Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - July 21
Leash-laws
More Letters to the Editor 
Share and Enjoy Public input
left out of plans
Some times it seems like any decision, no matter how trivial, is subject to a public hearing in Boulder. It is part of the culture here to have consensus decision making on everything from where to put a planter to how to develop a piece of private property. But sometimes public input isn't convenient and the recent decision by Open Space and Mountain Parks to require that dogs be leashed at all trailheads is a perfect example and reminiscent of the "strategy" used by the Bush administration to lockout public input on a variety of issues.
The off-leash issue was hot a while ago when Open Space and Mountain Parks was coming up with its new plan. OSMP managed public opposition with amazing political expertise to minimize the collateral damage and control an issue from spinning out of control so they OSMP could seemingly implement the desired plan. Rather than presenting the issue of requiring leashes at all trailheads and taking public opposition head on in connection with plan approval, OSMP decided to run a trial program and then expand it without the same level of public participation in that decision and after much of the enthusiasm for the issue had worn off.
I worry that this might also be used to further restrictions on areas currently open to voice and sight control without raising the issue and engaging the public in a meaningful debate. I hope that the goal of advancing a cause that OSMP thinks is worthy does not outweigh the tradition of public participation in Boulder. I think we have had enough of the end justifies the means over the past eight years in Washington and I'd hope we don't emulate that here in Boulder for political expedience.
MIKE HIGUERA
Boulder
Crosswalks
'A simple and
efficient system'
Many letters have complained about the pedestrian crosswalks in Boulder. Allow me to offer a defense. As a pedestrian and cyclist, I love these crosswalks. Of course, for my own safety I have to check to see that the cars are actually going to stop, but for drivers it is a simple and efficient system.
When you see those flashing yellow lights, slow down and be prepared to stop for anyone crossing. Once you can see that it is clear, then proceed. This is much more efficient than having a red light stop all traffic in both directions just for one person to cross the road. Yes, it's unusual, but any pedestrian-friendly innovation is going to be unusual in this car country. Four dollars a gallon gas seems unusual now, but in the future it will be unusually low, so it's time to display some adaptability.
The next step is to make more sections of road car-free, like the Pearl Street Mall. When 29th Street is closed off to cars, such as during the farmers market or art festivals, the area becomes surprisingly nice. Now if they'd just fill all of those "alternative fuel vehicle" parking spaces with bicycle racks, we'd be making real progress.
DEVIN NORDSON
Boulder
President Bush
'Dubya' isn't
dumb
Conceding my anti-Bush bias at the outset (except for a fleeting period following 9 / 11), I am suspicious of any of the statements or actions of George W. Bush, no matter how progressive, humanitarian, environmental, or fiscally responsible they might appear.
All of us who think that George W. Bush's reign has been the worst catastrophe to ever befall this nation (with the possible exception of the Civil War) make a mistake when we impugn his intelligence. After all, he has managed to defeat Democratic candidates widely considered to be his intellectual superiors, and to get just about everything, that as president, he has wanted -- outsmarting his more liberal opponents at every turn.
Any successful person knows that underestimating your opponent is the most self-defeating thing you can do. After all, Bush has been smart enough to involve, or at least show Democratic legislators some of his nefarious activities, like torture details at Abu Graib, thus making them feel complicit. Is it any wonder then, that those we put in office in 2006 to stop the war in Iraq and the bleeding economy, have been frozen with inaction, or refuse to impeach this president?
George W. Bush has certainly been the best president for enhancing the welfare of the special interests. As long as commentators continue to state, and we continue to believe, that he is too dumb (instead of not wanting) to do the right thing for the "general welfare," Bush will (as long as he is in office) be helping his corporate buddies at our expense.
R. KIEFER
Arvada
KVOD radio
A poor choice to
move out of market
Thanks to Steven Vahl for his letter re: KVOD, Colorado Public Radio's classical music station (Open Forum, July 17). I have listened to KVOD every day for the last 33 years, 21 years in Denver, 12 years in Boulder. I loved being awakened for work by Gene Amole, but was glad when it changed from a commercial to a public station and happy to be able to contribute to keep it ongoing. Visitors from out of state, even from much larger cities, always comment on how fortunate we are to have such an excellent classical music station. Of course, Boulder and areas north are pleased to have KCFR and two great KUNC (Greeley) public channels for news, especially for NPR and PRI, but there is no other channel like KVOD for classical music. I have been able to enjoy it in my home, at work, and in my car, even driving to Fort Collins, Nederland, Central City and Estes Park.
In its weeks of promotion for the change from 90.1 FM to 88.1 FM and emphasizing daily how much clarity it would bring, Colorado Public Radio forgot to mention that Boulder would no longer receive classical music. When I called the station I was told that I might be able to receive it on an HD radio. I told them that I already have an HD radio and 88.1 FM does not come in at all in Boulder. I also told them I did not realize that Boulder was no longer in Colorado or the "metro area."
I would imagine KVOD has more listeners in Boulder than almost any place else in it's area (and more contributors). KVOD also has always replayed many of the fine classical concerts of Boulder's orchestras and choral groups. I think KVOD will miss the Boulder listeners almost as much as we will miss the music.
CAROLE BAYER
Boulder
Posted by trappist99 on July 20, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bush.
I agree with much of Kiefers letter however, its not a Bush thing, its a Republican thing. Bush is the figure head, but its the self serving attitude in the Republican camp, Cheney, Rove and McCain all the way down to Shaffer and Starrin thats the problem.
America needs to act again as a nation, not the "Haves" overlording the "Havenots" and forcing more and more of the middle class to the "Havenots".
Posted by bobcat77 on July 21, 2008 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
R. KIEFER,
"I am suspicious of any of the statements or actions of George W. Bush, no matter how progressive, humanitarian, environmental, or fiscally responsible they might appear."
---
Yep, exactly!
And when you get older, you will understand why this makes the rest of what you "believe" about President Bush, suspect, at best.
Posted by blacksho89 on July 21, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MIKE HIGUERA:
Put the crack pipe down, and step slowly away from the keyboard. Blaming Dubya because you have to put your dog on a leash? In the second most "Progressive" county in the nation? I can't wait until January when your head asplodes.
Did you ever think that the leash law is there because your mutt jumped on a two year-old toddler and knocked him down? Oh, I forget. There is no such thing as personal accountability when it comes to your flea bag.
Posted by lafayetteeast on July 21, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Blacksho ... for once we agree.
