Clinton appears to be a fabulist, like GWB, inventing the story of her life as needed, not exactly lying, tho of course it's not true, but rather writing a novel about what she dreams her life to have been and to be. I've watched GWB speak and do that while he carefully judges what will sound good instead of what is real.

But my main objection to both of them is that they fail to do the jobs they were hired to do. Neither one seems to read the homework material and neither seems to seek expert advice but only to consult political finaglers.

Both should be fired for malingering.

There's a difference between the lying for self-promotion which Clinton has certainly done plenty of and the malicious scheming and deliberate abuse of power we're talking about here. Clinton's poorly thought out, pathological lies are a symptom of a problem which can also mainfest itself as something much worse.

Dave

Dave,

This is one of the very few articles on which I agree with you. I would like to offer to you or others the case of Peter Paul and Mrs. Clinton, which I believe if she is nominated, will come to haunt her like like nothing else.

Paul and Clinton

At the Martin Luther King memorial event in Memphis today, Clinton said she'd met him when she was a teenager. Did she make that up as well?

Interesting question, Dr. D. On the surface that's exactly the kind of lie she's been caught telling in the past. As far as timing goes, she's at least the right age to have been a teen when King was active. Anything beyond that would be awfully hard to prove or disprove. Did she provide any more details on how they met?

Dave

The BBC report I read just said that she was 14 at the time. As you say, impossible to substantiate, especially if she was just a face in the crowd.

dreadful - she was hatched in '47...

the problem with Hillary is not that she is a lying scheming politician...it's that she has no belly button

Senator Clinton, like the Energizer Bunny, just keeps going on and on and on. This from the NY Times today. Just as she is ever ready to answer the three AM phone, Senator Clinton is everready to fabricate and embellish stories to promote her candidacy. The funny (pitiful?) thing is, she does it so often and so poorly that any credibility she may once have had is shot.

Nothing new or startling, just more and more of the same.

Dan Miller

When I was 14 I met Richard Nixon...or so I claim. I can at least prove that Nixon and I were in the same relatively small and obscure place at the same time. I could describe what Nixon was wearing, but since he wore identical blue suits every day that wouldn't be much in the way of proof.

I wonder what Clinton could come up with if challenged.

Dave

F U C K CLINTON

Dave,

The "truth" is whatever can't be disproven to the satisfaction of my most rabid supporters. Also, there are definitional issues involved. "When I was 14 . . ." can refer to chronological age, or mental age. Not only that, but it was a long time ago and I may intentionally have misspoken slightly. Or, "14" might be a typo, and what I may have meant was "24." Hell, back then I wasn't keeping precise daily records. Moreover, the verb "met" is very ambiguous, and can mean very different things to different people at different times and in different places, just like "is" and "sex."

Senator Clinton's PR staff might come out with something like this:

"Senator Clinton vividly recalls having met Mr. Nixon when she was very young. Now, many years later, her recollection of the event has dimmed. It was not all that important way back then, and is of no significance at all now. We do know for certain that at some time in her distant youth, they were in the same small room at the same time. To suggest that Senator Clinton sought to fabricate a meeting with Mr. Nixon, a matter which is totally irrelevant to any issue in this campaign, is specious, unkind, and very distracting from the critical issues upon which the campaign should focus."

Dan

Shavua tov,

Interesting read, Dave. Looks like those years in DC are paying off. You have handed Obama a silver cross and golden nails with which to crucify Clinton when the time comes. Trust me, his hatchet men are looking for stories like yours to help him out. If she actually does get the nomination, or get the VP spot on the Democratic ticket from a very foolish Obama, you've also handed McCain a silver cross with golden nails.

Elsewhere I predicted that whatever else happens, Hillary Rodham Clinton will not become president.

Well, according to Wikipedia, the FBI began wiretapping King in 1961, when Hillary was 14, so in theory, anyone bored enough and waving the Freedom of Information Act might be able to go back through those tapes and pick up some hard confirmation one way or the other...

"Hi, Mr King, you may not know me, but I'm going to be President one day and..."

:-)

I have to agree, Rudy. There are just too many skeletons in her closet. More and more of the leftist elite are fleeing from her and turning to Obama.

Then the fun begins, because Obama has plenty of his own skeletons too.

Dave

With an impending Clinton loss in the Democratic nomination process we are going to have a truly bizarre situation. For the first time in history the Clintons will be covertly actively aiding the vast right wing conspiracy that they once railed about.

Osama Obama, more than any member of the GOP could ever hope to, has royally screwed the Clintons. His candidacy is the equivalent of the world's biggest proverbial monkey wrench and it was aimed straight at the queen. Obama Bin Laden's candidacy is the singular reason that there will be no coronation party for her majesty. By succeeding at defeating her highness in the Democratic primaries/caucuses he has also served to paint the world's biggest bullseye on his back and Billary will shortly be taking aim.

Oh sure the Clintons will publicly claim be supporting Obama as he is offered up for slaughter in November but we all know better than that don't we folks. It's not as if we just met the Clinton's yesterday. No we know better. The Clintons are used to getting their way. They're used to steamrolling over everyone in their path and having those that they call friends take the fall for them. The only problem is that B. Hussein Obama Osama Rama Lama Ding Dong Laden did not get the memo that he was supposed to stand down as her majesty walked down the aisle to a new 21st century Camelot. Now the Clintons are going to be out for his blood at all costs. There is no doubt that the Clintons only reason for getting out of bed in the morning after the convention will be to run black ops behind the scenes so that they can fuck Obama as hard as he fucked them. The Clintons only care about one thing and that is themselves. Anyone who hasn't realized this should be committed immediately.

I'm not crazy about Mccain as president but I'm hoping he has finally seen the light and will pick Mitt Romney. After that....well Mccains's old so we'll just see.....

In the meantime I'm certainly taking great enjoyment in watching Mr. Empty platitudes no experience Hussein in the Democratic membrane piss all over the Clinton's parade. And I will also enjoy the fact that as I lay down to sleep in July, August, Sept, and Oct I know that in some dimly lit room at a Clinton campaign office Hillary and Bill in their typical fashion of revealing their true selves when the cameras are not running will be throwing their usual screaming, profanity laced angry temper tantrums...only this time instead of sending their henchmen to attack the vast right wing conspiracy that I'm apparently a part of they will be going after Obama.

"she ought to be automatically disqualified from any serious consideration for the presidency or any other public office."

So, you would deny Clinton due process? Interesting. By what legal process would you suggest that such automatic disqualification be effected?

B-tone

I didn't say anything about a formal disqualification. Any crimes were long enough ago that they can't be prosecuted. I was thinking more in terms of treating her the same way we do perennial candidate Lyndon Larouche and any other power mad marginal candidate.

Dave

Perhaps you should have chosen your words more carefully.

I find it disingenuine and ironic that those who populate this bastion of conservative vitriol make such liberal use of inuendo and half truths.

