Law School Discussion

.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2005, 05:02:17 AM »
you must lead rich life.

Not you enjoy bickering?

somewhat.  always fun to joke.  with putzes, not much you can do but mock them.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2005, 05:03:33 AM »

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2005, 05:07:34 AM »
hahahahaha

Bush Public Support at Lowest Level Yet
By WILL LESTER, AP


   
WASHINGTON (Nov. 4) - President Bush's public support has eroded to its lowest level yet, with the Iraq war dragging on, a top White House aide facing felony charges and the White House rushing to replace a failed Supreme Court nominee.

Concerned that the president has lost his footing, some Republicans have suggested Bush should shake up his staff.

A new AP-Ipsos poll found the president's approval rating was at 37 percent, compared with 39 percent a month ago. About 59 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved.

The intensity of disapproval is the strongest to date, with 42 percent now saying they "strongly disapprove" of how Bush is handling his job - twice as many as the 20 percent who said they "strongly approve."

"This is the poorest excuse for a president this country has ever had," said Max Hollinberger, a businessman from Stanwood, Wash., who leans Democratic. He cited "the economy, going to war in Iraq for no reason, the way we can get to the tsunami victims before Katrina victims - the whole business."

A year after his re-election, Bush's second term has been marred by rising U.S. casualties in Iraq, a failed attempt to restructure Social Security, Hurricane Katrina missteps, rising fuel costs and his forced withdrawal of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

In a case involving the public naming of a covert CIA operative married to an Iraq war critic, Vice President male private part Cheney's former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pleaded not guilty on Thursday in federal court to charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators. The case casts a continuing cloud over Cheney and keeps Bush's closest adviser, Karl Rove, in legal jeopardy.

Republicans are starting to worry about the 2006 elections and hope Bush can reverse his slide.

Several senior Republicans who are close to the White House and Rove say there has been a lot of talk inside and outside the White House about the need for him to leave, but they're picking up no indication from him or his associates that it's going to happen - at least anytime soon.

Neither Bush nor Rove has seemed to get the message, the Republicans say.
Democrats have kept up the attack. "The 2006 midterm elections will be our next opportunity to change the environment of corruption and incompetence in Washington," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday in a fundraising letter to Democrats. Reid has called for Rove's resignation and a "thorough house cleaning" at the White House.

In the AP-Ipsos poll, nearly one in five Republicans disapproved of Bush's handling of his job, compared with nearly nine in 10 Democrats. Nearly seven in 10 independents disapproved.

Four in five Republicans still back the president.

"I think he's done a wonderful job," said Gloria Bloecher, a Republican from Sherman, Texas. "He's done wonderful things for the economy. He rescued people who needed help in Iraq - it was the Christian thing to do. I still trust his people and the people he picks for the Supreme Court."

The president has lost support from some key groups of constituents over the past year. He's dropped 16 points in his approval rating with men in that time, 18 points with people who have a high school education or less, 16 points among Southerners and 13 points among Republicans.

The poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 31-Nov. 2 among 1,006 adults nationwide. The margin on sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Congress isn't faring much better. In early October, 35 percent of poll respondents approved of the job being done on Capitol Hill, down from 44 percent in February.

In December 2004, soon after Bush's re-election, 51 percent approved of his handling of his job, while 47 disapproved, and 28 disapproved strongly.

"I'm surprised it's not even worse," GOP consultant Rich Galen said of Bush's latest poll numbers. He cited three months of unrelenting bad news that have Republicans "beginning to scratch their heads."

Away from Washington, Republican leaders seemed concerned about Bush's drift downward in the polls and about Iraq, where the 2,000th U.S. military death was recently recorded, and less troubled about the CIA-leak case and the controversy surrounding Rove and Libby.

"I think the war in Iraq being on the front page every day has taken its toll," said Van Poole, former Florida GOP chairman and now a Tallahassee lobbyist, who expects Bush to bounce back. "Americans are impatient. Whatever our job is, Americans want us to get it done."


FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2005, 05:10:41 AM »
their will be a people's government in the middle of the kingdoms of syria and saudi arabia...and the theocracy of iran.
and the idea of having a democracy is a contagious disease.

I'm sorry.  Democracy is inherently superior to monarchy and theocracy... why?

because it's the system we've got?

Sure, it's the system you've got.  But why is it inherently better than monarchy or theocracy?

Why isn't it?

Ah ah ah.  Burden of proof is on you.

But since you asked, all three systems of government are inherently equal, depending on a particular cultural weltanschaung.  There are nations that choose to remain monarchies; this includes many of these Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, for one.  Theocracies are valid in countries where religion is fairly homogeneous. 

Of course, there are limits to any system.  Tyranny and oppression are some; others include corruption, subjugation, and blatant political discrimination (the latter a particular danger in theocracies).

For all the faults these systems possess, democracy has its own myriad weaknesses.  Remember, just because you and I think people should be able to choose representatives to govern themselves does not make it a universal ethic.  Nations have gotten along fine and actually prospered for centuries without democracy.  The notion that democracy is somehow superior to other systems of government is fostered by the "Whiggish" myth of progress, a teleology that maps its own imperial, industrial roots onto the global canvas without regards to context and streamlines a historical narrative so torn with tautologies that it obscures all perspective and reason.  In a twisted way, it reasons that that which is not part of itself (industrialized, democratized, "civilized") is, prima facie, barbaric and primitive. 

We're agreed that Saddam's dictatorship was atrocious, and we're (probably) agreed that someone had to put an end to it at some point (whatever the motives behind such a move).  What I take issue with is the idea that, somehow, democracy is now the salvation of a nation that doesn't even want its "saviors" around. 

The problem is not the system, it's those who abuse the system.  And that goes for any system.


*Disclaimer:  This is not to count as a slight to any soldiers posted anywhere for any reason.  To serve your country takes courage, something which I'm short on, so kudos to you.  Ideology and tactics versus the man posted on the front: these concepts are far removed from each other.  Need proof?  World War I.

That's one way of looking at it.  If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, care to gander at the countries that are considered "best off" now (standard of living, etc).  Most are democratic.  America is the most powerful country (debatable, but at least one of them) of all time and it is directly correlated to its democracy.  Many nations have seen success come with newer, more democratic governments (China) and all the former world powers who were not democratic are now dwindled.  So while I cannot argue that other forms have not produced results in the past, you canít argue with the current situation either.  I'm not endorsing ignoring the past, but you can't live by it.

First, this is loose correlation at best, not cause and effect.  I'll grant you that most of those "best off" countries, at present, are democracies.  However, you're falling into that same teleological trap.  "Now most powerful, wealthy nations are democratic, thus they must have become successful because of democracy."  This is a tautology - you're defining the past by using the definition of the present (a definition that isn't even true, in any case).  History is not a case of winners and losers.  This is a story we like to tell ourselves.  History is a tangled, undistillable mess of contingency.  Just because, in your estimation, democracy is now the cause of prosperity (even though, once again, the cause-effect relationship you imply cannot be proven), does not mean it will be so in twenty years, or even in ten.  Democracy is not the moral "victor"; it is, at best, the luckiest fish in the sea.

Second, and hypothetically, if I do grant that democracy does equal prosperity, then how does it accomplish this?  My argument would be that capitalism equals relative prosperity, but even then, there are counter-examples.

Third, China is not a democratic government, nor is it a "more" democratic government compared to some sort of monolithic Chinese governmental entity from the recent past.  China is, however, fervently embracing capitalism.    See my point above.

I can most certainly live by the past.  The past teaches me that the present is neither a projected pinnacle of that past, nor a reliable predictor of the future.  What the past tells me is not to believe the present.

My problem with the basic premise of your argument here (and I'm harping on my first point again) is that the approach obfuscates the complexity of the world we live in.  The counter-argument to "the countries that are considered "best off" now (standard of living, etc)"?  Those are all north American and western European entities.  These are the same entities that invaded, annexed, and subsequently exploited most of the rest of the world for labor and resources.  Yes, the USA as well - slavery was a two-way street (and for those who think I'm being unfair, I am keeping in mind that much of the trade within Africa was driven purely by Africans).  This exploitation gave way to a pseudo-colonial structure of destabilization and debt.  In short, those entities that were not north American or western European, for the most part, were left at the bottom of the pile, bereft of solutions, fighting massive powers that now sat in such a position of dominance, economically and politically, that equality was near impossible.  So why did democracy "win"?  In one estimation, it "won" because those nations that employed this model managed to successfully restructure, through force and coercion, the rest of the globe.

Now, this version of history is just as simplistic as the model I was criticizing (in fact, it's your typical "winners write history and this is wrong" narrative), but it serves to illustrate a point.  The truth lies somewhere in the mix of those two stories.  Life is not inherently better or worse with democracy.  It's just different. 


And, just so you know, you're preaching to the choir.  I do believe that a democracy is the most equitable and just form   of government, and should, in its ideal form, serve as the proper (if not the most efficient) way for a people to rule itself.  However, I recognize that this is my opinion, and that it holds very little ground outside of a normative debate.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2005, 05:12:16 AM »
you show good judgment.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2005, 05:13:04 AM »
hey pubs:  when w hit 30, it time to sell?

just wonderin'.

FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2005, 05:16:12 AM »
you show good judgment.

 :D

I've got nothing better to do.  I can't sleep, and SCgrad has been a very fair and perceptive debater in the past, from what I've seen, so a light-hearted tete-a-tete is certainly called for.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2005, 05:20:24 AM »
julie's post to swatson, before he edited by adding second part.  not need to apologize to julie for whimsy or debate.

and julie like to rise before numbnuts, to get drop on them.

FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: W at 35%
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2005, 05:32:50 AM »
numbnuts

i found myself wondering what the plural of this would be.  then i realized i don't have enough to do at work.

It's one of those wacky nouns that doesn't change from singular to plural, I'd guess. 

Kind of like "sheep".

SCgrad

Re: W at 35%
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2005, 05:34:41 AM »
Many nations have seen success come with newer, more democratic governments (China) and all the former world powers who were not democratic are now dwindled. 

dude, did you just call China a democratic government?  or am i just confused about what you're trying to say again?

1. Not exactly  2. Yes, read the bold.

okay, gotcha.  you mean that china now is more democratic than it was in earlier decades.

i agree with that, but what about the opposite example?  russia is now a lot more democratic than it was under the soviets.  yet it's economy has shrunk enormously, and if it weren't for high oil prices it would probably be doing a lot worse.  the convention wisdom is that china is doing well because of economic, not political liberalization.

???

Russia went into the shitter while still communist.  Before it was revolutionized, its power was mostly smoke and mirrors (1980s).  But that isn't really important.  I can't prove causation, but correlation is undeniable, democracy seems to go hand-and-hand with prosperity of the people of a country (in general).