Having been a dog owner for much of my __-odd years, my feeling is that the issue of leashing should not even have been a subject of debate, or public input. It's simply common sense.
Dogs have no "rights" ... there is nothing anywhere that says a dog is a wild animal destined to run free ... if you have a dog, have a yard. If you have a dog that needs lots of exercise, live in the country on your own property.
Every town has a leash-law ... it should be no different in "open space."
And the connection ... Bush, Leashing? Huh?
But Blackie ... can't you make a point without speaking like a jerk? Crack pipe?
Both you and Mike seem like crackpots with your rhetoric.
Posted by taoistblockhead on July 21, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unless the PNAC-Neocon Cabal pulls another false flag operation before January 2009, George Bush has become an irrelevant moron who will be remembered for helping to finish the job of destroying America, begun by his imbecile predecessor Ronald "Iran/Contra War Criminal" Reagan and daddy George HW "New World Order" Bush.
Posted by tao400 on July 21, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
concerning the dog leash - the problem with liberals, which i am one, is that they think they know better than you how you should live. they then want to put all kind of restrictions on people's activities to protect this one and that thing and want to raise your taxes to do so. though the dog leash is not that big of deal in and of itself, it is a kind of creeping in that direction of control. that's why the liberals got thrown out of office by bush and gingrich. i hope they don't make the same mistake again this time.
Posted by darkcloud on July 21, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In dead seriousness, what percentage of the population in the Daily Camera's distribution range listens to classical music radio? Of those who do, what number listen to that station? I suspect it very low; so low, I don't understand this immense and prolonged coverage to a minor discomfort to very few - and old like me - people.
I'd imagine CPR has a rather exact knowledge of who contributes and where they live. They survive based on that knowledge, and they wouldn't risk survival by cutting off serving their masters, to whom they pander in a manner nauseating even to this vet of pledge drives. They harp on the cultural superiority of their audience to the point they're indistinguishable from porn fluffers.
Apparently, more of their socially conscious audience want NPR than short attention span excerpts of orchestral music.
I don't defend CPR or listen to it much. I prefer KUNC and my own station, KGNU, and dental drilling noise to AM. I like classical music, but have found cheap technology makes it easy to listen to high quality sound anywhere, at any time. And entire symphonies, rather than the Classical Lite offered on local stations. Just, you know, the 'good parts.'
I also realize the satisfaction that comes from knowing others are listening to the same music you are at the same time. It's the only excuse for live performance any more. Technology is changing culture faster than we can actually adapt. But, you know, tough. That's just one of the pains of being old.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Put the crack pipe down, and step slowly away from the keyboard."
Do try to think of some original material. Maybe some crack would help.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The New Campaign: Bush Versus Bush
By JIM MCTAGUE
Bush takes a page from Obama -- and vice versa.
JOHN MCCAIN ISN'T THE ONLY REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN trying to distance himself from the legacy of President George Bush. Bush is running away from Bush, too. In fact, he's running from himself faster than McCain is running away from him.
The president has been abandoning unpopular policies of old and employing new ones that appear to come straight from the playbook of Barack Obama, the boy wonder of American politics. Bush, who once defined himself by an ornery refusal to heed critics or alter his course, even as he drove his ship of state onto the shoals of political disaster, has in his final months as commander in chief become as pliant as Silly Putty.
He suddenly is negotiating with Iran, without preconditions. This is an Obama idea. He is drawing down troops from Iraq and dispatching them to Afghanistan to take on a resurgent Al Qaeda -- another Obama idea. Remember that economic-stimulus package? That's arguably an Obama idea, too. Obama, whose sage-like political instincts belie his springtime hues of green, glommed the idea from Hillary Clinton's economic advisers weeks before Bush did.
Bush's copycat behavior is synchronous with polling numbers that mark him as the most unpopular president since the onset of popularity polls in 1937. The jocular Texan from Connecticut has a disapproval rating of 69%. To put this in perspective, Jimmy Carter, whom history already has marked as an Oval Office disaster, bottomed out at 59%. Richard Nixon, who was so dark and creepy that his name is synonymous with "nefarious," sank to 66%. Harry Truman, who second-guessed Douglas MacArthur, botching the Korean War, had a 67% disapproval rating
http://tinyurl.com/6epmkj
Posted by wendakent on July 21, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When one matches a presidential agenda with gains toward that agenda George Walker Bush is the most successful president in American history. He's delivered to his constituency an imperial presidency, a compliant congress, packed courts, unbridled capitalism and continuous war. Without demonizing it these are the principle tenants of fascism. If you happen to believe that this is suppose to be a democratic republic then your apt to see the presidency of George Walker Bush as decidedly UnAmerican.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think those are the principal tenets of fascism, which Michael Moynihan recently called "the preferred insult of the intellectually careless."
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I call it liberal fascism."
Funny. So does Jonah Goldberg, who wrote a book with that title. I guess intellectually careless minds run in the same channels.
Posted by noboresident on July 21, 2008 at 8:26 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"If everyone wants real change, vote Libertarian."
I agree. This would help guarantee an Obama win.
Posted by backrange on July 21, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OSMP acting like a holier than thou bureaucracy? What do you expect when each and every OSMP tax is approved heartily in Boulder County?
The voters wanted Open Space, and lots of it. What they got was Open Space with an attitude. No surprises here.
OSMP attitude - "just be damn lucky we let you use the Open Space at all."
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"OSMP acting like a holier than thou bureaucracy? What do you expect when each and every OSMP tax is approved heartily in Boulder County?"
Gosh. Incredible as it may seem, could this mean most voters support OSMP?
Posted by Billprez on July 21, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
goathead -
Your first three words - "I don't think" say it all.
Buy (or in progressive tradition steal) a copy of "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg (ISBN 978-0-385-51184-1). Read it. You may learn something.
Posted by boulder_native on July 21, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah that whole Civil War thing was such a disaster. HOly smokes, we should've let those pesky southerners keep their slaves and break from the Union. I can see it now, the south becomes a agricultural export power-house and sides with the Germans in either WWI or WWII and the Nazis reign across the globe. At least we wouldn't have that pesky little Middle East problem, since all the Jews would be dead by now.
It seems a waste of time to remind this myopic BDS crowd that Democrats voted FOR the war in Iraq and Clinton brought about the 9/11 fiasco with 8 years of doing nothing against Al Queda
1. 93 WTC bombing
2. Khyber Tower Bombings
3. USS Cole bombing
4. African Embassy Bombings
Or all of the quotes by Albright, Gore, Clinton about how SAddam Hussein had WMDs.
