If by regulation, you mean oversight, then here’s my chain of thought:
-Businesses without regulatory oversight can pull illegal acts like Enron’s and stand a chance of getting away with it.
-These crimes have victims.
-Our government ought to help protect us from such crimes.
-One way to do that is to have better regulatory oversight.
Of course, there’s another way to do it: aggressively prosecute such crimes and send the lot of them to prison. These crimes may be difficult to prosecute – look at how long it’s taking to get Fastow behind bars – but if prosecution is so ineffective, then that’s all the more reason to not rely on it as a preventative measure. Much as I’d love to fill our prisons with corporate criminals, until we figure out an effective means of doing so, I think we have to rely on regulatory oversight to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place.
debaser, do you really not understand the difference between uni- and multilateralism, or does it simply cause too much cognitive dissonance for you? Of course there’s a difference, and even the hardest-line isolationists/neocons defend it instead of denying it. That also helps explain why you can’t see how anyone could see a difference, either, much less the Iraqis who inexplicably aren’t showering the 82nd’s path with flowers. Hint: If there’s something about the world you don’t understand, it isn’t the world’s fault.
It’s Karl Rove, with a K. You might not know that from getting all your “information” about the world from talk radio, though. You did challenge, using “smug condescension” (your term, and an ironic one), why Rove gets more blame than Bush. Now you know.
You’re asking what’s more definite than dismissing a question as a trick? You’re actually defending, or even excusing, that crap? What plan does Bush offer in return, and how closely based on reality is it? You know the answer to that as well as I.
Your straw man is the suggestion that anyone who wants regulations to be enforced is entirely opposed to the entrepreneurial spirit entirely. That’s closely related to the excluded middle approach you’re also using, but is no more honest, unfortunately.
Good thing you’re admitting that Bush’s actions are the opposite of what you believe in. Why are you still supporting him then?
If it’s so easy to define, why don’t you define it then?
The coalition of the willing in Iraq had, what, 60 members IIRC. How many would be required for it to be “multilateral”? 61? 120? Every nation on the planet?
It’s a meaningless buzz word that is used to attack anything that Bush does.
I would still love to hear you explain how the troops will start being showered with flowers once they have UN armbands on. They wouldn’t.
So, Bush’s plan is to have our troops in Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time. The amount of troops are going to be decreasing though, because in the near future 130,000 are leaving and only 110,000 are replacing them.
Because of this you hate Bush. Ok, got it. Your against the war. This makes sense.
Now, the other candidate is Dean. His plan is just as vague about how long troops will be in Iraq. He admits to needing them there for 2 more years and indefinitely longer.
Because of this you support Dean. Sense this does not make.
Like I said, I’m for the war in Iraq. I have problems with certain elements of things that have happened but overall I think we are doing good work and it’s worth the price to be there right now.
If your against the war and want us to leave, that’s great. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. But, it’s hypocritical for you to bash Bush for not having a definitive plan of when we are leaving Iraq when Dean clearly doesn’t have one either. If you don’t like Bush keeping troops in harms way indefinitely, then why don’t you have a problem with Dean, who plans on doing the same thing?
It remains a fantasy of yours that Dean’s plan to entirely re-regulate entire industries is just “enforcement” of existing regulations.
I have made no such admission. In fact, I have pointed out several times that the opposite is true.
I think this is something that is recoverable from, it’s not the most stupid thing anybody’s said this election, and it did happen in 2000 on an obscure talk show (blame Canada! blame Canada!) but ouch, people. Ouch.
Mehitabel, I’m not sure what’s damaging to Dean about that quote. In fact, the story itself seems quite helpful to Dean, disputing most of the charges leveled against him in this thread. The story paints Gov. Dean as not angry, not “too liberal”, not inconsistent in his positions, and quite well informed as to foreign policy and international affairs. It also shows him as assertive, confident and diplomatically skilled; all characteristics Americans see as favorable in a presidential candidate.
Oh, I agree mostly, xenophon41, but for the parts about the Iowa caucuses. I happen to think he was right in many ways about the extremists dominating those things, but the question is will the Iowans in question think he’s being a jerk by saying it that way, especially the ones who are not extremists. Check CNN’s politics section for various articles about the reaction and spin. I don’t think this is fatal but you know that most people are only going to hear that “he insulted the folks who vote in the caucuses” which will not be good for him, no matter what he said about Israel or Colombia. If you’d counter that those folks are ill-informed and should read the whole thing, fine, but that won’t make them do it.
Look in a fuckin’ dictionary first. It would save you time.
Snort. Try 2. Looks like Bush found someone to be fooled.
You don’t know what it means, but you know what people who use it mean by it?
Nobody said they would, and you do know better than to keep throwing up straw men. It has already been made sufficiently clear to you that the image that Iraqis may have that this was an imperialist venture would be largely dispelled by that. Do you disagree, or is anything that conflicts with your worldview get dismissed as meaningless?
Who says that? Not Bush. Yet Dean is the undetailed candidate?
Your point, if any?
That is clearly the opposite of the facts.
Not the same thing. There is no reason to believe Bush understands the situation at all, much less how to keep more good people from being killed. Dean accepts, as we all must, that the situation is what it is and the problem is how to get out of it with minimal damage.
It is a lie of yours to say that’s what I, or anybody else, has said.
You can’t even represent your own statements accurately. Scroll up:
That is the statement I gave you credit for. Prematurely, as it turns out.
You’ll never convince anyone of your positions who has a basic respect for fact, ya know. That, unfortunately, is most of us here.
