Which Democrat are you supporting in the primaries?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.

Which Democrat do you support?

Joe Biden
2
7%
Hillary Clinton
12
41%
Chris Dodd
1
3%
John Edwards
0
No votes
Mike Gravel
1
3%
Dennis Kucinich
1
3%
Barack Obama
10
34%
Bill Richardson
2
7%
 
Total votes: 29
torkur
Sojourner
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Contact:

Postby torkur » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:21 pm

Gormal, you mean White Water Scandal. Watergate was Nixon in the 70s.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:31 pm

Nice. My personal attack was far from frivolous, but I felt that it could easily lead to the entire thread derailing and/or being locked.

Your robotic regurgitation of so-called patriotism is an ugly manifestation of the very ideals that have brought our great country to the point of near mockery. Your knee-jerk grasp of "free speech" is just a petty and transparent guise for a small-minded existence predicated on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

It is painfully obvious that you've done nothing to educate yourself on the candidates besides mindlessly accepting vitriolic sound bites that reinforce your warped and racist world view. Case in point:

To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.

These malicious, irresponsible charges are precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of, and that Senator Obama is trying to change by focusing on bringing people together to solve our common problems.


Note, not a Muslim and was in Indonesia while attending grade school. And most importantly (and to make a stretch of a connection to the main thread) take a second to understand that Sen Obama is actually putting forth rhetoric that attempts to be inclusive and compassionate. A spiteful person would hope that you have children that face the same kind of ridicule that you so casually throw out towards someone you do not know or understand.

My personal hope is that we find a president that can undo the hateful mentalities of partisanship and racism. I guess I am expecting Obama to surge based on legitimate inclinations like I mentioned above, but then be harpooned in the media sometime in late Jan and Feb.
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3914
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:39 pm

torkur wrote:Gormal, you mean White Water Scandal. Watergate was Nixon in the 70s.


No, I mean Watergate with Nixon. She was Hillary Rodham at the time, but still the same shady bitch.
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:32 am

I like how Avak edited the first insult then insulted again.
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:14 am

Dalar wrote:I like how Avak edited the first insult then insulted again.


It may be true that you rarely add much of value to a thread, but don't let anyone tell you aren't observant.
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:39 am

avak wrote:
Dalar wrote:I like how Avak edited the first insult then insulted again.


It may be true that you rarely add much of value to a thread, but don't let anyone tell you aren't observant.


No point in adding value to threads. I tried once but I found out no matter how much i typed people don't know how to read, but I'm sure you knew that.
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.

Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:05 am

Ok, I'm boggled. Hillary and Bill have a wreck of a marriage. He cheats on his wife, and she stays with him because of politics. If she got a divorce, there would be no way in hell we would care about her. How does not say something about her character? Hillary can not get things done because she is a polarizing figure that will simply antagonize the other side. The Clintons are some of the shadiest people around with all the various scandals they have had.

Luckily, I doubt we will have to worry about Hillary. Obama is really pulling ahead in Iowa and Hillary is tied with Edwards. Also, for second choice, Hillary is below Obama and Edwards. She's toast if you know anything about Iowa, hell, she may fall to third or fourth there. Once Obama wins Iowa, he'll have the big Mo to win NH.

Obama seems to be a good and respectable person that is committed to his marriage. I may disagree with his politics, but I think most people can say he is a good person. That's the reason I'm against Guilani. Anyone that can't manage their personal life has no business trying to manage the country.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:15 am

I'm not so concerned about Obama's name or where he went to school as a kid. If he were muslim, his religion would be an issue for me, but he isn't so its a moot point.

The only issue for me with Obama is he did something very irresponsible during the so-called youtube debate, which made it clear to me that would be dangerous to elect. He felt compelled to discuss a hypothetical in which we have actionable intelligence about the location of senior al queda members within pakistan, and pakistan refused to go after them. He concluded that we should send in troops without pakistan's permission. Whether or not a US president should actually do that if it came up is debateable. However, to say out loud that he would be prepared to essentially committ an act of war against a friendly nation, by sending troops into their country without permission, is horribly irresponsible for any senior US politician. For a presidential candidate, it is inexcuseable.

