Definitely Clinton.

Man I miss him as President.  Intelligent, empathetic, and hugely workaholic.

Workaholic?  He did virtually nothing for 8 years.

I probably would have selectively backed the Muhajehadein but wouldn't have given them stinger missiles.

Effectively though, that means that you would have given them enough to bleed the Soviets, but not enough to actually drive them out.  That was our policy actually until 1985-86.

Well to be fair it wasn't the addition of Stinger missiles which drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.  Gorbie and the Soviet leadership just finally hit a point where their own government was collapsing and continued expenditure propping up an unpopular foreign regime was pointless.

I think the fact that the mujahedeen had more sophistocated weaponry made the Soviet fight there harder, and hastened their decision to leave.  Surely, the Soviets' other problems played a role too, but it would have been easier and cheaper for them to hang on in Afghanistan if the resistance had been less effective.

Dazzleman, BRTD is already gay with Opebo

I would never seek to violate the sanctity of that relationship.

Okay,  this is REALLY gonna be embarrasing.  So much so, that I must first tell you I love Clapton and The Who and Pink Floyd and Bruce Cockburn...I love Robert Johnson and Billie Holiday and Bach and Mozart...

But...

I also really enjoyed...  <gag> <sputter>

"Key Largo" by Bertie Higgins.

::: hanging head :::

And I tell everyone how much I hate rap, yet I know every word of "Baby's Got Back."

Okay -- I will crawl back under my rock.

I remember "Key Largo."  I like the song too.  There's another song from that period that I feel so guilty about liking that I won't even mention it...

"It's Raining Men" by The Weather Girls?

Hah hah.  I remember that song.  No, that isn't it.

All of it, but I picked heaven after death.

One thing I'd love is to be freed of the necessity to work.  That won't happen for some time.

I voted 1996, looking at it from the Republican viewpoint.  I remember voting in the primary, looking at the list of names, and not really wanting any of them.  I can't even remember whom I voted for.

I guess if you liked Clinton and considered him a viable choice (which I most definitely did not), then 1996 was a great year.

One of the New England states.  Maine, Massachusetts, and to a lesser extent, Connecticut are relatively friendly to independents.

Thanks TWC.  I'll return the favor.

BTW, thanks for your support Clay.  Much appreciated.

Hayley Barbour

535-3

^^^^^

Only those braindead nitwits in DC would have voted for Jackson.  And no, it doesn't count as a state, even though it has 3 electoral votes.

No, I meant Jackson wins 535-3.

OK.  I think you lied when you said you've never smoked crack...

Lol...we needed someone to stand up aginst the Soviet Union. But I will admit to not knowing such a lot about John Anderson.

I supported Anderson because I felt both carter and Reagan were/would be bad presidents, and I was right.

I like this one Tweed.  I supported Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 also...

My family is extremely important to me, but I ridicule the notion that my political beliefs are somehow anti-family. I see conservative, big-business consumerist politics as the ultimate stress on families.

The problem is that most Americans have bought into the whole consumerist philosophy that puts more stress on families.  It's an area of agreement, in all honesty, among the left and right, though for different reasons.

People have to decide that a modicum of additional free time is more important than all those consumer goods that are filling the closets of their homes.  When enough people decide that, things will change.  It's not a political issue, IMO.

That's completely wrong.  The Soviet economy was quite strong in the 1970s, largely due to high petroleum prices (The USSR was and Russia is a major producer).

It was not until 1982, when the "oil glut" began, that the Soviet economy showed major signs of strain.

Currently economists agree that the early-to-mid 1970s mark the time when the Soviet economy began to falter.  Since there was no incentive to modernize, the USSR didn't, and was basically in the same place Stalin left it (as he modernized by force).  Some even point to Khrushchev's reign as when they started trending downward, but that's more trivial. (see: 'Brezhnev Stagnation')

Gorbachev was the head of agriculture (I forget the exact title, secretary of agriculture maybe) under Brezhnev, and his experiences there convinced him the serious market reform was needed.  He was pretty 'normal' by Soviet standards before that.  It's pretty hard to say that the Soviet economy wasn't heading downhill under Brezhnev, but it's different to say it was difficult to notice it, as dazzleman did.  But that's not entirely relevant in this argument anyway.