I just did, and I take your point that the comment can be interpreted (and is being spun) as insulting to Iowans, or at least to caucus voters. How badly this hurts him remains to be seen. I think opposition to [undefined] “special interests” still plays pretty well for politicians of any stripe. However, any out of context 5-second soundbite from a pol who speaks substantively about the issues is bound to be more damaging than a comparable soundbite from a politician who speaks only in platitudes. So Dean has a definite disadvantage there, I suppose.
OK, it looks like we are in disgareement about the size of the coalition. No big surprise there.
We are just counting different things. I am including everyone on the roster who supported the war. You are only counting (I assume) only Britian and Australia who initially sent troops.
There are actually more countries which have troops in Iraq now, that you have chosen to ignore. I don’t know why this is.
Since the US has a military that is by far the most powerful in the world, and didn’t really need any help gathering forces to invade Iraq, I contend that my number makes more sense to use than yours.
Regardless, we can just leave this point alone, because you are wrong in either case.
You refer to the dictionary definition of the word “multilateral”.
Since we are talking about nations, #2 is the applicable definition. More than two.
Well, in your post above you admit that we did have two allies. Them two plus the US = three. So, even if as you insist, the coalition of the willing was only three nations, then it was still a multilateral effort.
I was actually throwing a straw man back in your face by using this phrase. You were the first to mention Iraqi’s tossing flowers at our troops. I just shot it back at you. Now you accuse me of making straw men?
By “made sufficiently clear” do you mean you keep chanting it over and over? Because that’s all that is happening.
I will point out again (third time or so?) that there is absolutely no proof that the Iraqi’s who are attacking troops will behave any differenty if the UN is in charge.
These people have attacked Red Cross workers. What makes you think they will have respect for the UN? The onus is on you to prove this. You are the one insisting it.
Someone in this thread said it. No one challenged it, so I believed it.
Debaser:--------------------------------------------------
But, it’s hypocritical for you to bash Bush for not having a definitive plan of when we are leaving Iraq when Dean clearly doesn’t have one either.
Me saying that Dean doesn’t have a definitive plan of when we are leaving Iraq is a fact. I have given supporting documentation right from Dean’s own web page.
You can put your fingers in your ears and deny it all you like, but it just further points out the hypocricy.
I wonder whether the “special interests” quote is exactly what Dean needs, come general election time. If he can make it past Iowa, I can only see it helping him in the long run. But it does present a short-term risk for him.
by Debaser--------------------------------------------------
It remains a fantasy of yours that Dean’s plan to entirely re-regulate entire industries is just “enforcement” of existing regulations.
You know, Elvis, just because it’s on another page of the thread doesn’t mean I can’t go back and quote it.
You call me a liar for saying something that is provably true, using your own direct words. What does that make you?
The invasion was a unilateral decision, Debaser. That coalition list is a joke. Some of those countries didn’t even know that the Bushies were including them on the list and were quite surprised and upset to find out about it. Other country were bribed or coerced into passively going along with it.
In any case, Bush had already stated that the US was going to invade Iraq with or without any help. There was nothing any country could have done to stop it. It was a decision the US made all by itself without any regard for the opinions of other countries.
France and Germany are to be commended for not caving in to Bush’s arrogant bullying. Tony Blair should resign in shame.
Your lie was that Dean’s plan is “to entirely re-regulate entire industries”.
If you really want to discuss issues and policies, then fine, please do so. You really ought to consider just who you’re trying to convince here, and of what exactly. We do care about facts and reasoning here, passionately, and those who try to ignore them just get the treatment you’re getting. Remember december.
This is actually a valid and sensible argument. The US did make the decision to go to war mostly on it’s own. Then, after that decision was made, Bush tried to find allies to back us up before going.
That’s exactly the way things should be done, IMO.
Now, if you want to say that the decision to go to war was made ‘unilaterally’ I guess I won’t argue with that. How else could it have been made? Even if the UN approved of it, it would still have been the idea of the US to do it in the first place.
However, the fact is that there was participation from other countries in the actual doing of it. The war effort itself was not unilateral. The fact that so many on the left continue to chant that it is has robbed the word of any meaningful use.
I wouldn’t worry about it that much, Mehitabel. The Democrats, and alienated Republicans, will go for the Democratic candidate in November anyway, whoever that plausibly is. Unless he implodes spectacularly, any shortcomings will be overlooked or forgiven by voters looking for the lesser evil. How each candidate reacts to and recovers from things like this, and how quickly they learn from them, are the best predictors of later political success, not their existence.
Thanks, ElvisL1ves, you’re right. The only hazard to Dean I see is that people might decide he’s now got a little too much baggage for their liking and go for a Dem other than him on Jan. 19, like Kerry or Clark.
Dean’s reaction so far is well-tempered IMO, and he’s lucky the story broke on a Friday, because there’s not much analysis on Fri and Sat in the cycle. It’ll be the buzz of the Sunday talk show circuit but I think anybody interested enough to watch those will be savvy enough to weigh the nuances of the incident. We’ll see.
Oops. Drop that first ‘entirely’. I really should proof read.
That typo aside, I was merely saying the same thing that Sam Stone posted on the first page of the thread.
Is Sam a big fat liar also? Or just me?
Well, isn’t this kind of you. :rolleyes:
It seems to me that you are being more insulting in tone than I. Even now, you imply that I don’t care about facts and reasoning. You threaten me by mentioning another conservative who was banned. You accuse me of lying when I am clearly not.
If someone needs to consider their actions here, I think that it’s you.