<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/08/was-obama-propo.html">Was Obama proposing an "invasion" of Pakistan?</a>
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:47 pm

Corth wrote:The only issue for me with Obama is he did something very irresponsible during the so-called youtube debate, which made it clear to me that would be dangerous to elect. He felt compelled to discuss a hypothetical in which we have actionable intelligence about the location of senior al queda members within pakistan, and pakistan refused to go after them. He concluded that we should send in troops without pakistan's permission. Whether or not a US president should actually do that if it came up is debateable. However, to say out loud that he would be prepared to essentially committ an act of war against a friendly nation, by sending troops into their country without permission, is horribly irresponsible for any senior US politician. For a presidential candidate, it is inexcuseable.


I find this particular fixation on a supposed 'gaff' intriguing. Personally, I think it is a carefully planned flank attack on a candidate that is too strong to be fought on a level playing field head on. It makes the news because the high level politicos know that Obama's biggest weakness is the perception of his inexperience. Create some fear and you've got a winning strategy on your hands.

We currently have an administration that makes a regular habit of foreign policy mistakes. In fact, Obama's comments on Pakistan were a direct response to the miserable failure of the Bush admin to actually stop the people responsible for the terrorist attack on the US.

Read the actual transcript. It is not saying "send in troops." It does not say, "without an ounce of diplomacy." I think it is pretty clear and pretty admirable.



As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:44 pm

Obama wrote:There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.


I do not know how this can be read any other way but that Obama would be willing to send the US millitary into Pakistan without its permission.

Pakistan's President Musharraf has been a great ally of the US in attempting to capture and kill Al Queda leadership. He is walking a serious tightrope. Much of Pakistan is sympathetic to Al Queda's cause. In fact, prior to 9/11, Pakistan was the largest single supporter of the Taliban, which itself was a sponser of Al Queda. Musharraf had to engineer a 180 degree reversal of Pakistan foreign policy in order to align himself with the US. Indeed, he has been the target of numerous assassination attempts, likely due to his support of the US.

For a senior US Politician... a Senator... to demonstrate such disregard of Pakistan's sovereignty, after all that President Musharraf has done to support the US effort in the region, is an outright travesty. The only thing that could come out of Senator Obama's 'gaffe' is for one of our greatest allies to be undermined. It was completely irresponsible and inexcusable... whether or not it was an accident.

Look, its not like I am trying to advocate Hillary over Obama. I can't stand either of them. I would much prefer to see Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, or even John McCain win a general election. My point is that if I had to choose between a slimy Hillary and an irresponsible/inexperienced Obama, it would not be a contest.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:16 pm

Gormal wrote:I was talking about Watergate.


You call her a conniving whore because she was part of a prosecutorial team? I don't get it.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:24 pm

Thilindel wrote:
avak wrote:
Thilindel wrote:The osamabama comment isn't out of ignorance at all. One cannot compete at this level, which is the most pivotal white collar job around, with marginal understanding of what majority acceptance is - that being saluting the flag, etc. Did this muslim not ever attend grade school?


Edit - Removed completely warranted personal attack because most people here seem to want to have a mature discussion. Honestly, this kind of tripe quoted above should justify swift and heavy-handed action by the moderators.


So in America, where one is given the privilege to state their opinion...yet you acknowledge you render a frivolous personal attack, despite my as-stated privilege, unto which credit is given to our men and women in the service both present, and in the past, ...sad. Despite lack of the obvious, there was talk that maybe this presidential 'hopeful' didn't know to salute. In grade school, especially given this guy's age, it was a default that he would have saluted in that era - case closed. Nice job shooting your mouth off, however.


I find it funny that you're upset that avak stated his opinion--I'm sorry, "shot his mouth off" as you put it.

