Ted Turner/Barbara Boxer

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

hspeder:

Are you really telling me that liberals are basing their opposition to Rice on this bit of fantastical projection by Maggie Burns:

[/quote]"There is also a fearsome possibility, as other writers have pointed out, that Rice will be assigned the task of firing independent analysts and solid researchers in the State Department. If this assessment sounds harsh, it should be measured against her track record in academia, where Rice has been the beneficiary of primarily right-wing academic interests who have sponsored her at every turn since high school, and she has always produced the performance demanded.

Margie Burns, a freelance writer in the Washington, DC, area, can be reached at margie.burns@verizon.net. [/quote]

Or was I supposed to read more into her biographical info?

First, if it were her assigned task to
“get rid of” people, what makes you think someone else wouldn’t do it? Second, is there some other reason besides her role at one previous position that gives rise to this objection?

It seems to me that if one were to actually listen to what the Democratic Senators were saying in their objections, that they were turning the confirmation hearings into a debate on Iraq policy. Confirmation hearings aren’t supposed to be a policy debate, they’re supposed to be about the qualifications on the nominee.

Bush won the election, and it seems he should be able to appoint people to his cabinet who agree with his policies and outlook – the Dems can be in opposition on things like spending bills if they want to air their differences.

22

Hspdr

Thanks for the bio on Condi. What are you actually trying to say?

23

Boxer’s grandstanding obscures the most valid point: Rice got confirmed with a vote of 86-13.

For further food for thought, the junior Senator from New York voted ‘aye’ as well as Barack Obama.

Maybe Obama tired of hearing hypocritical liberals use the ‘black woman subservient to her white Republican masters’ subtext when complaining about her.

As is, the real story is that she is Secretary of State now - and if there is a lesson to be learned from a civil rights point of view, a black woman now boasts one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Congratulations, Dr. Rice.

24

[quote]JeffR wrote:
D.D.Dean,

You have been one of my favorite liberal friends for some time. I do value your opinion. You accepted the challenge, and unlike ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1 (rsu), you lived up to your obligation.

All right, enough sunshine!!!

I do like your new posting style!!!

I would have thought that YOU of all my liberal friends would have disowned these ridiculous characters’ comments.

First of all, there is no comparison to the Nazi propaganda machine and Fox. None. Find me ANY newsreel where goebbels had a Von Hindenberg supporter debating a Nazi!!! Don’t bother, there isn’t one.

If you watch Fox, you can see that the liberals are everywhere!!! Hell I even watched Ted Rall spout off!!!

I encourage my liberal friends to watch Barbara Boxer’s rants on C-Span in their entirety. She’s an absolute loon!!!

I started this post using the most ridiculous figures making their most ridiculous comments in the hope that my liberal friends could criticize ANY aspect of current liberal ideology.

I’m disappointed.

JeffR

[/quote]

All right, I will say it. Fox does not resemble the Nazi propaganda machine.
It is a heavily biased load of junk, however. Propaganda is the right word to use, but Nazi isn’t.

To add to some of the later posts, Dr Rice is certainly qualified academically for her position.
However her actions in the leadup to the Iraq war (no small potatoes for America and the world) meant that the criticism and opposition she recieved during the confirmation process were justified.
As for the fact that she’s a black woman- what the fuck difference does that make?
Her former position on the board of directions for greed-merchants Shell certainly make her a good fit for the Bush-Cheney team.

As for Barbara Boxer, yeah, she looks kinda funny, like your 55 year old aunt who mistakenly thinks she’s still cool, but she did stand up to the Republicans, something most of the
gutless Democrats didn’t.

Did anyone see Senator Robert Byrd in action the other day? You can see him on the net at CSpan. I thought he was magnificent.

25

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As is, the real story is that she is Secretary of State now - and if there is a lesson to be learned from a civil rights point of view, a black woman now boasts one of the most powerful positions in the world. [/quote]

“Most powerful positions in the world”. Riiiiight. I’m sure Colin Powell felt that way, that’s why he showed up so often and was so eager and enthusiastic about the stuff he said.

You know as well as I do Condi will simply do and say whatever Bush and his “advisors” tell her to. Which is actually something she’s proven to be extremely good at, so, in a sense, she is perfect for the job - from Bush’s point of view, that is. And, hence, probably, from yours too.