Where does one go to find Hillary's rap sheet? What is the latest count of her convictions for all of these supposed heinous crimes against god and country? In taking stock of many of the allegations against her, one must consider both the source and the motivations of the, uh, allegators. (Ha,ha)

Certainly, if one throws enough shit against the wall, some of it will undoubtedly stick. But who in the national political spectrum including McCain, has a spotless wall? As I've noted before here and elsewhere, the hatred for both of the Clintons is so virulent amongst certain people that her most verbal detractors will go to any lengths to discredit them, even to the extent of practicing pseudo-psychology.

To compare Clinton to Nixon is absured. Nixon was pathological, a neurotic paranoid. (There's my two cents worth of psycho babble.) He was a loose cannon who wreaked havoc on the Constitution going back to his halcion days on the House Committee on Unamerican Activities.

At this juncture it appears that Clinton's hope of gaining the Dem's nomination is dwindling. Hell, most of you "right and tight" Republicans should hope that Clinton does get the nomination. That may well be McCain's only hope. Obama has the potential of sweeping into the WH in an unprecidented landslide. A McCain campaign against Hillary would doubtless be more tooth and nail, more down and dirty. Attacking Obama would be a far more delicate and difficult problem for McCain.

At any rate, it's likely that McCain has his own gaggle of skeletons, his own shit spots, that will be dangled before the electorate to consider. His wall is likely just as sullied as Clinton's or Obama's.

B-tone

"Obama has the potential of sweeping into the WH in an unprecidented landslide."

Have you been buildiing model airplanes with all the windows closed again Bariton?

Obama has gotten a free ride until this whole "I'm not a racist I'm just longtime friends with a racist preacher who makes a lot of good points," fiasco came along.

I'm not just saying this because I'm a republican but the damage the democrats are doing to each other isn't that easily repaired before Nov.

Mccain has demonstarted his crossover appaeal much to the chagrin of many of the gop base but if he can mend those fences by picking a solid conservative VP by Nov then the Democrats are in deep shit.....But hey there's still the chance the Dem's prayers could be answered and the economy will completely tank or the American death toll in Iraq could begin to rise again.

I believe that far too much has and is being made of the Rev. Wright affair, and the supposed division amongst the Dems owing to the protracted Clinton/Obama campaigns.

Voters tend to have short memories. By the end of August, most people won't even remember what most of these flaps were about.

No doubt it is your hope that McCain will gain a great advantage over all this, and he may do so in the short term. But when the campaign begins in earnest come September, all previous bets will be off. Should Obama be the Dem's candidate, it is very possible that a ground swell of enthusiasm will materialize including a large number of young voters who have been coming out of the wood work in support of Obama.

Obviously, anything can happen, but I honestly doubt that McCain will find the sailing nearly so smooth as you apparently believe. McCain will likely prove to have his own set of monkeys on his back.

And I must say, that if McCain does win, we can likely kiss a few thousand more of our sons and daughters goodbye to feed the Iraqi beast, and we will have a sitting president who admittedly has no clue about how to handle the economy which may well tank in the coming months. George Bush's legacy will rightly hang around McCain's neck like a ball and chain.

B-tone

It's been painful reading the way you fine gentlemen have been slinging mud at each other on behalf of people who do not give a damn about you at all.

Any politician who expects to make it to the top of the heap in any political system has to have a liberal dose of "yay me, fuck you!" in his personality. This has nothing to do with his politics; it is just the price of success. The trick is to be "aw shucksy" enough to hide the ego and arrogance - or in the alternative, to be able to make points so well that one forgives the ego and arrogance.

This means that every politician succeeds on shattering the dreams of others, and makes enemies in the process. This is true for all of the "candidates" (if one wishes to really stretch the word) for president of the United States this election cycle.

Of course, if you enjoy slinging mud at each other for no good reason, don't let me stand in the way. Have a goyisher good time!

But I stand by my prediction that Hillary Rodham Clinton will not become president of the United States.

Ruvy,

I think most of us know of what you speak. I don't think anyone here, regardless of which side we may be on, believes that ANY political candidate at ANY time represents our deliverence. I venture the same to be true in Israel.

That politicians - especially those with aspirations for high office - are basically a huge load of ego pretty much goes with the territory. It's the nature of the beast. I will likely vote for Obama if he should be the Dem candidate. If it's Hillary, I'll vote for her despite your dire predictions for her. It would have to be a strange world indeed for me to vote for McCain. Regardless, though, I hardly expect to be living in the land of M&H should my vote prove to be prophetic.

It has oft been said that every nation has the government it deserves, and I think that is essentially true. In the case of the U.S. the system is so huge, the stakes so high, that most of us don't really know what the fuck is going on most of the time. We try to fathom what is what, but I believe most of us are painfully aware that we only get glimpses of the truth from odd angles at unexpected moments. Politics is politics. Platitudes are largely meaningless. There are three hundred million people or there abouts in this country, all with differing points of view, and most with little real knowledge and even less power to promulgate positive change. It sucks, but what are you going to do? Go fly a kite? I guess that's better than getting on a plane.

B-tone

All of you Republicans who are ripping Obama for this Rev. Wright thing are so off base its disgusting.

John McCain is friends with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. Here's what the two of them had to say about September 11th.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Fellow evangelist Pat Robertson concurred with his sentiment. -- wikipedia.org

You're going to rip this Reverend Wright guy for saying the he thinks that many of America's policies are anti-christian (thou shall not KILL anyone?) and yet Republicans are all good with McCain speaking at Falwell's college or saying, on Meet the Press that he no longer considered Falwell an "agent of intolerance."

When are Republicans going to understand that its ok to understand that Bush are McCain are not real Republicans and it is not necessary to buy into everyone single ounce of the party tag line to the very last letter.

Don't worry Tony, the polls I've heard make it clear that this is a non issue except to the virulent anti-Obama folks. Big surprise.

The way he handled it diffused the situation as far as most Americans are concerned. Of course there are folks that will parse every sentence of his speech on race and find grave fault, but they aren't the ones who will be voting for a Democrat come November.

I agree with both Tony and Bennett. (Does that make them collectively Tony Bennett?) What a surprise, right?

That white conservatives love to go crazy if a black person says or does anything that might be taken as even remotely racist is a load of crap. Wright's comments may be "out there," but whites who believe that racism is no longer an issue, that blacks should consider the fight for equality over and won, don't understand much. Blacks still have a good deal to be pissed about. If someone goes off on a public tirade now and again, all things considered, they're probably still entitled. To point fingers and lay blame at Obama's feet is bogus.

And of course, Falwell was and Robertson remains an idiot. McCain's acceptance of their idiocy to gain christian right votes is far worse than Obama's connection to Rev. Wright, whose more controversial statements Barack disavows.

B-tone

Jim Bean, you really ARE a pervert!

"#10 -- April 5, 2008 @ 12:34PM -- Jim Bean

F U C K CLINTON"

Yuckkk!

FUCK CLINTON?

Got to agree with Bliffle. Anybody who would want to have sex with Clinton is truly a pervert. There are at least 100,000,000 women I would probably want to get in the sack in before ever getting near Clinton, starting with my wife....

