H&I* Fires, 23 MAY 2008

Thanks for the link! I don't know why I didn't email you that. I usually try to send you everything that deals with anything in excess of .50 cal...

"The problem I have with this approach is... go ahead, surrender the Supreme Court. It won't matter, right?" And by surrender, you mean "make it impossible to lock in a fully 'constructionist' right-wing Supreme Court, right?" Because best case, any replacements we see over the next eight years will be left-wing judges replacing left-wing judges. Why exactly is that a bad thing? You still get pro-torture, pro-warrentless wiretap, anti-Rowe v. Wade advocates tilting the balance throughout the next administration. Seems like a deal for your side.

Well, you're right, Jason. That's all I care about. I want to lock wimmin up in baby factories, torture the bad guys and anyone who we happen to pick up with them, and listen in on your phone conversations. So, you concede my argument that the Court has been ceded way too much power then, eh?

Ceded too much power? Are you high? All the Court has been doing for eight years is consolidating power for the vast right-wing conspiracy, and you're guaranteed not to lose power for the next eight years, unless one of the conservative judges goes hunting with Dick Cheney. And I didn't say that those previously listed positions are YOUR high points, but they certainly do reflect the platform of the Republican Party (and the one-half of the Court). You are known by the company you keep, sir.

What Wolfwalker said.... and "Wilson and FDR come to mind" You'll note that the sad, vast majority of their programs and their massive expansion of the Federal Government are still in place and plaguing us to this day. As for McAmnesty... isn't he meeting with La Raza? So much for not negotiating with our 'enemies'. My guy was/is correct on the two most important issues facing this nation. Write in or no, he's still getting my vote. Gadsden Flag and Stars n' Bars ready to be raised.

Jason says those things like they are bad (LOL). I wish his gun-hating, baby killing friends all the best, too...

Bill, That's the thing I don't get. The whole "If the Dems win then maybe the R will get it back together and be 'Real Conservatives' is predicated on the assumption that if things get "bad enough" people will wake up and start voting for limited gov't. The problem is that we have test cases all around us of countries much further left than we are and they keep voting for more socialism. Then they get it, and they vote for more of it. Where is this "Waking Up" we're being told would happen? I can't see any evidence of it at all. It seems to me, if you want the Republicans to become "Real Conservatives" you are going to have to do more than take your ball and go home.

Not sure why I want to bother with this. Kevin is never going to be budged. Neither am I. What the hell, in for a penny, in for a pound. I might catch a lurker on the fence and pull him/her my way. First, the whole "Teach the country a lesson" arguement, I addressed here. Next, John Hawkins calling McCain a liar for stating a view that he has always had and none of us can argue with is ridiculous. Does anyone think our current immigration policy works? I don't. Therefore, it requires an overhaul - comprehensive immigration reform. McCain used to say that was his top immigration priority, followed by border security and employer sanctions. Last summer conservatives rose up. McCain said he got the message - Border security first and foremost, immigration reform after. He never said he gave up the idea of immigration reform. Why would he? It needs an overhaul. Next Wolfwalker - You think no matter who is elected we are in a 30 to 40 year slide to the end. Ok, I don't think so, but if I concede your point....why rush it? Certainly this slide is slower under McCain than Obama. Judgeships are important, but what about Iraq? If you believe we are succeeding there, and I do, how can you abandon it? Surely there is no question that Clinton or Obama would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This arguement is of course irrelevent to isolationists and Bush haters. If you are angry with Bush, fine. McCain is not Bush. If you are angry that the Republican party didn't pick your guy, get over it. That's the way the party works. If McCain isn't as conservative as you would like, remember he's a lot more conservative than Obama. In short, an Obama presidency is too high a price to pay for whatever grievance you have. Oh and John, if you are listening in on coversations.....make sure you have a bowl of popcorn for mine. You know how I love to get a Sailor on the line!

I really don't know enough about McCain's actual actions and voting record,but if he gets in,from what I've seen,he would more likely do the right thing as he sees it...This may not always be pleasant or agreeable to everyone but his entire past seems to prove he can actually draw his line in the sand ,so to speak,and stand behind what he thinks has to be done......As I said,not always the way you want but what in life really does turn out that way..

