Anyone for a nightcap?

[midwestyankee]

Re: Faux News and Ron Paul, I think that since Ron Paul is the closest thing in the race to a true conservative, he makes the Faux News gang look like the neocon lapdogs that they really are. He embarrasses them and makes their preferred candidates - Mitt and Rudy - look foolish.

Your blood orange cosmopolitans sound almost tasty enough for me to try one. But I'd gladly test you on your last statement, except without the drink.

 

[intothewoods]

Re: Faux News and Ron Paul, I think that since Ron Paul is the closest thing in the race to a true conservative, he makes the Faux News gang look like the neocon lapdogs that they really are. He embarrasses them and makes their preferred candidates - Mitt and Rudy - look foolish.

Your blood orange cosmopolitans sound almost tasty enough for me to try one. But I'd gladly test you on your last statement, except without the drink.

Which statement?

 

[midwestyankee]

Which statement?

This one:

They were so good. I wanted to make love to that drink.

 

[intothewoods]

The Senate has several exclusive powers enumerated in Article One of the Constitution not granted to the House; most significantly, the President cannot ratify treaties or, with rare exception, make important appointments—most significantly ambassadors, members of the federal judiciary (including the Supreme Court) and members of the Cabinet—without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Of course, remember when Bush made the CIA head appointment when the Senate was in recess??

 

[intothewoods]

This one:

Ohhhhhhhh, lol. Hell yes - that drink was THAT good.

 

[Homburg]

Ron Paul isn't electable - despite his recent fundraising surge. I said electable. That said, I agree with him on some things. Well, at least one! The war. Although in principle I see some validity to the idea of not having such a big federal bureaucracy, I don't think it would be a good idea to just shut down the Department of Education, EPA, etc.

Electable or not, I'm glad to see him in the race.

He's decent.

Oh, on the appointments. I don't believe all or even most of the appointments require Senate approval. Also, when the Republicans were in the majority, well...I'll look that up though. This is like arguing with Mister Man. Grudgingly, I must admit it makes us more knowledgable - since we always end up looking something or other up.

I would say, the main things that make me fighting mad about Bush II are (1) misappropriation of power (wire tapping, all that), (2) decision to go into Iraq rather than focus our efforts in Afghanistan, (3) speeches by Cheney and Bush that implied there was a connection between Sadaam and Al Queda even after it was clear there was none, (4) appointments of people who just wrecked departments like DOJ, EPA, etc. and (5) Katrina.

Most of these I agree with. Some I don't really care much about since the others are so serious.

As to Ron Paul, anyone have any thouhts on Fox News' decision not to allow him to participate in the upcoming New Hampshire debates? I can't believe it.

See below.

Re: Faux News and Ron Paul, I think that since Ron Paul is the closest thing in the race to a true conservative, he makes the Faux News gang look like the neocon lapdogs that they really are. He embarrasses them and makes their preferred candidates - Mitt and Rudy - look foolish.

What he said.

Ron Paul is what the republicans used to be a looooong time ago. Not the bible-thumping neocon fuck-ups they are now. He's off the reservation though, and thus he gets no love from Faux News.

 

[Netzach]

Electable or not, I'm glad to see him in the race.

He's decent.



Most of these I agree with. Some I don't really care much about since the others are so serious.



See below.



What he said.

Ron Paul is what the republicans used to be a looooong time ago. Not the bible-thumping neocon fuck-ups they are now. He's off the reservation though, and thus he gets no love from Faux News.

Is that like a Goldwater kind of thing?
I need a cliffs notes it's late and I'm having a bedtime shot of Fra Angelico.

I want to kick Goldwater era republicans who are still voting R because they're too lazy to change habits, like happy boiling frogs.

 

[intothewoods]

Is that like a Goldwater kind of thing?
I need a cliffs notes it's late and I'm having a bedtime shot of Fra Angelico.

I want to kick Goldwater era republicans who are still voting R because they're too lazy to change habits, like happy boiling frogs.

Lol - hell yes.

