Syd, you are generally pretty moderate guy politically
I am curious why you are quoting the national review--which is right of Dick Chaney and Carl Rove and the libertarian party which is right of the National Review for information on Obamah and team. It strikes me as not your typical way of doing things. I haven't always aggreed with you, but generally you quote from quality sources and I respect your analysis even if I disagree with it.
We all are learning more about the candidates. Let's not get "swift boated" here.
I never would accept Michael Moore as an authoritative source on W, although he tells an interesting and entertaining story which is biased and not always factually correct. I was also grossed out by Kity Kelley's book on W and the family which repeated in graphic detail about W learning how to drink at 19 as described by frat brothers. I personally despise W and think that he will be remembered by history not favorably, but I also think the swift boat type politics may lead to the end of the noble experiment that started in 1776. When a decorated two tour of duty viet vet is remebered as a coward and a daddy's boy whose air national guard records are all lost is painted as a great warrior something about our way of doing things is broken and needs mending. Syd this has nothing to do with you. I'm typing with the flue and getting ready to be served up bread and circus instead of information important to making vital decisions.
During my recent stay in BA, I had dental implants done. In the USA, I would have required major bone grafting. In Argentinia, the dentist could use new technology developed in Korea using stems cells to stimulate bone growth.
The dentist explained the delays in approval in the USA because of the rules on stem cells. We maybe really nearing the end of a great experiment if we do not closely watch our leaders and the deals they make to get elected. I remember when John McCain publically ridiculed an envangical leader for saying that 9/11 was God's punishment for condoning homosexuality in the USA. John McCain has made peace with this style of thought and embraced it's leadership and the people he once stood up and denounced.
Don't shoot the messenger
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]I am curious why you are quoting the national review--which is right of Dick Chaney and Carl Rove and the libertarian party which is right of the National Review for information on Obamah and team. [/quote] I ’m curious how can you refer to the Libertarian Party as right of the National Review?
Would you call the democrat party to the right as well considering; The National Platform of the Libertarian Party indicates they are pro choice, anti war, even pro gay rights.
Do you just automatically describe everyone that doesn ’t like “Bo ” as being to the right, as if that was something inherently bad, if so would you also call the eighteen million Clinton voters as being to the right?
Perhaps you should read the platform of the Libertarian Party before you start bad mouthing them.
[url]http://www.lp.org/platform[/url]
The Libertarian Party Platform also says they favor Personal Liberty, and considering this is a monger ’s forum you should also look at their position on prostitution;
[I]“Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”[/i]
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]We all are learning more about the candidates. Let's not get "swift boated" here.[/QUOTE]Bob perhaps you would like to give us a list of media we should accept information from.
You know like “MoveOn, USAction, Americans United for Change, ” or other George Soros Masterminded and supported groups.
How about other members of the “Democrat Attack Machine like, Main Stream Media outlets such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS or newspapers such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post or Magazine like Time, Newsweek and the New Yorker ”
My point is debate your position if you like but "Don't shoot the messenger"!
I am familiar with the libertairan party
Their views would lead to complete kaos--no regulation. The big fish eat the little fish, no securities regulation, no banking regulation. William.
Buckeley, the founder of the national review, was intellectually consistent and believed in not regulating gay life styles and marijuana. I watched him at a locale debate when he was asked about this issues and how they fit into his intellectual frame work. The logical answers were "do not regulate when in doubt". On a personal level he was concerned about government not regualting marijuana as it might be more dangerous than presented.
I dout that many people would consider the libertatian party as a moderate and dependable souce for basic information WITH A MINIMAL TILT. Why is it that the libertaians tend to support the same candidates that the neoconseveratives and far right wing evangelicals support. Libertarians, to be intellectually consistant, should not be pushing for constitutional amendments at the state level on issues such as: abortion rights and the teaching of evolution and natural selection in public schools? Yet the libertarians end up supporting candidates that favor these positions. Libertarianism as practiced in the real politic, either runs independent candidates that don't gather the support of ralph nader or get lumped in with the neoconvervatives and far Christian right. Fox news is more moderate than the libertarian party.
T. Boone Pickens financed the swift boaters. A hydrocarbons multi-billionaire.
He got his money's worth from the bushies.
I do not know you Punter and you may have whatever views please you.
Syd is someone that I know and I respect. I did not understand his choice of sourses.