Or that they said the SURGE would not work.
Or that Clinton's economic legacy included the 2000 collapse of the stock market signalling the popping of the Internet bubble.
Or that Clinton ignored Greenspan's advice to calm the "irrational exuberence", leading to this pop.
Nah, facts and history don't play into the BDS state-of-mind.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"This would help guarantee an Obama win."
Interesting editorial today on Obama. The messiah has come to save us all.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
Posted by noboresident on July 21, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why stop there? My Gosh there's so much more:
5. Clinton caused my sister to have breast cancer and he and Hillary both caused John McCain's melanoma.
6. Bill Clinton caused Enron to collapse.
7. Bill Clinton and the Democrats are single-handedly responsible for the spread of dandruff throughout the world.
8. Bill Clinton's code name : "Video" killed the radio star.
And so on.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's amusing that a person who brags he has been calling other people fascists since 1998 should decry the use of insult, but we are dealing here with the "intellectually careless."
Let me recommend an interesting book review in the Aug./Sept. Reason by the aforementioned Mr Moynihan, Crying Wolf: Are We All Fascists, Now?
He covers both Namoi Wolf's book and Goldberg's.
Posted by backrange on July 21, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal - "Gosh. Incredible as it may seem, could this mean most voters support OSMP?"
Exactly my point. But, perhaps to a fault? The overwhelming support has empowered OSMP to be an arbitrary bureaucracy. Which will be OK until they arbitrarily impact you.
Keep in mind, I'm in favor of the new leash regs. But, am never in favor of government entities doing things without public input, no matter how "noble".
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HELP STOP BDS
It is wrong to blame George Bush for the present mess, as 69% of you do.
He did the best he could.
The full credit and glory belong completely to the gormless noobs who voted for George W. Bush.
Some of them twice.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Keep in mind, I'm in favor of the new leash regs. But, am never in favor of government entities doing things without public input, no matter how 'noble'."
People maintain local governments to relieve them of the burden of having to manage and familiarize themselves with, the whole bothersome civic apparatus.
Boulder can hardly do anything without a shipload of input (except the police force, which operates in complete secrecy). It is characteristic of groups who do not like whatever policies are in force to always want more "input."
Naturally.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"You all just don't get it, do you?"
You embarrass yourself. If you suggest liberals are fascists, which you euphemistically call "naming a syndrome", you are calling people fascists.
You are, in fact participating in the use of what Mr Moynihan so accurately calls, "a perfectly meaningless pejorative, a political cudgel that is obtuse and imprecise by design."
Posted by backrange on July 21, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
albie - "It is characteristic of groups who do not like whatever policies are in force to always want more "input."
Not dissimilar to the current state of affairs with our beloved President and Congress, right?
Am I reading you to say that once we vote, we're stuck with our decision and "input" in not allowed?
Posted by lafayetteeast on July 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Al:
Naturally.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Am I reading you to say that once we vote, we're stuck with our decision and "input" in not allowed?"
I think there has to be some kind of limit to the amount of civic fannying about given to any given issue, or public business will grind to a halt.
Recreation-ists tried to hold that open space election measure hostage and make it into a referendum on OSMP policies. Remember?
It passed. Remember?
Despite the vocality of its critics, I think there is reason to assume the public just wants OSMP to get on with it.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"People in this town have a lot of wacky ideas."
Quite true, although in many respects the town is cruising on a rep that it got years ago, when times were more interesting and more colorful people lived here.
What is endlessly amusing is to hear the tinfoil chapeau boys speak of themselves as other than "wacky." Streuth, they are very much a part of the semi-myth of Boulder as a crackpot shangri-la-la.
The ones that actually live here, I mean.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If people would have taken the time to "READ and THINK" about Mike Higuera's editorial, you would have noted that he does criticize both EXTREME liberal and EXTREME conservative ideologies.
Mike was able to provide a local critique of EXTREME liberal control with OSMP's underhandedness regarding the Visitor Master Plan adopted a few years ago.
He used the Bush presidency to exemplify EXTREME conservative control becuse there is not much of a conservative presence in Boulder government and because can identify with the faulty issues of the neocon ideology.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For all of you Libertarians out there, does Bob Barr needs to fix his political calculator on his campaign website to show that the extremes of both major political parties aims are to restrict freedoms from diffrent angles? When I took the test I landed squarely in the extreme liberal corner because I favored less government intervention on personal issues and more on business. From what I've been hearing, I should have landed more towards the centrist zone of the graph.
Anyone? Beuller.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"... want to tell you how to live and what to do with your life."
It's annoying when they won't let you build your dream six-car garage and guest house right on the lot line.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Albanal "Recreation-ists tried to hold that open space election measure hostage and make it into a referendum on OSMP policies. Remember?
It passed. Remember?"
Though I do remember the contentiousness of the issues with the new VMP and deep public debates of many recreation groups. The NMBA had a large role and were very strong advocates for Mountain Biking access. They are still that way to this day.
Also, I do remember the the vote being pretty close and I do remember OSMP promising to be fair and open with it new VMP policies, which it so far has not demonstrated.
"Despite the vocality of its critics, I think there is reason to assume the public just wants OSMP to get on with it."
You may be right, time will certainly tell.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the argument of the "recreationalists" comments, isn't that what brings most people here to Boulder?
Plus, by creating open space are we not saving the land from the most environmentally destructive practice by far, development. I can't imagine and I just don't see evidence that all of the recreation as it is allowed today coming even close to the damage posed by development.
So which ideological camp is getting the most? Which environmental organizations send flyers in your mail in ballot that tell you who to vote for? I guess the people have forgotten that one already.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mom has asked me to apologize to all the posters for using "Streuth."
This was entirely too precious and affected. I am not William F. Buckley.
Mea culpa.
Posted by backrange on July 21, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, I'm all for Open Space, but I'm not about to give a "pass" to OSMP just because I'm in favor of their overall mission.
With so many special interests pulling in all directions, OSMP, like any other government entity needs to be as transparent as possible. Public hearings are one venue for just plain folks to express their opinions, and perhaps help shape OSMP regs.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ye Verily Backrange. The OSMP VMP is too big of an issue to be left alone to the just a few political players. Sometimes big issues need to be addressed especially when it is an issue that is close to the heart of most Boulder residents and is so contentious. I for one would not mind taking the time to really work on some issues. What's wrong with public discussion on big issues?
Plus OSMP's campaign promise was to be more open and transparent.