Netz - what do you think - are the Democrats just as bad as the Republicans - given all the examples of letting us down on gay rights, protecting our civil liberties (HRC voting for the Patriot Act), not doing more about Iraq?

I'm certainly pissed at Democrats, but at the end of the day I want a Democrat in the White House. No, I'm afraid to have a Republican there. But I don't think Homburg totally disagrees on that, I guess.

 

[intothewoods]

Ron Paul is what the republicans used to be a looooong time ago. Not the bible-thumping neocon fuck-ups they are now. He's off the reservation though, and thus he gets no love from Faux News.

It's perhaps a sad state of the Republican candidates that Ron Paul is representing that dying breed of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans. Ron Paul is pretty hardcore libertarian. He's more radical than what the Republicans used to be, as you say.

He is decent, and I am so glad he's running. No one else will call the Republicans out on the war. After all, the surge worked!

 

[JMohegan]

Oh, and of course, a few men, like the above-mentioned guy and my longstanding crush, paid more attention to me than they usually do. Men.

You had a man with you. This makes you more interesting. Same thing happens when I guy shows up with a woman after not being with one. He suddenly becomes more interesting. By showing up with a partner, you show that there's something there good enough to attract a potential mate. You value goes up. Plain and simple.

As with anything else, perspectives on this topic vary widely.

Personally I find it much easier to develop a casual friendship with a woman who is obviously attached. Not because her stock has gone up, but simply because the incidence of having my attention misconstrued is much, much lower with attached women than with those who are seeking a mate.

Women are often times more interested in me after I've mentioned that I'm married.

I have experienced this type of reaction many times as well.

If "interested in" means heavy flirting with a clear attempt to seduce, I have always found this type of attention extremely offputting. I consider it to be overtly disrespectful to an established partner, and therefore totally unacceptable from my perspective.

 

[Netzach]

Lol - hell yes.

Netz - what do you think - are the Democrats just as bad as the Republicans - given all the examples of letting us down on gay rights, protecting our civil liberties (HRC voting for the Patriot Act), not doing more about Iraq?

I'm certainly pissed at Democrats, but at the end of the day I want a Democrat in the White House. No, I'm afraid to have a Republican there. But I don't think Homburg totally disagrees on that, I guess.

No they're not.

I think that's lazy-ass horse dookie when people start with the pox on both your houses crap and oh they're all the same.

Don't ask don't tell is NOT the same as being compared to Nazis at the party convention. A comparison I have no problem extending to Bush admin. because hey, they started it. (for real, long before anyone on the left called bush minions fascists or Nazis, they had a speaker and the convention who compared the potential impact of gay marriage to the rise of Hitler)

Dick sucking is not the same as wire tapping.


Graduating to a city filled with viable entry level job prospects is not the same as graduating with a job in retail if you are lucky and a city full of empty new lofts.

Lying about having sex with your intern is not the same as lying in a manner that creates more geopolitical instability in the worlds most volatile regions, kills thousands of young americans and lots of thousands of civillians, and lying every damn time your mouth is open about anything.

And honestly we can scream and yell that Dems don't have balls but things really had to go to shit before any but the most centrist blah candidates had a shot. Wellstone was dead in more ways than one. We're angry at the candidates when we should be much much angrier at our *selves* We let this happen. Half of us sat around with our thumbs up our asses, a full HALF of us, remember this wasn't a sweep of an election - and we thought "well it can't get any worse today" "Oh shit, well it can't get any worse tomorrow"

Now I know how fascism works, and I'd have sat on my own ass in Europe till they came to my door, thinking "it's not really real, I can wait it out."

It's time for us to get real and get strategic, and also realize that some of the red herrings are red herrings. I personally think abortion and gay stuff are safe as "talking points" of negotiation because they are like the NEA - I honestly think that the Right needs them to look like they're doing something and they'd just DIE if they went away - seriously look how much energy they can take up while the economy tanks. It's time to play politics with some balls and win with populist appeal. Because it's ALL ABOUT populist appeal. Bush dynasty convinced the average schmuck that millionaire texans are just average schmucks too, and won thus.