That was my point, when I quoted the article, by the way - that the reason Bush wanted her and the liberals didn’t is basically that she’ll do without question and to perfection whatever Bush tells her to, even if it is killing off her entire family with an automatic assault weapon. :slight_smile:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Boxer’s grandstanding obscures the most valid point: Rice got confirmed with a vote of 86-13.

Congratulations, Dr. Rice.[/quote]

That’s most valid point? Riiiiight. Because the majority rules, even if they’re wrong - which, of course they never are, because the majority defines what is the Enlightened Path, right?

I’m sure you and all the conservative choir here had exactly that same stance when Clinton won the election.

I’ll leave you with a Dutch saying:

"
Conservatism is like a muddy road - it does not stop progress, it just makes it really slow and messy.
"

26

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
As for Barbara Boxer, yeah, she looks kinda funny, like your 55 year old aunt who mistakenly thinks she’s still cool, but she did stand up to the Republicans, something most of the
gutless Democrats didn’t.[/quote]

She’s from an ultra-liberal state and has a full six years to spew her anti-american B.S. with little or no repercussions. Rumor has it she won’t run again in 2006 anyhow. Most of the other Senators have a constituency to worry about. So her rhetoric is largely hot air.

[quote]Did anyone see Senator Robert Byrd in action the other day? You can see him on the net at CSpan. I thought he was magnificent.
[/quote]

I don’t think you are supposed to use Sheets Byrd and magnificent in the same sentence. There are rules, you know.

27

[quote]hspder wrote:
I’ll leave you with a Dutch saying:

"Conservatism is like a muddy road ? it does not stop progress, it just makes it really slow and messy.
"[/quote]

Yep - those Europeans got it right. Wait - who has the best health-care in the world? Who is the most productive nation on earth? Which western nation is it that has the highest GDP?

But what does the U.S. know about anything? We should all trade our dollars in for euros, and start living like the freakin Dutch.

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yep - those Europeans got it right. Wait - who has the best health-care in the world? Who is the most productive nation on earth? Which western nation is it theat has the highest GDP?
[/quote]

Challenging me on that area, my friend, was a mistake. Similar to challenging BB on case law.

Let me decompose your claims one my one:

In regards to Health Care, it is widely accepted most countries in Europe have better healthcare than the US. For many reasons, including - but not limited to - the fact the US has a much higher infant mortality rate - and I think we can agree very well that if there’s a indicator that is the important, infant mortality must be it.

Instead of reproducing it here, read this excellent, fact-based scientific paper on that same subject:

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

It explains my point quite clearly and plainly.

In regards to productivity, I’ll give that one to you - but not without a fight.

A true capitalist as yourself surely agrees that the performance of a CEO of a company is better measured by the growth that the company has year after year under his belt, rather than absolute numbers, right? Growth is what stockholders are looking for, not absolute numbers, since those are already dilluted in common stock.

So let’s look at productivity GROWTH: although U.S. productivity is still the highest in the world by a wide margin?its productivity growth trailed that of other nations in most years since World War II, except - you guessed it! - in the years when Bill Clinton was in power! But that quickly stopped after Bill left, which has stoked fears that the United States will eventually fall behind. After all, British productivity from 1880 to 1990 grew just 1 percentage point more slowly than that of its trading partners?hardly a huge shortfall, but enough to transform the once proud empire into a second-rate economy in little more than a lifetime.

On top of it, Asia leads the world in labor productivity growth at 3.4% yearly between 1990 and 2005. East Asia has rebounded strongly from its 1997-1998 crisis, registering solid 3.6% productivity growth since 1998. China continues to be a worldwide leader in labor productivity growth, at 6.5% annually. India leads South Asia with 3.4% productivity growth between 1995 and 2002. Japan experienced a significant acceleration in per hour labor productivity growth in 2003, increasing from 1.8% in 2002 to 2.9% in 2003. In addition, its labor-input growth was positive for the first time in 3 years.

Also, there is another problem: this productivity in the US is achieved thanks to a much higher number of hours worked per week - the average nr of work hours per week in the US is already 25% above the average nr of hours worked by a German, and the difference is increasing.

So, yes, the productivity is the highest in the world, but a) others are catching up and b) that productivity is achieved in great part due to more works worked (i.e., less time available to hit the gym)

Finally, in regards to GDP, I assume you mean GDP per capita, since just looking at absolute GDP would be unfair since no country in Europe has even close to the same population as the US. And in terms of GDP per capita, well, the US is not the first either:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

And if you take into account the GDP per capita per hour worked, the US drops down to oblivion:

So, you see, things are not so simple as you want them to be.