Furthermore, your as-stated privilege does not extend into privately-owned webpages where the moderators have the right to censor your own frivolous personal attack.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:31 pm

I agree with Corth in that (and I think I mentioned this before), while I think Obama's a nice guy, we should not allow someone who doesn't do proper research and who doesn't understand the various cultures, needs, wants and expectations of the countries and regions of our world to lead the U.S. It scares me to think of him saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong person if he is our President.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:36 pm

Here's the questions, though, Birile: I've noticed you're a democratic supporter, and if it comes down to Obama winning the Dem spot, and let's say Guiliani wins the elephants... who are you going to vote for? A while back, I would say I would vote for Obama, but this recent stuff really makes me think that the white house is the last place he should be at this point. I'm not sure I wouldn't just waste my vote on an indy...
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Emarin
Sojourner
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Emarin » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:16 am

Birile wrote:I agree with Corth in that (and I think I mentioned this before), while I think Obama's a nice guy, we should not allow someone who doesn't do proper research and who doesn't understand the various cultures, needs, wants and expectations of the countries and regions of our world to lead the U.S. It scares me to think of him saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong person if he is our President.


We already have that person in office.... we've had him for the last what's going on 8 years now. Lord o mercy if it should go on for another 4... I'm on the Clinton bandwagon for this one.... The political influence that has grown behind hilary is amazing to me, not to mention her husband handled running the country quite well. His ties with foreign countries before could help hilary this time around, improving foreign relations.... something that I think Mr. Bush hasn't done a very good job of doing.
Dartan tells you '*roll*'
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:44 pm

I'm firmly behind Clinton.

That being said, over the past months my second choice has changed several times. I very much value the passionate response Obama's supporters have to him, however his gaffes have really made me scratch my head and wonder. I used to think Elizabeth Edwards was an asset for her husband but then she became a rabid attack dog that really turned me off. Richardson used to impress me but I can't even remember why now--again, his gaffes are problematic. I still very much enjoy and agree with most of Kucinich's platform. Dodd... who is this again? That's a problem (his, not mine)... As for Biden, I've got nothing bad to say about him, though very little to say in his favor, and certainly nothing that inspires me.

But pitting Obama v. Giuliani... are you friggin' kidding me? Giuliani is a scam and a half who has a penchant for running off at the mouth. Sure, he's handling himself with a modicum of decorum on the campaign trail, but man, could you see what would happen if this guy got elected? The first time a world leader said something he didn't like he'd froth at the mouth and say something that would cause WWIII. And I don't think I'm exaggerating. I'll take Obama's inexperience over that sort of personality ANY day. At least Obama's issue can be fixed with a little time--Giuliani's personality is set for life.

The only Republican I would EVER give half a glance to would be McCain. I'm not an "Oh my god, get our troops out of Iraq" Democrat--not that I agree with the war, but because getting our troops out of Iraq at this point would not be fair to the Iraqis we would be leaving behind when we're to blame for much of their predicament. So McCain's stance on Iraq isn't an end-all be-all for me. He was the only Republican to actually see that we needed to do something about immigration in a humane--and pragmatic--way, ie. he didn't spew hatred and blame Mexicans for all of the woes of this country. Keeping this country out of the hands of those Tancredo types is very important to me. But he's old. He'd probably die in office (early on) and leave us with whatever conservative religious zealot he chose as his VP. And he still ranks behind all of the Democratic contenders in my book (except maybe Richardson).
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

Yea I caught that too Corth. He's like that new guy who pipes up about how hot the CEO's secretary is and gets fired cuz he didn't know the CEO was banging her.

I'm not sure how Obama or Ron Paul would do, but I'm looking for somethign different the current 20 year reign of Clintons and Bushes and what our political system has degenerated into...

What will boggle my mind is if the republicans get any play out of their sudden return to fiscal conservatism. The sad part is they probably will.
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3172
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:56 pm

Birile wrote:
Thilindel wrote:
avak wrote:
Thilindel wrote:The osamabama comment isn't out of ignorance at all. One cannot compete at this level, which is the most pivotal white collar job around, with marginal understanding of what majority acceptance is - that being saluting the flag, etc. Did this muslim not ever attend grade school?


Edit - Removed completely warranted personal attack because most people here seem to want to have a mature discussion. Honestly, this kind of tripe quoted above should justify swift and heavy-handed action by the moderators.