Posted by blacksho89 on July 21, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, OK, the crack pipe comment was dull and unoriginal. Mea Culpa. My only excuse was that the coffee was still steeping.
But the "Blame Everything on Bush" paranoia is getting very old and tired, and so is the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Anybody got a new phrase?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10 a.m."When I took the test I landed squarely in the extreme liberal corner because I favored less government intervention on personal issues and more on business."
Your comment seems to be both interesting and revealing. What does "less government intervention on personal issues" mean in your mind?
Just to throw out a few examples:
Is the right to own and carry a gun a personal issue?
Is the right to donate money to political causes, or to candidates, a personal issue?
What about "hate speech"?
Posted by grossman on July 21, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dark cloud: you seem to be right. your's is the only comment on the northern colorado classical music crisis.
I can still wake up to classical music, only CD's instead of KVOD.
and if I just have to have music in the garden (thus drowning out the birdcalls), KUVO 89.3...often mellow jazz.
Adios, KCFR-KVOD, enjoy your new audience!
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jadam, From reading your posts I might even throw in another one.
Is property rights a personal issue?
Posted by tao400 on July 21, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open space and liberals - again, i am a liberal and will vote for obama. however, just saw another, unbelievable example, of liberals trying to censure and control what people say and do. the ny times refused to print an editorial by mccain after havin g allowed obama to print one last week. the liberal editor actually had the nerve to tell mccain to rework the piece and then told him what the content has to be. who does he think he is? mccain may be running the free world soon and some ny times editor is censuring and lecturing him. i am telling you, stuff like this is going to swing the election to mccain. it's crazy. it almost makes me think it was done on purpose to garner support for mccain. i just can't believe on one level that an editor could be so dumb. but then again, this is typical liberal behaviour. since i prefer the democratic way over the republican way, it will not affect me. however, i am outraged by the ny times.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tao400 on July 21, 2008 at 12:24 p.m."open space and liberals - again, i am a liberal and will vote for obama. however, just saw another, unbelievable example, of liberals trying to censure and control what people say and do."
At first I was a bit skeptical that you really are a liberal, but on further reflection I believe you really are, and that you are true to your calling.
I disagree however on your point that newspapers have a social duty to be "fair" to all candidates. That is at least how I interpret the First Amendment.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"the ny times refused to print an editorial by mccain after havin g allowed obama to print one last week."
Did you read the draft as submitted (http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm)? It's a puff piece with with no substance. The NY editor called it right.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"yeah really! If Al gore can do it and not care about what it takes to build that house and run it then SO CAN I!"
Great. Move to wherever Al Gore lives.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Public hearings are one venue for just plain folks to express their opinions, and perhaps help shape OSMP regs."
Yeah, yeah. These disputes always turn into a guerilla war. The minority view always hints darkly at skulduggery and elitism. After all, they're right, so they should have won, QED, conspiracy.
I like calling the egregiously self-entitled faction "just plain folks." Nice touch.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Real Liberals do not write all in itty-bitties.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
flaven on July 21, 2008 at 12:41 p.m."Did you read the draft as submitted (http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm)? It's a puff piece with with no substance. The NY editor called it right."
I read it. I wouldn't characterize it as a "puff piece."
Here is an excerpt:
"To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future."
That is the same conclusion I had also drawn, based on my independent web surfing.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
billy_goat_gruff on July 21, 2008 at 12:46 p.m."Great. Move to wherever Al Gore lives."
From what I have heard Al is not appreciated in his own neighborhood. I would choose someplace else.
Posted by rcljr1220 on July 21, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BDS = Bush Defense Sh**. Lots of BLOW (Mr. Bush is familiar with that term) but minimal GO in terms of factual presentation.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I would choose someplace else."
Then you'll play by the rules of the place you choose. This is like talking to a little child.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rcljr1220 on July 21, 2008 at 1:07 p.m."BDS = Bush Defense Sh**. Lots of BLOW (Mr. Bush is familiar with that term) but minimal GO in terms of factual presentation."
You are merely presenting a closed circular argument by reciting (I presume) the editor's statement.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:13 p.m.
'I would choose someplace else.'
"Then you'll play by the rules of the place you choose. This is like talking to a little child."
I said nothing about rules. It's simply about living next to compatible people.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel is quoted by Bloomberg as saying officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad spoke with Iraqi officials "and explained how the interview was being interpreted. The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it.''
The German newspaper Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying in an interview, "Barack Obama talks about 16 months.That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Der Spiegel said it stands by its story despite Maliki's retraction ...
http://tinyurl.com/6x6jsf
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But an audio recording of his comment, vetted by the New Times, showed that Der Spiegel essentially got it right. And in the initial readout from Obama's visit today with Maliki in Baghdad, the Associated Press reported that the Iraqi government would like to see American combat units gone at some point in 2010 -- a timeframe, the story noted, that "falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama."
http://tinyurl.com/5f7fam
Posted by noboresident on July 21, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The German newspaper Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying in an interview, "Barack Obama talks about 16 months.That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Don't you just hate it when the puppet speaks BEFORE you pull the string?
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I said nothing about rules. It's simply about living next to compatible people."
Sorry. That was intended for Spud. Are you living next to compatible people now, Q?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would take Maliki at his word that the the Spiegel interview was mis-translated. Simply looking at it logically, a "general time horizon" for troop reductions in Iraq, instead of a specific date for withdrawal makes a lot more sense.
What would happen if the sh*t hit the fan? Would Maliki just want us to leave?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 p.m."Sorry. That was intended for Spud. Are you living next to compatible people now, Q?"
Yes I am. Thanks for asking.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I would take Maliki at his word that the the Spiegel interview was mis-translated"
See the quote at 1:28. It's also election time in Iraq.
We have set something in motion. We wanted a democratic government.
Let the arse-biting commence.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 21, 2008 at 1:28 p.m.
The argument about time-lines,whether definite or general is getting a bit gimmicky.
Of course The Iraqis would like to see our occupation forces leave their country... but they probably don't want us to leave before they feel safe and secure.
Some point in 2010 may indeed be the right time for us to leave, but to declare it as definite beforehand is a bit foolish.
This Democrat political maneuvering though does however serve a useful purpose. It keeps the pressure on to prevent us from staying there interminably, which imperial powers are unfortunately prone to do.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Too much money and nothing to do, so let's just push all of our kooky ideals on everyone and tell them it is for their own good. Then if they disagree, we'll call them names!"