If you’re in a hurry, you don’t see what is the punchline and/or I confused you again, there’s also this excellent document which boils it down very well, clearly, and with a very visible punchline, from a publication that is actually widely recognized as being very conservative:

29

Hspder,

“Most powerful positions in the world”. Riiiiight."

You don’t think the secretary of foreign policy and international relations of the world’s lone superpower and the mightiest economic and military people in the history of the world isn’t one of the most powerful people in the world?

You do you specialize in naivete or is this just something new you’re trying out?

“You know as well as I do Condi will simply do and say whatever Bush and his “advisors” tell her to.”

Let’s see - your main reason behind believing this is the work of some freelance writer who did nothing more than surmise that Rice had been helped by her major professors and academic mentors along the way.

Couple that with the fact that the Secretary of State is an executive department that is an extension of the President, not a separate branch of government. The Secretary of State, like the others, serves at the pleasure of the President. It is not going to be Rice’s job to go her own way.

I apologize - I thought you had an understanding of US government.

“Which is actually something she’s proven to be extremely good at, so, in a sense, she is perfect for the job - from Bush’s point of view, that is. And, hence, probably, from yours too.”

Well, I want someone with their own opinion and experience, but if I’m President, my Secretary of State needs to be on board with my foreign policy vision so that she communicates it to the world.

I guess you want someone to blaze their own unencumbered trail - wrong job.

“That was my point, when I quoted the article, by the way - that the reason Bush wanted her and the liberals didn’t is basically that she’ll do without question and to perfection whatever Bush tells her to, even if it is killing off her entire family with an automatic assault weapon. :-)”

I understand it’s difficult for liberals to understand the concept of loyalty, since morality is situational in their view - but liberals in Congress only need be worried whether she has the qualifications to do the job. It’s the President’s choice and it’s her job to support his foreign policy. What makes liberals mad is that Rice is going to do her job correctly and support a foreign policy they happen not to like.

You know what maverick, independent-minded Secertaries of State get, regardless of party?

Fired.

“That’s most valid point? Riiiiight. Because the majority rules, even if they’re wrong - which, of course they never are, because the majority defines what is the Enlightened Path, right?”

No, you have it backwards - liberals are the democracy-as-ultimate-truth worshippers. The valid point is that despite the Boxer noise machine, the Rice confirmation was never in any serious doubt. So making Rice out to be some crazy ideologue is silly - the vote says she has the confidence of the Senate.

“I’m sure you and all the conservative choir here had exactly that same stance when Clinton won the election.”

Huh?

By the way, anybody else smell the irony of former Klansman Robert Byrd voting against a black Condi Rice in the confirmation?

30

[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:

Did anyone see Senator Robert Byrd in action the other day? You can see him on the net at CSpan. I thought he was magnificent.

I don’t think you are supposed to use Sheets Byrd and magnificent in the same sentence. There are rules, you know.
[/quote]

Yeah, true, I was so impressed with his speech I completely forgot his former affiliation with the KKK. MY bad.

31

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Yep - those Europeans got it right. Wait - who has the best health-care in the world? Who is the most productive nation on earth? Which western nation is it theat has the highest GDP?

Challenging me on that area, my friend, was a mistake. Similar to challenging BB on case law.

Let me decompose your claims one my one:

In regards to Health Care, it is widely accepted most countries in Europe have better healthcare than the US. For many reasons, including - but not limited to - the fact the US has a much higher infant mortality rate - and I think we can agree very well that if there’s a indicator that is the important, infant mortality must be it.

Instead of reproducing it here, read this excellent, fact-based scientific paper on that same subject:

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

It explains my point quite clearly and plainly.

In regards to productivity, I’ll give that one to you - but not without a fight.

A true capitalist as yourself surely agrees that the performance of a CEO of a company is better measured by the growth that the company has year after year under his belt, rather than absolute numbers, right? Growth is what stockholders are looking for, not absolute numbers, since those are already dilluted in common stock.

So let’s look at productivity GROWTH: although U.S. productivity is still the highest in the world by a wide margin?its productivity growth trailed that of other nations in most years since World War II, except - you guessed it! - in the years when Bill Clinton was in power! But that quickly stopped after Bill left, which has stoked fears that the United States will eventually fall behind. After all, British productivity from 1880 to 1990 grew just 1 percentage point more slowly than that of its trading partners?hardly a huge shortfall, but enough to transform the once proud empire into a second-rate economy in little more than a lifetime.

