The Stereotypical Political OT

[count]

Originally posted by Leimeng
One of the funny things about this "Draft Legislation" being 'pushed on us by the bushies' or what ever the accusations are, is that I bet very few people have ever read it. Do you notice who are the sponsors for the legislation?

"January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services "

~ This is legislation being pushed by morons on the left wing of the demon-crap party. Notice the people sponsoring it. Are you capable of reading it? How are these left wing wackos pushing legislation for the Republicans? Can anyone come up with an honest explaination for that? Perhaps you should read the congressional records and hear Mr RANGEL talk about how we need the draft to enforce military service across racial and economic lines.
~ I am suprised at all you supposedly intelligent individuals for allowing yourselves to be duped by this sham. Sham on the demon-craps for their lies. Shame on KKKerry for playing on your fears. Shame on you for not reading the facts of a situation, but instead relying on the moronic left to spoon feed you their propoganda.
~ The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to the draft. All branches of the military service are exceeding their retention and recruiting goals. The Republican party, and the Administration has continually stated that they are opposed to the draft. The only people supporting this legislation are left wing democrats.

Whatever you say that's muffeled in your rhetoric, Mr. Charlie Wrangles serve/d/s his country with honor. Perhaps a little disgruntled that 50 percent of the grunts in the military are people of color, and guys who can ride on the daddy's coat tails are shurkers. Kerry's not peadling this. Don't be a hypo-repuli-crit. It's obvious who is mongering fear around here. I'm a realist. I don't fear Osama for a second. But I don't doubt for a minute that my 15 year old could get pulled into George Bush's war given the state of the military today.

It's laughable you think that the military is meeting your retention goals. The way their getting guys to re-up is to offer them mandatory 3 more years or a trip to iraq today. They might as well stay in since they won't have any benefits left when Bush gets done. Of course the pentagon still thinks they can do it on the cheap. They've mis-calculated at every step of the implementation of their neo-con plan to take down Saddam.

No thanks, I think I'll buy my fear from the reality facing me every day when the bills come in the mail. You may blindly support the incompetence in Washington.

[GLW]

"Otherwise, it's a nonfalsifiable theory, and thus rather meaningless in the context of rational discussion, right?"

As valid as ANY OTHER opinion placed forth in a forum such as this.

Living in Texas, I HAVE been aware of Rove and his methods for a while. There ARE sources such as the Houston Press and even a Texas Monthly article and others on Rove and his methods. Also there was a PBS documentary on his rise from leading minor campaigns to becoming the Bush family go to man. That one was on Houston's PBS in August. It simply went from the beginning of his career and chronicled his races and how he won. It also traced the leaks and stories that aided his candidates...and how they were later tied back to an individual that then was tied to a person directly connected to Rove. His habit appears to be no more than 4 degrees of separation for the big stuff.

It showed his money connections. Some of those listed in that documentary were the same ones with the Swift Vets funding as well.

Now, would the CBS news thing stand up to scrutiny as it sits now. Of course not. NONE of Rove's stuff ever have been scrutinized until way after the fact.

For example, the guy that came out with the book about Bush and his alleged cocaine use... Rove was implicated in that man's discrediting. However, it did not stop there. Not only was he discredited...on personal areas and nothing was ever said about his allegations ...sound familiar... but within a couple of years, he was found dead in a motel room. Victim of an apparent overdose of something...but the investigations of the circumstances were highly textbook.

So...there is only supposition on this. However, it was supposition based upon some predictions made months ago by others - that outlined everything about this EXCEPT for it taking down CBS news and Dan Rather. (makes me wonder who he pi$$ed off...).

In a civil law sense, what we have here is a known pattern of behavior on Rove's part.

While only a full IMPARTIAL investigation could tell if there is fire here, there is the indication of, if not a smoking gun, a gun, bullets, and motive.

Of course, even if there were an investigation, it would never get beyond page 65 in any newspaper.

[GLW]

Rangel's bill, if memory serves, was to enact the draft for ALL young people at age 18 or 19 - Male AND Female...with NO exceptions or deferrments - meaning that all of those rich kids and the legislators and president's kids would have to go in.

His statements were basically that until everyone was putting some skin in the game, the leadership that had never served and whose children never serve in any war would keep their family out of harm's way while the burden of all of the US military endeavors fell in large part on the lower economic classes and minorities.

Is he that far off?

I know of very few kids graduating high school either from upper income families, with scholarship or college options, money, or in the top of their classes that opt to go into the military (with the exception of those that I have known that got appointments to the various military academies like West Point).

For many of the young people of military age, enlisting is considered a loser option.

[Chang Style Novice]

Are you religious? Do you believe in divine messages?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by GLW
As valid as ANY OTHER opinion placed forth in a forum such as this.

Are you saying that unfalsifiable theories are as valid as any other, or that only unfalsifiable theories can be offered in this forum?