Ain't that the truth. I drove through Boulder last Thursday evening around rush hour and counted 4 full sized Range Rovers ($75,000), each with one occupant; In fact, almost every single car I saw had one person in it, and they were bumper to bumper (lots of faded Kerry/Edwards, Obama, etc. stickers too). Do I care? Of course not, it's a free country, but it is amusing to see all these supposedly enlightened people who love to tell me how to live, who preach conservation, yet look exactly the same as those they disdain.
Where are all the bikes? Where are all the pedestrians? The only ones I saw were riding Lee Hill for the work out, they weren't commuting. Probably stuck the $6,000 Moots in the back of the afformentioned Range Rover and drove the 5 miles back home proudly displaying a "Love your Mother" bumper sticker.
Ahhhh...Boulder....gotta love it.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
qm: 'I wouldn't characterize it as a "puff piece.'
But, as an editor I would, as did the NY editor: compare the content, voice, and structure against the Obama piece (neither of which, BTW, was likely written entirely by the candidate -- McCain's certainly wasn't). Oveerall, the McCain piece was a political ad devoid of semblance to thoughtful discussion.
drive: "The sooner we bring our troops home, the sooner we can call them baby-killers while spitting on them."
And you survived Darwin to date, how?
Posted by MikeEllis on July 21, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yup, us cyclists have abandoned 28th Street to the SUVs and Subarus as a lost cause. You can have it.
Sheesh! First they complain when we ride on their roads and then they complain when we don't. IX, why don't you just post here every day at 7:00 AM a list of what you want us all to do that day and what we can wear and what opinions are correct, so we can better plan our days?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
flaven on July 21, 2008 at 2:50 p.m."But, as an editor I would, as did the NY editor: compare the content, voice, and structure against the Obama piece"
So where can I find Obama's piece on the internet so that I can make a critical comparison?
Posted by zone913inc on July 21, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Yeah that whole Civil War thing was such a disaster. HOly smokes, we should've let those pesky southerners keep their slaves and break from the Union."
It seems the original poster who mentioned the Civil War forgot to point out that Jefferson Davis and the rest of the Confederate slave holders were Democrats!
Posted by Dunkterfunk on July 21, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To Boulder Native:
You say Clinton took his eye off the ball and allowed 9/11 to happen. If this is the case, then why did GW not make as his first priority capturing and/or killing bin Laden? It is because neither Clinton not Bush could imagine what would happen on 9/11. It is not CLinton's fault, it ios not Bush's.
And about the surge. It has assisted bring down violence, but this is not only the result of the surge. We also started paying off the shite militias to hunt down Saddam. The Sunni's finally got sick of the brutal tactics of Al Queda. Also, notice that the reduction in violence in Iraq has come at the same time as an increase in violence in Afghanistan. Al Queda will simply move to where we are easier to fight. This is why it is so frustrating that Republicans can coem up with nothing more imaginative to beat Al Queda than to bomb them. This is an ideological struggle which will not be solved by force ALONE. I say alone because force is definitely a componant.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
qm: "So where can I find Obama's piece on the internet so that I can make a critical comparison?"
You might find it, in all places, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opi...
Then again, you might not.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh said "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
George Bush has amply demonstrated this in action, as has his Democratic predecessors.
Obama has one of the biggest spending records in the U.S. Senate and has served a tremendously wide range of constituents. He therefore shows every indication he will continue in this tradition.
Is this CHANGE?
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Is this CHANGE?"
All that's left after the last 7+ years is spare change.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Flave & Hat thanks. I read Obama's piece. I conclude it has a good lively tempo and is a good piece of work from a literary standpoint. It's just what a newspaper editor would like to see appear in the editorial section of his newspaper. In comparison it makes McCain's look a bit lame.
Whether the analysis in the piece is rigorous or correct or not is an entirely different matter. However, being a newspaper editor my responsibility is to sell newspapers. If I was a newspaper editor I might have come to the same decision.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"First they complain when we ride on their roads and then they complain when we don't. IX, why don't you just post here every day at 7:00 AM a list of what you want us all to do that day and what we can wear and what opinions are correct, so we can better plan our days.."
Huh? It was an observation...still can't find where I told anyone what to do. Someone feeling a bit self conscious?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
flaven on July 21, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.
'Is this CHANGE?'
"All that's left after the last 7+ years is spare change."
Which in a way offers somewhat of a remedy if it means Obama can't follow through on his ambitious spending plans because the funds simply aren't there.
.... Or does it mean the government will simply print or borrow more money which will eventually lead to the collapse of our financial system?
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"You might find it, in all places, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opi...
Then again, you might not."
The NY Times giving favorable ink to Obama? Say it ain't so. Interesting piece, talks like a man with vast military experience...
One quote really stands out:
"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."
Much as I can't stand him, this guy is good. That comment pretty much covers all his bases, no matter what really happens. Gotta hand it to him...
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama's Iraq policy (now partly adopted by Shrub himself) is extremely adroit. He has said he will charge commanders with adopting a withdrawal plan. They will say, quite reasonably, that we have been poking men and materiel into Iraq for years, and it's going to take some time to pull all this out through the keyhole of Kuwait.
Obama will say, "Fair enough, start working on it."
So there will not be any "precipitous withdrawal," because there never could be. The withdrawal will be based on "conditions on the ground."
But politically, for both Americans and Iraqis, there will have been a major shift in direction. We will not be striving for some ill-defined "victory," but heading toward the end of the American "presence" as it is called here, or "occupation" as it is widely called there.
This, combined with Bush's shift, cuts the ground from under McCain.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"So there will not be any "precipitous withdrawal," because there never could be. The withdrawal will be based on "conditions on the ground.""
Ahh...so he knew he was lying when he promised the 16 month thing...good to know. Buy maybe your guy will lie less than my guy....okay...cool.
Oh, oh....I called Obama a liar...I must be a racist.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 21, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess I'll side with QM that NYT has no obligation to publish McCain's piece. Unlike broadcast TV and radio, there is no requirement on newspapers to provide equal time. However, I assume they have an editorial policy that governs such decisions. I also assume that, because McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee for president there is significant public interest in his thoughts. Therefore, I would think that they would have a strong incentive to publish the piece, not least to avoid the appearance of bias.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Oh, oh....I called Obama a liar...I must be a racist."
No, just a poor satirist.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Ahh...so he knew he was lying when he promised the 16 month thing...good to know."