(and probably ending with her)

You guys are right. We should stop ripping Osama Obama over Wright.

There are so many other reasons why he shouldn't be president.

He's inexpereicned.

He has had a habit of missing votes or voting present in congress rather than showing up and taking a stand.

His wife thinks America sis omething to be ashamed of.

He has a love affair with illegal aliens.

He doesn't recognize real evil exists but would rather sit down and talk to madmen like achmadinejad.

He's a socialist.

He bashes Walmart in public but then collects fistfuls of money from them through his wife who is on the board of directors.

He supports social security benefits for illegal aliens. He voted for this in congress.

He whole heartedly supports the continuation of legalized infanticide.

He has no management experience.


Oh and as far as race relations in this nation go.......Don't be surpised Tony, Baritone and Bennnett if this nation does indeeed shy away from Obama at the polls in Nov over this whole Wright thing. Not everyone in America is a leftist Democrat steeped in politically correct nonsense with white liberal guilt oozing out of their pores just waiting for the chance to pat themselves on the back for voting for a man who is half black. Unfortuntaely for people like you, you're not allowed to stand in the actuall voting booths with the voters and scarem at them as they vote, "you're not voting for Obama, why not ....you racist....Racist!."

"...a leftist Democrat steeped in politically correct nonsense with white liberal guilt oozing out of their pores just waiting for the chance to pat themselves on the back for voting for a man who is half black"

Ha! This is so far from who I am that it's truly laughable.

Your list of urban legend and outright falsehoods could be refuted point by point, but why bother? You and your ilk will not affect the outcome of this election.

Hurts, doesn't it?

Bing,

You're a nice guy and have given me back in the past, a fact I don't forget. Your heart is in the right place.

So, for my sake, if for nobody else's, please don't embarrass yourself on the comment thread.

Obama is no socialist. Most Americans haven't got a clue as to what socialism is or isn't and you're among that bunch.

Most Americans Democrats are not leftists - even if they call themselves by that title. There is no left wing on the American political chicken. The left wing was lopped off in two stages: the first stage was the Red Scare of 1919-20, and the second stage was the McCarthy Era fifty years back.

He's inexperienced....He has no management experience.

The two allegations amount to the same thing - the American president is, more than anything else, a manager, and if the guy can't manage, his power is rapidly seized by someone else in the administration - see George W. Bush for details.

This may be a legitimate gripe. I'll return to it.

He has a love affair with illegal aliens. He supports social security benefits for illegal aliens. He voted for this in congress.

Big deal - your country is broke; how is it going to pay the benefits? There won't be enough money to hire the bureaucrats to calculate the benefits, let alone pay them.

He has had a habit of missing votes or voting present in congress rather than showing up and taking a stand.

So, big deal. Presidents don't vote in congress. America is not a parliamentary democracy.

He whole heartedly supports the continuation of legalized infanticide.

Newsflash, Bing. Most Americans support legalized infanticide. Anything that lets them fuck without worrying about the consequences, that lets them play without paying, is big in the States and in Europe. America is a moral sewer. Why should a sewer rat stink to them?

He doesn't recognize real evil exists but would rather sit down and talk to madmen like AHmadinejad.

AHmadinjad is no madman - and most Americans don't want to know about evil. They want to know about American Idol - Micronesia, or some shit like that.

Like I said, America is a moral sewer.

That leaves only one legitimate gripe left to look at:

His wife thinks America is something to be ashamed of.

Obama, for all the melanin in his skin, was raised as a white kid with white values. His wife wasn't. She is pissed off at American racism and seethes against it. I'd say that this is a legitimate gripe, Bing. Forget slavery for just a minute - that was over 150 years ago. Since then, there has been a continuing pattern of discrimination against black people in the United States that has only been alleviated in the last couple of decades. That racism is something to be ashamed of.

Is her attitude the best? Probably not. If you left her and Reverend Wrong stranded on the Comorros or in Gabon or Sierra Leone, you might as well give them up for dead once their cell phones or GPS devices ran down. They need America more than America needs them. But their seething anger at your country is more than justified.

Now let's return to the really legitimate gripe in your list.

He's inexperienced....He has no management experience.

Obama just doesn't have enough experience in managing. His one adventure in foreign affairs, an intervention in Kenyan politics based on family loyalty, will be recorded as a disaster if anyone bothers to record it. But since most white people don't think that black people amount to a hill of beans, it will be ignored. The world doesn't give a damn when black people die.

His anti-Israel stands, taken before he rose to national prominence, are just what the doctor ordered. A openly hostile American president who cuts off aid to Israel and really carries water for the Arabs is just what Israelis need to give them the courage to kick out bought out toadies like Olmert, Livni, Peres and Netanyahu, and kick the Americans and the UN out of Israel for good.

So, ironically, Obama is the best hope for Israel.

But this election is not about Israel, is it? This election is about your future. And there is not enough man in Obama to manage the problems George Bush is leaving (assuming that elections do go forward at all) when he leaves office in January (assuming Bush hasn't declared martial law there by then).

Your economy is up shit's creek and the paddle has been tossed into the Euphrates River. You cannot afford to stay in Iraq and you cannot afford to leave either. American battle groups are steaming towards the Persian Gulf. They are not on their way there to admire the young ladies bathing on the beaches.

This election is all about the fact that you are all in really bad trouble, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. And the little two watt flashlights that Obama and McCain have arent't lighting the way for you either. From the whispers I get here, the only light in the tunnel is from the nuclear match that George Bush (or his handlers) is about to light, and that is not going to help any of you.

Unless you like the light a mushroom cloud provides, the future does not look too bright at all for you. And the problem is that none of your "candidates" can provide a way out.

That, Bing is the problem. And I can suggest no solutions. Sorry.

Ruvy,

You know, I look upon the "experience" factor regarding Obama as a bogus argument. What management experience do either Clinton or McCain bring to the table?

The fact is that "managing" a country of 300 million people is not like anything else. The only candidates who ever enter a campaign with any real experience are incumbants. Oddly, though, that doesn't seem to make them any more adept at the job if awarded a second term. Lame duck presidents generally just hunker down for the duration and start planning their memorial libraries.

As to the rest of your grim assessment regarding the future of this country, as you know I have actually agreed with you of late on some of these issues. However, I don't believe the U.S. is ready to fall off the edge of the world. We are doubtless in bad straits. Bush and company (and some of his predecessors)have squandered any good will we may have enjoyed in the world and made a laughing stock of any moral authority we may have once held. We have become a serious debtor nation. But it may well be that that debt may serve as a life preserver as countries such as China, Japan and others will have a vested interest in the continued existence, and even the success of the U.S.

We are doubtless in for a serious tumble. As we fall down the list of countries of influence, the mind set of Americans that the U.S. is the "greatest country" - and all that laurel resting crap will take a severe beating. The British by and large still haven't gotten over its fall from grace concomitant with the dissolution of their empire. Some, I believe, still harken back to the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

In a similar fashion, Americans will have to get over themselves, just as I suppose the Romans were forced to do some fifteen hundred years ago. If we manage to survive as a country, we will have to come to the realization that the sun does not rise and set on the U.S., that world politics and finances are fluid, that the waters ebb and flow constantly. Nothing lasts forever. Hell, most things don't survive the night.

