Firestarter

Nice straw man. Did it take you long to build? Of course I never said anything of the sort. I said that the trend towards service jobs was irreversible because of the rapid technologising of our industries and the steady rise in productivity. This is a simple and uncontested fact. No study, survey, or statistic from any source has ever indicated anything to the contrary.

Heh. <notes post number for future reference>

"U.S. payrolls grew in October for the third straight month, the government said Friday, trouncing Wall Street expectations as the labor market accelerated its recovery from its longest slump since World War II." - CNN story You have beautiful timing. I can't wait until November 2004. The Democrats will be spinning so much, in so many different directions, they'll look like a bunch of enraged, spluttering gyroscopes.

BS. No intelligent policymaker, Democrat or Republican, is an isolationist. It is not a realistic stance to take in the 21st century. Our economy, our interests, and our defense are global and they will remain global; there is no going back. Vanishingly few conservatives I know (and certainly none in the administration) advocate "pulling out of other countries" wholesale; in fact, I can't name a single one off the top of my head. A lot of conservatives do insist that we keep the administration and use of our money under our control, or at least give it only to efficient, transparent, and accountable organisations and states - and rightly so. Conservatives object to keeping the worthless UN and its terrorist-funding trappings (such as UNRWA) around, to giving "foreign aid" that gets sucked into the Swiss bank accounts (or WMD arsenals) of petty dictators, and to implementing stupid economic policies based on emotional shrieks from the Pope and Bono. We have serious objections to giving away our taxpayers' money to subsidise people and projects which are at best irrelevant or useless and at worst directly inimical to our interests. That doesn't make us "isolationists" and it doesn't make us sympathise in any way with those who advocate such nonsense.

I just find it funny to see people calling Arby's, Denny's, and Cracker Barrel "real restaurants."

OW! I'm going to cry a river so you can drown me now!

I think it's wrong to criticise someone for criticising others because they criticise someone else. You're just overgeneralising here. We should all be more sensitive to the fact that just because some people can't stand to see anyone make a comment about anything under the sun without shrieking indignantly about sweeping and unjustified generalisations, it doesn't mean that everyone who does that deserves to be mocked and denigrated. There could be good reasons for their passive-aggressive snivelling. And besides, aren't there some Swiss people who do take a stance on some issues? I'm sure there must be. You're characterising all Swiss people as spineless wishy-washy whiners, and that's wrong. Some Swiss people might have one or two vertebrae, surely? I think you're a racist. Why are you so filled with hate? What's wrong with the Swiss? Can't we all just get along?

This is, of course, exactly wrong.

"I wanna know if you're blind, Jo'anna If you wanna hear de sound of drum Can't you see dat de tide is turnin', oh Don't make me wait 'til de mornin' come"

USAF, yes. No offense taken; that's one of the milder characterisations I've heard.

Right right, and we hate all those damn niggers like Al Gore they keep a-nominatin'. We only want white people like Janice Rogers Brown, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice in power in this country. Wait a minute...

That's nice, but it doesn't get you a free pass. Care to explain yourself? How were Dean's comments taken out of context? No, he didn't endorse the Confederate flag or slavery or racism, as some of his fellow candidates tried to claim, but he did say that in order to win the South he had to appeal to voters who, he seems to think, do endorse one or more of those three things. Is that right so far? Now, do you agree with that assessment? Does Dean need to appeal to racists, rednecks, and the historically ignorant or willfully deluded in order to win the South? If you say yes, you're saying that a majority or at least a plurality of Southerners can fairly be thus characterised. If you say no, you're admitting that Dean was flat-out wrong. And let's keep in mind that there's a moral dimension to this issue as well. If I were running for any public office in the United States, let alone President, I wouldn't want the votes of racists, rednecks, and fools. I wouldn't claim I wanted to be their candidate. I'd tell them, in so many words, "Don't you dare vote for me. You disgust and appall me, and it shames me that people like you still exist in this time, in our country. There is no room for you in my party and there is no room for you in my campaign. I refuse to be associated with you and should you offer your support I will reject it. If elected, I will represent you honourably, as I would any other constituents, but I will not advance your sectional interests, and I will do my best to ensure that our posterity will not be burdened by your evil, your hatred, and your ignorance. God bless America, but damn you to hell."