Neither one of these statements seems reasonable, which returns us to my initial critique of your position.

[David Jamieson]

No it can't, at least not accurately.

uh, yes it can.

Take a look at Canada. Which is a representative democracy that upholds a socialist centralized form of government, with a provincial level beneath that and in the near future, city states.

So, any political ideology or model can be borrowed from and placed into the works of a democracy.

As for an "accurate" description of any government platform or ideology, that entirely depends on who's in power and how they define themselves.

There are no hard set rules beyond the very base fundaments and even then it gets murky. Like having a prime minister who became elected to the position almost a year after holding it. Or having an electoral college decide who gets to be president despite the actual one person one vote concept of democracy which was clearly not used in the 2000 elections in the US, which opted to have the college decide who the winner was instead of actually counting all the votes or fixing the issues with people who didn't have their vote registered etc etc.

Or having extremely powerful positions in government being "appointed". Look at Canadas Senate, or for another example the positions of power in the Pentagon or public service sectors anywhere in North america. Like the supreme court, or any number of other key positions that effect and affect everyday internal and external policies of the country.

No, by hair and hair, North America can hardly be called a purist democracy and is fairly socialist in the north and fairly capitalist in the south, with a mix of that in Mexico. But who knows, the shifts occur with the people who take the reigns of power, they do not seem to occur from a grassroots level except when we look at long term struggles to make change. The people themselves are always superceded by the holders of the halls of power.

[GLW]

"Are you saying that unfalsifiable theories are as valid as any other, or that only unfalsifiable theories can be offered in this forum?"

I love your use or lack thereof of language. Eschew Obfuscation. Unfalsifiable - learning words from Alexander Haig, are we?

If what you mean is that you cannot prove a theory false - hmmm... What I pointed out was a documented pattern of behavior by Karl Rove. I DID cite some references. A PBS documentary (within the past two months aired in Houston - topic was Texas politics. I also cited some other sources. Doing a search at places like http://www.workingforchange.com and http://www.georgewbush.org and then asking a few questions for sources can turn up more.

While a pattern of behavior is NOT sufficient for a court of law dealing with a criminal case, it IS sufficient in a civil case in meeting a preponderance of evidence. In recent pop-court culture, this was seen in the fact that O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but lost to the Goldmans in civil court.

Can anyone prove that this was orchestrated by Mr. Rove. No. Similarly, people working for Bush, Republican pundits and party faithfuls, and others are already being quick to say that this whole thing was orchestrated by the Democratic party or some of their Rove counterparts.

So, if those guys are credible, we are being asked to believe that some people in the Democratic Party planted the story but were so incompetent that they used documents and people that were easily proven to be suspect. How is flipping the coin and saying that Rove, who has a history of this type of politics, did the same thing and simply then had his chomping at the bit hordes descend on the things he "indicated" to look at that different?

What those PAID Political Analysts are saying would by your definition be unfalsifiable in exactly the same mode as the pattern of behavior I am referencing and my "theory". The only difference I can see is they have a bully pulpit and media access.

[GLW]

This just In:

McAuliffe: Will GOP Answer If They Know Whether Stone, Others Had Involvement With CBS Documents?

Washington, D.C. - In response to false Republican accusations regarding the CBS documents, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement:

“In today’s New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political ‘dirty tricks’ while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.

“Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone’s relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone’s involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?”

from
http://www.democrats.org/news/200409210001.html

Hmm....sounds an awful lot like what I was saying...and coming from the head of the DNC...so, while unfalsifiable or not....it is NOT unthinkable.

[Marky]

GLW,

You may have noticed that the DNC and RNC websites are mildly biased toward their own platform. You and your hypothesis would be better served by looking at "real" news sources for facts. This is just a suggestion, of course.

And now, in keeping with the pettiness of the arguement (which I will excuse myself from, as I lack anything further to contribute), I will laugh at you...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just teasin' ya, of course

[count]

Originally posted by Marky

You and your hypothesis would be better served by looking at "real" news sources for facts.

Well if CBS hasn't laid to rest the illusion that there are any "real" news sources in the mainstream media, than just have a look at fox/cnn/msnbc for a laugh.

Rove's antics are not only well documented but sell professed. And face it, the fact that the only story on every network has been about the documents and not what's going on in Iraq or in New York this week.

[GLW]

yeah...I am fully aware of the bias of BOTH the RNC and the DNC.

However, I kind of figure that if poor little 'ol me can look at this and go "You know, this is just the type of thing that Karl Rove is known for...I wonder if he had anything to do with this...?"

And then, as soon as I think that, the RNC and their guys come out and say it was a DNC plot....and THAT fits with Rove's history...and then the DNC comes out and says "No, this is an RNC plot..."

Well, my only question is how come they aren't paying me the big bucks. I am just as good at this cr@p as they are....