As you know, I live in the midwest where jingoistic flag waving is rampant. A lot of that mind set is demonstrated here at BC. Having pride in one's country is useful, even laudable to a point, but as A.C.Grayling, the British philosopher and essayist has written, nationalism is simply one more thing that divides us, one more thing that, like religion, cultural and racial bias, goes to pitting one group against another, providing pretext for hatred and war.
This view might serve as a lesson for the U.S. and likely for Israel as well.

B-tone

The author begins this article by saying that calling Bush a liar is "a debatable claim", which is clearly unsupportable after all that we've seen.

Books have been written, documentaries have been filmed, personal testimony has been given: Bush lied. Bush CHOSE to lie. Bush cajoled others into lying. Bush took vengeance on people who didn't work to support his lies. George Bush is a liar.

Would you buy a used nation from George Bush?

Once it might have been considered a touching act of loyalty to defend Bush against charges of lying, but in the fullness of time it can only be considered an act of heedless folly that renders ones wisdom and perspicacity as a joke.

Dave's wishful thinking permeates many of his articles. Keep in mind that there are a number of people who still believe that Joe McCarthy was dead on in his mad quest to find commies behind every bush (no pun intended.) Such hopes die hard. If Bush didn't lie, then he was and is no more than a dupe. Which is worse? Seems like 6 of one... yada, yada, yada. Pick your poison.

B-tone

Baritone,

I agree with most of what you say, and agree that much of what Ruvy says about the U.S. being on the edge of a cliff and about to fall over is sadly true.

There is, however, a slightly different thesis which I would like to advance. Sometimes, but not always, adversity calls forth sacrifice and produces positive change. Severe adversity can be more potent in this regard. Occasionally the positive changes endure; frequently, they do not.

The U.S. has enjoyed prosperity, power, and all of the happiness associated with those things for a long time. Jingoism has resulted, which I agree can be good or bad. Consumerism has become an addiction, and the desire for more and more stuff seems to be one of the, if not the, most substantial driving forces in society. It is not easy to cure an addiction, even one not involving chemical substances.

The Great Depression produced social changes, some of which may have been good. Although the U.S. did not need to make the extreme sacrifices made by Great Britain during WWII, there were some. Although I was a child at the time, I can remember the ration coupons and some shortages. The sacrifices were perceived as sufficiently great that, as soon as possible after the war, the country went on a spending binge. In some respects, that was a good thing. It allowed industry geared up for the war effort to convert to the production of consumer goods. It also provided employment for demobilized troops.

Although I don't think that the Iraq war has had quite the horrific impact on the U.S. economy proclaimed by Ruvy, there are clearly severe economic problems with which the country must deal. There are numerous causes of these problems, some of them most likely due to the perceptions that things are really bad.

Regardless of whether some of the economic problems are merely perceptual, they affect us. Right now, the fixes being attempted are not very clever and may make the problems worse, rather than better. Even if that is not the case, there will probably be a fall off the cliff.

If so, there is at least some hope that we will achieve some cohesiveness and find ways to overcome the problems; we did so in the past, and maybe will be able to do so again. There is at least a glimmer of hope.

Dan

Ruvy when you consider and describe American politicians you compare them to the rest of the world. I do not. I compare them to other American politicians. Everything is relative right? The rest of the civilized world mostly lies to the left or far left of America, therefore I can see why you would not consider Obama a leftist or a sociliast. However in terms of mainstream American politics Obama is pretty far to the left. He is advocating what amounts to basically socializing our healthcare system.




"This election is all about the fact that you are all in really bad trouble, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. And the little two watt flashlights that Obama and McCain have arent't lighting the way for you either."

Don't mistake my disguest for Obama, Hillary or the others Dems for a great love or admiration for John Mccain. John Mccain is only my guy by default and as it is I'm hoping Mccain picks Mitt Romney and then drops dead halfway through his first year in office. Hey I know it's a horrible thing to say but I'm just being honest. Mitt Romeny is the only one who ran that is worth a damn. He has more mangement experience and success than the rest of the other candidates combined. The guy's resume glows in the friggin dark.

The race thing.

"That racism is something to be ashamed of."

I had no part in it so why should I be ashamed of it. I'm not denying that racism exists in today's America. I'm just sick of people saying it is just as prevelant as it was 150 years ago and using it as an excuse every time something negative happens to a black person. Oh and I'm sick and tired of the double standard that applies to people who don't take the liberal view of race rlations, we're not allowed to have opinions. Screw that....I choose common sense over politically corredct stupidity.





"Books have been written, documentaries have been filmed, personal testimony has been given: Bush lied. Bush CHOSE to lie. Bush cajoled others into lying. Bush took vengeance on people who didn't work to support his lies. George Bush is a liar."


All the same can be said of the Clintons. They're liars who have hurt many people too aren't they bliffle?

Are any of these three candidates highly qualified to lead America? On paper, it doesn't appear so, but we won't really know until one of them wins the job.

It's a hell of a note that our future depends on little more than a roll of the dice.

Partisanship gets us nothing this time. The massive problems to be dealt with will preclude much advancement of ideological aims by either party. If the left end of the boat sinks, the right is going down, too.

As far as the general election:

If it's Clinton-McCain, either one of them could make enough mistakes to give it to the other.

If it's Obama-McCain, Obama wins by running against Bush's economy, Bush's war, Bush's domestic & foreign policy blunders (and by looking, acting, and thinking 25 years younger than McCain.)

B-tone,

In Minnesota, the flag-waving is just as rampant as it is in Indiana. I don't have anything against flag-waving per-se, if there is a reason to legitimately wave it. If I felt there was a legitimate reason to wave the blue and white banner of this country, I would. You'd get sick of it, really you would.

But the experience argument, the real experience argument, is management experience, and time management. And the point is that neither Obama, McCain nor Clinton have these skills. They haven't been executives. Clinton comes closest, but I believe that events will conspire to prevent her from ever taking the oath of office.

In any event, in addition, none of the possible leaders your nation can realistically choose from has a viable solution out of the shit's creek that Bush have brought you up - and it is questionable in my eyes if Clinton, who may be the best of a bad lot, has the motivation to bring yawl out of the shit's creek you're all in....

In any event, barring a major war, the U.S.A. appears headed down the chocolate road of being a dependency pf nations that are far nastier than it is.

The race thing.

Quoting me: "That racism is something to be ashamed of."

I had no part in it so why should I be ashamed of it. I'm not denying that racism exists in today's America.

No, Bing, you may not "have been part of it" but you are there living among the victims of it, and they are still hurting, no matter how innocent you yourself may be. When I lived in the States, that was true of me as well, and my father, may his memory be for a blessing, drove that point home to me as a youth.

