| |
|
as usual, republicans are against sex, and democrats are against religion.
And, this comment is just baffling to me.
ya, that was a dumb thing to say; not sure what i was going for. i must have been focusing on some kind of media blip. neither issue has been big this year, although i can see a huge abortion debate rearing its fearsome head before the whole thing is over.
in fact, i see both sex and religion as largely republican debates. the democrats only mention them to pander to 'value voters'. its the repubs who see the president as a role model, and the dems see hir more as an employer.
heres some new data for the thread:
clinton Well, I hear the voices from the other side of the aisle. I hear voices on TV and radio. And they are living in some other universe, talking about deporting people, rounding them up.
I don't agree with that, and I don't think it's practical. And therefore, what we've got to do is to say, come out of the shadows. We will register everyone. We will check, because if you have committed a crime in this country or the country you came from, then you will not be able to stay, you will have to be deported.
But for the vast majority of people who are here, we will give you a path to legalization if you meet the following condition: pay a fine because you entered illegally, be willing to pay back taxes over time, try to learn English -- and we have to help you do that, because we've cut back on so many of those services -- and then you wait in line.
either the scariest of the stupidest idea ive heard since the gaza borders were blocked. this would create a new supply of minimum-wage employees, while eliminating the supply of underpaid workers. more underpaid workers have to come from somewhere: maybe all the fresh 'americans' who cant find a new job valued at minimum wage. and doesnt a high unemployment rate lead to tax deficit? maybe as compensation there will be 'back taxes' coming in from all the newly legal prosperous americans.
and deporting all the mexican criminals and drug dealers is going to provide reserves to fight the army and police quelling drug trafficking in mexico.
What're the odds of a Clinton/Obama tag-team?
i think that idea is a clinton trick. obama would be wasted as VP, much like gore was. but if obama supporters think they can get obama AND the more 'realistic' candidate, they might go for the tag-team, thus sinking obama.
obamas super (duper) tuesday speech starts off slow, but morphs into a plea for action that really seems to go beyond voting: politics as how you act in your life, rather than politics as which party you sign for.
but a lot of his 'inspiration' seems to come from mocking washington. whats he gonna do when hes in it? his dramatic idea for change hasnt really developed to the steel-trap level. but...maybe it doesnt matter if he gets to washington, since hes telling YOU, the listener, to ACT, not to VOTE and forget.
obama change will not come if we wait for some other person, or some other time. we are the ones weve been waiting for. we are the change that we seek.
sounds hokey, but he sold it like a frenchman. i cant vote, but he inspired me to look to my own politics and wonder why im watching american bullshitters instead of organizing my own change in my own community.
obama seems uncomfortable when he is being applauded; he seems annoyed as he says 'thank you thank you thank you', as if hes impatient to get to the part where he talks. obama also seems to have a lot of different voices. i wonder if hes trained in this. i hear bill clinton and reagan, as well as orson welles or whomever hes usually channeling. |
|
|