Well, even with your qualifier, Ry, that does count as gratuitous bashing, doing nothing to advance your point, even if it vents your pique... Nothing like calling the other commenter a ticket-puncher just because he dissed community college students without knowing you were one. Snerk. Geez, take a half-day off to go to Rosebud to pick up some more Angoras for the Tribe of Argghhh! No, we're not going native, that's what you call a group of goats, a tribe. Ladies, there's probably a good snark in there for you next time you sashay by a construction site and the goats start whistlin'...

Well, there was some nose tweaking intended, but I was also trying a new tactic, subletly.(That's what this was for: "But that's only at two JCs and three universities, so I could be wrong to paint with such a broad brush. "). making a massive generalization about a type of student from a very limited sample is not good science or thinking. But, yeah, the snark was heavy. It should be. There's a lot of reasons some of us wind up going the JC route(one of them being that in CA Gov Brown built a three tiered system starting at the JC level to increase overall number of Californians going to college). But, hey, let's just pile on the supposed idiots, right? As for nurse shortages, I have one word: Phillipines. Wwhere they've done a 4 year program, but have to do the whole thing over again if they come here. Just not worth it. And, hey, they produce more nurses there than we do here. We'll just let them all go to Japan instead. Hell, we have a dental shortage too. I knew a woman, who had to leave the country recently, trained at one of the top schools in Japan for oral surgery and anesthesia who couldn't get a job in the US in the field without doing 3-6 years of work. The system, simply put, sucks, and I wonder which union(s) went to bat to make it like this? Having done both the quarter system at a 4 year and a semester system at a JC I can say I'm glad they didn't try to ram more down one's throat at the JC. The breakneck speed at the UC system didn't mean we understood it better---there's a reason why curves rather than scales are near universal after all---just that we met the curricular goals of covering said topics. I walked in knowing more O-chem than most because I took it elsewhere---major advantage. I *still* run into profs who complain that their grad student doesn't know something about the field they're in but should(and the kid went to Colgate, or UWashington, or wherever, where they were like UCD and just rammed stuff thru regardless of how well anyone learned it. At the JC we took the ACS exam at the end of a year, and if you didn't pass it you failed the second half of either general chemistry and o-chem. Never heard of a 4 year doing that, so keep on believing a 4 year gaurantees a better education, because I can tell you, it sure as hell doesn't.) Now, a two year degree? sometimes it is the worst thing. SOmetime's it isn't. Mom went with a 2 year certification program(in 1950) for her nurse's aid job, and worked burn wards until she had her own kids in 1968(I'm the 1974 edition). Worked then, but, of course, they had specialization then that they don't allow for as much as they do now. And we still aren't going to let all those Phillipine nurses in to meet that shortage, are we? (Skippy-san will be annoyed. (Insided joke, don't worry about this.)) ASt ot the subject smart, life stupid crack. What's your point? You came in blazing that JC students were dumb. No, we're not. Often we're people who by sheer bad luck had bad educations at the lower levels(HS, elementary) and have to work to make that up. So, yeah, they're all dumb and you're just an underappreciated teacher working with substandard clay. And, if you're not enforcing the prereq reguirements regularly(and not going to the admin to make sure they have the prereqs so they can even enroll) someone's not doing their job. I've done that at UCD and at Purdue. It doesn't make you popular with anyone, but it sure is the right damn thing to do to protect a program("gollum, you @55hole, do you know that Dean So-and-so just called because you went and did that stupid stunt of yours again! Get out of my sight!" heh, bad times.). But, hey, I could always just walk away, wash my hands of it, and let the program slip into suckatude such that nobody trusts the graduates anymore. I'll buy your comment on more often than not trained as lawyers in gov't not being the best ones to make certain types of decisions. That should be a given. I'm not big on the judiciary making certain types of calls either(like the thimerisol case, and it's total BS. Nobody has ever shown causation ergo the science is bad. It doesn't happen. MErcury2 salts are insoluble in human blood. It's a crock.) But, beyond that, we'll just have to disagree.