There is a legitimate argument to hand to blacks to tell them to "get over it" - particularly the whining over slavery, which has been over for 150 years or so. A similar argument is now being thrown at Jews about the Holocaust. Do we Jews really need multi-million dollar museums commemorating the murder and victimization of our people? Wouldn't we benefit more from coming home to Israel instead, so as to make sure that Jews are never in a minority again?

Be that as it may, the continuing discrimination against American blacks hurt them a great deal, and many blacks are seething with anger they have tried to hold in for decades. This is what you see from Obama's wife and Reverend Wrong, as well as some posters here. That doesn't make any of them right, but only time and a certain amount of justice will allay some of the anger. And, most importantly, Bing, they have not had the opportunity to build a nation for themselves as we Jews have had. So they are stuck with you (and you with them). And they do not necessarily like it at all.

In this sense, Obama is a positive influence, because for all of his problems in attempting to do so, he is perceived as a black man reaching out to white people.

Thus, he is probably the best hope America has in finally healing the racial divide that has rent it since blacks were fettered in chains and beaten bloody working plantations and farms in the American south.

But that is not going to get your economy out of the hole or get you out of Iraq.

Baritone makes the interesting point: "If Bush didn't lie, then he was and is no more than a dupe."

If 'he' means Bush then we had a president who is easily duped. Gee, that's bad. It's also bad that Bush didn't expend the time and effort to checkout the people who were duping him. Perhaps he resented being expected to put in a full workday, as his poor attendance record demonstrates. Perhaps he should simply have been fired early in his presidency for malingering and taking a salary under false pretenses. In major corporations when they have an employee who persistently cuts his hours he is reprimanded and then put on a "measured mile" to habituate him to better attendance habits. That "measured mile" is a go-nogo for the employee. It's too bad for George that he was deprived of this experience for so long. Perhaps he had a deprived childhood. Perhaps his parents were overindulgent. But the rest of us shouldn't have to bear the consequences of his goldbricking in his stead.

If 'he' means Dave, then that would explain the pathetic defenses he's offered: he's too embarrassed to admit he was duped. A triumph of vanity over sense.

Ruvy,

If I knew what Senator Obama's specific views on important issues are, I might agree with some of them, although that seems unlikely. Unfortunately, despite all the wonders of the internet, I don't really know what his views are. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else, including Senator Obama.

Being strongly opposed to poverty, injustice, war, and all that sort of stuff doesn't mean much. Neither does offering an almost certainly ephemeral ten point plan to deal with these problems. Solutions to big problems are very complex, and focusing on them during a political campaign doesn't work very well.

As to race, I think you hit the hammer on the head with the nail.

I never owned slaves, but some of my ancestors did; I don't feel even the slightest guilt about it. I wasn't around then and any benefit I may have derived from it is so remote and intangible as to be insignificant.

I do feel, apparently along with Senator Obama, that race is one of the most important issues facing the U.S. today. He offers no sophisticated, point by point, detailed solution to the problem; nor, in my view, can or should he.

Perhaps, though, just perhaps, Senator Obama himself is a substantial part of the solution.

We all try to ignore the elephant in the dining room, because we simply don't know how to make it go away. We just try to eat dinner as best we can, and to stay out of the elephant's way. Senator Obama has reminded us that the elephant is still there, and that we would be happier if it weren't. We all knew that before, of course, but Senator Obama's candidacy itself is unmistakable evidence which cannot be ignored that race remains an issue. All by itself, his candidacy proves that racial divisiveness remains a big problem. It might just be a kick in the ass, from which the U.S. can benefit.

Regardless of what Senator Obama's actual views and policies may be, he has attracted lots of people -- young people, many of the better educated people and, of course, many Blacks. The emotional outpouring from these people, lots of them new voters, conceivably amounts to a sea change.

Were Senator Obama White, he probably wouldn't be where he is today no matter how much he spoke out against racial divisiveness. The reaction would probably be, "Ho Hum; I think I need another beer." The very fact of his race largely eliminates the ho hum factor, and that is probably the most important thing about it.

Dan

Dan,

You say above: "Were Senator Obama White, he probably wouldn't be where he is today..." That is pretty much what Geraldine Ferraro said that caused such an uproar. Nevertheless, it is likely true. Obama is intelligent and obviously very articulate. But the ground swell of support he is getting is, whether they will admit to it or not, owing to his race. It may well be his race that will ultimately make or break him.

I am often accused of being a "bleeding heart liberal." Perhaps I am. Like you though, I don't carry around any personal guilt as regards the enslavement of blacks in this country. But there remains a legacy of hatred and mistrust that maintains a still significant racial divide here and elsewhere.

Certainly, blacks have come a long way in this society since the early days of the Civil Rights Movement. But, there remains significant elements of racism - look at the percentages of the black population who remain poor, the out of proportion numbers of blacks in our prison system, the poor state of inner city schools, of rural schools in predominantly black areas largely in the south.

It is not surprising that a large portion of these people as well as better educated and more prosperous blacks are jumping on Obama's bandwagon. Young people, both black and white find Obama appealing. As I've claimed here and elsewhere, Obama could be carried to the White House in a huge ground swell of enthusiastic supporters. If that should happen, he damn well better excel in his job. Should he be seen as a failure, that could be a devastating blow to the black community. It shouldn't be. We don't generally assume that whites are genetically incapable owing to the failures of a white president. But, given the circumstances, Obama may carry the hopes of his race upon his shoulders. I frankly don't envy the man, especially should he win.

B-tone

Bliffle, as has been noted before, I use language with some precision. I realize that's troubling for those of you who project your assumptions into what you read rather than reading what I actually wrote.

Here are the ways I could write that clause that traumatized you in my first paragraph referring to wether Bush lied.

The accusations are true.

Clear and unambiguous agreement that Bush lied.

The accusations are false

Clear and unambiguous statement that Bush lied, and what you incorrectly think you're reading when you read what I wrote.

The accusations are debatable

Which means that they may be supported by fact, but that there is a basis for disputing the facts or more than one way of interpreting them.

The first two versions are popular but incorrect. The last, which I used, is correct and precise. Putting aside the merits of any disagreement on the issue, it is correct because the fact that people DO debate the issue means that it is debatable. There is not a universal consensus and debate continues, which is true even if you personally feel that one side of that debate is entirely without foundation.

So, you're off base taking exception to my wording even without considering the facts of the issue.

Dave

Dear Editor,

Please preview your comments and close any open italics.

Thanks,

The Peanut Gallery

Baritone,

"You say above: 'Were Senator Obama White, he probably wouldn't be where he is today...'" That is pretty much what Geraldine Ferraro said that caused such an uproar."

In writing the comment, I considered that an explanation might be in order, but on balance thought that it might create more discussion without it. In all candor, I also couldn't remember how to spell her name and a thunderstorm was starting, so I had to turn the computer off ASAP.

Although Ms. Ferraro and I used much the same phrase, I think she and I meant rather different things. She intended to diminish Senator Obama and thereby to elevate Senator Clinton. I did not.

Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming President; their message has been and remains one of division. Senator Obama's is, or at any rate is perceived as being, one of unity -- Blacks, Whites, even greens. In today's context, I don't think a White person, even a reincarnation of President Kennedy himself, with all of his abundant charisma, could manage that.

Like you, I don't envy Senator Obama should be be elected President. The task would be extraordinarily onerous, and there may be no one capable of bearing it successfully.

I guess, should he become President, we will just have to wait and see.

Dan

"All by itself, his candidacy proves that racial divisiveness remains a big problem."

How exactly does it do that?

It just seems to me that there are far too many people out there who share Obama's views and support him that believe the only reason anyone could possibly oppose Obama is becaue of racism. It's a bunch of crap and reasonable peopel know it. The reason I'm not voting for Obama is the same reason I never voted for Kerry. Liberals don't share my views and values and I never vote for liberals regardless of their skin color or race. Yet I have all kinds of leftists telling me what a racist I am.

I don't understand why the support of young people, college aged voters...lends credibility to a presidential candidate. The avergae college kid lives off of mommy and daddy's dime, sleeps until noon every day, has never had to make a single rent or mortgage payment, and generally bears no real responsibility in life. Yet we're conastantly hearing how great it is that Obama has energized this particular group of people. To me it just appears that this whiny cry baby have everyone else do everything for you generation has found in Obama and in Democrats in general a way to keep the gravy train going. Right from the dorm room to the government entitlement line. And the generation taht's going to follow them will be an even bigger bunch of dependent pussies thanks to the coddling they're receiving.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the past but when we live in it how can we ever move forward? As long as too many Americans feel pressure to succumb to the bullshit politicaly correct atmosphere that pervades our society and forces us to whisper and tip toe around ugly truths all day long there will never be able to make real progress.

Editor

I seem to have left italics open too. I don't know why or how, because I previewed the post and it seemed just fine. I've noticed quite a lot of that lately. Could there be a problem?

Dan

Editor,

There we go again, same thing.

Dan

No worries Dan, the failure to close an italics tag wasn't yours but the guy who likes to think he works with precision. He doesn't of course, it's just another part of his wonky self image...

It just seems to me that there are far too many people out there who share Obama's views and support him that believe the only reason anyone could possibly oppose Obama is becaue of racism.

Arch, that's a very simplistic interpretation of Dan's comment. Of course it's absurd to suggest that if you don't support Obama you're a racist. The fact remains that some quite spectacular issues have arisen in relation to Obama's candidacy that wouldn't have been a factor had his skin been of a lighter color.

[And Dan, the italics thing isn't anything you're doing wrong. Dave didn't close one of his tags properly, is all. I can't fix it myself right now because I'm at work and not logged into the comments tool, so hopefully Chris will come along and sweep up in a bit.]

Oh, he just did!

Well, I guess they can separate Charlton from his gun, now.

Christopher. I write with precision. Didn't say I close italics tags with precision. We leave that to the technically obsessive but intellectually challenged.

Dave

BTW, I sure hope they buried Heston with a gun. I'd recommend the Remington Army pistol from Major Dundee.

Dave

But Dave, writing html requires just as much logic and precision writing as language, maybe even greater.

You may think you write with precision but it's not for you to say - precision, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There are many who find your writing full of vagueness and unjustified presumption, although not lacking in an intense and irresistible love for yourself and concern for your own needs.

"But Dave, writing html requires just as much logic and precision writing as language, maybe even greater."

Crap.

Writing html requires precision, true, but little thought or creativity.

Html coding is either right or wrong, whereas language, as you point out in your very next graph, is open to interpretation, nuance, changes in meaning due to context, subtlety, and on and on.

Precision in writing language is an intellectual exercise; precision in writing html is rote work, requiring little intellect.

I don't think the inference regarding college kids and their support of Obama was that they lent him any particular credibility. What's significant is the fact that they are coming out in heavy numbers to the poles. By their very numbers they may be instrumental in electing Obama in November.

I do take some exception to the characterization of them, though. I know some are assholes, but then there's no shortage of assholes pretty much everywhere.

Like it or not though, it is by and large those "whiny crybabies" will be running things in the not too distant future. The "party" kids, the slackers get a lot of press, but most are students intent upon getting an education in preparation for their respective careers.

On the other hand, many of the kids who don't become whiny college crybabies, will, upon reaching their majority, spend most evenings downing beers in red neck bars after a hard day working at a nearby 7/11. (Is that a fair stereotype?) Those are McCain's people, right?

B-tone

You may think you write with precision but it's not for you to say - precision, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

It certainly IS for me to say what I intended to communicate with my writing.

There are many who find your writing full of vagueness and unjustified presumption,

There are many people who believe all sorts of strange things which I'm also not responsible for.

To the immediate issue. Do you really not see the difference between saying Bush never lied and saying that whether he did or not is 'debatable'. If that distinction isn't crystal clear to you I'd suggest that you're unqualified to judge anyone's writing.

although not lacking in an intense and irresistible love for yourself and concern for your own needs.

Loving oneself is an essential precondition to loving others and the world. Perhaps your deep self loathing explains your inability to love me as much as I love myself.

Dave

Dear Editor,

Please preview your comments and close any open italics.

Thanks,

The Peanut Gallery

C'mon Dave, it's shouldn't be that hard for someone of your intellect.

Ah, but I can post-view my comments and fix the errors when they occur.

Dave

Whether Obama can be said to be a socialist is immaterial in my mind. Does he in fact subscribe to the notion of socialized medicine? Not quite. His health care program certainly has elements of socialism, but it is not as far left as is Hillary's. And, you know, I don't have a problem with that.

I don't give a rats ass if what comes out of a Democratic administration (and, of necessity, a Democratic Congress,) amounts of socialized medicine. If it provides fair and complete health care coverage for U.S. citizens, then I don't care what you call it.

Opponents of universal health care in this country are NOT those who have little or no access to health care providers, who have no insurance, who must decide whether to pay the gas bill OR purchase their prescription medicine, who are denied coverage by insurance carriers they DO have, who's only means of survival in the event of catastrophic injury or illness, or those faced with the necessity of entering a nursing type facility, is to divest themselves of all they have, their homes, their savings, most of their personal property and pretty much anything else of value. The list could go on ad nauseam. If socialized medicine will prevent the above scenarios, then bring it on.

B-tone

If it provides fair and complete health care coverage for U.S. citizens, then I don't care what you call it.

And if, in the process, it bankrupts the government, taxes the people into poverty, and leads to a reduced quality of care, how will that make you feel?

BTW even that bulwark of the left, the New York Times is raising questions about universal coverage in light of the many shortcomings of the attempt at universal care in Massachutsetts.

Dave

"Ah, but I can post-view my comments and fix the errors when they occur."

Isn't that the cue for MCH to come in and mention how well that went over last time, Vox--er, I mean Dave?

Do I give a rat's ass, EB?

Dave

Bartion....if you think healthcare's expensice now just wait until it's free.

