significant principle at stake.<BR/><BR/>The congress passes retroactive immunity for corporations[who have massive, high paid legal departments who obviously know what the law is] which cooperated with the government in violating the FISA law. This combines with the administration asserting absolute, unilateral power to disregard such congressional oversight via the use of signing statements[which president Bush has used more than all previous presidents combined and in ways never done before].<BR/><BR/>Even worse, the government has tried to set up Lawless zones[Gauntanamo and CIA black site prisons] not under the jurisdiction of any authority outside itself and has suspended the Universality of Habeus Corpus.<BR/><BR/>Worse yet, this government has engaged in waterbording and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques', a term coined originally by the gestapo, despite the fact that after World War two we tried, convicted and executed 8 Japanese for waterbording american prisoners.<BR/><BR/>If you think the Rule of Law is just empty rhetoric, you need to get out of your isolated, delusional bubble.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-9765650506599056722008-02-21T09:21:00.000-08:002008-02-21T09:21:00.000-08:00I await with some anticipation the day that I get ...I await with some anticipation the day that I get put in chains for what I believe. I think of Ezra Levant's low octane experience of the 'Hate Crimes Star Chamber' <BR/><BR/>Not because I like the idea of possibly dying, but because there are days I get tired to the claptrap. Show your real nature, Progressive West; stop hiding it. <BR/><BR/>If I tell you that the real purpose of American democracy is actually to stop both the influential and the mob from changing things, that it was ultimately the will of our people that we put reins on the will of the people? If the people want change, it's too bad? You can't just throw it all out without throwing out the government itself. And that means setting up something new, which you don't want to do. You're not revolutionaries at all; because there is both nothing you believe and nothing you don't believe. You couldn't, like most of the 'revolutions' in mankind's history, be successful because you can't will anything at all. You will break the government and replace it with a frenzied mob (and call it a government like many African nations do) and then what? <BR/><BR/>The founders saw the success and failure of traditions, and took the best of them and planned a system, a definite system that denied certain things and allowed others. The French failed because they forgot that what works usually has been already tried at some point. <BR/><BR/>But you guys - what you like about democracy is not our Federal Republic but the rule of the excitable mob; because that excitable mob, like the crowds that called for the execution of Christ, can be made to believe or decide whatever you need it to in service of your whims. <BR/><BR/>American democracy exists to stop you from doing this. That is it's sole purpose. It exists to preserve the best traditions of man and let men develop them further in peace. That peace comes through a hard law- tit for tat. You mess with your neighbor's belongings? The law punishes you. Why we do we have the ten commandments? Is it because we have a moral law? No, the law is not moral; it is ethical. We use the ten commandments (or have) because they have worked out to promote a free society. I can show you how traditionally America centered around the ten; sometimes too strongly (Treating as a moral law) but overall, over time using them as a compass. Is murder illegal because it is immoral? No. Murder is illegal ultimately because we understand that a society where murder is legal destroys itself. The law does not care at all if murder is moral or immoral; the law can not care. It is blind. <BR/><BR/>The law of liberty is too hard for you, for in order for you to be free to succeed you must be free to completely fail. Bankruptcy is an example of a law that allows you to fail. In other times your failures would have landed you in indentured servitude for your life. In our law you can declare Jubilee more than once every 40 years. <BR/><BR/>Shall I go on? Why are there environmental problems? Are not those that are not caused by the dangerous nature of the physical world itself caused ultimately by carelessness and greed? You mouth the words but do not understand. Augustine said, "It is not material things that are the problem, but our immoderate desires." Vegetarianism ultimately solves nothing; Recycling is a wash. For you do these things and yet are still greedy. You buy carbon credits but still want a bigger paycheck. True environmentalism starts from a position where you render yourself desiring nothing; but allowing yourself to attain things as required. And it is something only you do for only you. You can't make anyone else do it. Sorry. I do not tell you this to try to make you do it; through these words it is impossible to attain. I say them only as a witness against you because of your hypocrisy.