When we discussed her on another thread, Dagonee brought up a very substantive point against her in that she's pro-eminent domain.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the politicians, fellow Hatrackers. Together we can build a better tomorrow and forge a common path of understanding.
quote:When we discussed her on another thread, Dagonee brought up a very substantive point against her in that she's pro-eminent domain
My posting of that quote had little if anything to do with her being pro-eminent domain and everything to do with her horribly misinformed understanding of the separation of powers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want an example? Bush comes out the other day with a total reversal of his Iraq policy and says that "stay the course" was NEVER his plan, and that really what that meant was we adapt to new situations and change as things go. He said that now he wants "benchmarks" for progress in the government, which Democrats have been calling for for at least a year and a half if not more. Bush claims he isn't actually supporting the long held Democratic held ideas for Iraq, and that we're still "cut and runners" but it's a flimsy shield.
The best thing Pelosi and the Democrats could have done was to come out and say "For years now Democrats have been advocating this policy for the good of America, and it's nice to see President Bush and Republicans have finally seen the error of their ways and have decided to join with us in our attempt at bi-partisan cooperation for the good of the American people."
It makes Democrats look strong, smart, prophetic even. And it makes it look like the Republicans botched it big time, and only came to the right decision when they decided to finally start listening to Democrats. But instead she went on the attack, her and Harry Reid.
Now admittedly, the things she said in her attack were all valid points, well stated and well put together. But it was the wrong message, the wrong time. It's the time to make Democrats look strong, and to be the guy that DOESN'T attack the other side just because they are the other side. I think we need a leader that supports that point of view.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My posting of that quote had little if anything to do with her being pro-eminent domain and everything to do with her horribly misinformed understanding of the separation of powers.
It's amazing how people misunderstand you all the time, isn't it? It seems like every day there's something you say that seems to mean mostly one thing but it's something else entirely.
But, just for the record, you never posted a quote in that thread. I posted a link that contained a quote that she had made. All you said previous to that was, if memory serves, that I should check out what she had to say about, what was it?, Kelo?
Now, to my non-legal mind, Kelo means pro-eminent domain. It's what a lot of popular opinion equates it with, and I'm guessing you know this.
You did say after I linked to her that she had no understanding of the seperation of powers, I believe. However, this was said after you mentioned just to check out what she said with no elaboration and, quite frankly, it didn't make a whole lot of impression on me because I dont' really care if she has no understanding of the seperation of powers.
It is entirely reasonable for *me* to focus on her pro-eminent domain stance instead of her screwed up legal thinking (in your opinion) and to see that that was what that 'quote' was all about.
I think this is obvious, and I think you are being semantically petty and a jerk. I think you do this quite frequently and intentionally ignore implied points in people's arguments or magnify points in favor of other points or ignore context to change whole meanings around to your favor.
Yes, we all know that you say this is for preciseness, and who isn't for that, but it's pretty clear that your preciseness tends to swing in one direction--in your point of view's favour.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
What are Condi's policies? Things she supports and is against? What's her position on domestic issues? gay marriage? etc?
I don't know. I know she's willing to pressure Israel into doing things against Israeli interests. More than Bush is, it seems to me, but less than Clinton (the husband) was. I suspect Hillary would be more than willing to do what her hubby did in that area, but she's probably going to be too busy with domestic issues to do that much harm.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea what you mean in that post. You don't know her policies, except that she's at least slightly less willing than a theoretical Clinton in the Oval at pressuring Israel to do things, but that domestic issues will make it irrelevent anyway...
So, why would you vote for Condi over Hillary?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama manages eloquence and passion and the ephemeral "substance" that gets lost on the blander candidates.
He has the charisma that's allowed him to write books which gain adherents at a scary rate. He's the erudite opposite of Bush's worn-out yokel plebe platitudes. He also has the very super-convenient and well-liked Story Of Accomplishment In The Face Of Personal Hardship, which again separates him from Bush, which represents silver-spoon dynastic upbringing. He's got extra appeal in the short-term since he essentially represents everything that people are now thinking should have been obvious Red Flags about Bush.
Obama is made out by a few to be the perfect Democratic storm. In comparison with other contemporary candidates, he's relatively untouchable; Republican blogs have been observed to try to open salvos on him and create a chink in his impeccable exterior, but nothing sticks. Clinton, on the other hand, has been tanned and dried. She's been tagged with too much. Much of it is fair, some of it is unfair, but she'd start the race chained to her carefully Republican-crafted public image, and she would likely lose.
Time was, fellas would once be heard to say that Obama's congressional 'inexperience' was the hindrance that would keep him out of an '08 run.
Now, though, everyone associates congress with inexorable crookery and rot. A reasonable study of Obama's character reveals that he's not your average uberpoliticker. Being an outsider is now yet another advantage to Obama's hypothetical run.
What I want to see is a race between Obama and McCain. They are distinct ideological opposites in many ways, and I wouldn't support McCain as my choice as candidate, but neither one is known for the relentlessly duplicitous, insular dorkery of the present administration. I could respect either as a stand-up guy and not a hapless platitudinist.
Or, hey, the Republicans could pick someone else to fight Obama -- The kitten scalper, perhaps -- and get served a Democratic wipe.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have no idea what you mean in that post. You don't know her policies, except that she's at least slightly less willing than a theoretical Clinton in the Oval at pressuring Israel to do things, but that domestic issues will make it irrelevent anyway...
So, why would you vote for Condi over Hillary?
Because I know I don't like Hillary. I don't like the way she supported murderers, and I don't like the way she tried to cram socialized medicine down our throats. Condi is less of a known quantity to me, but she's part of the Bush administration, which tells me that when it comes to foreign policy, she's likely to be better than Hillary.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
