amen! finally, i'm starting to see more columns like this!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm proud to see neither side wants to be the bigger man on this.

Being the bigger man means being the loser in this case.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Maybe if the Republicans weren't so busy stealing elections, it might be considered sincere.

What city are you from again?

PS Seriously, am I the only one that finds it a little sad that someone without even a clear platform or even an actual idea on where he stands on the Iraq war has risen so far in the Democratic race so far?

[Q Classic]

maybe i should take what i said back about leaving the country for a permanent tour of duty in the foreign service. 'cause it sure as hell doesn't look like i'll be back.

[Japher]

I don't know what you have been reading but the media has been bashing republicans since... well, forever.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What city are you from again?

St. Louis, why?

PS Seriously, am I the only one that finds it a little sad that someone without even a clear platform or even an actual idea on where he stands on the Iraq war has risen so far in the Democratic race so far?

Honestly, what makes this different from most of the rest of elections. It's never about issues but about winnability. For some reason, Americans don't want to vote for what they believe in, but for someone who can win. Then they're always pissed at what they get. That's the biggest problem with a two party system.

[Dinner]

It does seem like both sides have been wrapped up in mindlessly bashing the other's President.

[Q Classic]

there's no "seeming" about it. that's all they're doing.

and they won't let a dead horse lie, either. clinton's still being blamed for things.

[chequita guevara]

While I admit there has been a lot of mindless bashing of Bush, there has also been a lot of substantive bashing of Bush. Far more than there ever was against Clinton (who really deserved some substantive bashing).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
there's no "seeming" about it. that's all they're doing.

Wrong, Bush and the wing of the Republicans he represent, have done serious damage to the republic. There are a lot of good reason to bash him. Unfortunately, some of them are old (like oil exploration in ANWAR, or now, off the coast of Florida ) and some are too complicated to fit in a sound bit (the stuff he did with Bush Exploration and subsequent companies). Some of it isn't sticking, despite the seriousness, like Bush's being a deserter yet cmomanding the military.

[Seeker]

"politics is no longer a clash of value systems, each of which is in some way valid. It's not a competition between basically well-intentioned people who see the world differently. It's not even a conflict of interests."

ummm....when has this EVER been the case, he is describing what we call 'politics' in any country and giving it a new buzzword name.

Like Chretien said once about why he wanted to be PM 'I like to win' it's all about winning and losing.

And come on, who the **** at anytime in any country had a political culture that was a 'clash of value systems, each of which is viewed in some way way valid'?

The point of having an opposing viewpoint is that you believe the other guy is in some way fundamentally wrong. People may work together because of a system or game theory, but they never by definition belief opposing views are equally valid.

This is (my turn to coin a phrase) Op Ed buzzword-itis. I don't know where it comes from but it seems like so many Op Ed guys think they have had some great new insight to share, with a whole new terminology and jargon (culture wars, president warriors, etc etc), for the same old ****.

Cases in point: Road 'rage' "Air Rage" 'Club Drugs', Date Rape, Culture Wars, Science Wars, Gender Wars, Language Wars Kulturkampf, all meaningless buzzwords for stuff that has being going on in some form all the time dressed up with some fancy shock crap to get you make them more money.

[Dinner]

I'm all for oil exploration. It's much better to produce domesticly then to import from the middle east. Not to mention it puts our economy less at the mercy of OPEC.

Believe it or not modern oil production can be done with a minimal enviromental impact.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Believe it or not modern oil production can be done with a minimal enviromental impact.

So then why don't they?

[Seeker]

'cause it's expensive. Go Nukes!! CANDU-2, the safest nuclear reactor in the world.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So then why don't they?

They do. Just check out the way they've been doing it in California for the last 20 years. Ever since they moved to trip walled pipe lines and triple redundant computer controlled flow systems there hasn't been any significant oil discharge. The only major oil spill was off Santa Barbara in 1974 and that was with single walled pipes and human error (i.e. a guy forgot to open a pipe valve so pressure built up and the pipe burst). With the new systems it is very, very, very unlikely such an event would ever happen again.

[chequita guevara]

We're talking about Alaska and off shore oil drilling. In both cases, what was supposed to have been environmentally friendly has turned out not to be the case.

In Prince William Sound, for example, only double hulled ships were suposed to be used (the Exxon Valdez was single huilled). They were supposed to have adequate facilities on hand to deal with a spill of the EV's magnitude. They didn't. And so on. If they can cheat the people of the United States, let alone anyone else, they will. I don't trust them, simply no the basis of one state with tough environmental regulations.