On top of it, Asia leads the world in labor productivity growth at 3.4% yearly between 1990 and 2005. East Asia has rebounded strongly from its 1997-1998 crisis, registering solid 3.6% productivity growth since 1998. China continues to be a worldwide leader in labor productivity growth, at 6.5% annually. India leads South Asia with 3.4% productivity growth between 1995 and 2002. Japan experienced a significant acceleration in per hour labor productivity growth in 2003, increasing from 1.8% in 2002 to 2.9% in 2003. In addition, its labor-input growth was positive for the first time in 3 years.

Also, there is another problem: this productivity in the US is achieved thanks to a much higher number of hours worked per week - the average nr of work hours per week in the US is already 25% above the average nr of hours worked by a German, and the difference is increasing.

So, yes, the productivity is the highest in the world, but a) others are catching up and b) that productivity is achieved in great part due to more works worked (i.e., less time available to hit the gym)

Finally, in regards to GDP, I assume you mean GDP per capita, since just looking at absolute GDP would be unfair since no country in Europe has even close to the same population as the US. And in terms of GDP per capita, well, the US is not the first either:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

And if you take into account the GDP per capita per hour worked, the US drops down to oblivion:

So, you see, things are not so simple as you want them to be.

If you’re in a hurry, you don’t see what is the punchline and/or I confused you again, there’s also this excellent document which boils it down very well, clearly, and with a very visible punchline, from a publication that is actually widely recognized as being very conservative:

[/quote]

Hspdr

You write some funny shit. Did you really graduate from Stanford or did you work there?

If you watched any of the hearings you would have seen someone like Biden actually dissent but do so with intelligence and at least some decorum and respect for the facts. By the way he is as liberal as they come but the man can make an argument without whining. People despise Boxer because she is an idiot and aposter child for lost causes. She is electable only in her State and certain other liberal bastions.

As to the Dutch proverb…let’s face it if Liberals ran the world we would all be speaking Russian by now and living in the ultimate liberal fantasy land…a socialist worker state.

32

Thunderbolt:

If Byrd were a republican the liberal media would have been all over that vote! He would have had to resign.

By the way I think you are giving hspder far to much credit. You actually answered his nonsensical post! But, hey you’re a good guy :slight_smile:

33

[quote]hedo wrote:
You write some funny shit. Did you really graduate from Stanford or did you work there?[/quote]

If you’re trying to say or imply something, just be a T-man and go out and say it…

Anyway, the answer is: both.

I never defended Boxer’s style, just her motivations. I know very well her style is counterproductive and it ultimately fails to achieve anything. I’m just not comfortable with people that do not understand the context and are not her constituents attacking her the way many of you have. I can attack Bush if I wish because he is the president of all Americans and is supposed to represent - and work for - all of us. In the same way, I can attack (or defend) Boxer, because she’s representing me, i.e., she’s supposed to be working “for me”. But anyone who doesn’t live in California has no business in publicly attacking somebody who is not representing you - i.e., is not “working for you” - just because of the way they voice their options.

That’s McCarthyst BS. No liberal party in Europe had ever any such inclinations, and they have been in power in most countries in Europe for the better part of the Cold War. Liberals are as much against the (totalitarian) communist regime that Russia had as the any right-wing conservative. Look at the definition of liberalism so you can plainly see why liberals are intrinsically against a totalitarian “socialist worker state” like Russia was:

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

34

[quote]deanosumo wrote:

As for the fact that she’s a black woman- what the fuck difference does that make?

[/quote]

I completely agree. I don’t want the Republicans adding legitimacy to this line of defense. It’s not the issue.

It’s one thing to say the media would be covering this differently if it were Republicans critical of a black female Democrat, and oppostion was lead (or joined, whatever) by a former KKK member.

It’s quite another to say Dr. Rice deserves support simply because she is the first black woman Sec. of State, or that she is above criticism because she is the first black woman Sec. of State. I have all sorts of problems with the “Iraq critique”, but the fact Dr. Rice is a black woman is not among them.

The same will apply to Miguel Estrada when he is up for confirmation (first Hispanic A.G., etc.).

I’m not singling anyone on here out for this, but I have definitely heard the talking heads arguing the Republican side of the debate on TV take that line, and it’s quite troubling.