But you don't know anything of the sort. Major troop removals could be well under way by then. But I don't think 40,000 Humvees can be Fedexed overnight. What Obama has said, is he will instruct the commanders to come up with a plan. If they tell him it can't be done in 16 months, that will not be the plan.
Both Obama's and al-Maliki's constituencies want them doing what can be done.
That's the political reality.
If this is your definition of "lying," you must favor standing Bush up before a firing squad.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...I would think that they would have a strong incentive to publish the piece..."
McCain was given a do-over opportunity; I actually wish they'd published the original as submitted. It's a good look into lack of focus and poor writing. The irony is, if the paper was truly biased, they would have printed it...
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I guess we have mutual friends, then."
You two are probably kissin' cousins.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Major troop removals could be well under way by then. But I don't think 40,000 Humvees can be Fedexed overnight."
You backpedal like your savior, albeit not as eloquently. He said he has A PLAN to be out in 16 months. He said it; you can't blame Bush for that one. He didn't say: "I will listen to my military advisors since I have zero experience in this area and take their word, then formulate a plan to withdraw". He said: "I have a plan to be out of Iraq in 16 months." He lied. Don't feel bad, they all do.
He also lied when he said he was "outraged" at the comments of his pastor. How do we know this? He sat through the guys hate-speech (gosh how I love using one of your favorite terms) for 30 years without a hint of outrage.
He is lying every day now that he has suddenly moved to the center, either that or the man has no integrity....take your pick.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"If hatemonger is a girl, it could be true!"
If you don't mind a case of mondo, go fer it...<G>
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Looking forward to a giant asteroid."
You misspelled hemorrhoid: that's coming for you in November.
Posted by tao400 on July 21, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
did not read the mccain piece and really don't care to. i know where he stands more or less and i am against it. i want the troops out, as does everyone it appears but bush and mccain. that said, the guy could possibly have the most important job on the globe and you, as the ny times, are going to edit him or refuse to publish it after obama got his piece published. if the piece stunk, all the better in my opinion. it makes him look bad. but he should be able to say whatever he wants to say and let it stand for what it is. it is just a sign of the worst aspect of liberals. it's a shame they did not learn from the early nineties when they lost control to newt gingrich. this kind of thing reminds people of what they hated about the liberals and that to me is the worst part of it. we are hurting ourselves by being tone deaf, just like mccain is on the war.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 6:41 p.m."He said: "I have a plan to be out of Iraq in 16 months." He lied. Don't feel bad, they all do."
Obama is slicker than Willie. Just because you have a plan to get out in 16 months doesn't mean you will do it.
The military has tens of thousands of "contingency" plans to do all kinds of things, but it doesn't mean they will do any of them.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they picked Norman Schwarzkopf to spearhead the first invasion of Iraq largely because the "hypothetical" invasion of Iraq happened to be his Masters theses.... so they just took his thesis out of storage.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 21, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kg60sd: "I am sick and tired of vehicles crossing the center line around corners just because you won't get out of the way."
Oh, so it's the cyclists' fault when drivers break the law? How insightful!
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kg and Hat,
What time is the cage match? I've got $500 on kg KO in the first...
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
QM- Hey, I just got back about an hour ago from fly fishing all day in the mountains. I love fishing. Anyway, here are my perspectives on your questions from earlier today.
"Is the right to own and carry a gun a personal issue?"
I am a gun owner and support gun owner rights for hunting and self defense.
"Is the right to donate money to political causes, or to candidates, a personal issue?"
If you want to give a politician money, that is your loss. Personally, I don't give politicians my money.
"What about "hate speech"?"
It's both personal and political. I think there are times when people should just ignore the racist buffoon making himself look really dumb, but when it comes to demoralizing groups of people and is followed with hatred and violence, it is a mattter for the cops and the law.
"Personal Property rights"
It's your property, as long as you are not effecting someone else's property rights, are building a home that extends to the boundaries, it is safe and you are following code.
Anything else you want to know?
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep on biking!!
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hat's probably a democrat, so I'll go with hat; who in their right mind would want a piece of elephant?
Posted by IXLR82 on July 21, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Oh, so it's the cyclists' fault when drivers break the law? How insightful!"
I know some fine cheeses that would go nicely with your whine....
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IX - you only wish you could ride a bicycle.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 21, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I know some fine cheeses that would go nicely with your whine...."
Thanks, IX, I'll take you up on that. But I'll have to share with kg60sd, since ... he started it!
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Know who you're voting for?
INO !
Yes, it's fun watching the Right trying to decide whether to go with:
My man John, the RINO; or BOB BARR, the LINO.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 8:10 p.m.
Your answers don't quite fit in the context of my questions. I was asking them in the original context of the political quiz you said you took and why you had received such a "poor" far left wing score.
We can all agree that gun ownership, property rights, etc. are all nice and valid things for us to enjoy but the issue is to what degree government should be permitted to proscribe them.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"He said he has A PLAN to be out in 16 months."
Poor reader.
He said, "On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war."
Pushed by Obama's gains, my man John has now whittled it down to "in two years," pulling to within 8 months of the front runner in the withdrawal sweepstakes.
You noobs reek of sad desperation. Eat your hearts out.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
QM - given that I am a gun owner, have hunted and believe people have the right to own guns for hunting and protection, isn't it obvious that I wouldn't want the government to outlaw guns for those purposes?
Like I said, it's up to you if you want to give a politician money. However, just as politicians are not allowed to take gifts from the public, the public should not be allowed to receive gifts (i.e. political favors) from politicians for donating money.
Hate speech. If you threaten to or you do hurt someone period, you should be arrested.
Private property. As long as you are following code, you can do what you want. Most building code ensures that structures and utilities are designed and built safely for their intended purpose.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 21, 2008 at 9:59 p.m."You noobs reek of sad desperation. Eat your hearts out."
These deadline games for Iraq are all smoke. Do you really think they will have any impact at all on this campaign?
Obama and McCain might just as well each be promising to balance the budget.
The credibility for both of these issues is put at just about zero.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The public also includes businesses, when it comes to donating money to politicians and personal favors, just to be clear.
Posted by albanal on July 21, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"These deadline games for Iraq are all smoke. Do you really think they will have any impact at all on this campaign?"
Yes.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:06 p.m.
Threatening to hurt someone has little per se to do with whether it is a "hate" crime or not.
McCain-Feingold and other legislation have put numerous restrictions on campaign financing... to the point where campaign finance is now a whole separate branch of legal practice. I would call that heavy legal restrictions wouldn't you?