People are STILL voting so fags can't marry in Iowa - there's real LEGS on this one that the Right needed, notice how the fervor was to get this state by state so every stupid senator suddenly had something important to do.

I think that era's ending, however. I think the real issues have gotten so pressing that it's a fringe issue most people honestly don't give a crap about. Iowa is Iowa - I honestly think that the Huckabee fifteen minutes will be over soon, but I've been wrong before.

Abortion? I know that women are not stupid and that rollbacks will be challenged in direct and less direct ways - we're not going to be ruined by legislation. Even in South Dakota people decided that this was not a legislation worthy issue, and this is a very very anti-abortion state making a pro *choice* stance. It's another great perennial bogeyman for people to fight over and they're not going to kill the bogeyman.

 

[Homburg]

Is that like a Goldwater kind of thing?
I need a cliffs notes it's late and I'm having a bedtime shot of Fra Angelico.

I want to kick Goldwater era republicans who are still voting R because they're too lazy to change habits, like happy boiling frogs.

Basically. It's very Goldwater. I can't come up with a "sell my mother into slavery" statement strong enough to express how badly I would love to see Barry Goldwater alive and well and in the White House.

He'd be a democrat or independent were he alive right now though.

---------------------------

It's perhaps a sad state of the Republican candidates that Ron Paul is representing that dying breed of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans. Ron Paul is pretty hardcore libertarian. He's more radical than what the Republicans used to be, as you say.

He is decent, and I am so glad he's running. No one else will call the Republicans out on the war. After all, the surge worked!

He is very libertarian. He's got that R because it is slightly better to wear sheep's clothes and be in office than to wear his own clothes and look in from the outside.

I'm a Ron Paul fan, somewhat tepidly. I say tepidly simply because going too far on it is a waste of air. He's not electable, as we've all said. I love him being there because he asks question that need to be asked, and because he makes blatantly clear some of the brutal hypocrisy within the party (pointed out so very elegantly by faux News' decision not to include him in the debates).

Years ago I said that the democrats could gain a lot of ground by backing off of gun control. The republicans could do the same with a lot of the social issues. Yeah, the fundy core has conniptions over gays. The rest don't care. Abortion is a train wreck. Every time they touch it, they lose votes.

See, if both parties held to what their inteded platforms were, and governed in that manner, we would do well with EITHER party. Both, by initial design, really had the people and the nation's interests firmly set as their priorities. They fell. Fuck em both, until they figure out how to stand up again.

 

[Homburg]

I have experienced this type of reaction many times as well.

If "interested in" means heavy flirting with a clear attempt to seduce, I have always found this type of attention extremely offputting. I consider it to be overtly disrespectful to an established partner, and therefore totally unacceptable from my perspective.

I don't mind flirting so long as it is acknowledged that I have an existing partner. I enjoy the verbal dance. But I make it clear that I'm attached, and have those commitments in mind first and foremost.

Where the issue comes in is that little word "heavy". I'm with you there. Flirting, even blatant flirting, is fun. But actively coming on to me? Hmm, we have a problem.

 

[Netzach]

Years ago I said that the democrats could gain a lot of ground by backing off of gun control. The republicans could do the same with a lot of the social issues. Yeah, the fundy core has conniptions over gays. The rest don't care. Abortion is a train wreck. Every time they touch it, they lose votes.
.

Yes.

I can't agree more. Gun control at *least* should not be federal or even state level, but I think should be decided by locale at most. I'm a very strange animal in that I'm a raging leftist warm to the right to carry. I live in a concealed carry state and I'm glad I do. I don't like this notion that the right thing to do is to let the cops mop you off a wall, don't worry the state has your back. Bull. The people in favor of gun control are people who live in bubbles where gun violent death is not something they think could happen to them but by freak accident. They would want themselves and their children to have a fighting shot, but other people should be controlled.