Clavos, whilst appreciating your unique blend of Scando-Latino forthrightness, it's actually you that is writing crap. Dave's amusing claim was to precision not creativity and in that he clearly failed.

Although there is not a vast amount of creativity involved in making some words appear in italics, the writing of great code is as much a creative exercise as writing great prose. Deciding how to make a web page look, feel and flow is very much a work of art as much as science.

It's possibly your comparative ignorance on the subject that makes you think so little of it, but don't worry, it's not something you need to learn to do.

Precision in writing also actually involves learning something about a subject, so I'd suggest you consider sticking to a last you're more familiar with than code.

As to the author of the lofty claim to precision himself, I note he responds with his usual off target and entirely self serving responses.

Dave, correcting your many logical flaws is becoming too time consuming, but in the possibly vain hope that one day the clear light of reason will penetrate the muddy walls of fixed perception that obscure your mental vision, let's try one more time.

It isn't relevant to respond to my statement that it is not for you to say that you write with precision by saying that it is for you to "say what I intended to communicate". What you intended to say has nothing to do with how precisely you say it. Thanks for proving my point though.

Similarly, responding to my observation that "there are many who find your writing full of vagueness and unjustified presumption" with "There are many people who believe all sorts of strange things which I'm also not responsible for" is another example of your one great skill, which is avoidance.

Although I didn't actually enter into the debate about whether Bush lied, I'll respond to your obfuscating red herring by saying that it is a clear matter of record that he has lied. To be even entering into a debate about that suggests that anyone seeking to do so probably has ulterior motives.

You final little sneer is actually your funniest. Despite displaying your vast self love (see The Elitist Pig, The Republic of Dave and the truly entertaining Elite Bloggers for additional evidence) and loathing of others here at BC on a daily basis, you still manage to conjure up this gem: "Loving oneself is an essential precondition to loving others and the world. Perhaps your deep self loathing explains your inability to love me as much as I love myself."

Whilst loving oneself can be a good thing, it's not always so. There have been many examples throughout history, from Narcissus to Bush, of people who loved themselves too much.

It's also entirely possible to love others and the world without loving oneself, so again your writing is lacking in this much vaunted precision of yours to assert it as an "essential precondition".

I'm not aware that you are a practising psychiatrist so I'll consider your shamateur diagnosis as nothing more than the vain preening of a mind that is far too enamoured of itself, possibly as a defence mechanism to avoid facing up to its many blatant deficiencies.

For truly effective communication to take place, it helps to be able to receive as well as transmit. This requires having a certain quality of empathy in order to understand what is being received.

These days, it's increasingly common that received messages are misunderstood due to the more polarised world we live in. This may be an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the extremely rapid pace of cultural, social and technological change, but it is regrettable nontheless.

It does however mean that great communication skill, an inherently interactive art, is at a premium and it is unhelpful to dialogue to be locked too firmly into a rigid ivory tower of excessive certainty, whether as a product of faith or reason. Truly we live in extremely fluid times. I wonder if Heisenberg ever considered this social dimension after formulating his famous "Principle of Uncertainty"?

"Although there is not a vast amount of creativity involved in making some words appear in italics, the writing of great code is as much a creative exercise as writing great prose."

It's called "layout" in publishing. How many layout "artists" have been celebrated, quoted and studied as universally and comprehensively as Shakespeare, Donne, Chaucer, Twain or Faulkner (just to name a few)?

"Deciding how to make a web page look, feel and flow is very much a work of art as much as science."

A "work of art?" You mean like Hamlet? Or The Canterbury Tales?

Crap.

Comparing the talent and skill of creating literature with writing code is ridiculous. Doing so in such a supercilious, condescending tone is risible.

And once again we find that sarcasm, irony, self-deprecation, and for that matter any other kind of humor flies right by Chris without stirring even the vaguest form of recognition in his smug and humorless demeanor.

Christopher, engage in 'avoidance' through humor and off-hand remarks with you in order to avoid dragging arguments out and making them unpleasant, because lacking the resources for a mature discussion, you invariably resort to personal insults as you have already started to do here, and that's unpleasant and disruptive.

As for Bush's 'lies' whether they are lies is always going to have an element of subjectivity, because we absolutely cannot know his thought processes and whether he had effectively convinced himself that what he was telling was the truth, or at most a shading of the truth, rather than a lie. To suggest that you know the absolute truth of the workings of another person's mind is supremely arrogant.

Dave

Clavos, writing code is much more than layout, but don't let the fact that you don't know enough about it stop you having an opinion. Nobody ever said freedom of speech required being informed.

Furthermore I didn't compare it to literature but to language and prose. You'd actually have to get off your self-generated pile of ire and pay attention to notice of course.

As to the authors you name, I much prefer more contemporary writers myself and find these some combination of turgid, naive or boring personally, but don't let that stop you enjoying the badness. You do know the meaning of bad now, right? ;-)

Dave, once again, you can aim for humour but, just like precision or beauty, if it isn't perceived as such you've failed to achieve it. Trust me, you're not a funny guy, at least in the comedic sense of the word.

What is funny is how you perceive my honesty as insult but not your own insults; that is hilarious, so please do keep making a monkey of yourself.

On the other hand, your kneejerk defense of Bush and his lies isn't funny at all but rather tragic. It's a matter of record and your feeble blustering about not knowing his state of mind is simply pathetic.

Christopher, if I amuse myself then I'm perfectly happy. That others sometimes find me amusing has been confirmed often enough by their comments for me to have some confidence that they aren't all missing the point.

The shallowness of your intellect is a matter of record. That you think that not seeing the world in terms of stark black and white is 'pathetic' and that you think that you own some sort of absolute truth smacks of the kind of arrogant self-righteousness which can only exist in the mind of someone who is profoundly ignorant.

Do you even understand that there is a difference between a lie by omission, exaggeration, jumping to conclusions, making a statement on assumption without evidence, a shading of the truth, selecting data to support an argument and an outrght lie?

Did you know it's even possible to make a statement which you think to be true at the time and which later proves to be false and that this does not make your original statement - untrue though it may be - a lie?

I wish I could live in the smug and simple world which you and Pablo and so many others seem to inhabit, but ultimately I think it would drive me mad to deliberately filter out reality that way.

Dave

Dave, I don't for one minute believe your claim that you're satisfied to amuse just yourself. It's a sad and limited ambition in any case, but not remotely believable.

As to to the shallowness of my intellect, the only place that's a matter of record is in that deeply scratched and flawed record of your imagination.

You have actually made me laugh, albeit in a sardonic way, with the convoluted construction of your argument suggesting I see the world in black and white.

In reality, you're the one that has fixed and rigid views, such as your constant shallow and hysterical denunciation of the left in politics. Trying to tar others with the brush that painted you is one of your favourite little tricks.

I'm well aware of the many nuances of lying, but none of that is relevant to your point about Bush, ho has been proven a liar on more than one occasion.

The fact that you keep banging this red herring so determinedly is quite revealing about you, as is your feeble attempt to associate my critique of your rampant egomania with the conspiracy theory loving Pablo.