Property rights issues extend well beyond merely building safety codes.
In conclusion, I don't know why you scored what you did. I don't have the quiz in front of me and can't recall most of the questions so I was just trying to come up with some plausible reasons why you fell on the (I presume) "authoritarian" end of the scale.
I had taken the Libertarian quiz some time ago and I scored high on the libertarian end in the middle... so I guess we answered many of those questions quite differently.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is interesting that the conservatives are "all of a sudden" talking about accelerated troop withdrawals from Iraq and that Bush has "met and talked" with the leaders of Iran. Just in time for the elections.
To answer the question, deadlines for troop withdrawals will be a major factor in the presidential election. It's what the vast majority of the people in the US, Iraq and the world want. Even Iraqi Pime Minister Maliki has outright said he wants US to start with troop withdrawals twice in one week.
The writing is on the wall, as long as the conservatives don't cook up some kind of new October terror attack or invade Iran between now and November.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 21, 2008 at 10:16 p.m.
'These deadline games for Iraq are all smoke. Do you really think they will have any impact at all on this campaign?'
"Yes"
We will see as the campaign continues to drag on. In the meantime, may the best spinmeister win.
Posted by flaven on July 21, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
'John McCain: "I know how to win wars."'
Oh, goody. We'll have to start a few more for him to win.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 10:41 p.m."It is interesting that the conservatives are "all of a sudden" talking about accelerated troop withdrawals from Iraq and that Bush has "met and talked" with the leaders of Iran. Just in time for the elections."
Is there any better time? Assuming of course Iraq has ANY impact on our elections. DUH
The shoe fits.
With our current successes it is best to leave while still being on top, and then also with our lowered expectations about what we think we should achieve, it makes it a lot easier to justify it.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
QM - my interest in the Libertarian quiz thing in the first place came up because Conservatives on DC posts constantly accuse us liberals of taking away personal rights, yet the Libertarian quiz clearly states that (and I quote the quiz directly):
"LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters"
I was curious about the discrepency and what you might know.
Posted by jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
QM - "With our current successes it is best to leave while still being on top, and then also with our lowered expectations about what we think we should achieve, it makes it a lot easier to justify it."
Late in the Republican Primary Race, both Bush and McCain were talking about staying in Iraq for 10 or more years. I'm surprised that things have turned around so quickly given that Bush announced "victory" back in 2003.
Whatever the reason, it's far passed the time to get out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am curious too.
I think the freedom of choice issues Liberals believe I generally agree with too... but then there are additional other freedom of choice issues that Liberals don't agree with.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Libertarians agree with Liberals about embracing freedom of choice in personal matters.
The distinction is that Libertarians take a more vigorous stand on upholding the Bill of Rights than Liberals do. In some cases I would even venture to say that Liberals sometimes even try to undermine the Bill of Rights.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 11:07 p.m."Late in the Republican Primary Race, both Bush and McCain were talking about staying in Iraq for 10 or more years. I'm surprised that things have turned around so quickly given that Bush announced "victory" back in 2003."
Actually it was even worse than that. If we go back to the beginning when we went first went in to topple Saddam many people from the Right were already talking about a prolonged presence like what we have had in the Philippines (50+ years). I am thankful to the Democrats to have provided a counterweight to these Right Wing ambitions.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 21, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jadam12 on July 21, 2008 at 11:07 p.m."Whatever the reason, it's far passed the time to get out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan."
I have a hard time following that.
As long as we are engaged in this imperialist game I don't see why miserable Afghanistan should take a higher priority than Iraq. It seems like it is merely designed to create some talking points for Obama's campaign.
A simple look at a map confirms that Iraq is of much greater strategic importance than Afghanistan is.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Many people would consider me a liberal (although I don't like labels like that, because people use them to create stereotypes -- see any number of posts here for examples). I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights. I believe that all 10 amendments should be interpreted as broadly as possible (meaning in favor of the individual). Occasionally that puts me at odds with most political parties.
However, I don't buy into the Libertarian line. The free market in general is good, but it is not the only important thing, and by itself it is way more messy than most people are willing to live with. I believe the government has an important role in many issues that goes well beyond what most Libertarians believe.
For example, the preamble says one of the goals of our federal government is to "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." This to me means that it should be looking at ways to make sure that our way of life is preserved for future generations.
Individuals should work for their own self-benefit. But the federal government should moderate that self-interest, and advocate for the common interest. Environmental regulations are one example that I think is clearly part of this.
Individuals should have maximum freedoms. Government should make sure that the exercise of those freedoms doesn't interfere excessively with the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for our posterity.
Some late-night ramblings.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis- Well for starters, if I interpret you correctly about your "rigorous defense" of the Bill of Rights, you should agree then that campaign finance "reform" is a violation of the First Amendment and that most of the gun control measures we hear about are violations of the Second Amendment.
These are some of the cornerstone causes usually associated with the left wing establishment. I am a bit surprised then that you still consider yourself a "liberal."
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 12:58 a.m."However, I don't buy into the Libertarian line. The free market in general is good, but it is not the only important thing, and by itself it is way more messy than most people are willing to live with. I believe the government has an important role in many issues that goes well beyond what most Libertarians believe."
You might be surprised to hear that most "thinking" libertarians believe that government has a vital role to play in preserving free markets. Regulations continue to play a vital role in assuring that markets remain as free as possible. What Libertarians object to is when the government becomes a giant with a club to serve special interests. Playing favorites and bashing in competition actually does the reverse of what their primary mission is supposed to be.
As most of us of all political persuasions probably already know government has a bad side as well as a good one.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"... you should agree ..."
Sorry, I don't fall for that trap. I believe what I believe, independent of what someone else tells me I should do.
On gun control, I happen to not buy the argument that widespread gun ownership is the great solution advocates make it out to be. That said, I agree with the Supremes that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and would not dream of interfering with that. I do think that an unfettered access to all weapons for all people has the risk of infringing on the rights of other people, and I believe there is a legitimate government interest in gun control to the extent that those rights need to be protected. For example, pulling out and waving a gun in an argument, as one of our prominent local Libertarians did, is clearly over the line.
I also believe that the Bill of Rights was clearly intended to protect the rights of individual people. Applying those rights, for example, to corporations, does not call for the same level of protection. Therefore, limits on the speech of corporations to protect the rights of individuals are clearly reasonable.
By the way, I never said that I consider myself a liberal. I said that others consider me a liberal, which after all is the true test. Just look at which posters here most disagree with me.