I do think that people are morons though, as a general outlook and think that because they CAN do something they SHOULD. All the more reason to be able to protect oneself, really.

I think carrying in a household where one or more people are on anti-depressant medications is asking for tragic outcomes and that questions need to be asked and cost/benefit needs to be weighed. Checklist-type regulation with scrutiny isn't overly invasive when you're talking about the power to kill with a single finger, but allowing concealed carry in a carefully controlled measure isn't a bad idea.

Also what works in the City of Lakes does not work in the Bronx does not work in Denver does not work in Manhattan does not work in Lac Qui Parle county.

 

[Homburg]

I think that's lazy-ass horse dookie when people start with the pox on both your houses crap and oh they're all the same.

I am frequently a lazy-ass, and currently being about 50% troll in this thread. I admit it

It's time for us to get real and get strategic, and also realize that some of the red herrings are red herrings. I personally think abortion and gay stuff are safe as "talking points" of negotiation because they are like the NEA - I honestly think that the Right needs them to look like they're doing something and they'd just DIE if they went away - seriously look how much energy they can take up while the economy tanks. It's time to play politics with some balls and win with populist appeal. Because it's ALL ABOUT populist appeal. Bush dynasty convinced the average schmuck that millionaire texans are just average schmucks too, and won thus.

People are STILL voting so fags can't marry in Iowa - there's real LEGS on this one that the Right needed, notice how the fervor was to get this state by state so every stupid senator suddenly had something important to do.

I think that era's ending, however. I think the real issues have gotten so pressing that it's a fringe issue most people honestly don't give a crap about. Iowa is Iowa - I honestly think that the Huckabee fifteen minutes will be over soon, but I've been wrong before.

Abortion? I know that women are not stupid and that rollbacks will be challenged in direct and less direct ways - we're not going to be ruined by legislation. Even in South Dakota people decided that this was not a legislation worthy issue, and this is a very very anti-abortion state making a pro *choice* stance. It's another great perennial bogeyman for people to fight over and they're not going to kill the bogeyman.

This is so true it should be framed and mailed to DNC. RNC too.

No troll in that statement.

The honest core to my overall stance is that I do not consider them to be the same on issues, etc. I consider their worth to be equivalent. In other words, worth less than the credit they are both given. The repubs have proven themselves to be worse than useless, and the dems have just been plain useless lately. Sure, that means the dems aren't as bad as the repubs, but they aren't the knights in shining armour that dem loyalists make them out to be.

In short, we have no good guys here. We are faced with choosing the lesser of tqwo incompetents insofar as the parties are concerned. And given their incestuous and protected status, they don't actually have to worry about third parties. Thus they don't have to fucking improve. they can continue being fuck-offs so long as they are less of a fuck-off than their direct competitor.

I'm hungry, and I want a nice swordfish steak, and there's only two restaurants in my town. One offers a greasy cheesburger, and the other offers a greasy hamburger. Neither are what I want, thus both are basically worthless to me. Is it honestly lazy to recognise when the two alternatives commonly offered do not fit me? Do I need to examine this sexually for the idea to come across properly? I can make a switch or TG metaphor if it'll help

 

[graceanne]

Yes.

I can't agree more. Gun control at *least* should not be federal or even state level, but I think should be decided by locale at most. I'm a very strange animal in that I'm a raging leftist warm to the right to carry. I live in a concealed carry state and I'm glad I do. I don't like this notion that the right thing to do is to let the cops mop you off a wall, don't worry the state has your back. Bull. The people in favor of gun control are people who live in bubbles where gun violent death is not something they think could happen to them but by freak accident.

I do think that people are morons though, as a general outlook and think that because they CAN do something they SHOULD.

I think carrying in a household where one or more people are on anti-depressant medications is asking for tragic outcomes and that questions need to be asked and cost/benefit needs to be weighed. Checklist-type regulation with scrutiny isn't overly invasive when you're talking about the power to kill with a single finger.

Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. They aren't, usually, the ones you have to worry about having guns. Gun control does not effect criminals, who are the ones I worry about having guns, cause they could care less about the law. I like that K has a gun, in case one of those assholes breaks in.

What about kids? Sorry, those people who's kids shoot themselves or others are IRRESPONSIBLE. I'm not going to go into detail in a public forum, but our gun is doubly locked and the ammunition is kept separate from the gun. Let's put it this way - the welfare office knows we have a gun in our house and still lets me do daycare here - cause we're responsible with it. The kids are more likely to get hit by a bus than accidentally shoot themselves or each other.

Beyond that, the day I trust the govt to protect me is the day hell freezes over. Let alone trust it not to abuse it's power.

 

[Netzach]

Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. They aren't, usually, the ones you have to worry about having guns. Gun control does not effect criminals, who are the ones I worry about having guns, cause they could care less about the law. I like that K has a gun, in case one of those assholes breaks in.

What about kids? Sorry, those people who's kids shoot themselves or others are IRRESPONSIBLE. I'm not going to go into detail in a public forum, but our gun is doubly locked and the ammunition is kept separate from the gun. Let's put it this way - the welfare office knows we have a gun in our house and still lets me do daycare here - cause we're responsible with it. The kids are more likely to get hit by a bus than accidentally shoot themselves or each other.

Beyond that, the day I trust the govt to protect me is the day hell freezes over. Let alone trust it not to abuse it's power.

This makes complete sense to me.

However the determination of teenagers is pretty amazing. I had a friend who contemplated suicide with her Dad's service revolver in front of her as a teenager. I'm sure he was trained to the hilt on how to store and keep it.

Still, I'm not sure that it's up to us to *legislate* those kinds of problems, you know?

As for people going off course and blowing away 34 classmates, I personally find this the time to scream and shout about mental health access and health care as real issues, not to ask how he got the guns. How did this person fall through the cracks to such massive extent? The guns would have happened one way or another. What the hell is going on that people are so isolated and the media is making mass murder so attractive each time they report another one of these?

 

[graceanne]

This makes complete sense to me.

However the determination of teenagers is pretty amazing. I had a friend who contemplated suicide with her Dad's service revolver in front of her as a teenager. I'm sure he was trained to the hilt on how to store and keep it.

Still, I'm not sure that it's up to us to *legislate* those kinds of problems, you know?

If someone is determined to commit suicide taking away guns won't stop them. Their will still be meds and kifes and jumping in traffic and off of bridges and and and . . . you get the point. That's why their's GUN CABINETS. And that's also why only the adults should know the combination.

 

[Netzach]

If someone is determined to commit suicide taking away guns won't stop them. Their will still be meds and kifes and jumping in traffic and off of bridges and and and . . . you get the point. That's why their's GUN CABINETS. And that's also why only the adults should know the combination.

Yeah it's really not total rocket science is it?

People kill each other in cars every day and it's still pretty easy to get a license. Other people's failure to perform the necessary rocket science doesn't mean that dangerous tools should be banned.

 

[graceanne]

Yeah it's really not total rocket science is it?

People kill each other in cars every day and it's still pretty easy to get a license. Other people's failure to perform the necessary rocket science doesn't mean that dangerous tools should be banned.

Exactly. Take away guns and people will find another way to kill people. Heck, in the past they stoned people to death - are they gonna take away rocks?

 

[Netzach]

I am frequently a lazy-ass, and currently being about 50% troll in this thread. I admit it




This is so true it should be framed and mailed to DNC. RNC too.

No troll in that statement.

The honest core to my overall stance is that I do not consider them to be the same on issues, etc. I consider their worth to be equivalent. In other words, worth less than the credit they are both given. The repubs have proven themselves to be worse than useless, and the dems have just been plain useless lately. Sure, that means the dems aren't as bad as the repubs, but they aren't the knights in shining armour that dem loyalists make them out to be.

