MattZ

Haha, and the guy was safe at first. Great job by Amezaga keeping the ball in the infield though.

This is really just too funny. Clips of McCain from a Town Hall mtg in CO. My favorite is at the 00:32 mark when everyone realizes they are supposed to laugh.

Not only that, but McCain says he will balance the budget in his first term. Numbers? Figures? He doesn't have any. He'll get back to us on that. Ongoing war + tax cuts = balanced budget?

Jim Webb will not accept a VP invite: "Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President. "A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the U.S. Senate. I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America's national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have wor

Helms' death is/was a reason to begin discussing Helms. I don't care what the reason is/was, but any discussion of Helms requires us to be honest about who he was and what he stood for. That being said, it should be possible for us to be honest about who he was and what he stood for while remaining respectful. Theoretically. EDIT: I should also add that it should be possible for us to have a thread without the two of you arguing. Again, theoretically.

Well, if his mindset was military, not civilian, he didn't do his job properly. So I dont know that he should get credit for that. That being said, I completely agree with you that he does not belong in the same company as the others you mentioned. As I said above, I'm not trying to pile on Powell. Just observing that he gets a bit too much slack in my eyes. As a hypothetical, and I know that it's useless but hey it's fun and this is a message board... What do folks think would have happened if Powell refused to go before the UN? And refused to be a part of the Administration? What wo

He wasn't a military guy duty bound. He was secretary of state. Powell gave credibility to the case for war that no other person in the Administration could. Yes, he was incredibly conflicted, but the guy was secretary of state! If he didn't like the heat, what was he doin' in the kitchen. (Look, I don't mean to pile on Powell here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around. I just think he deserves his fair share. And I am biased because as I said above, he convinced me. So I feel betrayed by him. Especially if he's going to say that he argued against this war. Not to me

Word. And one other thing -- Powell convinced ME! I was on the fence about this war, and I was on the fence about this Administration. But I thought I could trust Powell. And I watched him at the UN. While his satelite images didn't really sway me, his conviction did. I cannot and I will not forgive him for that. And f*ck that if he is going to stand up now and say he knew it all along.

For what it's worth, if we can get past the sillyness above, I do think Powell gets cut too much slack. If that guy didn't think we should go to war he should have resigned. End of story. The fact that he tried to convince the President and failed is great, but then he went ahead and convinced the UN. And he had to know that he was being used as a pawn at the UN since he was perceived as the level-headed member of the Bush administration. If this was such a bad idea he should have said something then. I don't want to hear about how smart he was then for knowing this was a bad idea. Th

Lou- you keep saying that but then continue to post in this thread about all the people you've seen. What gives? I think it's very cool, and the stories are fun. Keep em coming.

I will believe it when I see it.

Nice that you've got my back now that the argument is over.

You are right -- we are arguing semantics now. I think what Bush has done to our constitution is atrocious, but I guess it all depends on how you define "atrocities." I don't think it is a relative term or concept. If it is to you, then I agree. Bush has not rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps. But I also don't think he needed to, or needed to use chemical weapons on his own people, to be committing atrocities. I see where you are coming from now, though.

Let me be the one to say that this thread is really something. I think I've earned that right, thank you very much.

Quick, someone lock this thread.

Fair points in your post above. That being said, I do think it is interesting to explore why people aren't that angry about this administration. And I am not sure you are right -- I don't think Chris ever suggested that getting angry was't productive. His point (I think) was that these atrocities are nothing new so why get all bent out of shape over it. This country has done so many horrible things in so many instances that it is scary to think about. But throwing our hands up at the next terrible thing we do, and not getting angry about it, allows it to keep happening. Maybe I am foo

Again, I do think that Bush had good intentions -- I fully believe that he thought invading Iraq would be a good thing, that wiretapping illegally would protect us from another attack, that torture is the only way to get terrorists to speak, that leaking Plame's identity was necessary, etc. I don't think his intentions were evil. But I do think his willingness to put blinders on in an effort to achieve his (well-intentioned) goals was evil. And the fact that he was so successful in achieving those goals proves that he was very competent. The fact that we weren't greeted as liberators j

I hope this doesn't run afoul of ms y's request, and I don't think it does. I'd take issue with what you say above in bold. Yes, comparing Bush to Nazi germany is insane. Yes, inferring that Bush intentionally let 9/11 happen is insane. The discussion that I had with Chompsky was intended to be a level-headed and civil discussion (which I think it was) about whether Bush's gaffes in office resulted from ineptitude or "evil." I never meant evil in the Hitler sense, and I never suggested as such. The discussion was a sidebar to the initial discussion on mirror gazing and was never intended

Ok. How about a bold opinion? Let's give this poor horse a rest.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I was trying to understand why you think incompetence is to blame. You certainly don't need to satisfy me. I still don't think you've given a good explanation for what you think and why you think it, but you certainly don't have to answer to me. I'd disagree with the two others in this thread that thanked you for giving a thoughtful response. I think you made a bold statement and then ran from it. Because you have "gotten past the point of trying to explain [your] beliefs" but that's ok. That's your call and I certainly respect it if you have

I am not asking you to be angry about anything. You are saying that you just can't get all that worked up about this Administration's screwups because other Administrations have screwed up. I am trying to understand why/how the two are connected because I don't think they are. You are also telling me that this Administration's screwups relate to incompetence more than anything else. I have yet to hear a good explanation for that one either. Instead I get a Wilco/Weezer analogy.

So because we've done bad things in the past as a country, you aren't mad about bad things we do now? How about being mad about all of it? And doing what you can about it? You know, like me. I get on a message board to complain about it. Seriously, though. Your statement above bums me out.

You make some fair points, but I think your position, on the whole, is a cop out. Sure, any president for these past 8 years would have faced an incredibly difficult task. And likely would have been criticized from opponents on both sides of the aisle. However, George Bush has redefined hubris, has imposed his will (and the will of his VP and advisers) on this country with complete disregard to his campaign promise of being a compassionate conservative. Someone posted a list of things that he could be impeached for earlier in this thread. That list is long and scary. I agree that to

Chompsky, I'd be interested to read/understand your distinction between incompetent and evil since you've said this several times, but I don't think I've seen you go into depth on it. I'd think that incompetence would assume that he was unable to accomplish his goals or to control his cabinet, or something like that. So far as I can tell, this is a guy who accomplished everything he set out to accomplish, and agrees/agreed with Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc each step of the way. No? I suppose you could say that post-invasion in Iraq was conducted incompetently, but I'd chalk that up to hubris wi

I'd recommend American Water. You can't go wrong with Bright Flight or Tanglewood Numbers, though. I think Natural Bridge was the toughest one for me to get into, but now it's the one that reveals the most new gems on each listen. I think I read somewhere that Pavement broke up because Malkmus thought Natural Bridge was a perfect album and Pavement could never make an album that good. Can anyone confirm that rumor?