It is relevant to say that it was difficult to notice the decline, since what people think at the time is what drives policy decisions, not what they learn after the fact.

Diem murdered Buddhists and "suspected Communists" (ie: innocents) during his reign.  They certainly weren't attacking him.  I really fail to see how Diem was any better than Minh.

Was the situation so bad under Diem that large numbers of people took off in boats to certain death rather than remain there?

It was bad enough that the USA turned against him and large numbers of his citizenry felt compelled to join the Vietcong.

I never said he was good.  I said he was better than Ho Chi Minh and the communists.  Everything is relative.

And you haven't provided anything to suggest that he was better than Minh.  Just that both are bad, which is cool and that's what I said all along.

No, I've suggested that one is worse than the other.  The North Vietnamese government killed many people even after they could no longer fight them, and therefore had no discernible excuse.  They have run an imprisoned nation for decades.  Even with the war, there were no boat people during the time Diem and later Thieu were in power in the south.  As it turns out, for many people, the brutal rule of the North Vietnamese regime was worse than the war.

I love being a trendsetter.  How about it, nick?  Why don't you change also?

Fine, you win.

  Good to have you, man.  You'll help make us a fine team....

The fact that Romney was "wrong" (from the standpoint of the social conservatives) on gay rights issues more than a decade ago won't hurt him too much.  GHW Bush was pro-choice on abortion in 1980, and then turned pro-life during his stint as VP.  Didn't hurt him too much in the '88 election.  Heck, Steve Forbes was fairly liberal on social issues during his '96 run for the White House, but then did a complete turnaround in 2000, and got a decent level of evangelical support.  There are also examples of the reverse situation working, with Al Gore having been much more conservative on social issues early in his career, and then moving leftward over time.  It's definitely possible to overcome these things.

Excellent points.

Bret Schundler

I think good judgment is the key.

Generally, I think divorce is a bad thing, especially when children are involved.  However, I recognize that some marriages are so bad that kids are better off if they are raised without it, and divorce is better for them.

What I oppose is the attitude of rationalization that many who support no-fault divorce have put forth -- that divorce is not damaging in any way to children.  It is.  I think growing up in a home with a healthy, or even marginal, marriage is better than having divorced parents.  But there is an attitude of rationalization that many have -- that they convince themselves that what they want to do is better for their kids anyway, when they know deep down that it isn't.

How parents handle divorce is also another issue.  Some handle it well, while others use their children as pawns.

Good judgment and responsible behavior, as well as good intentions, are the key.  When people have a baby, and then a month later they're getting divorced, they have not engaged in responsible behavior.  I recognize that marriages don't always work out for reasons beyond the individuals' control, and that sometimes it's better to recognize that and move on, for the sake of all involved, but there are some people who don't even try to make it work, and who move on from marriage to marriage, all unsuccessful, and create chaos in the lives of their children.

There's no right black-and-white answer to the issue.

Well stated, though I think that divorce may be beneficial to kids more often than you realize. Anyhow, I'll ask again. Where is the "family values" crowd on this one? How is it that this is not a bigger issue in American politics?

Many of the 'family values' people are divorced themselves.  In fact, one reason the whole 'family values' movement isn't more effective is that in general, it doesn't practice what it preaches.

You can either ridicule the concept of 'family values' or you can ridicule the movement.  Those are two very different things.  Many liberals give the impression that they're doing the former rather than the latter.  Which is it for you?

How disappointing.  Perhaps Mr. Smith should have someone lecture him on constitutional law before he spews more garbage.

Is he the only Republican Senator who is against the war now?  Or are there more that I've forgotten?

I understand what he is trying to say.  Clearly, it is political posturing.  I am concerned about a policy that leads to the death of soldiers without seeming to have a positive strategy or goal.  Whether it is 'criminal' or not is a different matter, but it's poor policy to allow a drift like this to continue indefinitely.

We need to recover our fighting spirit, and fight back against those who mean us harm.  We have been terribly weakened, and it's a cause for great concern.  Our enemies are on the offensive right now, and we need to have a policy that recognizes and deals with that.  Otherwise, Bush is no better than the Democrats, which is a truly frightful thought.

