“You sure sound like a defeatist to me. Anyhow, the point that is being made here is not that we are clear from the dangers of corporate greed. On the contrary, what Palermo is saying is that we have to hold Obama and any future administration for that matter, to the standards set by the history of progressive politics. Is that such a dangerous notion?
MLK is a perfect example. Is Michael Steele the African American leader of our time? Should his loyalties not be questioned? How better to do so than to look towards the hard won freedoms of our nation's history?
We are historical beings. Denying history, and claiming that progressives are "malcontents" offers no solution. It is akin to suggesting that we should shut up and stop bitching, and then telling us to our face that the future of progressive politics depends homogenized thinking and lockstep values. Riiiiiight. That worked great for the neocons.”
“Why is it that the counter point to any critique of Bush or his policies is a simple:
"But Clinton..." ?????
Screw Clinton. I'm not concerned with Clinton.
Can't you guys see that you defeat your own argument by dropping his name? How on earth can you think that pointing to Clinton's impeachment lessens the case for legal action against Bush?”
Berettasskeeter on Jan 30, 2008 at 00:22:12
“You did not answer the question! What law has he broken with his signing statements?
As far as mentioning Clinton, he was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, for specific crimes. He was not convicted.
“you mean like evidence that Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before any bogus claims of WMD?
Or evidence that the white house ordered and authorized torture?
Presidents should be impeached for breaking their sworn oath of office. Period. It is not about politics as you seem to be convinced, but about protecting the very pillars of our nation. Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with Clinton, citing him as a reason not to pursue Bush's impeachment is laughable. Go ahead, think that point through to its conclusion. I'll wait...
Oh wait, you are just a hopeless partisan apologist with no concern for due process.
Berettasskeeter on Jan 30, 2008 at 00:25:49
“What evidence do you cite? I've seen no evidence of either claim, unless you cite the claims of the kool-aid Left.
Intelligent people can differ on whether this or that President violated his oath of office. It's up to the Congress to bring charges. I agree wholeheartedly with RepublicanBrain. This is about one-ups-manship, and hatred of the America you can't remake to your liking.
“Let me ask you this: As a woman do you truly believe that the example set by a hillary presidency would be one of progress or change?
Or will it simply force us down a path where the first lady can become president if her husband is effective enough in the office?
I would rather see a woman win on her merits alone. The presidency should not be a monarchy, and we already had a Clinton who gave us such gifts as NAFTA and the telecom fiasco. Is that the kind of real change you think your sister stands for?”
“I just watched the interview. Goldberg is either exceedingly misinformed or the worst lier out there. I mean fascism a product of the left wing?
His book would have made much more sense if he had tried to compare modern "progressivism" with communistic ideals. The argument would have just been laughable instead of infuriating.
By the way thedailyshow.com has a link to this article.”
“SO let me get this straight, you do not deny the possibility that an assassination COULD occur, but you take offense to the fact that Joseph dared to implicate a private army of dubious legal viability?
For the love of god PLEASE do not copy/paste stuff off of wikipedia about Occam's Razor as a way to assuage guilt/umbrage. While your knowledge of the Ctrl C/Ctrl V functionality of your keyboard is exceedingly impressive, it is rather obvious that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of the razor. take for example the assassination of JFK, according to your plagiarized interpretation of the razor, the official story (Oswald did it. ALONE DArN IT!) would be preferable over the much more plentiful and complicated, and therefore improbable, conspiracy theories (Oswald didn't do it. He had help. It was LBJ. Aliens did it, not Spock ones, HR Giger ones. Etc.) However, Occam's razor only holds axiomatic authority over these theories.This is because history is not a theory. It is a chain of seemingly chaotic events that lead, in your case, from a few thousand years ago when white god made everything, to now, the present, wherein i school you with a devil box (PC).
Occams Razor is a tool that is only useful (here is where you should have read wiki more carefully) at selecting the "best" theory from 2 or more equal, competing theories. Therefore, in order for the razor to be any more useful than arbitrary choice, in selecting the "superior" JFK story, you'd have to assume that the official story is just as speculative and un-empirical (see warren commission) as the conspiracy theories you hope to disprove. In other words, the razor cant be applied to history. Stuff happened or it didn't. despite what you think, you are not using a sophisticated tool of philosophy to decide Oswald acted alone, you are simply choosing to believe that which you were taught. In other words, nice try, you fail, go back to school and learn some academic integrity.”
“I agree with your observation regarding the galvanizing effect the Clintons seem to have on the Right
I have a sinking suspicion that the neocons would love to run against the Hill. She's just got so much baggage. To many haters and fundies, her character is as stained as a certain blue dress. I bet she would get smoked worse than any "french looking" war hero of lost campaigns past...”
vernonbc on Jan 9, 2008 at 03:29:42
“Not only does she have a galvanizing effect on the right, she has an increasingly galvanizing effect on the left. There is a lot of bitterness about the way she and Bill crawled around in the mud and slime to try and take Obama down. An awful lot of Democrats like her even less than they did before.”