In short, we have no good guys here. We are faced with choosing the lesser of tqwo incompetents insofar as the parties are concerned. And given their incestuous and protected status, they don't actually have to worry about third parties. Thus they don't have to fucking improve. they can continue being fuck-offs so long as they are less of a fuck-off than their direct competitor.

I'm hungry, and I want a nice swordfish steak, and there's only two restaurants in my town. One offers a greasy cheesburger, and the other offers a greasy hamburger. Neither are what I want, thus both are basically worthless to me. Is it honestly lazy to recognise when the two alternatives commonly offered do not fit me? Do I need to examine this sexually for the idea to come across properly? I can make a switch or TG metaphor if it'll help

I can't agree with the equal worth thing. I'm being really experiential and blind about it, but it's as simple as this:

My ex is dating this chick who's 25 or 26 now.

When he and I graduated it was easy to find a decent job. If you didn't make good with our kind of education you were a slacker or an artist or something, but it was broke by choice for the educated.

When she did, it was really shitty and hard and they had more loans to repay than any of us ever did.

"How I'm doing financially" is probably the central issue for most people. Unless things blow up, it's really what we all care about most, and even then it has more to do with my daily life than what blew up. I noticed a distinct quality of life drop for those of us in the 25-80K range when the Dems were booted. I remember this being a sucky time in the Regan years unless you were making it in the upper classes. There's no real mobility any more and frankly "mobile" was kind of a buzzword with no teeth.

Simple math. When you lose value as an employee because there are fewer jobs being filled and more competition and more people bending over backwards and it's harder to find a job there are more concessions you have to make to your employer and there are more benefits that you will have to go without.

Stuff and peace of mind in a mundane way is what most people are after primarily, and I want the people I think are going to give me the most of those to be running the show. I still want to work for those things but I don't think I should have to kill myself like some Dickensian waif for them either - I want to be met part way by a reasonable and wealthy society.

I do not think union busting deregulation happy tax-blowjob corporate sluts are going to make that happen for me. And while they are all that, the republican party seems to have forgotten that you do have to keep SOME money in the hands of the mere proles, or no one can afford your expensive shit any more. Witness the housing market. Hello, hello, supply, demand, 101? This supply side stuff has gotten us into a credit bubble, a housing crisis, a job slowdown, and the only uptick was a Christmas retail season that happened at the last second, because people were holding onto their money in a state of denial and then running up credit cards out of habit and guilt. Mark my words on that one.

 

[Netzach]

Exactly. Take away guns and people will find another way to kill people. Heck, in the past they stoned people to death - are they gonna take away rocks?

Well, it is a little less effort with a little more payoff. Although machetes seem to do the trick in a pinch really well too, when the other guy doesn't have a machete.

And when the other guy has a gun the bloodbath gets less predictable.

 

[Netzach]

If this doesn't drive you to drink what will?

 

[midwestyankee]

Who needs a ride? I just would enjoy a drink.

 

[Homburg]

"How I'm doing financially" is probably the central issue for most people. Unless things blow up, it's really what we all care about most, and even then it has more to do with my daily life than what blew up. I noticed a distinct quality of life drop for those of us in the 25-80K range when the Dems were booted. I remember this being a sucky time in the Regan years unless you were making it in the upper classes. There's no real mobility any more and frankly "mobile" was kind of a buzzword with no teeth.

See, I can totally agree on the economy, but that is insufficient for me to hand support to someone on its' own.


I've said before that my politics are weird, and I admit that they're also not terribly workable. If a candidate ran on a platform cohesive with my overall views, I would not necessarily want him to win. thus my only tepid support of Ron Paul, the closest thing to what I want on the books right now. I don't think that my ideals are functional, but a move in that direction would please me. Does that make sense?

As to issues and economy and such, I have too many disconnects with both major parties. I simply can't compromise enough to toss allegiance at either. Again, for me, this gives them a net equal worth, or lack thereof. Neither supports enough of my positions to warrant support.

With that in mind, I think I've made clear that I hope the dems win. At this point, it's a theoretical discussion at best, involving someone with admittedly weird politics.