Luckily for you, you do live in a smug and simplistic world, so at least one of your wishes has come true. Personally, I'll stick closer to actual reality, in which nobody, least of all an elitist pig, has a monopoly on the truth and learning from one's mistakes is a badge of honour. You should try it some time...

You tell'm Dave.

Hey Chris.......

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

I seem to remember a certain Mr Santa Anna messing rather successfully with Texas.

DON'T BRING YOUR PORN 'ERE TO CALIFORNIA!!!

[Nope. OK. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it...]

Dave invents new quibbles to patch the failures of his old quibbles. Where will it end? In quibble Hell?

Dave,

"To suggest that you know the absolute truth of the workings of another person's mind is supremely arrogant.

Hmmm. Just checking the title and subject of the original post. Seems as though you have no trouble at discerning the mind of HC. Double standard, perhaps?

What about a fucking stupid ass five hundred billion dollar war and the idiotic fiscal decisions of the Bushies as regards the possible if not likely bankrupting of the country? It's perfectly fine to blow the shit out of Iraqis, but don't dare spend a fucking dime on the health and well being of our own citizens. What a load of crap!

No nation I know of which fully supports its health care system has gone bankrupt in the effort. No doubt there are problems, but compared to our "non-system" they fade in comparison to how most such systems make care available to all - even non-citizens.

B-tone

"Clavos, writing code is much more than layout, but don't let the fact that you don't know enough about it stop you having an opinion."

Actually, Christopher, I have a very good idea of what writing code entails -- enough of one to know that I'm not in awe of the skill, and that I don't consider it to be on a level of talent or intellect with writing a good play, work of fiction or symphony.

"As to the authors you name, I much prefer more contemporary writers myself and find these some combination of turgid, naive or boring personally, but don't let that stop you enjoying the badness."

That you find writers like Shakespeare and Chaucer "turgid, naive or boring" only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only do you have no clue as to what constitutes good literature, but also that Dave's comment about the shallowness of your intellect is spot on.

"You do know the meaning of bad now, right?"

I've always known its meaning; since long before street kids began to misuse it.

Slowly it dawns on Clavos how pointless it is to try to have a discussion with CR...

Hmmm. Just checking the title and subject of the original post. Seems as though you have no trouble at discerning the mind of HC. Double standard, perhaps?

Certainly occured to me when we got on the subject of lying. And yes, there's room to debate whether Hillary lied. I read an explication of this in an article we just published about the 'sniper fire' incident, whose author seems to get the nuances of what is and isn't a lie.

What about a fucking stupid ass five hundred billion dollar war and the idiotic fiscal decisions of the Bushies as regards the possible if not likely bankrupting of the country? It's perfectly fine to blow the shit out of Iraqis, but don't dare spend a fucking dime on the health and well being of our own citizens. What a load of crap!

Not to quibble, but Bush's medicare prescription drug plan is an attempt to help out our own citizens and it's a hell of a big budget buster in its own right.

No nation I know of which fully supports its health care system has gone bankrupt in the effort.

But don't you think that if anyone could do it we'd be the ones?

Dave

Jeez, Chris, Dave, Clav, will you ever feckin stop it?

Like a trio of Red Hat ladies arguing over whether the other two are wearing purple or burgundy.

Clavos, I have a good idea what shipbuilding involves but that doesn't mean I'd start opining about it.

I didn't compare code writing to high art, so your "point" is meaningless, possibly as you intended, but it is an art nonetheless.

Good literature is a subjective view, as with all art. If you find this from Macbeth

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly: if the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'ld jump the life to come. But in these cases
We still have judgment here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice
To our own lips. He's here in double trust;
First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,
Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,
Who should against his murderer shut the door,
Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan
Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been
So clear in his great office, that his virtues
Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his taking-off;
And pity, like a naked new-born babe,
Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other.

Boys, boys!

nuanced debate with a tranzi zombie. Go at it. I need a laugh.

As for the tired old 'Bush lied' canard, I can't believe you people still think u can get away with it in light of all the evidence which has accumulated. If Bush overstated the Iraq to Al Qaeda connection he understated the rest of their terrorist and WMD activities more than enough to balance it out.

I can't believe this pack of terrorist enablers and surrendrr monkeys gets treated like they have some sort of legitimacy when they trott out their tired bullshit. Chris Rose has a big future in dhimmitude.

Nuanced debate with a tranzi zombie. Go at it. I need a laugh.

As for the tired old 'Bush lied' canard, I can't believe you people still think u can get away with it in light of all the evidence which has accumulated. If Bush overstated the Iraq to Al Qaeda connection he understated the rest of their terrorist and WMD activities more than enough to balance it out.

I can't believe this pack of terrorist enablers and surrendrr monkeys gets treated like they have some sort of legitimacy when they trott out their tired bullshit. Chris Rose has a big future in dhimmitude.

The Lumpen One attempts to turn a turd into a Snickers Bar again:

"If Bush overstated the Iraq to Al Qaeda connection he understated the rest of their terrorist and WMD activities more than enough to balance it out."

In both cases he lied, as you would expect from a perpetual liar and shirker.

Let Lumpo eat his own Snicker Bar.

No sense in arguing about the past comrades.

We will all soon have plenty to gripe about when under president Obama we are waiting six hours in line for half a loaf of stale bread.

He can always blame it on the actions of his predecessor.

And it'll be a sight more nutritious than half a stale Snickers bar.

Arch and others here succumbed to their self-actualizing hysteria. According to their fears, we will all be traipsing about the country riding bicycles with copies of Mao's Book tucked into our backpacks to and from the collective.

B-tone

"Arch and others here succumbed to their self-actualizing hysteria. According to their fears, we will all be traipsing about the country riding bicycles with copies of Mao's Book tucked into our backpacks to and from the collective."

You're right Baritone....I'm being far too melodramatic. I should try to be more reasonable .....sort of like the fine liberals who are constantly reminding us that Republican leadership can only lead to the collapse of the global environement as we know it in the next fifty years, a corporate CEO hiding under your bed at night just waiting for you to fall asleep so he can drink your blood and steal the fillings out of your mouth, and the reinstatement of the draft so we can start a new war with a different nation each new year.

Arch...

And has Baritone, myself or any of the other regular 'liberal' commenters on Blogcritics expressed such melodramatic fears?

As for the reinstatement of the draft, the only politician to have seriously proposed it recently was Democrat Charlie Rangel - and it was with the intent of forcing the Executive to think twice before putting Americans in harm's way, not to ensure a constant supply of cannon fodder.

Actually, I don't think the reinstatement of the draft is that remote a prospect. The well is quickly running dry with our volunteer forces.
I've heard that some of the military mucky-mucks have considered turning say a Navy volunteer into a Marine or even an Army grunt after they've signed on the dotted line and taken the pledge.
Of course, "stop-loss" is well documented.

If in fact we do find ourselves in another conflict say with, oh I don't know, maybe Iran? - what then? The draft could become a very real possibility, even a probability.

B-tone