<BR/><BR/>If you really want what you say you want (most of us here are more honest with ourselves) then you will be willing to take the first step. That is, disdaining all earthly pleasures. And to top it off, you will not speak of your disdain lest you destroy its value. We were told by a man that he lived in such a way; that he did not waste the earth's resources. He did the thing but made it worthless by telling us. It was clear that while he did the actions any faith behind them was long dead. He simply did them to throw them in the face of his enemies and not for the pleasure of God. <BR/><BR/>He proved that he was just a more extreme version of what you are. <BR/><BR/>Come on, progressive West; let the mask slip and show us your teeth. I for one am not afraid of getting bitten.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-51507574423415749902008-02-21T08:23:00.000-08:002008-02-21T08:23:00.000-08:00The only people the Left wants to change are peopl...The only people the Left wants to change are people who believe in hard work, self reliance and personal responsibility. <BR/><BR/>Drug abusers, child molesters, lazy people, stupid people etc. are all victims of the TR (take responsibility) class. <BR/><BR/>Their definition of intelligence is the quality that allows someone to take from the TR class and keep most of it for themselves while creating a dependency in all the rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-26930286620992516742008-02-21T06:49:00.000-08:002008-02-21T06:49:00.000-08:00"What does Barack stand for? Its pretty simple.-Eq..."What does Barack stand for? Its pretty simple.<BR/>-Equality of opportunity"<BR/>(Have you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights amendments to it? That's already there; the question should be what action(s) is he intending to take under cover of that nice phrase?)<BR/><BR/>"-Competency and Transparency in Governance"<BR/>(Competency... in Government. Yeah, ok. Gov't can be competent in its proper and original founding designs (USA), defending Individual Rights and Economic Rights (which can't really be separated, but it seems to be necessary to name both when talking to the left), from enemies foreign and domestic, and providing objective laws for resolving disputes. Stepping outside those parameters means stepping outside its are of competency, which means incompetence and its close buddy non-transparency. Every Gov't service outside of and on top of those founding principles of the U.S. Constitution, deepen governmental incompetency and opaqueness. No getting around it.)<BR/><BR/>"-Pragmatism over ideology"<BR/>(Pragmatism is a method of experimental action without respecting any strictures of any one Philosophy - which means, doing what you think will work without paying attention to wiser heads who realize the danger of trying to live outside of sound philosophy, which means behaving like <I>enthusiastic agents for change!</I>. Please see the history of 20th century Europe for examples of how well that works out.)<BR/><BR/>-Cooperation over division<BR/>(In conjunction with Pragmatism over ideology, that means taking the actions necessary to force everyone to cooperate, or as Rousseau put it at the start of all of this madness, "We will force them to be free!")<BR/><BR/><BR/>"These are pretty standard American values and principles. "<BR/>(These are not principles, they are bromides. Sayings which seem to sound good, but carry no inherent meaning)<BR/><BR/>"...I accept that you disagree, but don't get upset because someone met your silly challenge by telling you what Barack supports."<BR/>(I accept that you are silly enough to believe this pap, and the challenge before you is to explain how they are not silly, while using meaningful words and principles to do so - I disagree that that is possible.)<BR/><BR/>"It goes back to what I originally said; you are all upset because the era defined and controlled by your outmoded ideological debates[marx vs smith, right vs left, religion vs secularism, strong vs weak] is being swept away and you know that you are ill equipped to deal with a reality based, pragmatic political discourse." <BR/>("Outmoded Ideological debates... swept away ...with a reality based, pragmatic political discourse"... if you can't see the writing on that wall, I can't help you. We however, can. Here's a couple items that might enable you to see more clearly. First take a look at what you are calling outmoded, the U.S. Constitution, interlinked with all of the debates and relevant documents they referred to and considered during the debates upon it, can't beat this site for gaining an understanding of what you ignorantly call outmoded:<BR/><A HREF="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html" REL="nofollow">The Founders Constitution, hosted by the University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund at,</A><BR/><BR/>and then to see the philosophical underpinnings behind what Goldberg gave the journalistic account of in Liberal Fascism, see:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm" REL="nofollow">Ominous Parallels</A>.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19421600444894062582008-02-21T06:08:00.000-08:002008-02-21T06:08:00.000-08:00Sheesh, all the regulars already made all the rele...Sheesh, all the regulars already made all the relevant comments I wanted to make.