So in America, where one is given the privilege to state their opinion...yet you acknowledge you render a frivolous personal attack, despite my as-stated privilege, unto which credit is given to our men and women in the service both present, and in the past, ...sad. Despite lack of the obvious, there was talk that maybe this presidential 'hopeful' didn't know to salute. In grade school, especially given this guy's age, it was a default that he would have saluted in that era - case closed. Nice job shooting your mouth off, however.


I find it funny that you're upset that avak stated his opinion--I'm sorry, "shot his mouth off" as you put it.

Furthermore, your as-stated privilege does not extend into privately-owned webpages where the moderators have the right to censor your own frivolous personal attack.


I'm not upset, I just felt it funny and illogical. As for you sticking your nose in it, maybe you shouldn't? It's not welcome.
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3172
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:20 pm

avak wrote:Nice. My personal attack was far from frivolous, but I felt that it could easily lead to the entire thread derailing and/or being locked.

Your robotic regurgitation of so-called patriotism is an ugly manifestation of the very ideals that have brought our great country to the point of near mockery. .


..aaaaaand, your blind fanaticism to make personal, something said generically, is what makes debates, whether religious, political - whatever, so great on these forums
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:16 pm

Thilindel wrote:I'm not upset, I just felt it funny and illogical. As for you sticking your nose in it, maybe you shouldn't? It's not welcome.


Well, I was the first person to react to your OSama comment (not counting Kifle who quoted your comment but didn't say anything about your alphabetical exchange). Your osamabama comment was in direct response to my previous post. So my comments and thoughts are more than warranted. You're quick to defend your right to espouse opinions, but don't welcome the opinions of others--that's rather ironic.

Your comments were full of hatred and highly offensive. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. You shouldn't be surprised at all when someone calls you out for it.
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3172
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:29 am

I was the first to direct something to a poster on this BBS? No. Reread.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:14 pm

I didn't say anything about you being the first to respond to anyone...
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:25 pm

So... how about those dems, eh?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:14 am

I saw a tabloid headline that said Obama and Oprah were falling for each other on the campaign trail. Wouldn't that be the most insane thing ever? Pres Obama and first lady Oprah...it would be like living inside a David Lynch movie.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:36 pm

What about the current Mrs. Obama? Female voters love the old get famous and ditch you first wife routine.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:05 pm

Corth wrote:What about the current Mrs. Obama? Female voters love the old get famous and ditch you first wife routine.


Vive la France!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:50 pm

My recollection is that Sarkozy got elected and THEN dumped his wife. Nonetheless, in France thats more or less normal. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:24 pm

More on Obama's awesome tech plan and vision for real broadband in America:

Deploy a Modern Communications Infrastructure

To realize Barack Obama's vision of an interconnected democracy, the nation deserves the finest and most modern communications infrastructure in the world. The technology sector has helped keep the United States at the center of innovation and the job growth and wealth creation that has accompanied it. However, while the United States once led the world in Internet deployment, the Bush administration has surrendered that leadership through its indifference to technology and its lack of understanding of the 21st century economy. By rededicating our nation to ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband and the skills to use it effectively, Barack Obama will position our citizens, particularly our young people, to compete and succeed in an increasingly technology-rich, knowledge-based economy.

* Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Barack Obama believes that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access. As a country, we have ensured that every American has access to telephone service and electricity, regardless of economic status, and Obama will do likewise for broadband Internet access. Full broadband penetration can enrich democratic discourse, enhance competition, provide economic growth, and bring significant consumer benefits. Moreover, improving our infrastructure will foster competitive markets for Internet access and services that ride on that infrastructure. Obama believes we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation&rsquo;s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. Specifically, Obama proposes the following policies to restore America&rsquo;s world leadership in this arena:

o Redefine "broadband:" The Federal Communications Commission today defines "broadband" as an astonishingly low 200 kbps. This distorts federal policy and hamstrings efforts to broaden broadband access. Obama will define "broadband" for purposes of national policy at speeds demanded by 21st century business and communications.