I agree completely.  I just wish that he had spoke up sooner.  It's been clear for about two years now that we need a change in tactics in Iraq, what we're doing now is not working.  However, it is political posturing and for him to take up Dem talking points ("criminal") is disappointing.  He also seems to be aiming more toward withdrawal than actually winning.

Yes I agree.  He's showing he has no balls.  He didn't speak up sooner because there were greater political risks to doing so, particularly when the president is his party.  Now, he's just caving, because he fears for his own re-election.  It's stuff like this that makes me hate politicians.

Conservatives really ought to drop the anti-gay stuff.

^^^

It doesn't even work that well electorally anymore

The problem is that the means that gay activists use, and the tone they take, almost forces opposition.  It's a difficult problem.

I thought it meant at first he was a bigger fans of gays than he was of Ted Kennedy, which maybe is also true for me although it is close

It would be ridiculous for somebody to say that he/she is a 'fan' of any group of people, gays included.

Gays are just individuals, and should be judged on their own merits as individuals.  To say, "I like gays" "I like blacks" "I like women" as the Democrats do is patronizing, IMO.

Romney is simply a politician on the make, like most politicians.  He'll take the position that he thinks will advance his career at any point in time.  Beyond a certain point, this is unacceptable, but all politicians exhibit this behavior to one extent or another.  It's a matter of degree.  Whether Romney is beyond the point of acceptablity in this area is something I don't know at this point, since I don't know him well enough.

There are large parts of the gay political agenda that I don't support, and I think this movement is sparking opposition through its use of inappropriate means, such as manipulation of the legal system, to force unpopular parts of its agenda on the public.  Still, I don't think gays should be singled out for persecution, as they have been in the past.

How disappointing.  Perhaps Mr. Smith should have someone lecture him on constitutional law before he spews more garbage.

Is he the only Republican Senator who is against the war now?  Or are there more that I've forgotten?

I understand what he is trying to say.  Clearly, it is political posturing.  I am concerned about a policy that leads to the death of soldiers without seeming to have a positive strategy or goal.  Whether it is 'criminal' or not is a different matter, but it's poor policy to allow a drift like this to continue indefinitely.

We need to recover our fighting spirit, and fight back against those who mean us harm.  We have been terribly weakened, and it's a cause for great concern.  Our enemies are on the offensive right now, and we need to have a policy that recognizes and deals with that.  Otherwise, Bush is no better than the Democrats, which is a truly frightful thought.

I just want to see if dazzleman's statement still holds up.

Of course it does.....I have always liked you.

Let's convince BRTD to change his avatar & see if your statement still applies.

He already had the R-MA avatar when those posts were made.

Aha. What was D-man's verdict, I wonder?

"Of course it does.....I have always liked you."

A match made in Heaven.

Indeed.  BRTD is a super cool guy and a free and original thinker.  Just the type of person I deeply admire.

Yeah, I worded the title a little weird.  The purpose of this thread is to pretend.  Pretend as if our two party system was gone and we had a multi-party system where all of the following parties were competitive.

As I said, I'd be conservative.  The Reform Party might also be a possibility.

I'm generally anti-union, so the labor party wouldn't be for me.  I would rule out any party with a leftist tilt, so that takes care of the Greens and Socialists, and probably the Natural Law Party, in practice if not explicitly in theory.  That also definitely takes out the Peace and Freedom Party (whose policies would lead to neither peace nor freedom, but I digress). 

I think the libertarians are unrealistic and too extreme.  They don't seem to recognize that the actions of individuals can affect society as a whole, and that some regulation is therefore a necessity.

The line is a thin one.

I am disgusted that after the amount of time we have been there, there seems to be no plan for victory, and I don't agree with having our soldiers give their lives in some type of holding action rather than a strategic plan for victory.

For us to just stay there indefinitely taking casualties, with no plan to defeat the enemy, is unconscionable.

Having said that, I think we should go for victory, not defeat, as some seem to want.  The problem is that President Bush has squandered his most precious resource -- time.  Time = the opposite of patience, so the more time has elapsed, the less patience people have.

We have allowed political constraints to hold us back from pursuing victory.  The same f-king thing as in Vietnam.  If a war is not worth some political risks, then it's not worth soldiers' lives.