35

[quote]hspder wrote:
…I can attack (or defend) Boxer, because she’s representing me, i.e., she’s supposed to be working “for me”. But anyone who doesn’t live in California has no business in publicly attacking somebody who is not representing you - i.e., is not “working for you” - just because of the way they voice their options.[/quote]

This is inane. Barbara Boxer votes every day on legislation that affects you, me, and everyone else in this country. If she is “working for you” and “representing you” then I don’t like what “you” are trying to turn “my” country into. I really wish she WOULD stick to local San Francisco politics. The whole country would be better off if the government were as decentralized as you imply it is in your post. PS, you can keep Feinstein too. Thanks.

[quote]----
Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress…[/quote]

Progress toward what?

But it is the liberals who are forever in a fit about how we are wantonly destroying the planet, killing each other with our assault weapons, and hogging the world’s wealth and resources. Maybe it only refers to the “essential goodness” of the liberal human race.

[quote]and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
------[/quote]

HUH???

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …” [President Bill Clinton, ‘USA Today’ March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

36

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

HUH???

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …” [President Bill Clinton, ‘USA Today’ March 11, 1993: Page 2A][/quote]

I’ll agree with you that if the Clintons claim to be liberals, those two comments are either completely out of context, or the product of serious alcohol-induced brain gas. :slight_smile:

Next thing I know you’ll be quoting Hillary’s speech where she joked about Ghandi working in a gas station and using that to prove she’s a bigot.

So, what is exactly the point you are trying to make? That the Clintons have frequent brain farts? Fine, point made… But I don’t think that’s news for anyone.

37

[quote]hspder wrote:
So let’s look at productivity GROWTH: although U.S. productivity is still the highest in the world by a wide margin?its productivity growth trailed that of other nations in most years since World War II, except - you guessed it! - in the years when Bill Clinton was in power! But that quickly stopped after Bill left, which has stoked fears that the United States will eventually fall behind.
[/quote]

Did you really go to college? Don’t tell me you really believe that any president has that much influence on the economy whether it is Clinton or Bush. Give me a break. I’m sorry to break it you, but presidents have very little influence on American economy. you may want to redirect your attention to the federal reserve.

38

hspder- let me leave start off with a red-state American saying- Dutch liberalism leaves you with an unassimilated, churlish minority that stabs you in the chest and takes over your public facilites because they have decided (correctly) you don’t have the stones to do shit about it.

It’s debunk- not decompose- you’re not bacterica.

Infant mortality stats- do euthanized Dutch babies count in those stats?

Productivity- is still high, although not as high as you appear to be. It also correlates well with the Dems loss of the House. It’s funny, though, just how many stories I hear about Bubba working so hard on the assembly line and at the lab bench while getting a hummer from some fat brunette. Truly amazing.

Sourcing the CIA. Freakin’ brilliant. Well, they did call the former Soviet Union about right, as well as the ehemalige Deutsche Demokratische Republik Wirtschaftswunder. The Bubba appointed director of said august organization did call the Iraq WMD case a slam dunk or some such shit like that. And now you libs want to quote them. I guess…

The Economist is not “widely recognized as being very conservative.” Email them and ask. Don’t be surprised by a smart-assed answer.

And now to the money shot:
“But anyone who doesn’t live in Cal. has no business in publicly attacking somebody who is not representing you i.e. not “working for you” just because of the way they voice their options.”

Bullshit, we do too It’s called being an American. Telling us not to, now that’s MaCarthyite, not yst- look it up.

Besides, the bitch doesn’t work. I didn’t see her outside my house this morning fetching me my morning paper, which is about all she can handle upstairs.

39

hspdr

Sorry for the confusion. I was not trying to be sublime. My expectation of a Stanford Grad were higher. That is why I asked the question when you mentioned “your time at Stanford”.

Your writing style tends to border on the nonsensical. Myself and others have made that comment. Your comments in another thread regarding the French revolution were, in my opinion bizarre and completely silly.

Many of the inferences you make require a leap of faith that could only be made by the ill informed or someone completely infatuated with propaganda. I actually find it entertaining, more from a comedic perspective then a political one.

Do you really think that some of Babs votes have not effected me?? Not sure if you really understand how the Senate works then?

40

hspder:

As someone who does not want to see anymore bloodshed, I suggest you bow out of this thread gracefully.

All in favor say “aye.”