o Universal Service Reform: Obama will establish a multi-year plan with a date certain to change the Universal Service Fund program from one that supports voice communications to one that supports affordable broadband, with a specific focus on reaching previously un-served communities.


o Unleashing the Wireless Spectrum: Obama will confront the entrenched Washington interests that have kept our public airwaves from being maximized for the public's interest. Obama will demand a review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum. He will create incentives for smarter, more efficient and more imaginative use of government spectrum and new standards for commercial spectrum to bring affordable broadband to rural communities that previously lacked it. He will ensure that we have enough spectrum for police, ambulances and other public safety purposes.


o Bringing Broadband to our Schools, Libraries, Households and Hospitals: Obama will recommit America to ensuring that our schools, libraries, households and hospitals have access to next generation broadband networks. He will also make sure that there are adequate training and other supplementary resources to allow every school, library and hospital to take full advantage of the broadband connectivity.


o Encourage Public/Private Partnerships: Obama will encourage innovation at the local level through federal support of public/private partnerships that deliver real broadband to communities that currently lack it.



And Edwards is of course, fast to copy, but can only quote soundbites

* A Growing Digital Divide: The country that developed the internet now lags behind European and Asian countries in high-speed access. The U.S. is now 24th in the world in broadband penetration per household, trailing Estonia. Our internet access is also slower -- a child in Japan can get high speed internet that is 33 times faster at 1/20th the cost per megabit than a child in the United States using DSL. While half of urban and suburban households have broadband, less than a third of rural homes do. African Americans are 25 percent less likely to have internet access at home than whites. [Newsweek, 7/9/07; CWA, 2006; Pew, 2007]


I'd like to take a minute to explain exactly why Obama's position is superior to Edwards' here, and it has to do with the bolded section. Highlighting the FCC's complicity in the telcos misdeeds by focusing on the FCC definition of broadband could only come from someone who has read the $200 Billion Broadband Scandal and associated sites and blogs. 200 kbps "broadband" is a coverup of the original 45 Mbps broadband as laid out in the 1996 telecoms act.

Here, Obama's staffers obviously care about the details, and understand the underlying issue. They know that the current system is rotten, and that things will have to be very thoroughly overhauled. Edwards is copypastaing, probably because he's just making sure he can check off "issues" boxes on his list.[/b]
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:03 pm

Out of curiosity.. why does it matter how the FCC defines broadband? Presumably the US is still a free market country. There are plenty of competing broadband providers out there. For instance, Verizon FIOS has been spamming me with leaflets lately telling me how much faster it is than cable. If I wanted more bandwidth, I would just find a provider and pay for it. I feel like I am probably missing something here through.. I have little to no expertise in this type of stuff. Would love to hear this explained.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:11 pm

Oh, yeah.. for all you dems in favor of nationalized health care:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/arti ... 01452_5180
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:57 pm

Corth wrote:Out of curiosity.. why does it matter how the FCC defines broadband? Presumably the US is still a free market country. There are plenty of competing broadband providers out there. For instance, Verizon FIOS has been spamming me with leaflets lately telling me how much faster it is than cable. If I wanted more bandwidth, I would just find a provider and pay for it. I feel like I am probably missing something here through.. I have little to no expertise in this type of stuff. Would love to hear this explained.


Let's see, businesses could lay out tons of cash to lay new wires to support European/Asian broadband speeds... or they can "compete" by occasionally advertising some new incremental speed upgrade.

Which do you think is cheaper? Especially when you consider that we have no real choice (other than moving to Europe) for faster access until companies do start to build those new wires. I can either settle for 768k or not have internet. Choices!

What's really funny is that my provider HAS a faster option, on the level with FiOS... however they aren't activating it in our area until FiOS is rolled out so I can't get it anyway. Not that it would be as fast as most European countries have...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:26 am

I think I'm following you. Your saying that the underlying infrastructure is deficient so no significant speed increase is actually possible. Right?