I did, thanks. Here are his exact words: "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats." Nothing was taken out of context. So, now you're equating the South and the Confederacy? Here's another tip: Howard Dean cannot win the Confederacy. That's because there is no Confederacy. There hasn't been for over a hundred years. Might want to bring your boy up to date on the current century. What are you trying to say here? All Southerners are rednecks? Southerners are commonly thought of as rednecks, and that makes Dean's appeal to a Southern stereotype acceptable? Other people do it too, so why can't we? Y'know, when you're caught in your contradictions you look even more pathetic as your candidate. He just stupidly bulls ahead and refuses to acknowledge he's been wounded. You desperately try to twist, decontextualise, trivialise, deny, and nuance every syllable of every word you've ever said.

And this is precisely why he'll fail. Because he, and the people who support him, see "the South" as a homogenous mass of states not only willing but eager to suck his dick if he speaks sympathetically about the Confederate flag. Here's a tip, guys: we aren't proud of the Civil War. We don't celebrate the Confederacy. We grieve for our dead, we honour their sacrifices, and we remember them with respect and love. But overwhelmingly, we do not glorify their cause, and we accept that we were on the wrong fucking side. Thanks for assuming that we can be bought by pandering to us as if we were racist, ignorant rednecks, though. That would make our decisions in 2004 so much easier if they weren't pretty easy already.

I dunno, I think that anyone who calmly accepted the deaths of countless people because he considered their sexuality "sinful" would qualify as a "subhuman monster."

Honestly, I can't imagine. All I can tell you is that there has been absolutely no discussion about this that I've been privy to. It's not a prelude to a draft, and since I've recently been moved to a position in which a vital part of my duties consists of assessing, reviewing, and recommending the maintenance of force projection capabilities, I think I'd be one of the first people to hear about it if it were being seriously considered. I also have a pretty darn good idea of whether or not we're really "overstretched." And we're not. I'll agree with these experts on one thing: reinstating the draft would be absolute political suicide for any politician at any time, unless the circumstances were positively apocalyptic. Ah, okay. That's quite true.

Got the same results as you when I tried to research it, ST. Didn't write to the OSMTH-SMOTJ people if that's whom you're referring to, but let us know if they reply.

I propose that we ban this <adjective><noun>LOL<year> "joke" now, before I do something drastic to somebody. It's rapidly becoming lethally annoying. Anyway, Tyler, I refuse to blame even you guys for Rangel. He's just a fucking nutcase; the D in parentheses after his name has no meaning. You also predicted lots of other things. You were wrong on every count. You're wrong on this one, too. Wait a minute, they're experts, so their credentials don't matter? Well, actually, if you're going to call them "experts," their credentials do matter. And frankly they're talking through their collective hat. There will be no draft. Not now, not ever. I disagree. The only reason we would ever reinstate the draft is if America were directly threatened by invasion and we had no other choice, which is not a possibility to which I give any serious consideration. Our technology and our morals have progressed over the last three decades. We've learned the lessons of Vietnam very well. There will be no draft.

CNN story - Democrats lose another two governorships

Oh, for Christ's sake. Must we go through this shit again? Y'know, when I said I was wondering where you were, I didn't really mean it.

Your photo of Angela Gossow might bring him out again, Agent.

Granted, plus all the other criticisms. Still, this is pretty cool, and there's plenty of historical precedent. Trial by combat: he who triumphs by the grace of God is vindicated before all men. Since UBL has laid out his attack on the United States in the guise of a moral imperative ordained by God, the Prior is perfectly within his rights to issue a challenge which should prove or disprove UBL's claims of divine favour once and for all. Not that it'd make one bit of difference to me.

Eh. People actually read his posts? I'd rather kill my brain cells with vodka.

I hear he's a "metrosexual," whatever the hell that is. Maybe it covers female Asian hillbillies.

Oh, I agree. Just wanted to clarify the point.