<BR/><BR/>I'll just mention to xi, that if your are such a renaissance man, yet calim not to recognize the names I 'dropped' the other day, you really need to look into them, because you are mouthing their ideas almost verbatim. Until you get them and their gimmicks under control, you simply Kant grasp what we're talking about here. <BR/><BR/>Put your linguistics aside, and concentrate on the meaning of the words you deny have meaning. Look back and read Descartes, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and the American Pragmatists with your same alleged desire for clarity, and you may begin to see what you've been missing.<BR/><BR/>You'll like Kant's idea that we cannot access the "thing-in-itself", more so, from his later prologue to his Critique of Pure Reason, with that eye for clarity of yours, you might begin to get a clear picture of his real point when he says that he 'found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to save faith. That he actually destroyed both in modern philosophy, says it all.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19649949455300330762008-02-21T05:39:00.000-08:002008-02-21T05:39:00.000-08:00eCuz,From your obama link, you can just picture th...eCuz,<BR/>From your obama link, you can just picture the poster writing party,<BR/><BR/>I have a Draem...Deram...oh heck with it, poor me a dram please."Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-2559247412190676672008-02-21T04:45:00.000-08:002008-02-21T04:45:00.000-08:00America needs a leader who can inspire others to b...America needs a leader who can inspire others to be the change that is needed in their time. Inspire them to become less materialistic, less stuck on money and status; more loving and caring toward others, helping each other reach their fullest potential. Living lives that makes the world - and the neighborhood, and the family - a better place.<BR/><BR/>Gagdad Bob for President!Magnus Itlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18445902788427523461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-2225720574055998732008-02-20T23:22:00.000-08:002008-02-20T23:22:00.000-08:00"Pragmatism is about method, not values. Someone i..."Pragmatism is about method, not values. Someone is not a pragmatist simply because they vote centrist. Pragmatism is about putting aside issues that aren't relevant to the issue at hand in order to get necessary things done."<BR/><BR/>And those "necessary" things that need to get done will be effected entirely by a persons values regardless of how pragmatic they are.<BR/>Obama isn't complete enough to realize how his values and policy decisions will negatively effect what has been attained in this country to this point. But he's going to change America AND the World.<BR/>I for one do not want to have to pay the price for his lack of sobriety.<BR/>I don't expect you to understand any of what I have just written but if he gets elected, most of the rest of the country will understand in a couple of years. You've drank too deeply of the Kool-aid.<BR/>And those outmoded idealogical debates you speak of are quitessentialy American and timeless, which points to your lack of depth in undertanding.<BR/>They're not going away regardless of how frantically you sweep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-14203613631414266052008-02-20T23:10:00.000-08:002008-02-20T23:10:00.000-08:00Heh.(Via Instapundit, of course)<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o" REL="nofollow">Heh</A>.<BR/>(Via Instapundit, of course)juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-35752682438380462182008-02-20T22:54:00.000-08:002008-02-20T22:54:00.000-08:00Bob-That useful idiot filter quit working again. G...Bob-<BR/><BR/>That useful idiot filter quit working again. Gotta call the super (Dupree) to fix it.debasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13546940741042023260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-43749237842158660872008-02-20T22:53:00.000-08:002008-02-20T22:53:00.000-08:00OB-jockstrap (or is that BO-jockstrap)Thanks for t...OB-jockstrap (or is that BO-jockstrap)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the laughs, if nothing else you made me hoot. My good lord, you are thick. Can you recognise a platitude when you write one, and then another, then another, and another, and another, then yet another? HAH!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-84992259334955420902008-02-20T22:49:00.000-08:002008-02-20T22:49:00.000-08:00BTW,While the others will always be timeless and r...BTW,<BR/><BR/>While the others will always be timeless and relavent, what is you interpretation of the outmoded idealogical debate; strong vs weak?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-55313869633927776042008-02-20T22:43:00.000-08:002008-02-20T22:43:00.000-08:00"....reality based, pragmatic political discourse...."....reality based, pragmatic political discourse."<BR/><BR/>Heh! you come up empty again.<BR/>This rhetoric means NOTHING. What are the policies and the real world steps he will take to accomplish any of this? It has to be put into effect rather than just being discussed as some sort of concept where everyone inserts their own pie in the sky interpretation.<BR/>He may be elected on the rhetoric, but when people find out what exactly it means, look out.<BR/>Maybe it's better to get it over with now rather than later because this he'll be haunting the political scene for the next 20 years. You think the Clintons are bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com