I'm kind of stumped on that one. I don't really know the economics of bandwidth so I can't really form an opinion on whether or not the free market is capable of fixing the problem without government meddling. My gut feeling is government meddling probably caused the problem in the first place, which is usually the case... but I don't really know.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:59 pm

Corth wrote:Oh, yeah.. for all you dems in favor of nationalized health care:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/arti ... 01452_5180


IMO, flaws in management are different than flaws in concept.

"NDP Health Critic Adrian Dix says the issue is one that's continued to plague the Lower Mainland and he's blaming Liberal government cuts to acute care beds. "The number of acute care beds in British Columbia was reduced by 1,300 in the first mandate of the government, and some of the new facilities being opened won't be adding to that number.""

And also keep in mind that the reason this particular event made any news is because it supports a political position, imho.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:12 am

heheh, flaws in management shouldn't count? Thats exactly the problem with government trying to do things that the private sector should be doing. It tries to manage things and fails miserably.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:01 am

Corth wrote:heheh, flaws in management shouldn't count? Thats exactly the problem with government trying to do things that the private sector should be doing. It tries to manage things and fails miserably.


So, since government has failed in the past on an issue, it shouldn't try to do a better job? There are many, many examples of where this logic fails, but I'm sure you can conjure up a few of them on your own.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:18 am

Corth wrote:heheh, flaws in management shouldn't count? Thats exactly the problem with government trying to do things that the private sector should be doing. It tries to manage things and fails miserably.


You'll have to explain to us all why so many companies go bankrupt when private sector management never screws up.

Either that or admit that mistakes will be made with management whichever entity is doing the managing.

You know, you're choice.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:17 am

I'm not sure I'm looking at the right results, but I see Hillary in 3rd place on the Iowa primaries :( I'm either hoping I'm seeing incomplete data or Iowa isn't a good measuring stick for Dems.

Edit: Just got confirmation on CNN. My dog came in 3rd behind an idiot lawyer and a sub-par product wraped in a flashy package. It may be just me, but I think Obama might win only because he's attracting a lot of people who don't regularly vote but know little to nothing about politics (which is why they haven't voted in past elections). I really don't want this decided by people that want the polar opposite to bush rather than somebody that can truely run the country.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:49 pm

Sarvis,

Companies going bankrupt is the free market correctly 'managing' the industry. If government were handling that same industry, instead of a bankruptcy, you might very well have perpetual over-capacity (at taxpayer expense). Too many hospital beds.. and staff to maintain them.

Kifle,

I'm not saying that something was done poorly once in the past, so we should never give it another chance because it MIGHT be done poorly again. I'm saying it was done poorly because the underlying idea of government taking the place of the private sector is structurally unsound, and thus in the future it WILL definately be done poorly again.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:20 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Companies going bankrupt is the free market correctly 'managing' the industry. If government were handling that same industry, instead of a bankruptcy, you might very well have perpetual over-capacity (at taxpayer expense). Too many hospital beds.. and staff to maintain them.



<a href="http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20080102_101452_5180">Consistency, try it sometime</a>. :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:35 pm

Kifle - In all seriousness, what makes you think Clinton could run the country 'better' than Obama? I'm of the impression that a president is really a idealogical figurehead surrounded by (ideally) competent experts. Obviously, at the end of the day we really do need someone of competence and courage, among other things, but does Obama really not bring that to the table?

One of the most valuable aspects of an Obama presidency is the potential for some relief from divisive partisan politics. I think what we need is a real leader with some charisma (or nice packaging, if you want to be cynical).
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:30 pm

Hillary lost by a fraction of a percentage point and garnered more delegates than Edwards (Last I saw, Obama won 16, Hillary 15, Edwards 14--that may have changed since). Iowa really was a close finish, though I won't begrudge Obama his 38+% total--it's truly impressive.

While there was a great showing at the caucuses last night which benefited Obama, I can't really find anything wrong with people being excited and--dare it be said?--hopeful about the future. That's how I feel about this election, but I feel hopeful that Clinton will win. It's not fair to complain about people participating in the political process.