"... government has a vital role to play in preserving free markets ..."
And here's the distinction. I believe government's vital roles are bigger than most Libertarians do. For example, I believe that the U.S. government is the only entity that has a shot at dealing with global warming, and that it has the obligation to do so.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis- It's not a question of traps.
I was just asking these questions in order to determine how vigorously you want to defend the Bill of Rights.
Some liberals even claim that the "right to bear arms" is not even an individual right at all, that it is merely a collective right in order to maintain militias for the "collective" and "public" good.
.... And your idea of "limiting the speech of corporations" really gets me scratching my head.
Thanks though. I think you have amply answered my questions.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights, not collective rights (except in the specific instances where states' rights are called out.) The Second Amendment was not meant to protect militias, it was meant to protect the rights of the people. The First Amendment does not protect the right of a corporation to donate any amount of money to political candidates, although you may argue that it protects the rights of individuals to do so. And nothing in the Bill of Rights allows "voters" to override any of the protections for individuals.
I look at people who call themselves "liberals" and people who call themselves "conservatives", and the conservatives are just as ready to violate the Bill of Rights. This is not a left vs. right issue.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 22, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Poor reader.
He said, "On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.""
I see, so I should read the fine print instead of listening to his direct words, in which he said..many, many times: "I have a plan to get us out of Iraq in 16 months" He said it over and over. Guess he only lies when he speaks, not when he has someone write for him (we all know he doesn't write his own material).
Either way, Obama's vast experience will surely lead to tremendous military success and confidence from our troops. After all, he and his wife are proud to be American (for the first time in years).
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
41R82, I still don't see where Obama has changed his message. He's going to pull out, he's going to involve the military commanders. No conflict there.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 22, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I still don't see where Obama has changed his message"
Shocker
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis- Corporations are made up of people. Haven't you seen the corporate ads lately? They show mostly people!
Just because groups of people belong to a certain group (i.e. a corporation) does not mean that their rights of free speech should be taken away.
Moreover if you take away the constitutional rights of people in group X, who's to say some day rights of people in group Y won't also be taken away? Why not political parties too?... Wait! I think that is already being done!
Denying constitutional rights to "groups" but not "individuals" is patently absurd, and largely untenable anyway. Exceptions can easily be argued and made for people who have the money to pay for lawyers and lobbyists.
These built in contradictions provide rich opportunities for lawyers and lobbyists in Washington to exploit. Which they do... again.... and again.
No wonder most lawyers are liberals!
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again with the "liberal" thing. When you can show that conservatives are less destructive of the Constitution, I'll take that as an insult.
In any case, I did not advocate taking away the rights of anybody. I said that corporations aren't people, and don't qualify for the same rights as individuals. The owners and management of corporations clearly are and clearly do.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 22, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"So bitter!
Now go ahead, kiss McCain's ring again."
Bitter? LOL. You'll try anything. Did you, or did you not hear Obama say "I have a plan to end the war in Iraq in 16 months". You are all scrambling to say "read what he wrote". I'm not talking about what he wrote, and I don't care what his writers wrote, I'm talking about what he said. Why do you keep tap dancing? He lied. He'll lie again...and again. He is proving he will say anything to get elected...
BTW - I don't like McCain either, but anything is better than the stuffed shirt that is Obama.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 22, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
" He lied. He'll lie again...and again. He is proving he will say anything to get elected..."
Pretty rich, after Shrub's flights of fantasy. Even he now hints around about timelines.
McCain, after going from "100 years," yesterday suggested two years, latest hint, today: maybe less than 16 months.
Oh, the lies! The lies!
The stink of desperation.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 2:32 p.m.
Again with the "liberal" thing. When you can show that conservatives are less destructive of the Constitution, I'll take that as an insult.
Interesting.
I'm not a conservative, but aside from their ridiculous marriage amendment that some of them want to push through, where have Conservatives attempted to play silly putty with the Constitution?
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For starters, check with the American Freedom Agenda.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah yes, the Patriot Act. I never supported it despite overwhelming popular support across this great nation.
The way I recollect it, that gem of legislation got overwhelming bi-partisan support when it was enacted, and continues to get support from both Republicans and Democrats today (including I think also from Obama).
In spite of some grumbling and posturing I hear coming from Democrats they still generally support it.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not just the Patriot Act. They have a list of ten specific Constitutional grievances with Bush.
You are right that there has been some support for the Patriot Act from Democrats. But clearly it was pushed by Bush and the Republicans. Once they put that clever name on it, no flag-lapel-wearing legislator would dare to vote against it. (Not that that's an excuse for spineless legislators.)
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm from SCOTT's letter shows extremely appalling photos reportedly taken by European journalists of Cuban healthcare conditions that ordinary Cuban citizen are required to endure.
They directly contradict Michael Moore's SICKO "documentary" in the most dramatic fashion imaginable.
I went on a numerous web sites about "Sicko" with nary a whiff of controversy even being mentioned there. They even extol it.
A sad commentary on the Hollywood scene. I guess they don't use the internet much over there either.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis on July 22, 2008 at 4:51 p.m."Not just the Patriot Act. They have a list of ten specific Constitutional grievances with Bush."
Of course making a list of grievances against Bush is a lot safer to do than to actually take a real stand against the Patriot Act itself.
Posted by albanal on July 22, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess who was a big booster of the Drug War and the Patriot Act?
Hint: He's a LINO.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a long sad history of Presidents from both parties violating the Constitution and also Congress coming from both parties failing to keep the President in check.
The Constitution provides us with checks and balances.
Maybe we should also investigate Congress for failing to use those checks and balances.
Posted by albanal on July 22, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C'mon. No guesses?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 22, 2008 at 6:35 p.m."Guess who was a big booster of the Drug War and the Patriot Act?"
Yep. Bob Barr.
And it has a lot of Libertarians upset too.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To be generous to Bob.... maybe he is like the Apostle Paul. He sinned during his early career, has now repented, and is now finally serving a higher calling.
Posted by albanal on July 22, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Uh. Huh. His little shift makes Obama's shift toward the center look kinda tame.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albanal on July 22, 2008 at 6:59 p.m."Uh. Huh. His little shift makes Obama's shift toward the center look kinda tame."
Obama has repented nothing. He is just a clever weasel that's all.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 22, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Winston Churchill is another example. Do it in dramatic fashion and don't be an Obamite pussycat*
*editor's change
Posted by albanal on July 22, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lame stuff, Q.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.