What I find most exciting is the sheer amount of Democrats who have been mobilized (I hate that word). It bodes well for November 2008, whoever the Democratic nominee may be!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:39 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Companies going bankrupt is the free market correctly 'managing' the industry. If government were handling that same industry, instead of a bankruptcy, you might very well have perpetual over-capacity (at taxpayer expense). Too many hospital beds.. and staff to maintain them.



<a href="http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20080102_101452_5180">Consistency, try it sometime</a>. :P


Not following you Sarvis. Too many hospital beds is the other side of the same coin as too few. Either way it was mismanaged. The point is that the private sector can more efficiently correct a misallocation of capital than the public sector. In the article I posted, the government did not allocate enough capital towards hospitals. They could have just as easily allocated too much capital. Thats how government screws things up.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:50 pm

I think its pretty amazing that a black candidate won in Iowa. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I do think that his victory speaks a lot for how far this country has come vis a vis race relations in actually a very short period of time.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:24 pm

Corth wrote:Kifle,

I'm not saying that something was done poorly once in the past, so we should never give it another chance because it MIGHT be done poorly again. I'm saying it was done poorly because the underlying idea of government taking the place of the private sector is structurally unsound, and thus in the future it WILL definately be done poorly again.


Don't you think that's a bit of an overgeneralization? To me, the government is one of the richest corperations out there -- if you'll allow me to compare it to the private sector in this debate. I mean, if we look at the government as if it were a corperation, it has resources that the private sector does not have in order to run their "business." With the proper funding, the hiring of the proper executives, and a strong business model, I'm confident that the government could create a stronger healthcare system than the private sectore -- not only because of their resources, but their sole ability to create legislature in order to help their system (which could be seen as a negative as well).

I don't know. I can see your point, and from the perspective of general economics and libertarian ideals, I would agree with you; however, I think both stances have the same amount of merit. The difference is, though, that america has never truely attempted a socialized healthcare system in which they actually tried to make it work rather than tried to make it save as much money as possible while still giving people the illusion of socialized healthcare. The structure this country has seen is flawed and corrupted at the very roots -- how can we ever expect it to work? This country has the resources and ability to make this work, and that is why I can side with you on this. In other countries, yes, I don't think socialized healthcare would work and it would be unfair to an extent.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:37 pm

avak wrote:Kifle - In all seriousness, what makes you think Clinton could run the country 'better' than Obama? I'm of the impression that a president is really a idealogical figurehead surrounded by (ideally) competent experts. Obviously, at the end of the day we really do need someone of competence and courage, among other things, but does Obama really not bring that to the table?

One of the most valuable aspects of an Obama presidency is the potential for some relief from divisive partisan politics. I think what we need is a real leader with some charisma (or nice packaging, if you want to be cynical).


Because she brings with her the legacy of Bill Clinton, for one. The world loved Bill, and the world will love Hillary. Hillary would be the quickest way to fix the foriegn mess that Bush has created.

Hillary is experienced. I heard on CNN that she has created this "experience" out of thin air because she was only the first lady, but I had to do a double-take when I heard that. She was a very, very active first lady during Bill's two terms. She was more than a regular first lady that went to read to school children or that stood behind her husband, waving during speeches. That was one of the most rediculous comments I've heard to date. Anyway, she has shown, by somehow winning the NY seat, that she is a very capable politician -- which means she can bring people to her side. This, again, is something we need not only in foriegn relations, but also here in the States because of the current political atmosphere.

Hillary is more moderate than Obama. Obama will be too much of a political shift for it to be anything but detrimental at this point. People are so sick of ultra-conservativism and "old, white money" mentality that they can be easily swayed too far to the liberal left if lead to do so. Obama can, and will, do that. Granted, the liberal left, imo, is better than the ultra-conservative right, but it is still not good for the regeneration or advancement of this country.

I could go on and list Obama's blunders, but I think this is enough to explain myself. I like Obama -- to an extent. Give the man eight more years to experience the political world and see things done right -- not just how not to do them, and I may give him my vote. Obama in a moderate political atmosphere wouldn't be as dangerous.

Edit: Also, I was reading over my wife's shoulder and saw his stance on "hate crimes." This is exactly what this country doesn't fucking need. His speeches talk about unifying America and smearing the lines between race, religion, etc. yet he wants to keep shit segragated? Pl-fucking-ease. The same anti-segragation segragation rhetoric that I've been hearing for the last ten years is driving me insane. The last thing this country needs is somebody who supports a blacks only entertainment awards and then campaigns against white only schools.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Re: Which Democrat are you supporting in the primaries?

Postby Lilira » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:01 am

Xisiqomelir wrote:-Bill Richardson is actually decent, but he can't make it


Richardson is a smarmy bastard whose stance changes on his current employment.

Yeah, I went there. :-)

I'm formerly from NM too.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:43 am

Corth wrote:Not following you Sarvis. Too many hospital beds is the other side of the same coin as too few.


Just thought it was amusing that two posts after you gave us an article about a bed shortage you claimed the government would provide too many beds.

Either way it was mismanaged. The point is that the private sector can more efficiently correct a misallocation of capital than the public sector. In the article I posted, the government did not allocate enough capital towards hospitals. They could have just as easily allocated too much capital. Thats how government screws things up.


You're still missing the point though: mismanagement can and does happen in the private sector. Sure, a company, hospital in this case, could go bankrupt if mismanaged... but that really just worsens the problems doesn't it? Instead of having too few beds because the government made a miscalculation, you have too few hospitals because the marketing department fucked up.

You put too much faith in the free market to do everything. The free market isn't about doing anything but making money, and one goal doesn't magically come out of following a separate goal.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:38 pm

I'm not talking about hospital beds. I'm talking about government mismanagement of what should be free markets. In a nationalized healthcare system, lack of hospital beds, as in my original example, is the result of insufficient capital resources being allocated by the legislature. Its what happens because government does not have a profit motive. On the other hand, too many hospital beds is the result of excess capital resources being allocated by the legislature. Its what happens because government DOESNT go bankrupt when it makes bad decisions.

Bankruptcy might be a sign of a mismanaged company, but in terms of markets, it means that the market is running efficiently. If there are too many hospital beds, in a free market system, then a hospital SHOULD go bankrupt. If over time the population increases and there is demand for more hospital capacity, then someone, trust me, will fill the void in order to make a profit.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:09 pm

We're talking about mismanagement, and you're really confusing the issue.

1) Private sector managers fuck up. They mismanage things. They are not inherently better or worse than government management.

2) The private sector under and over-estimates demand <i>all the time</i>.

3) If a private sector manager fucks up and underestimates demand, they cannot simply flip a switch to rectify it. Just look at what happened to the Wii during it's launch AND during this holiday season.

The only advantage in the free market is that the corporation would eat the cost of overestimating rather than taxpayers. However it's actually easier to throttle back production (perhaps shut down one wing) than it is to increase production (build a new wing) so that may not be too much of a disadvantage after all.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:02 pm

You know why I really can't support Clinton? Not because of her policy, but because of her personality. So, I'm thinking Obama will clinch NH and then pretty much be the man to beat after that. I was looking online for recent poll numbers from NH and see that Obama has made a very bold claim:

"Fresh from his stunning eight-point victory in the Iowa caucuses, an assured Mr Obama landed in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and declared: "If you give me the same chance Iowa gave me last night, I truly believe I will be President of the United States.""

And I believe it. But what really gets me is how Clinton is spinning her trouncing in Iowa. She's gone, predictably, negative. WTF I am so tired of attack-style politics.

"Mrs Clinton, who was beaten into an ignominious third place behind John Edwards, made clear she would attack Mr Obama relentlessly as she fought for political survival.

There were "a lot of unanswered questions" about the candidates, she said, telling voters she wanted to hear: "What do you want to know about us?" Clinton aides briefed that Mr Obama was incompetent and a poor debater."

You know, F that. That is how you win elections these days? By tearing down your opponent? Reminds me of some of the ridiculous discussions on this very forum. I thought the repubs were the ones that promoted fear, uncertainty and doubt as a core strategy. Embarrassing.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests