U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Koga No Goshi]

To be honest, I am voting for McCain because I want conservative Supreme court justices. I don't want the Supreme court to do with Gay marriage and other nonsense in the way that they dealt with Roe v Wade. If individuals want a resolution to things that are clearly not in the constitution, take them to the legislature and stop strong arming the American people. I believe that this is where we can hold down the fort. Overturn Roe, secure the court from anti-democratic activism and force issues to be resolved in a responsible manner.

Well I think you have the wrong idea about what progressives think about Constitutional law and the supreme court. If you think that we just view it as a back door to sneak in legislation that is somehow against the Constitution I'd have to say that as a general rule, that's not correct. I think that on certain equal rights issues, say gay marriage as one example, the promise is already in the Constitution for equal rights on those kinds of issues without saying it in exactly so many words in specific regards to every possible manifestation, like gay marriage. The Constitution doesn't uphold either religion or tradition as a basis for denying equal rights for any group. I think also that just saying "leave all the controversial stuff up to the states" creates an absolute mess... I mean, if a gay couple happens to be visiting a state where gay marriage isn't recognized and one is suddenly injured or severely ill and serious medical decisions need to be made on the spot, or one owns property in a state where gay marriage isn't recognized, and one partner abruptly dies young... you see the potential legal problems there. I am not arguing with your viewpoint on the role of the Supreme Court and the legislative branch, I'm just cleaning up how I would describe my understanding of how many on the left feel about why certain things should not just be decided on a state by state basis, especially if a component of human rights or equal rights comes into play.


On the foreign policy side - Obama and McCain are almost comically identical in their views. I believe that McCain knows what he is talking about and that Obama is a socially minded domestic politician. He talks a good pre-fab game, but McCain is the real thing here. With the addition of Biden I am not so worried about that ticket, but I still support McCain for his intellectual honesty about the decision to go support the war in Iraq based on the intelligence understood at the time. Their differences are largelly semantic and target the more polarized segments of their respected constituencies.

How is Obama intellectually dishonest? That argument would be arguably fair game to Kerry, or Hillary, or any of the Dems who voted "based on the intelligence at the time", giving the benefit of the doubt that it was credible enough to act upon and vote for the war resolution, and then later criticized the Bush Admin for how they lied us into the war. Obama voted against it... so I don't see how he has ever been intellectually dishonest about the war. The fact that only a minority saw through the marketing ploys to sell the Iraq War doesn't mean he's reinventing circumstances after the fact; I personally had been screaming from the mountaintop before Bush's first term that if he won we'd be back in Iraq, and I knew the sales pitch for the war was b.s. If you don't believe that I am sure I could google some forum posts I made somewhere on the net back in '00 if I had to.


And then there is spending. McCain has said for so long that he wants to cut, cut, cut. I want to see this happen. I don't view Tax Cuts as spending, Obama does. I view limiting the scope of government as necessary to avoid bankruptcy. I think the government must serve as a regulator and organizer for the programs that are necessary, but the major rise in spending and taxes over the years is scary.

I understand, I just have absolutely no idea what it is exactly that McCain plans to cut, especially since from what we have to work on, he wants to keep Iraq going indefinitely. At the very least, from all available info, we can assume we will be there longer under a McCain presidency than an Obama one, unless it just so happens that every single brass in the military is screaming that we can leave now in an equal or shorter timespan than Obama's timetables. (Probably unlikely, given that par for course was to push into retirement generals who didn't give answers in line with what the admin wanted to hear for 8 years-- most of them early into the war planning.) Aside from that all he promises to cut is pork. So I give you the same question I gave Panzer, with a 10 trillion dollar deficit, with 300 proposed billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and the only specific thing he says he'll cut is 20 billion per year in Pork, while we continue to spend 10 billion per MONTH in Iraq, if you know of some secret trump card McCain has up his sleeve as to how he will balance the budget or cut spending, please share it. If he has a lot of spending cut plans outside of pork, and isn't sharing them on purpose, then that makes me pretty nervous because it implies it's things that would make him extremely unpopular were he to list them prior to getting elected. Things like SS, public education, etc. (We know he won't cut military spending so that's out.)


Does that do it for you?

Yes it does, thank you for the thoughtful and non-liberalbashing response.

[Koga No Goshi]

Right, and when Chris Matthews talked about that tingling feeling running up his leg, that was pure objective journalism. :laugh4:

I'm sorry Lemur, I would have thought that winning would be enough for you. Can't stand to see the other side with even a glimmer of hope, huh? Gotta leave those last few desparate strands of optimism a smoldering ruin, eh?

This is one thing I don't understand about the Democrats right now. If there's one thing that, and only one thing, that could slow down the runaway train, it'd be overconfidence and arrogance. And yet.... no magnaminity. No "he ran a good race, he's just not the right guy for right now". Nope. Just more and more "And if you're not on board with the DNC, you're a loser!"

Sorry, it's actually kinda amusing to watch. :beam:

Didn't you say you were undecided? :) It's hard to operate from a position of neutrality or centrality with credibility when all you ever defend is McCain/GOP/Fox, Don. I mean that constructively.

[Koga No Goshi]

P.S., a last thought I had, I meant to post it right away but forgot, about the VP debates.

Did anyone else notice the fact that Palin went from saying that the causes of global warming were unknown and she did not believe they were manmade, immediately into saying we have to do this and we have to do that to ensure we are cleaning up our planet and not adding to the problem? That was a pretty big admission that she's lying and I'm surprised so few people caught it. If the "natural cyclical temperature changes of the Earth" that she cited were the reason then it would not follow we need to do ANYTHING on our end to work on the problem. There's nothing we can do, if global warming isn't manmade.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well I think you have the wrong idea about what progressives think about Constitutional law and the supreme court. If you think that we just view it as a back door to sneak in legislation that is somehow against the Constitution I'd have to say that as a general rule, that's not correct. I think that on certain equal rights issues, say gay marriage as one example, the promise is already in the Constitution for equal rights on those kinds of issues without saying it in exactly so many words in specific regards to every possible manifestation, like gay marriage. The Constitution doesn't uphold either religion or tradition as a basis for denying equal rights for any group. I think also that just saying "leave all the controversial stuff up to the states" creates an absolute mess... I mean, if a gay couple happens to be visiting a state where gay marriage isn't recognized and one is suddenly injured or severely ill and serious medical decisions need to be made on the spot, or one owns property in a state where gay marriage isn't recognized, and one partner abruptly dies young... you see the potential legal problems there. I am not arguing with your viewpoint on the role of the Supreme Court and the legislative branch, I'm just cleaning up how I would describe my understanding of how many on the left feel about why certain things should not just be decided on a state by state basis, especially if a component of human rights or equal rights comes into play.


It deosn't need to be decided on a State by State basis necessarily, neither does the issue of abortion. It could be - OR the federal legislative branch could take a whack at it. The reality is that all options are open so long as you want to discuss it. By saying that gay marriage is implied in the Constitution you are saying that the Supreme has jurisdiction and must find all laws banning them unconstituional when a case comes before them. There is really no way around that.

There are two realities. The Constitution does not mention or imply a right to marriage in any sense, mush less to gay marriage; it was not under any circumstances practiced at the time or forseen by anyone on record. If it neither mentions nor implies it the arguement is on shaky ground.
The second reality is that all men and all women are invited to marry regardless of their gender. The catch is that you must marry someone of the opposite gender. 2 homosexuals can marry one another, as long as they are of different genders. Love is irrellevant in the legal understanding, but various laws support marriage as a union between the two sexual types that procreate naturally.

Anyway
If the institution is not mentioned at all in the constituion and the institution is open to all regardless of sexual orientation - it is not inherently unequal and should be left alone by the courts. I'm not saying that you would need an amendment to make it federal law, you wouldn't because there is nothing in the Constitution mentioning marriage to be amended, but you would need some honest dialogue to convince people and pass legislation which everyone is afraid to do. The reality is that people supporting decisions like Roe and State court decisions about gay marriage are not interested in legislation, but rule by decree irrespective of democratic sentiment. Usually rule by the decree of 5. Why don't we just ditch the legislature all together and just have a bunch of supreme courts make the decisions?

Of course, there are other ways to federally mandate gay marriage without a vote in the legislature or a supreme court decision, such as repeal the defense of marriage act and transfer gay marriages nationally irrespective of laws on the books. Use other clauses that were never meant to transfer anything except for traditional marriages by technicallity. That way you can lie to people by saying you are for the repeal of the defense act, but also agaisnt gay marriage! You can have your cake and eat it too! Dumb conservatives will vote for you to oppose gay marriage, but they will get it anyway - and you knew the whole time! Thanks barry O'biden!

Certain people hate discussion and legitimate legislation. Not all democrats are like this and not all republicans are immune. Honesty and fair play are important if you want high ground to stand on when the other side does the same thing to you on a different issue.

[CountArach]

I'll tell you the truth, I haven't had any call to deal with him thus far. My county is extremely Republican, so it's a very safe seat unless he faces a primary contestant, which doesn't seem likely.

Amusing side note: One of my neighbors has both a McCain and an Obama lawn sign. Talk about a house divided ...
So does The Governator's house...
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/13split600.jpg

[Koga No Goshi]

From a legal perspective, Tuff, and it doesn't sound like you disagree from what I can tell--- marriage in the legal sense is nothing but a contract. That's all it is. The fact that marraige has a cultural and religious connotation subjective to people's unique backgrounds and upbringings is pretty much beside the point that in the eyes of the law, what marriage does is bestow certain tax implications, civil/domestic rights, medical rights and inheritance/property rights on a couple who are living together as a couple.

On a state-by-state level, the reason I think something like "state level civil contracts" are bad is because it's just begging to go to the Supreme Court anyway, when a backwards state that doesn't recognize civil unions or whatever chooses to deny one partner (recognized in a civil union in another state) hospital vistation, or goes against thier medical directives, or seizes their property and gives it to blood family instead of the civil union partner. But it doesn't sound like you disagreed much there either that it must be a state-by-state issue. I mention it because a state-based civil unions thing is a "Safe" political path that most people who I suspect really support gay marriage adopt to stay middle of the road and not alienate prejudiced voters. But it will never work if it's not Federal over all states, and if it is, then we are back to square one. Why have a separate contract that bestows exactly the same legal rights as marriage but just insist on calling it something different and giving it a totally different legal classification and title when it is presumably exactly the same thing, legally.

I don't think this is a legal problem in fact. I consider the legal aspect of gay marriage a slam dunk. No government state or Federal has the right to withhold legal benefits to life partners/couples on the basis that some religions and some moral value systems don't "like" the kind of couple in question. The problem is I believe social, the fact that people consider marriage irrevocably religious even though it ISN'T, and anyone can go get married by a Justice of the Peace. Some people view it as forcing "leftist values" into religion, which again is just ridiculous. Any church which does not wish to perform a certain kind of ceremony would never have to. But I agree with this one editorial I read a long time ago, that really, when it's all said and done, few people oppose it out of true religious fervor. It's the "ick factor." And it's zero-sum thinking. I'm not gay, I don't need it, I don't want to ever use it, it won't help me on a personal, direct level, so I'm against it, plus I think gay is gross. I think that's the strongest underlined explanation as to why we're still snagged on this issue, IMHO.

Wow off topic. Sorry. ;)

[Lemur]

Your first reaction on seeing this clip will be, "Oh, look, a new Onion video." But it ain't so, sorry to say. Behold the level of our national discourse. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02veWtxaaS4)

I couldn't make this Gah! up if I tried. BY all means, let us elect our leaders by the size of their flag pins.

[CountArach]

Its the flag pins stupid!

[KukriKhan]

I just received in the mail yesterday, my Sample Ballot, listing my choices this November. They are:

Party Candidates

Green McKinney-Clemente

American Independent Keyes-Drake

Peace and Freedom Nader-Gonzalez

Democratic Obama-Biden

Libertarian Barr-Root

Republican McCain-Palin

Write-In

Six choices, and a write-in (that's new from last time).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mulling over the VeepNom debate, I'd probably put it down narrowly in Biden's favor. Of course, I'm actually a recovering college individual events participant with Org Comm PhD who is married to a recovering college CEDA debater with a Master's in Rhetoric. Neither of them used evidence credibly enough to suit me and both strayed from the questions in favor of talking point crap. Biden stuck closer to the Q's and was a bit more "we're better on this point because" than was Palin.

However, McCain's team and the pro-GOP radio spinmeisters had done a MUCH better job of setting the bar very low for Palin. She readily hopped that bar and did pick up enough points to do what McCain hired her to do, which is to get the more dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to show up at the polls rather than sit on their hands. If McCain loses too much of the core GOP, it doesn't matter how well he'll do among the mugwumps. Palin's role is just that, and by THAT standard, she did well enough to "win."

***

This election will be down to the wire and we will not know until very late that night where the chips will fall. I'm still leaning Obama in my prediction and I think my initial analysis in the OP will still be pretty close to form at the finish.

***

Having heard these nominees both argue about the respective health care programs, I can say with sincerity that I hope NEITHER version gets through.

***

I liked the points on McCain being ready for FoPo and Obama getting ready for it. I think that's a reasonable assessment. Of course, most USA voters do NOT make FoPo their focus in the polls -- especially with an economy that will be sliding into recession at about that time.

By the way, for those managing their own finances, I would suggest that it is NOT time to stay in stocks. It is time to leave and then wait for the "bottoming out" to reinvest.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your first reaction on seeing this clip will be, "Oh, look, a new Onion video." But it ain't so, sorry to say. Behold the level of our national discourse. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02veWtxaaS4)

I couldn't make this Gah! up if I tried. BY all means, let us elect our leaders by the size of their flag pins.

God forbid they joke about flagpins. She wins the flagpin part of the debate because hers is huge and jewel encrusted.

"what has america become when a morningshow trivializes flagpins?". Thanks for pointing this out. They should be taken off air. When will their mockery of everything we stand for end?

[ICantSpellDawg]

From a legal perspective, Tuff, and it doesn't sound like you disagree from what I can tell--- marriage in the legal sense is nothing but a contract. That's all it is. The fact that marraige has a cultural and religious connotation subjective to people's unique backgrounds and upbringings is pretty much beside the point that in the eyes of the law, what marriage does is bestow certain tax implications, civil/domestic rights, medical rights and inheritance/property rights on a couple who are living together as a couple.

On a state-by-state level, the reason I think something like "state level civil contracts" are bad is because it's just begging to go to the Supreme Court anyway, when a backwards state that doesn't recognize civil unions or whatever chooses to deny one partner (recognized in a civil union in another state) hospital vistation, or goes against thier medical directives, or seizes their property and gives it to blood family instead of the civil union partner. But it doesn't sound like you disagreed much there either that it must be a state-by-state issue. I mention it because a state-based civil unions thing is a "Safe" political path that most people who I suspect really support gay marriage adopt to stay middle of the road and not alienate prejudiced voters. But it will never work if it's not Federal over all states, and if it is, then we are back to square one. Why have a separate contract that bestows exactly the same legal rights as marriage but just insist on calling it something different and giving it a totally different legal classification and title when it is presumably exactly the same thing, legally.

I don't think this is a legal problem in fact. I consider the legal aspect of gay marriage a slam dunk. No government state or Federal has the right to withhold legal benefits to life partners/couples on the basis that some religions and some moral value systems don't "like" the kind of couple in question. The problem is I believe social, the fact that people consider marriage irrevocably religious even though it ISN'T, and anyone can go get married by a Justice of the Peace. Some people view it as forcing "leftist values" into religion, which again is just ridiculous. Any church which does not wish to perform a certain kind of ceremony would never have to. But I agree with this one editorial I read a long time ago, that really, when it's all said and done, few people oppose it out of true religious fervor. It's the "ick factor." And it's zero-sum thinking. I'm not gay, I don't need it, I don't want to ever use it, it won't help me on a personal, direct level, so I'm against it, plus I think gay is gross. I think that's the strongest underlined explanation as to why we're still snagged on this issue, IMHO.

Wow off topic. Sorry. ;)

Marriage is a social acceptance that the relationship between 1 man and 1 woman is a special kind of rudimentary relationship. It is a traditional creation/support relationship that has been viewed by society as worthy of note. Society has not chosen to recognize my relationship with one or more friends that way, irrespective of my emotional connections to them.

Think of it as a purple heart. Why does the government give medals only to people who have been shot, killed or wounded when others have sacrificed parts of their lives as well? The medal only really represents sacrifice, so why shouldn't all soldiers who have made a sacrifice get it? Because that is not the purpose of the medal. If you want the medal, you are within your rights to push for the qualifications to be re-defined just as I am within my rights to oppose you because I believe the medal currently represents what it should represent - physical injury or death.

Marriage isn't guaranteed by the constitution but it is open to all. You may say that it isn't fair because it isn't personally your ideal type of relationship (as i'm sure it isn't for many polyamorists, homosexuals, etc), but it serves as a traditional medium for an inherent relationship between the sexes. Again, you can try to change it by convincing people that love should be the new qualifier for the title, but I believe that love is only a small part of the unique nature of the male-female union.

If you can ask "why does it have to be male/female relationship", why can't you ask "why does it have to be 2 people?".

My basic point is that people shouldn't just eliminate the judicial system when it inconveniences your ideology.

[Big_John]

Your first reaction on seeing this clip will be, "Oh, look, a new Onion video." But it ain't so, sorry to say. Behold the level of our national discourse. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02veWtxaaS4)

I couldn't make this Gah! up if I tried. BY all means, let us elect our leaders by the size of their flag pins.dude.. it's a joke.. :inquisitive:


edit: beaten to it.

[Gregoshi]

dude.. it's a joke.. :inquisitive:

But Fox News didn't use smilies...


unless it was cut out of the edited video

[Lemur]

God forbid they joke about flagpins.
Well, considering it was Fox News Channel that largely invented the flagpin as issue, I guess they've moved into some fourth-dimensional n-space of total irony. Gotta say that sounds kinda ... elite ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We Report with a smug little pro-GOP attitude; You decide we're your network of choice because we echo the attitude you had even before clicking over to Fox News.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This will probably be dismissed out of hand because it is from Newsmax, but does anyone know how Obama got into Harvard or who paid for his expensive preperatory and college education?
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_harvard_/2008/09/23/133199.html

I'm just wondering if he got into Harvard Law because of his grades or because of connections. I couldn't find any grades for him from Columbia (IL). I would also like to know whose money financed his time at the prep school.

[Koga No Goshi]

This will probably be dismissed out of hand because it is from Newsmax, but does anyone know how Obama got into Harvard or who paid for his expensive preperatory and college education?
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_harvard_/2008/09/23/133199.html

I'm just wondering if he got into Harvard Law because of his grades or because of connections. I couldn't find any grades for him from Columbia (IL). I would also like to know whose money financed his time at the prep school.

This argument is insincere. The GOP and Republican voters were completely uninterested in details of how people got into prestigious universities when Bush was the candidate. I don't think anyone who voted Dem in '00 and '04 will feel particularly obligated to go out on a limb and defend details of Obama's academic record when the best opposition/comparison is George Bush, Sarah Palin and John McCain, none of whom were exactly academic superstars. Given that it's not even in QUESTION for Bush and McCain that they are where they are because of wealth and family connections in their past or to kick off their careers, let's not pretend it's suddenly a legitimate concern for Obama from Republicans, when he earned his way up from obscurity more than Bush and McCain combined ever did.

[Tribesman]

This will probably be dismissed out of hand because it is from Newsmax
No it will probably be dismissed because it has been doing the rounds for over a month already and is getting nowhere

[Koga No Goshi]

Marriage is a social acceptance that the relationship between 1 man and 1 woman is a special kind of rudimentary relationship. It is a traditional creation/support relationship that has been viewed by society as worthy of note. Society has not chosen to recognize my relationship with one or more friends that way, irrespective of my emotional connections to them.

Think of it as a purple heart. Why does the government give medals only to people who have been shot, killed or wounded when others have sacrificed parts of their lives as well? The medal only really represents sacrifice, so why shouldn't all soldiers who have made a sacrifice get it? Because that is not the purpose of the medal. If you want the medal, you are within your rights to push for the qualifications to be re-defined just as I am within my rights to oppose you because I believe the medal currently represents what it should represent - physical injury or death.

Marriage isn't guaranteed by the constitution but it is open to all. You may say that it isn't fair because it isn't personally your ideal type of relationship (as i'm sure it isn't for many polyamorists, homosexuals, etc), but it serves as a traditional medium for an inherent relationship between the sexes. Again, you can try to change it by convincing people that love should be the new qualifier for the title, but I believe that love is only a small part of the unique nature of the male-female union.

If you can ask "why does it have to be male/female relationship", why can't you ask "why does it have to be 2 people?".

My basic point is that people shouldn't just eliminate the judicial system when it inconveniences your ideology.

Well here I thought we were having a nice discussion and you went right back into ideology land. ;) I don't know how "gay marriage" can be an "ideology", nor do I see why you think it's my ideology. I simply feel that denying couples who are indistinguishable in their family life or living situation from a heterosexual married couple completely equal legal rights to marriage is unsupportable under the Constitution, since you were making that argument about not wanting courts to deal with the topic. If you think that I earned a pip on my liberal collar or got my eagle scout for supporting gay marriage and being a good little ideologue, I don't know where you get these ideas. :) It is my opinion, simple as that. You can check preconceptions about ideology at the door.

I don't see how any of the arguments floating around out there deny or try to redefine that a rudimentary human relationship is man + woman. And I don't know why anyone in thier right mind would be afraid that that is going to change or somehow be rewritten, ever, until we're breeding our babies in test tubes and we're all asexual or something. As for your Purple Heart analogy, let me give you one. Suppose they invent another medal for people who served under extraordinary circumstances, but were not injured. And all the Purple Heart people said no, no, no, wartime awards should only be for combat injuries, stop trying to redefine good combat service. Well, a lot of people do a lot of good service besides getting injured, right? The analogy is getting weak, I know. But the point is that I do not see what you think the legal or Constitutional or benefit motive is for making an exclusive definition that doesn't include an increasing amount of unrecognized marriages (and that is what they are) formed by gay people across the country.

And, I think the argument that "gay people can get married. But they have to be married to someone of the opposite gender" is really ridiculous, Tuff. You can do better than that. I'd just offer a friendly suggestion that you not use it, it's almost comical. How does marrying someone of the opposite gender help a gay American with a lifelong same-sex partner not have their property taken away if the partner dies and his family makes a claim on the house, or stop a doctor from not letting a samesex partner be part of medical decisions or even visit in the hospital because they aren't family? It doesn't.

And, the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument is just one step away from "if gay marriage, why not humans and dogs?" It's being intentionally obtuse and taking an ideological hardline on simply not wanting to recognize any legitimacy at all of gay couples. I think it's fairly common sense that gay people aren't part of some cult raising kids on compounds and marrying them off to old men at 13 when old man already has 8 wives. And if any small fringe groups are out there doing that, that has no bearing on the argument for gay marriage as between two people of the same gender. It's irrelevant.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well here I thought we were having a nice discussion and you went right back into ideology land. ;) I don't know how "gay marriage" can be an "ideology", nor do I see why you think it's my ideology. I simply feel that denying couples who are indistinguishable in their family life or living situation from a heterosexual married couple completely equal legal rights to marriage is unsupportable under the Constitution, since you were making that argument about not wanting courts to deal with the topic. If you think that I earned a pip on my liberal collar or got my eagle scout for supporting gay marriage and being a good little ideologue, I don't know where you get these ideas. :) It is my opinion, simple as that. You can check preconceptions about ideology at the door.

I don't see how any of the arguments floating around out there deny or try to redefine that a rudimentary human relationship is man + woman. And I don't know why anyone in thier right mind would be afraid that that is going to change or somehow be rewritten, ever, until we're breeding our babies in test tubes and we're all asexual or something. As for your Purple Heart analogy, let me give you one. Suppose they invent another medal for people who served under extraordinary circumstances, but were not injured. And all the Purple Heart people said no, no, no, wartime awards should only be for combat injuries, stop trying to redefine good combat service. Well, a lot of people do a lot of good service besides getting injured, right? The analogy is getting weak, I know. But the point is that I do not see what you think the legal or Constitutional or benefit motive is for making an exclusive definition that doesn't include an increasing amount of unrecognized marriages (and that is what they are) formed by gay people across the country.

And, I think the argument that "gay people can get married. But they have to be married to someone of the opposite gender" is really ridiculous, Tuff. You can do better than that. I'd just offer a friendly suggestion that you not use it, it's almost comical. How does marrying someone of the opposite gender help a gay American with a lifelong same-sex partner not have their property taken away if the partner dies and his family makes a claim on the house, or stop a doctor from not letting a samesex partner be part of medical decisions or even visit in the hospital because they aren't family? It doesn't.

And, the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument is just one step away from "if gay marriage, why not humans and dogs?" It's being intentionally obtuse and taking an ideological hardline on simply not wanting to recognize any legitimacy at all of gay couples. I think it's fairly common sense that gay people aren't part of some cult raising kids on compounds and marrying them off to old men at 13 when old man already has 8 wives. And if any small fringe groups are out there doing that, that has no bearing on the argument for gay marriage as between two people of the same gender. It's irrelevant.

The "alternative medal for everybody" is a good hypothetical regarding people who reject civil unions, but not people who reject gay marriage.

Also, I fail to see why marrying more than one person is so far beyond the pale. Why can't we marry more than one person again? Why is is so crazy that we bring the two topics up in connection with one another? The reality is that only tradition and consensus is behind the exclusion of more than one spouse. In fact, I'd sooner see polygamous marriage be legallized than gay marriage personally.

Push for legislation and convince people why they should support it is all i'm saying. Do it in your state, do it on a federal level, but don't cheat and please don't support others who cheat just because they share the same ideological bend on the issue.

Also - read the definition of ideology (http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/ideology) before you get insulted. Unless you are defending your thought process as asystemic while I try to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is has a system of standards...

[ICantSpellDawg]

This argument is insincere. The GOP and Republican voters were completely uninterested in details of how people got into prestigious universities when Bush was the candidate. I don't think anyone who voted Dem in '00 and '04 will feel particularly obligated to go out on a limb and defend details of Obama's academic record when the best opposition/comparison is George Bush, Sarah Palin and John McCain, none of whom were exactly academic superstars. Given that it's not even in QUESTION for Bush and McCain that they are where they are because of wealth and family connections in their past or to kick off their careers, let's not pretend it's suddenly a legitimate concern for Obama from Republicans, when he earned his way up from obscurity more than Bush and McCain combined ever did.


I was under the impression that he came from modest means and attained any fancy things because of merit or hard work. I was just wondering who bankrolled him and wanted some background. I posted the article, but wanted to better understand the reality.

Or you could get defensive, blame everybody else and not answer the question. That was always an option.


No it will probably be dismissed because it has been doing the rounds for over a month already and is getting nowhere

We are getting close to the end of the election ands this is something I hadn't thought about for one reason or another. Do you have an answer for the question I've posited? I've left it pretty open and not come to a conclusion about it just yet.

[Koga No Goshi]

The "alternative medal for everybody" is a good hypothetical regarding people who reject civil unions, but not people who reject gay marriage.

Also, I fail to see why marrying more than one person is so far beyond the pale. Why can't we marry more than one person again? Why is is so crazy that we bring the two topics up in connection with one another? The reality is that only tradition and consensus is behind the exclusion of more than one spouse. In fact, I'd sooner see polygamous marriage be legallized than gay marriage personally.

Well if you want to get into the history of it, it has to do with basically the same reason gay marriage is so contentious; religious intolerance. It was aimed at breaking up the strength of Mormonism in the west and uphold Christianity and all that good stuff during Manifest Destiny. Today, it has a lot to do with the fact that there is a lot of abuse surrounding underground polygamy. But if three people want to have a social contract recognized by the government that all property is equally shared, they share equal custodial rights of children, and all have a say in medical decisions, personally I would not go out with a sign and protest it. But I still think it's beside the point in the case of gay marriage, because gay people are not choosing to engage in a union outside of the rubric of two people committing their lives together in finances, life decisions and such. They simply don't want to have that with someone of the opposite gender and would be faking a marriage if they entered such a relationship. So we're not talking about redefining marriage as recognizing polygamy or sex with animals or sex with children. We're talking about marriage, being a legal contract in the eyes of the law and completely irrespective of religion, not being extended to couples who don't fit a religious view of what marriage must always be. That's the bottom line and it's Constitutionally unsupportable.


Push for legislation and convince people why they should support it is all i'm saying. Do it in your state, do it on a federal level, but don't cheat and please don't support others who cheat just because they share the same ideological bend on the issue.

Also - read the definition of ideology (http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/ideology) before you get insulted. Unless you are defending your thought process as asystemic while I try to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is has a system of standards...

My state already recognizes it, but those people better all be careful when they leave the state. If they wind up in a hospital or one of them dies, there could be a lot of legal problems. And something like that will almost undoubtedly wind up before the Supreme Court sooner or later.

[Koga No Goshi]

No one else noticed the same thing as me about Palin's little disconnect about global warming during the VP debate? I'm surprised no one is talking about it, I haven't seen any bloggers mentioning it either.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We're talking about marriage, being a legal contract in the eyes of the law and completely irrespective of religion, not being extended to couples who don't fit a religious view of what marriage must always be. That's the bottom line and it's Constitutionally unsupportable.

The state's view of marriage is not dependent on religion. It is dependent on the constituency. You are saying that it shouldn't be, but rather because it is somehow unconstitutional (even though it isn't mentioned and they arn't barred from the institution) that it should be mandated as an option for all states. I disagree, but according to you my opinion does not and should not matter in the law on this issue.

It comes down on this issue and so many others that certain types of "perpetual expansion of natural rights" activists seek to eliminate debate and avoid dialogue in order to get their opinions encoded in law. It sounds as though you are the larval stage of becoming one of these activists.

BTW - Your state recognizes gay marriage because your Supreme court strongarmed the legislature into adopting it despite existing laws rejecting it. The exceptionally few overturning the decision of the many. What happened in your state is exactly what I hope does not happen here.

Massachussets did it the right way and, while I disagree - that is what the defense of marriage act is for.

[Koga No Goshi]

The state's view of marriage is not dependent on religion. It is dependent on the constituency. You are saying that it shouldn't be, but rather because it is somehow unconstitutional (even though it isn't mentioned and they arn't barred from the institution) that it should be mandated as an option for all states. I disagree, but according to you my opinion does not and should not matter in the law on this issue.

It comes down on this issue and so many others that certain types of "perpetual expansion of natural rights" activists seek to eliminate debate and avoid dialogue in order to get their opinions encoded in law. It sounds as though you are the larval stage of becoming one of these activists.

At one time the constituency believed the mass incarceration of all civilians of Japanese ancestry was acceptable and wise. The courts thought otherwise.

I do not share your apparently optimistic view that if we just leave most everything regarding civil rights and equality up to majority opinion of the constituency that everything will be great. And if we should keep everything at the legislative branch even when it comes to Constitutional questions of equality, then you're talking about redefining the branches of government. Why have a judiciary at all?

[ICantSpellDawg]

At one time the constituency believed the mass incarceration of all civilians of Japanese ancestry was acceptable and wise. The courts thought otherwise.

I do not share your apparently optimistic view that if we just leave most everything regarding civil rights and equality up to majority opinion of the constituency that everything will be great. And if we should keep everything at the legislative branch even when it comes to Constitutional questions of equality, then you're talking about redefining the branches of government. Why have a judiciary at all?

The internment of Japanese citizens was unconstitutional. Slavery was not unconstitutional until it was made unconstitutional. Now it is unconstitutional.

The supreme court should interpret constitutional law. They should strike down previous ruling that don't make sense according to the hard copy. Their job is to protect the text and ammendments. This is their job.

Their job is not to decide what is right or wrong from any another standard. We should all fear a tyranny from the arbitrary and uncodified morality of 5 people. The constitution is the best safeguard that we have from any tyrany of the majority - I wouldn't replace it with the whimsical minds of 5 rotting codgers.

People should appeal to the legislature for any changes to bad laws that are not unconstituional.

[Koga No Goshi]

The internment of Japanese citizens was unconstitutional. Slavery was not unconstitutional until it was made unconstitutional. Now it is unconstitutional.

The supreme court should interpret constitutional law. They should strike down previous ruling that don't make sense according to the hard copy. Their job is to protect the text and ammendments. This is their job.

Their job is not to decide what is right or wrong from any another standard. We should all fear a tyranny from the arbitrary and uncodified morality of 5 people.

People should appeal to the legislature for any changes to bad laws that are not unconstituional.

I have already stated that the Constitutional case can be made that upholding restrictions on a government recognized contract of marriage based on popular opinion, religion or certain strata of personal morality is unsupportable. So, again, you are stubbornly trying to say I think that the Supreme Court should make laws up on the spot. I'm not. I'm saying that you can't make a law saying people who are straight can have a driver's license (a government issued and recognized qualification of rights) and no one else can. And it would be perfectly within the Supreme Court's appropriate use of power to strike down such a law.

Also, let's keep a little perspective Tuff. It is not Amendments to the Constitution being proposed to add gay marriage. It's Amendments to ban it. And if any such law passes even if it has 80% support from Congress and the constituents, it SHOULD be overturned by the Supreme Court. Writing bans on rights for specific groups is about as unconstitutional as you get.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have already stated that the Constitutional case can be made that upholding restrictions on a government recognized contract of marriage based on popular opinion, religion or certain strata of personal morality is unsupportable. So, again, you are stubbornly trying to say I think that the Supreme Court should make laws up on the spot. I'm not. I'm saying that you can't make a law saying people who are straight can have a driver's license (a government issued and recognized qualification of rights) and no one else can. And it would be perfectly within the Supreme Court's appropriate use of power to strike down such a law.

But no-one has made that case. Nowhere is it written that homosexuals can't marry and reproduce except in their own minds - even their junks say that they can. We have an institution celebrating and re-inforcing natural reproduction. All males and females are invited to participate in it, all they have to do is find a the opposite partner. Some people love their partner, some people are attracted to their partner, others are neither and do it for convenience or money. The reason that they are together from the governments perspective is irrelevant, the symbolism is what is important. What I am saying is that if you do not beleive that male-female relationships should be celebrated in particular because they are special - you are a citizen, make your voice heard but don't use weak technicalities to crap on everyones parade.

[Koga No Goshi]

But no-one has made that case. Nowhere is it written that homosexuals can't marry and reproduce except in their own minds - even their junks say that they can. We have an institution celebrating and re-inforcing natural reproduction. All males and females are invited to participate in it, all they have to do is find a the opposite partner. Some people love their partner, some people are attracted to their partner, others are neither and do it for convenience or money. The reason that they are together from the governments perspective is irrelevant, the symbolism is what is important. What I am saying is that if you do not beleive that male-female relationships should be celebrated in particular because they are special - you are a citizen, make your voice heard but don't use weak technicalities to crap on everyones parade.

They can only marry opposite gender! How would you feel if you could get "married", but it had to be to a man? Would you call that a fair law? I mean, you can get all those tax benefits and rights too. Just marry your best friend and pretend he's your husband. That's a ridiculous defense of exclusive government-recognized union rights, Tuff.

It is your side of this argument, not mine, saying that a specific type of relationship should be held up and celebrated, and given exclusive rights. I don't care who celebrates what. Go celebrate adopting a siamese twin. That's not what this is about, I think that is coming from a homophobic mindset that we can't be "approving" these sorts of relationships. That is not an acceptable exercise of law and Constitutionality. And it's not an argument in court.

[Koga No Goshi]

http://news.aol.com/article/politicians-battle-over-voters-attire/200356

Can anyone make a wild guess which party wants a dress code for voting booths?

[ICantSpellDawg]

They can only marry opposite gender! How would you feel if you could get "married", but it had to be to a man? Would you call that a fair law? I mean, you can get all those tax benefits and rights too. Just marry your best friend and pretend he's your husband. That's a ridiculous defense of exclusive government-recognized union rights, Tuff.

It is your side of this argument, not mine, saying that a specific type of relationship should be held up and celebrated, and given exclusive rights. I don't care who celebrates what. Go celebrate adopting a siamese twin. That's not what this is about, I think that is coming from a homophobic mindset that we can't be "approving" these sorts of relationships. That is not an acceptable exercise of law and Constitutionality. And it's not an argument in court.


It isn't just my opinion. It tends to be the law of the land and I agree with it. You can argue the homophobic angle and I'll oppose it, but I'm not afraid of that. I'm afraid of the fact that people with your mindset get tired of debating and just go to daddy and have them overturn laws with a few people's verdict.

If any of the laws have some religious exlusions in them they should be overturned as unconstitutional. If they suggest that blacks can't marry whites they should be overturned as unconstitutional. Do you see the pattern? If they are unconstitutional they should be overturned, but if they are not, you shouldn't just brandish the word around hoping it will stick.

Fight the tough and noble fight, not the fight of cheating cowards. Call a marriage law unaceptable or out of tune with your personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Fortunately we have a codified standard for what is an what is not.

As an aside - we have existing law, tradition, most state constitutions, public opinion, most religious moral codes, and firearm stockpiles on our side - and still it isn't enough to counter the influence that a small number of lobbyists have over self-aggrandizing pockets of Federal power. Something is totally insane. Where does the opposing legitimacy come from? scientific facts... no... ethical superlatives agreed to by most... no. It is a mystery.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://news.aol.com/article/politicians-battle-over-voters-attire/200356

Can anyone make a wild guess which party wants a dress code for voting booths?

Your discription of the article is disingenuous. It isn't a dress code, you just can't come into the voting area with political signs all over your body. There are laws about that.

If you could wear a giant picture of Obama with the words "vote Obama", why couldn't you come in holding a political sign? You could just say that it is the new fashion to brandish 40 by 40 signs.

a better question would be:

"Can anyone guess which party wants their cult of personality to ignore election day laws and bring youthful propaganda into the voting area?"

[Koga No Goshi]

Your discription of the article is disingenuous. It isn't a dress code, you just can't come into the voting area with political signs all over your body. There are laws about that.

If you could wear a giant picture of Obama with the words "vote Obama", why couldn't you come in holding a political sign? You could just say that it is the new fashion to brandish 40 by 40 signs.

a better question would be:

"Can anyone guess which party wants their cult of personality to ignore election day laws and bring youthful propaganda into the voting area?"

Sheesh, we just looking for things to get panty-twisted about? I used the exact phrasing used in the headline of the article. And it's from AOL News so I don't want to hear any junk about how this came from some left-wing Obama conspiracy site.


It isn't just my opinion. It tends to be the law of the land and I agree with it. You can argue the homophobic angle and I'll oppose it, but I'm not afraid of that. I'm afraid of the fact that people with your mindset get tired of debating and just go to daddy and have them overturn laws with a few people's verdict.

If any of the laws have some religious exlusions in them they should be overturned as unconstitutional. If they suggest that blacks can't marry whites they should be overturned as unconstitutional. Do you see the pattern? If they are unconstitutional they should be overturned, but if they are not, you shouldn't just brandish the word around hoping it will stick.

Fight the tough and noble fight, not the fight of cheating cowards. Call a marriage law unaceptable or out of tune with your personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Fortunately we have a codified standard for what is an what is not.

As an aside - we have existing law, tradition, most state constitutions, public opinion, most religious moral codes, and firearm stockpiles on our side - and still it isn't enough to counter the influence that a small number of lobbyists have over self-aggrandizing pockets of Federal power. Something is totally insane. Where does the opposing legitimacy come from? scientific facts... no... ethical superlatives agreed to by most... no. It is a mystery.

It is interesting that you see absolutely no contradiction in saying that the Supreme Court should act on anti-miscegenation laws, but not on the issue of gay marriage. The only message I can take away from that is that you accept that other races are entitled to equal rights under the law, but that gay people are not.

And, drop the smug accusations of what you misperceive to be my "hidden agenda." I have stated exactly what I think, that it IS a Constitutional issue, that it IS an equal rights issue, and every bit as applicable as anti-miscegenation or any law that says "people are allowed to do x and gain access to x rights in the eyes of the government, as long as they're not x race or x religion or x sexual orientation." There is no hidden agenda there. I'm clearly not going to persuade you so drop the grandiose dramatics that I'm somehow out to brainwash people into something that is "clearly unconstitutional" in your opinion. The only basis you provided for your argument was an arbitrary line that race is a basis for discrimination when it comes to equal access to legal rights but being gay isn't, and then insisting over and over that it is so and that any alternative viewpoint recognized by the courts would be somehow "fighting a coward's fight" and overturning our democracy or somesuch. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is merely a matter of time before the people who spend all day on issues of Constitutionality and equality disagree with you. At which point apparently they will have to deal with "your stockpile of firearms" and whatever that comment was supposed to mean exactly.

And, I never said you were homophobic. I said that taking an angle of argument that "what we want to praise in society" should even be a CONSIDERATION, at all, when it comes to deciding issues of Constitutionality or equal rights, comes from a homophobic attitude which should never be given weight in a court of law or a Supreme Court case. Whether you personally endorse that or were merely repeating other arguments you've heard floated around I have no idea. I think it's a very uncivic attitude that laws should be used to "penalize/discourage behaviors we simply don't approve of", even if they're victimless or have absolutely no bearing on your life. If any of the major arguments supporting banning gay marriage in a Constitutional Amendment--- that it would "ruin the sanctity of marriage" or "hurt marriage in America", had any rational basis whatsoever then there might be some point here. But there isn't. As many comedians have noted, straight people seem to do a fine job of dragging the "sanctity of marriage" through the mud themselves.

[Don Corleone]

Didn't you say you were undecided? :) It's hard to operate from a position of neutrality or centrality with credibility when all you ever defend is McCain/GOP/Fox, Don. I mean that constructively.

I wasn't defending McCain. I was taking Lemur to task for kicking a down man, in this case NRO editor Rich Lowry who had the audacity to look for some small silver lining.

My point was that by pretty much all accounts, the election is in the bag. Getting on people that are still holding onto hope for McCain is counter-productive for Obama supporters. In truth, the appropriate and most effective responses would be magnamity, pity or lack of acknowledgement, in that order.

I never said I was neutral. I said I'd lost what little faith I had in McCain and was planning on submitting a ballot with every box but president checked. If Obama said tomorrow he'd work to pay down the debt, he'd have my vote. If you're aware of where he has, show me the links and call your local party boss. But that's the price of my vote.... a public pledge to pay down the debt.

[Hooahguy]

to tell you the truth, im sick of this election. obama is going to win. the reaserchers say that even with all the swing states, obama wins with 330 or so votes.
i personally refuse to talk about politics anymore. its so dull, all the same thing.....

[Koga No Goshi]

I wasn't defending McCain. I was taking Lemur to task for kicking a down man, in this case NRO editor Rich Lowry who had the audacity to look for some small silver lining.

My point was that by pretty much all accounts, the election is in the bag. Getting on people that are still holding onto hope for McCain is counter-productive for Obama supporters. In truth, the appropriate and most effective responses would be magnamity, pity or lack of acknowledgement, in that order.

I never said I was neutral. I said I'd lost what little faith I had in McCain and was planning on submitting a ballot with every box but president checked. If Obama said tomorrow he'd work to pay down the debt, he'd have my vote. If you're aware of where he has, show me the links and call your local party boss. But that's the price of my vote.... a public pledge to pay down the debt.

I'm hopeful, but I'd step VERY shy of saying it was in the bag. You might be right, but a lot of us thought that about 2004 as well. I know none of you "believe" in the electoral problems previously discussed but it doesn't take massive widespread cheating. It takes surgical cheating in 1-2 important swing states to swing this election, and that's all. (And since there's no paper trial with electronic voting, there is never any possible way to go back and prove or disprove an accurate vote, which is another problem when questions arise.)

Even if the Dems lose Ohio they can still win if Obama takes any of the medium sized states that Clinton took twice but then went for Bush twice, such as Virginia, Missouri and Kentucky. But, I don't exactly feel super-confident when the election is going to come down to a swing state that had funny business in 2004, and hoping for one of 3 states that haven't voted blue since Clinton. Anything can happen.

And, I think that the other side is giving as good as it gets. If you would like to see the bitterness of tone calm down then maybe you should issue a similar appeal to the people who preface almost every political post with references to God-complex Obama, or Obama worshipping, or left-wing conspiracy theorists, or how mean and unfair and slanted MSNBC makes the previously unchallenged Fox news bias status quo in journalism and coverage.

[Lemur]

I was taking Lemur to task for kicking a down man, in this case NRO editor Rich Lowry who had the audacity to look for some small silver lining.

My point was that by pretty much all accounts, the election is in the bag.
ORLY? Early voting has started, it's true, but I think it's more than a little premature to decide that the election is over and decided for B.H.O., so I'm not going to base my rhetoric, posts or style on that premise.

Sorry, friend.

-edit-

Oh, and it sounds as though nobody told the Michigan Republican Party (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14267.html) that McCain was pulling out. Man, Johnny Mac really does just lurch from crisis to crisis, doesn't he? How many crazy hail-mary plays (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obama_passing_the_reagan_thres.html) does he get to make in a single election?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The only message I can take away from that is that you accept that other races are entitled to equal rights under the law, but that gay people are not.


You hit the nail right on the head.

I'm actually suprised at how many Long Islanders won't even entertain the notion of voting Obama. Out here I have been the one countering the "he's a Muslim who hates America" claim. Kind of Ironic, actually that I've been telling people that their reasons for not voting Obama are wrong and mine are right.

[Koga No Goshi]

You hit the nail right on the head.



Is this sarcasm or?

[Redleg]

It is interesting that you see absolutely no contradiction in saying that the Supreme Court should act on anti-miscegenation laws, but not on the issue of gay marriage. The only message I can take away from that is that you accept that other races are entitled to equal rights under the law, but that gay people are not.

All races are equal under the law in the United States. Being gay is not a racial issue. So I dont see your point here at all. Are you attempting to equate racial equality with sexual orientation?

I find that a false arguement.




And, drop the smug accusations of what you misperceive to be my "hidden agenda." I have stated exactly what I think, that it IS a Constitutional issue, that it IS an equal rights issue, and every bit as applicable as anti-miscegenation or any law that says "people are allowed to do x and gain access to x rights in the eyes of the government, as long as they're not x race or x religion or x sexual orientation." There is no hidden agenda there. I'm clearly not going to persuade you so drop the grandiose dramatics that I'm somehow out to brainwash people into something that is "clearly unconstitutional" in your opinion. The only basis you provided for your argument was an arbitrary line that race is a basis for discrimination when it comes to equal access to legal rights but being gay isn't, and then insisting over and over that it is so and that any alternative viewpoint recognized by the courts would be somehow "fighting a coward's fight" and overturning our democracy or somesuch. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is merely a matter of time before the people who spend all day on issues of Constitutionality and equality disagree with you. At which point apparently they will have to deal with "your stockpile of firearms" and whatever that comment was supposed to mean exactly.

Exactly what right is being denied? I hear this a lot, but have yet to figure out exactly what right are being denied by the state to anyone who is homosexual. I personally find the arguement that being gay is a racial issue and comparing it to the struggle for equal rights for blacks in the United States to be the biggest farce ever protrayed concerning that arguement.

So if the issue is homosexual marriage let it be address by the each state in its marriage laws. That is the purview of the states. Or is your arguement an attempt to further erode what limited abilities the states do have?



And, I never said you were homophobic. I said that taking an angle of argument that "what we want to praise in society" should even be a CONSIDERATION, at all, when it comes to deciding issues of Constitutionality or equal rights, comes from a homophobic attitude which should never be given weight in a court of law or a Supreme Court case. Whether you personally endorse that or were merely repeating other arguments you've heard floated around I have no idea. I think it's a very uncivic attitude that laws should be used to "penalize/discourage behaviors we simply don't approve of", even if they're victimless or have absolutely no bearing on your life. If any of the major arguments supporting banning gay marriage in a Constitutional Amendment--- that it would "ruin the sanctity of marriage" or "hurt marriage in America", had any rational basis whatsoever then there might be some point here. But there isn't. As many comedians have noted, straight people seem to do a fine job of dragging the "sanctity of marriage" through the mud themselves.

Kind of hard to follow your arguement here, it seems more direct at the individual then the actual subject. Now here is one for you - what is the state's primary purpose in having a recoginzed marriage? Answer this question and one will see why the state's have yet to recongize gay marriage.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is this sarcasm or?
No it is not, but I don't want to take the thread totally off topic. We were talking about the gay marriage stances of all 4 candidates and why we agree or disagree.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Now here is one for you - what is the state's primary purpose in having a recoginzed marriage? Answer this question and one will see why the state's have yet to recongize gay marriage.

Good question. We can't celebrate the unique and inherent male/female relationship though a special social recognition, instead we should recognize sexual love between any two people?

Next question: why two people?
After that: why just sexual love?

(Again, it's is like saying you can't have the purple heart if it is just for sacrifice through casualty - you can only have it if it is for any type of sacrifice at all. Does anyone else think that is a good analogy, because I do.)

[Redleg]

Good question. We can't celebrate the unique and inherent male/female relationship though a special social recognition, instead we should recognize sexual love between any two people? {/quote]

The purpose of state sanction marriage has nothing to do with emotion.

[quote=TSM]
Next question: why two people?
After that: why just sexual love?

The state has a legal framework to deal with paternships of more then two people.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good question. We can't celebrate the unique and inherent male/female relationship though a special social recognition, instead we should recognize sexual love between any two people?

The purpose of state sanction marriage has nothing to do with emotion.



The state has a legal framework to deal with paternships of more then two people.

I agree with the first part.
I don't get the second part. What if I want the government to celebrate my more than friendly relationship with a group of people?

[KukriKhan]

Very well, fellas. Two pages of the rightness, wrongness, legality, morality, or otherwise-ity of gay marriage is enough, thank you. If pursuit of the issue is desired, please invent a new thread.

For this one (thread): kindly return to topic.

Thanks :bow:

[CountArach]

I'm actually suprised at how many Long Islanders won't even entertain the notion of voting Obama. Out here I have been the one countering the "he's a Muslim who hates America" claim. Kind of Ironic, actually that I've been telling people that their reasons for not voting Obama are wrong and mine are right.
That is a very honourable thing to do, and I mean that sincerely :bow:

[Koga No Goshi]

That is a very honourable thing to do, and I mean that sincerely :bow:

Yeah I had to tell a few people "no I don't think Trig is Bristol's kid, or at least, that's just an unproven rumor" several times. As far as I am concerned there are plenty of real reasons to have a problem with Palin without having to make stuff up or conjecture.

[Big_John]

i had a vietnam vet ask me today if i knew that obama was a muslim for the first 10 years of his life. we previously had had a long discussion about his life and the 2 months he spent tied to a tree stump on the cambodian border, and how he has killed 3 men in hand-to-hand combat. i decided to let the obama thing slide.

[Koga No Goshi]

i had a vietnam vet ask me today if i knew that obama was a muslim for the first 10 years of his life. we previously had had a long discussion about his life and the 2 months he spent tied to a tree stump on the cambodian border, and how he has killed 3 men in hand-to-hand combat. i decided to let the obama thing slide.

For the most part I don't even give the normal gasp of shock and "NO! He's not!" answer to people who say Obama is Muslim. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't make any difference even if he was. I'm not Christian and I vote for plenty of people who get up and flap their lips about God this and God that. As long as they can do the job well it doesn't and shouldn't matter.

[m52nickerson]

For the most part I don't even give the normal gasp of shock and "NO! He's not!" answer to people who say Obama is Muslim. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't make any difference even if he was. I'm not Christian and I vote for plenty of people who get up and flap their lips about God this and God that. As long as they can do the job well it doesn't and shouldn't matter.

Even if Obama was muslim he would still be getting my vote.

Now from Real Clear Politics, which may be slanted to McCains side or not, has Obama with a 6% lead in the National Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html).

Obama leads 264 to 163 in Electoral Count (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/).

With, no toss up states (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10) Obama wins by 168 votes.

[OverKnight]

There's still a month left until the Election. A lot can happen in a month, so I think it's too early to call the election. There are still two debates, the Market could rebound, easing concerns about the Economy, and we could start having more Security Alerts from Homeland Security, switching focus to an area of McCain's strength. (It seemed we had one every couple days in Fall 2004, whatever happened to them?)

What I'm trying to say is that the situation is fluid and McCain can rebound.

I too wish the candidates were talking more about defecit reduction. Neither seems focused on it, which in some ways is understandable, financial prudence isn't very sexy when campaigning. I remember the halcyon days back before Bush when we were running a yearly surplus and paying it down. Now neither party seems inclined to adopt financial restraint.

[Lemur]

Apparently the only politicos who are willing to talk about the national debt are Ron Paul and some dude in Nebraska (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c420uo3bYH8).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Apparently the only politicos who are willing to talk about the national debt are Ron Paul and some dude in Nebraska (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c420uo3bYH8).

Your own Republican congressman is obsessed with National debt and entitlement programs. He's leading the charge in the House.

please watch the whole thing and read the roadmap if you have a chance (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/cnsnewstv/video.aspx?RsrcID=33570)

You should work for him. I would if I lived out there.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yup, never say never about thinking an election is in the bag. No matter how obvious it seems that any rational person should want a change, 2004 should have taught us that you simply can't precount your eggs. All it takes is one person opening a suitcase nuke in Chicago and I think the election would swing faster than you can say conspiracy theory.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, never say never about thinking an election is in the bag. No matter how obvious it seems that any rational person should want a change, 2004 should have taught us that you simply can't precount your eggs. All it takes is one person opening a suitcase nuke in Chicago and I think the election would swing faster than you can say conspiracy theory.

It would be hilarious if McCain won the popular and Obama won the Electoral.

[Koga No Goshi]

It would be hilarious if McCain won the popular and Obama won the Electoral.

I don't see why that would be funny. I already hate the electoral college system. The election is always effectively decided by what.... 3-4 states, with a backup 6 or so that are "sometimes maybe swing states."

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see why that would be funny. I already hate the electoral college system. The election is always effectively decided by what.... 3-4 states, with a backup 6 or so that are "sometimes maybe swing states."

I like the electoral system. It forces candidates to campaign all over the country targeting various issues instead. Even if McCain lost the electoral and won the pop, I'd be ok with it.

[Koga No Goshi]

I like the electoral system. It forces candidates to campaign all over the country targeting various issues instead. Even if McCain lost the electoral and won the pop, I'd be ok with it.

In a popular vote wouldn't they have to do that anyway? At any rate, I still don't really see why it would be funny. Spending 4 or 8 years with people bitter that "the loser won the election" is not a good thing for democracy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In a popular vote wouldn't they have to do that anyway? At any rate, I still don't really see why it would be funny. Spending 4 or 8 years with people bitter that "the loser won the election" is not a good thing for democracy.

We don't even get to vote for our President. :book:

EDIT: Which is one reason why I prefer a German monarchy. We don't get to vote for it anyways, so why not bring back some tradition and a non-partisan head of state? I think that a monarchy might also be cheaper in Germany than the President, but I'd have to wring out some numbers.

[CountArach]

We don't even get to vote for our President. :book:
Same here (Our equivalent position at the least).

[Koga No Goshi]

We don't even get to vote for our President. :book:

EDIT: Which is one reason why I prefer a German monarchy. We don't get to vote for it anyways, so why not bring back some tradition and a non-partisan head of state? I think that a monarchy might also be cheaper in Germany than the President, but I'd have to wring out some numbers.

That sucks. But, dictatorships being out there doesn't mean it follows the electoral college is good. ;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That sucks. But, dictatorships being out there doesn't mean it follows the electoral college is good. ;)

Well, we vote for the chancellor, just not the President. The President is pretty much ceremonial, but he can have some useful powers. Now is a good example - he won't sign the Lisbon Treaty until the Constitutional Court delivers the verdict.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In a popular vote wouldn't they have to do that anyway? At any rate, I still don't really see why it would be funny. Spending 4 or 8 years with people bitter that "the loser won the election" is not a good thing for democracy.

No. With that you can ignore people outside of big cities, as the democrats in washington state do.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

No. With that you can ignore people outside of big cities, as the democrats in washington state do.

CR

I promise you that Fairfield, California sees way less Presidential candidate visits than Los Angeles does anyway. Even with the electoral system in place.

[PanzerJaeger]

Mindless black youth pledge their allegiance to The One. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI) Demagogues always get the young one's first...

[Koga No Goshi]

Mindless black youth pledge their allegiance to The One. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI) Demagogues always get the young one's first...

Yup, just like all those churches telling people not voting for Bush meant going to hell. :)

I think the IRS should take a more aggressive stance in yanking tax exempt status for any church that sways the congregation politically.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yup, just like all those churches telling people not voting for Bush meant going to hell. :)

Didn't hear about anyone being condemned to hell for not voting for Bush. :inquisitive:

Still, this doesn't strike you as slightly unnerving? I don't want to draw any "inappropriate comparisons", but I'm sure they aren't hard to come up with.

PS. Just to clarify, my demagogue comment was hyperbole. I don't think Obama has anything to do with these spontaneous demonstrations of devotion. It only serves to illustrate the mindset of his supporters.

PPS. Have posts been deleted from this thread?

[Ronin]

Didn't hear about anyone being condemned to hell for not voting for Bush. :inquisitive:

Still, this doesn't strike you as slightly unnerving? I don't want to draw any "inappropriate comparisons", but I'm sure they aren't hard to come up with.

PS. Just to clarify, my demagogue comment was hyperbole. I don't think Obama has anything to do with these spontaneous demonstrations of devotion. It only serves to illustrate the mindset of his supporters.

PPS. Have posts been deleted from this thread?

I remember reading something about this back in the day.....let´s see if my Google Kung Foo is up to par...

ohhh here go....

not condemned to hell...but close enough??

You voted for Kerry? then get the hell out (http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/05/east_wanynesvil.html)

[Lemur]

Certain Catholic authorities seem to be taking an inappropriate interest in U.S. politics as well. Law Professor denied communion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202591.html) for openly supporting Obama.


Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

-edit-

Appears that another prominent pro-life Catholic has come out for Obama (http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058). I wonder if he'll be denied confession or the last rites?


I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?

As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes. [...]

Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close. [...]

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist." McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.

What about torture? "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a euphemism for torture.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently."

What the heck is that!!!??? Talk about raising the white flag of surrender being a hallmark of Obama supporters. They'll give up at anything, won't they. He even says it is an "unspeakable evil" and most likely believes that its foundations are illegitimate. Women have always had abortions, as they always will - but I want to return the numbers to pre-roe or close to it. I think that is a winnable war.
People are so crazy - something has to be eradicated from the planet earth in order for them to "win the war". Nobody understands what winning is anymore. Naziism and Communism never went away - they were just beaten sufficiently to reduce their threat to massive numbers of people. That is what the abortion war must accomplish.



I see his other points and agree with many of them.

[m52nickerson]

"I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently."

What the heck is that!!!??? Talk about raising the white flag of surrender being a hallmark of Obama supporters. They'll give up at anything, won't they. He even says it is an "unspeakable evil" and most likely believes that its foundations are illegitimate. Women have always had abortions, as they always will - but I want to return the numbers to pre-roe or close to it. I think that is a winnable war.
People are so crazy - something has to be eradicated from the planet earth in order for them to "win the war". Nobody understands what winning is anymore. Naziism and Communism never went away - they were just beaten sufficiently to reduce their threat to massive numbers of people. That is what the abortion war must accomplish.

I see his other points and agree with many of them.

Yup, us Obama supporters give up so easy.

What that person realizes is that abortion is not going to be mad illegal in this country again. So it becomes a non-issue when picking a candidate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, us Obama supporters give up so easy.

What that person realizes is that abortion is not going to be mad illegal in this country again. So it becomes a non-issue when picking a candidate.

What I don't understand is how someone can say something is such an incredible evil being perpetrated and say that the war is lost. I can only assume that he doesn't believe it is worth fighting for.

We can change the stigma and policy specifics on abortion, but we need to get rid of Roe first. That is an attainable goal and one worth fighting for.

[PanzerJaeger]

I remember reading something about this back in the day.....let´s see if my Google Kung Foo is up to par...

ohhh here go....

not condemned to hell...but close enough??

You voted for Kerry? then get the hell out (http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/05/east_wanynesvil.html)

Well it's not condemnation to hell, but it's pretty crazy. I'll give you that... :bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm annoyed with the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081006/D93KS9J01.html


ASHEVILLE, N.C. (AP) - The gloves are off, the heels are on, and the presidential race is dredging up infamous events from 20, 30, even 40 years ago.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin defended her claim Sunday that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" because of his association with a 1960s radical.

:wall: He's not a 'radical', he's an unrepentant terrorist!

Gah.

CR

[m52nickerson]

What I don't understand is how someone can say something is such an incredible evil being perpetrated and say that the war is lost. I can only assume that he doesn't believe it is worth fighting for.

We can change the stigma and policy specifics on abortion, but we need to get rid of Roe first. That is an attainable goal and one worth fighting for.

Even if you get rid of Roe vs Wade it will not make abortion go away. At best it would come down to states. Then you would have women crossing state lines to get abortions.

....in other news, Obama's supporting this website attacking McCain (http://keatingeconomics.com/).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Even if you get rid of Roe vs Wade it will not make abortion go away. At best it would come down to states. Then you would have women crossing state lines to get abortions.

Why? Why couldn't there be federal legislation?

People use the state's rights argument exclusively for some reason. This is an issue of the rights of the people to have a say in the laws that govern them, not to have a few people remove that right because they don't trust the people to resolve their differences. It could be the states that make the laws or there could be federal laws. Most likely there would be an agreement to limit the term allowance like there was across Europe.

Do you mean to tell me that the Europeans could be trusted to make laws on the subject and they did it? Noooo!

We could have workable and legitimate laws on the books instead of this depressing nonsense.

[Strike For The South]

I'm annoyed with the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081006/D93KS9J01.html


:wall: He's not a 'radical', he's an unrepentant terrorist!

Gah.

CR

Hes not a terrorist. Hes an idiot who sent letters to congress saying he would blow up the building. Talk about lack of testicular fortitude. Everyone likes to play revolutionary but no one likes to actually do it buncha pansies

[Koga No Goshi]

What I don't understand is how someone can say something is such an incredible evil being perpetrated and say that the war is lost. I can only assume that he doesn't believe it is worth fighting for.

We can change the stigma and policy specifics on abortion, but we need to get rid of Roe first. That is an attainable goal and one worth fighting for.

I say an unjustified war is incredible evil, and destroys lives on a much grander scale than abortion does... but I'm sure that's just left-wing nonsense.

[Ironside]

I'm annoyed with the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081006/D93KS9J01.html


:wall: He's not a 'radical', he's an unrepentant terrorist!

Gah.

CR

Tss, unrepentant former terrorist.

And is the annoyance due to not throwing around the "terrorist" word much or bias (that would require them to comment on american radical right-wing groups using terrorist methods as terrorists and not radicals)?

Still, the Republicans must be really desperate if this is the "gloves off".

[Koga No Goshi]

Tss, unrepentant former terrorist.

And is the annoyance due to not throwing around the "terrorist" word much or bias (that would require them to comment on american radical right-wing groups using terrorist methods as terrorists and not radicals)?

Still, the Republicans must be really desperate if this is the "gloves off".

Yup they seriously can't find anything. Obama wisely didn't choose anyone with pregnant teenage kids and such or this election would be OVER already. ;)

[KukriKhan]

I'll stipulate that the Repubs have apparently not found any smoking gun to tie directly to Senator Obama, and that therefore, barring some *surprise* last-minute evidence of law-breaking, corruption, or moral turpitude on his part,

if the election were held today Obama would win the contest, and I'll project that he wins Nov 5th, too.

Given that... and the liklihood that we will deliver to him the same advantage we gave to GWB (a majority in both the House and Senate), and all the still-in-place tools of an Imperial Presidency (Authorization to Use Force, the Pre-Emptive Doctrine, Patriot Act, a virtually limitless pocketbook via the Bank Bailout, etc etc), a question:

Will President Obama relinquish any of that power back to Congress, or will he continue to use it? Will he try to amass more presidential prerogatives?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bah, these Palin attacks on Obama only serve to emphasise the bankruptcy of the Republican campaign.

Tired smear campaigns? That what America needs right now? :no:

[Koga No Goshi]

Bah, these Palin attacks on Obama only serve to emphasise the bankruptcy of the Republican campaign.

Tired smear campaigns? That what America needs right now? :no:

It's what you fight with when you can't win on the issues. I hear almost nothing out of their campaign except Obama is bad, bad, bad, terrorist, raise taxes, bad. Look at me I'm a soccer mom.

And the really cynical part is, it works remarkably well.

[Lemur]

Best advice (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/30_days_out.html) for the McCain camp that I've read in a month:


For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin has have attacked. This has failed. Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain’s priceless and hard earned “brand” as a different kind of Republican. McCain’s best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

Palin should drop the braying attacks on Obama’s aging hippie bomber pals and start connecting to her cherished hockey moms on the one issue they = are actually worried about; a quickly slowing economy. Chuck the hacky and ineffective negative ads and switch to man on the street spots with real people voicing their real doubts about Obama; too weak to stand up to Washington’s mighty special interest cartel or the newly empowered Democratic bosses of the Congress and Senate, too liberal to know how to fix the economy, too inexperienced to handle a dangerous world. On Tuesday, McCain should look into the camera and connect to the 80 million scared and worried Americans who will be watching him.

McCain is losing. To regain a chance to win, McCain must run as who he truly is; pragmatic, tough, bi-partisan and ready to break some special interest china to get the right things done in Washington. Fix the message, and you will fix the states.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm, that quote of yours seems very good, Lemur.


Hes not a terrorist. Hes an idiot who sent letters to congress saying he would blow up the building. Talk about lack of testicular fortitude. Everyone likes to play revolutionary but no one likes to actually do it buncha pansies

The Weathermen did detonate a lot of bombs and kill a policeman, tried to kill a judge and his family as he presided over a trial of their members, and killed three of their own members through bomb making ineptness.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh god, Ayers again?

Well, if he's really a terrorist, go arrest him. Isn't he a uni professor? What's stopping you? Go on, get your warrant and arrest him.

[KukriKhan]

OK. No one wants to speculate yet on whether President Obama will relinquish the imperial powers we are gonna give him; we're still committed to the 'horserace' part of the election.

So, a different question:

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

[Koga No Goshi]

OK. No one wants to speculate yet on whether President Obama will relinquish the imperial powers we are gonna give him; we're still committed to the 'horserace' part of the election.

So, a different question:

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

Can you explain what you mean exactly? Do you mean "will Obama interpret the role of President exactly as George W. Bush has"?

[Banquo's Ghost]

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

Me sir, please!

"Will you relinquish the imperial powers we are going to give you, and to what extent, and by when exactly?" :inquisitive:

Honestly, I'd really like to know.

[Koga No Goshi]

Me sir, please!

"Will you relinquish the imperial powers we are going to give you, and to what extent, and by when exactly?" :inquisitive:

Honestly, I'd really like to know.

I don't know what people mean by imperial powers, unless we're referring to the "liberal" interpretation of the President's power under 8 years of Bush, wiretapping torture etc. and other clearly illegal things that have been shoved through in the name of National Security *tm.

The guy is a Constitutional law scholar though. George W. Bush is the kind of guy who would have called a Constitutional law scholar a not so nice word for homosexuals, and then belched in college. So, I would be shocked if we saw "the same thing." But, to tiny government people, and to especially tiny government Republicans, any government under a Democrat will be way too much government under a Democrat so... I guess it's a matter of perspective.

[m52nickerson]

Why? Why couldn't there be federal legislation?

People use the state's rights argument exclusively for some reason. This is an issue of the rights of the people to have a say in the laws that govern them, not to have a few people remove that right because they don't trust the people to resolve their differences. It could be the states that make the laws or there could be federal laws. Most likely there would be an agreement to limit the term allowance like there was across Europe.

Do you mean to tell me that the Europeans could be trusted to make laws on the subject and they did it? Noooo!

We could have workable and legitimate laws on the books instead of this depressing nonsense.

I'm not saying that there could not be federal regulations. Maybe some day there may be a cutoff on when an abortion may be done. I don't see a federal regulation that bans all abortions out right.


Best advice (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/30_days_out.html) for the McCain camp that I've read in a month:


For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin has have attacked. This has failed. Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain’s priceless and hard earned “brand” as a different kind of Republican. McCain’s best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

Palin should drop the braying attacks on Obama’s aging hippie bomber pals and start connecting to her cherished hockey moms on the one issue they = are actually worried about; a quickly slowing economy. Chuck the hacky and ineffective negative ads and switch to man on the street spots with real people voicing their real doubts about Obama; too weak to stand up to Washington’s mighty special interest cartel or the newly empowered Democratic bosses of the Congress and Senate, too liberal to know how to fix the economy, too inexperienced to handle a dangerous world. On Tuesday, McCain should look into the camera and connect to the 80 million scared and worried Americans who will be watching him.

McCain is losing. To regain a chance to win, McCain must run as who he truly is; pragmatic, tough, bi-partisan and ready to break some special interest china to get the right things done in Washington. Fix the message, and you will fix the states.

McCain should have done that about a month ago. It may be to late now.

[Lemur]

Interesting. The Obama campaign puts out a film about McCain and the Keating scandal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY). I guess they're showing that dredging up old scandal is a game two can play.

[m52nickerson]

Interesting. The Obama campaign puts out a film about McCain and the Keating scandal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY). I guess they're showing that dredging up old scandal is a game two can play.



....in other news, Obama's supporting this website attacking McCain (http://keatingeconomics.com/).

oh, Lemur!

[KukriKhan]

I don't know what people mean by imperial powers, unless we're referring to the "liberal" interpretation of the President's power under 8 years of Bush, wiretapping torture etc. and other clearly illegal things that have been shoved through in the name of National Security *tm.

The guy is a Constitutional law scholar though. George W. Bush is the kind of guy who would have called a Constitutional law scholar a not so nice word for homosexuals, and then belched in college. So, I would be shocked if we saw "the same thing." But, to tiny government people, and to especially tiny government Republicans, any government under a Democrat will be way too much government under a Democrat so... I guess it's a matter of perspective.

So your opinion is that President Obama will be compelled by his scholarly background to give back to Congress the prerogatives accumulated his predecessor, not to keep any of them?

I hope you're right.

[drone]

I don't know what people mean by imperial powers, unless we're referring to the "liberal" interpretation of the President's power under 8 years of Bush, wiretapping torture etc. and other clearly illegal things that have been shoved through in the name of National Security *tm.

The guy is a Constitutional law scholar though. George W. Bush is the kind of guy who would have called a Constitutional law scholar a not so nice word for homosexuals, and then belched in college. So, I would be shocked if we saw "the same thing." But, to tiny government people, and to especially tiny government Republicans, any government under a Democrat will be way too much government under a Democrat so... I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. :yes:

The executive, with a mandate for change, backed by a friendly congress, it's main check. Not a good combination. All these powers that the GOP Congress gave Bush in 2000-2006, will now be in the hands of their opposition, with full legislative backing. Before handing power to the president, every GOP member of Congress should have asked themselves, "would we really want Hillary to have this same power?"

Sadly, I believe the answer to KukriKhan's question is, "Are you freakin' kidding me! How am I supposed to change things without all these cool superpowers!" The only way to regain balance would have been an impeachment of Cheney and Bush (in that order), and Pelosi was way too gutless (or complicit) to do it.

[Spino]

I'll stipulate that the Repubs have apparently not found any smoking gun to tie directly to Senator Obama, and that therefore, barring some *surprise* last-minute evidence of law-breaking, corruption, or moral turpitude on his part,

if the election were held today Obama would win the contest, and I'll project that he wins Nov 5th, too.

Given that... and the liklihood that we will deliver to him the same advantage we gave to GWB (a majority in both the House and Senate), and all the still-in-place tools of an Imperial Presidency (Authorization to Use Force, the Pre-Emptive Doctrine, Patriot Act, a virtually limitless pocketbook via the Bank Bailout, etc etc), a question:

Will President Obama relinquish any of that power back to Congress, or will he continue to use it? Will he try to amass more presidential prerogatives?

Why should he? Obama and his party have done nothing to repeal many of those "failed policies of George W Bush" since they grabbed both the House and the Senate. In many instances they have only contributed to the increase in executive powers and the size and powers of the Dept. of Homeland Security & the Patriot Act.

Here's a perfect example of Obama sacrificing his 'principles' so as to side with his party. Remember the wiretapping bill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html


The issue put Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. He had long opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program, even threatening a filibuster during his run for the nomination. But on Wednesday, he ended up voting for what he called “an improved but imperfect bill” after backing a failed attempt earlier in the day to strip the immunity provision from the bill through an amendment.

Mr. Obama’s decision last month to reverse course angered some ardent supporters, who organized an Internet drive to influence his vote. And his position came to symbolize the continuing difficulties that Democrats have faced in striking a position on national security issues even against a weakened president. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, who had battled Mr. Obama for the nomination, voted against the bill.

So rather than take the principled approach and stick to his guns he opted to vote for the bill. Do you honestly believed he changed his mind and voted for the bill because of the additional improvements or was he afraid of running the risk of being the guy who voted against the bill in the event another major terrorist attack takes place? Hell, he probably factored into his decision the the hopes that moderates and center-right conservatives would find this gesture appealing as it made him appear to be 'strong on terror'. Comparatively speaking Hillary Clinton clearly demonstrated which Democratic candidate had the bigger balls this election year.

The notion that the Democrats will right the wrongs is ludicrous to the extreme. To date they've been complicit in virtually every wrong doing being blamed on Republicans.

[PanzerJaeger]

Best advice (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/30_days_out.html) for the McCain camp that I've read in a month:

[indent] For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin has have attacked. This has failed.

Actually, it worked - and quite effectively. Obama's numbers are due to the current economic "crisis". McCain was surging directly before it all went down. Why people favor the democrats on economic issues.. I have no idea, other than some misguided credit Clinton gets for the economic conditions during his tenure that were not of his making...

When Obama pops the capital gains up double digits, we'll see how far his "tax breaks for the middle class" go towards the newly unemployed.

[Koga No Goshi]

The notion that the Democrats will right the wrongs is ludicrous to the extreme. To date they've been complicit in virtually every wrong doing being blamed on Republicans.

Wait, so now Republicans are Constitution-minded folk who have a problem with Homeland Security, wiretapping, torture, the Patriot Act...?

It is really annoying how you guys cheerlead for this stuff when your party is doing it, and then later, if it fails miserably, or proves unpopular, or exceeds its boundaries, it's the Dems fault for enabling it. If you want any credibility in being a Republican and criticizing these policies, saying that the Dems did it all does not serve your cause, whatsoever. Especially since the one power Dems might have been able to wield while a minority, filibustering, was threatened with the nuclear option and the arbitrary changing of the rules of Congress.

Obama didn't vote for war in Iraq. That alone makes him smarter than almost every single Republican and a majority of the rest of the Democrats.

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually, it worked - and quite effectively. Obama's numbers are due to the current economic "crisis". McCain was surging directly before it all went down. Why people favor the democrats on economic issues.. I have no idea, other than some misguided credit Clinton gets for the economic conditions during his tenure that were not of his making...

When Obama pops the capital gains up double digits, we'll see how far his "tax breaks for the middle class" go towards the newly unemployed.

No, McCain had been doing nothing BUT attacking since the very beginning of campaign season. It was Palin, not the attack strategy, that created McCain's surge.

[drone]

Wait, so now Republicans are Constitution-minded folk who have a problem with Homeland Security, wiretapping, torture, the Patriot Act...?

It is really annoying how you guys cheerlead for this stuff when your party is doing it, and then later, if it fails miserably, or proves unpopular, or exceeds its boundaries, it's the Dems fault for enabling it. If you want any credibility in being a Republican and criticizing these policies, saying that the Dems did it all does not serve your cause, whatsoever. Especially since the one power Dems might have been able to wield while a minority, filibustering, was threatened with the nuclear option and the arbitrary changing of the rules of Congress.

Obama didn't vote for war in Iraq. That alone makes him smarter than almost every single Republican and a majority of the rest of the Democrats.

Again you need to be careful with the "you" pronoun. Neither party is ideal. Both want power, which is the point of KukriKhan's question. You aren't cynical enough yet to understand that both parties do not have the country's best interests at heart. They just want to be reelected. They will promise change, instill fear, and lie, lie, lie. Anything to win that vote. The only difference between the two is the segment of population that they pander to.

Anytime Congress votes on a bill that gives them or the president more power, they need to ask themselves, "What would the opposing party do with this if they take over in the next election?" Being the short-sighted, election-cycle driven creatures that they are, they fail to think like this. So when Pres. Obama has the NSA wiretapping the staff of GOP congressmen, they only have themselves to blame.

[m52nickerson]

No, McCain had been doing nothing BUT attacking since the very beginning of campaign season. It was Palin, not the attack strategy, that created McCain's surge.

Agreed, McCain's lead was from a huge bounce he got from Palin and the convention. She was a surprise and something new.

[Koga No Goshi]

Again you need to be careful with the "you" pronoun. Neither party is ideal. Both want power, which is the point of KukriKhan's question. You aren't cynical enough yet to understand that both parties do not have the country's best interests at heart. They just want to be reelected. They will promise change, instill fear, and lie, lie, lie. Anything to win that vote. The only difference between the two is the segment of population that they pander to.

Anytime Congress votes on a bill that gives them or the president more power, they need to ask themselves, "What would the opposing party do with this if they take over in the next election?" Being the short-sighted, election-cycle driven creatures that they are, they fail to think like this. So when Pres. Obama has the NSA wiretapping the staff of GOP congressmen, they only have themselves to blame.

Well this is where we veer off from each other then, I do not believe both parties are equally poorly performing, equally Constitution shredding, or equally power grasping-at-any-cost, or equally incompetent and equally corrupt on every possible and conceivable issue that has ever come before Congress. Yes, there are bipartisan failures. But Republicans excuse trends or even dominant efforts over the course of years by pointing out a few Dems that voted with them, or vice-versa. If the Congress is dominated by your party, pursuing the things in line with your ideology, take some responsibility for it. Don't hide behind "oh well um that guy over there, he voted for it too, even though his party was in the small minority and we bullied them into not wasting their filibustering credits." I'm not going, as a Dem, to say my party is blameless, or has always voted wisely on every issue. I refuse as a Dem, however, to take upon my shoulders equal responsibility for things Reps do, with Rep Congressional majorities, Rep judiciaries, a Rep executive, even if some Dems foolishly went along with them, or were right-of-center Dems I didn't help elect. Look how quickly since Dems taking the slim majority with Congress, the Reps have been quick to wash their hands of any and everything it has done-- even if they were bills that started with their own party, or were heavily stumped for by their party leadership. Thats the kind of double standard that is intolerable.

[Don Corleone]

Well this is where we veer off from each other then, I do not believe both parties are equally poorly performing, equally Constitution shredding, or equally power grasping-at-any-cost, or equally incompetent and equally corrupt on every possible and conceivable issue that has ever come before Congress. Yes, there are bipartisan failures. But Republicans excuse trends or even dominant efforts over the course of years by pointing out a few Dems that voted with them, or vice-versa. If the Congress is dominated by your party, pursuing the things in line with your ideology, take some responsibility for it. Don't hide behind "oh well um that guy over there, he voted for it too, even though his party was in the small minority and we bullied them into not wasting their filibustering credits." I'm not going, as a Dem, to say my party is blameless, or has always voted wisely on every issue. I refuse as a Dem, however, to take upon my shoulders equal responsibility for things Reps do, with Rep Congressional majorities, Rep judiciaries, a Rep executive, even if some Dems foolishly went along with them, or were right-of-center Dems I didn't help elect. Look how quickly since Dems taking the slim majority with Congress, the Reps have been quick to wash their hands of any and everything it has done-- even if they were bills that started with their own party, or were heavily stumped for by their party leadership. Thats the kind of double standard that is intolerable.

Koga, I'm trying to dial in your age. You're what... 19? 20? I'm guessing things like "Project Carnivore" and Ruby Ridge mean nothing to you, correct?

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga, I'm trying to dial in your age. You're what... 19? 20? I'm guessing things like "Project Carnivore" and Ruby Ridge mean nothing to you, correct?

I know exactly what Carnivore is. I have a friend who was an Arabic language translator for Carnivore back in the earliest days. She actually spends a good deal of her time these days debunking hate sites which are mistranslating the Qu'ran, or quoting bits of it out of context. One of the rather glaring ones she debunked had put up a translation of the chapter on 7alal (Muslim version of Kosher food preparation) and said it was referring to the decapitation and bloodletting of infidels. She had previously done translation work for the army, mostly in Bahrain.

I'm 29. And, I've been listening to people tell me I'll be more cynical and more conservative as I age since I was 17 or 18. ;)

[Don Corleone]

I know exactly what Carnivore is. I have a friend who was an Arabic language translator for Carnivore back in the earliest days. She actually spends a good deal of her time these days debunking hate sites which are mistranslating the Qu'ran, or quoting bits of it out of context. One of the rather glaring ones she debunked had put up a translation of the chapter on 7alal (Muslim version of Kosher food preparation) and said it was referring to the decapitation and bloodletting of infidels. She had previously done translation work for the army, mostly in Bahrain.

I'm 29. And, I've been listening to people tell me I'll be more cynical and more conservative as I age since I was 17 or 18. ;)

So, explain to me exactly then how a computer program developed under the Janet Reno Justice Department that opened and read everyone's emails and monitored their phone conversations exempts the Democrats from blame when it comes to respect for Constitutional Law? Were Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft active leaders in the Clinton administration?

Now, I know what you're thinking... that Don Corleone, there he goes again, defending the Republicans. But I'm not. I don't agree with the transgressions against liberty of the past 8 years. But that doesn't mean that it all began on January 19th, 2001. It is entirely possible for me to criticize the Democrats without playing apologist for Republican transgressions, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm trying to say is if you put on your rose-colored glasses and assume that your party will behave perfectly admirably once given both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you're in for a big shock.

[Koga No Goshi]

So, explain to me exactly then how a computer program developed under the Janet Reno Justice Department that opened and read everyone's emails and monitored their phone conversations exempts the Democrats from blame when it comes to respect for Constitutional Law? Were Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft active leaders in the Clinton administration?

Now, I know what you're thinking... that Don Corleone, there he goes again, defending the Republicans. But I'm not. I don't agree with the transgressions against liberty of the past 8 years. But that doesn't mean that it all began on January 19th, 2001. It is entirely possible for me to criticize the Democrats without playing apologist for Republican transgressions, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm trying to say is if you put on your rose-colored glasses and assume that your party will behave perfectly admirably once given both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you're in for a big shock.

I'm not viewing anything through rose colored glasses. You made a specific case and I agree with you, though I would argue with you that the Carnivore program, which is now inactive, did not establish the entrenched, presumably permanent violation of privacy that the Patriot Act did/does.

What I'm responding to, if I need to clarify, is a lazy thinking, no-blame, no-guilt mindset of "well, everyone involved is all so equally corrupt, all so equally ideologically bent in the same direction, that it really makes no difference. Every party has participated equally in everything we don't like." On a lazy level that is probably true if you count even a single vote as the whole party endorsing something. And I see a lot of that around here. Or someone's record on a single vote either condemning, or vindicating, them, even if the rest of their career was work towards the opposite direction. As convenient for character assasination.

To give an example, the same sort of thinking that Katrina was stateandlocalstateandlocalstateandlocalstateandlocal. No Federal blame, no poor Federal response, the problem was stateandlocalstateandlocal. And there are people who listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and think the problem was either black racial apathy and/or corrupt Democratic politicians not addressing the problem, even though they'd screamed on the floor of Congress for attention for the levees year after year and been dismissed. Katrina was a case of (IMHO), that maybe people who think the best policy is no government should not be entrusted to run a government. Someone who said "oh well, all the parties are equally corrupt, they all stick in incompetent lackeys" would be overlooking, for instance, Clinton actually appointing someone well qualified, and Bush appointing a horse rancher to run FEMA. Just as one example.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

What is the substance of the 10th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and why is it important?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting. The Obama campaign puts out a film about McCain and the Keating scandal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY). I guess they're showing that dredging up old scandal is a game two can play.


Lemur:

Every Presidential election I've witnessed has featured negative advertising regarding the opposition either by the candidates themselves or by their fellow travelers. Every election, I hear someone say that this is "so negative it will cause a backlash." I have yet to see it. Negative works as well as any tool in the kit.

What hasn't changed and what won't change before November is that we are embroiled in a lengthy war that many Americans do not understand and cannot understand when we will have achieved victory AND we are poised on the brink of the deepest recession in a generation -- which most still don't understand but can sense coming. Since this all happened on Bush's watch (yes, I'm aware the issues underlying both issues go back several administrations from both parties, but our electorate mostly slept through history class :wall:), it's going to be uphill for McCain no matter how negative he goes.

Add in, as Kukri said, the fact that Obama hasn't really done anything evil -- no "smoking gun" and McCain-Palin don't have a lot of ammo to put down range.

I still stick with my original call.

[seireikhaan]

What is the substance of the 10th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and why is it important?
Simple- its not important anymore because its nearly an imaginary concept, sans the death penalty.:no:

[ICantSpellDawg]

beleted.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is the substance of the 10th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and why is it important?

The answer is that there is none and it is not. I can't imagine either candidate answering anything else if they were being honest.

I don't know why we have a Constitution anymore. It has become like the bible. "This means that, even though it more obviously means this, this is literal, this is figurative and this part shouldn't be in there because I don't want it to be".

It doesn't protect anything anymore because people don't even recognize it as having authority unless it agrees with their point.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the 10th is moribund, then let's stop the :daisy:, abolish the states and all the useless and expensive folderol, and set up regional administrative zones under regional gauleiters governors.

:shame:

[Koga No Goshi]

The answer is that there is none and it is not. I can't imagine either candidate answering anything else if they were being honest.

I don't know why we have a Constitution anymore. It has become like the bible. "This means that, even though it more obviously means this, this is literal, this is figurative and this part shouldn't be in there because I don't want it to be".

It doesn't protect anything anymore because people don't even recognize it as having authority unless it agrees with their point.

People don't even read it Tuff. Honestly. And even the ones who do half the time don't understand it, or walk away with a misunderstanding of it which they insist is the Constitutional truth.

The reason our democracy is dysfunctional, is because the framers never intended for it to be an unwatchdogged system where the people either just trusted in the leaders to handle things or were cynical and apathetic and figured all the leaders were all bad and so we should shrug and ignore politics. Which I think constitutes a big majority of the electorate. What brings them out to voting day anyway, usually one or two issues, taxes or prejudices. That's it, pretty much. You can't fester and broil over the evil of the Supreme Court or this party or that party, you ultimately have to blame the complacent citizen who thinks his civic duty extends no further than dodging jury duty and paying sales tax on a latte.

[seireikhaan]

If the 10th is moribund, then let's stop the :daisy:, abolish the states and all the useless and expensive folderol, and set up regional administrative zones under regional gauleiters governors.

:shame:
Ah, but Seamus, then the peasantry and serfs er, citizens, might start sniffing that something was awry in their constitutional rights.:smash:

[Lemur]

I've got my fingers crossed, hoping that DevDave will be Proconsul of my Administrative Region.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People don't even read it Tuff. Honestly. And even the ones who do half the time don't understand it, or walk away with a misunderstanding of it which they insist is the Constitutional truth.

The reason our democracy is dysfunctional, is because the framers never intended for it to be an unwatchdogged system where the people either just trusted in the leaders to handle things or were cynical and apathetic and figured all the leaders were all bad and so we should shrug and ignore politics. Which I think constitutes a big majority of the electorate. What brings them out to voting day anyway, usually one or two issues, taxes or prejudices. That's it, pretty much. You can't fester and broil over the evil of the Supreme Court or this party or that party, you ultimately have to blame the complacent citizen who thinks his civic duty extends no further than dodging jury duty and paying sales tax on a latte.

I believe in the Constitution, I was begin facetious. Would you say that you acknowledge the 10th amendment in your ideological outlook, or that you ignore it? What about the 2nd? The Third?

I try to go out of my way to acknowledge the Constitution in my outlook. Can you say the same?

[Koga No Goshi]

I believe in the Constitution, I was begin facetious. Would you say that you acknowledge the 10th amendment in your ideological outlook, or that you ignore it? What about the 2nd? The Third?

I try to go out of my way to acknowledge the Constitution in my outlook. Can you say the same?

I am not sure how that question even follows what I was saying. You may take the Constitution seriously but what I was saying was that most Americans have not even bothered to read it since they were forced to in the fifth grade. One citizen can't be a watchful eye over the government. Two citizens can't. It has to be a civic commitment or else it's gone. And I think it's long gone, in the case of the U.S. The viewership of American Idol outshines the election debates. What does that say about American people?

In my view, you could replace all the judiciaries in the country, you could vote everyone in Congress out on their rear ends five times straight. But that's not the source of the cancer, the source of the cancer is a spoiled and sheltered American citizen who thinks the point of being in a "free country" is to be free from even worrying about government or politics or other boring and tedious and depressing stuff, and get back to his sitcoms.

Do you disagree with that, or no?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am not sure how that question even follows what I was saying. You may take the Constitution seriously but what I was saying was that most Americans have not even bothered to read it since they were forced to in the fifth grade. One citizen can't be a watchful eye over the government. Two citizens can't. It has to be a civic commitment or else it's gone. And I think it's long gone, in the case of the U.S. The viewership of American Idol outshines the election debates. What does that say about American people?

In my view, you could replace all the judiciaries in the country, you could vote everyone in Congress out on their rear ends five times straight. But that's not the source of the cancer, the source of the cancer is a spoiled and sheltered American citizen who thinks the point of being in a "free country" is to be free from even worrying about government or politics or other boring and tedious and depressing stuff, and get back to his sitcoms.

Do you disagree with that, or no?

I'll answer if you answer. What do you think about the 10th amendment? Do you think the Federal government should be legally bound by it?

[Koga No Goshi]

I'll answer if you answer. What do you think about the 10th amendment? Do you think the Federal government should be legally bound by it?

Let me answer it delicately as I can. Yes, with the caveat that even the framers had an eye towards the future, in terms that there would be laws or amendments necessary to "bring about a more perfect union", things which intersected either the general welfare, or human civil rights which transcend the rights of states to intersect. That is basically already understood since other amendments to the Constitution recognized specific things; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, later, the prohibition of slavery (which was legal and hotly defended as within states' rights for a lot of our history.) So let me be clear, and say, that yes, in principle, those things not empowered to the Federal Government fall to the States. Which is not the same thing as saying those things in the domain of the states are forever and sacredly held as states only issues, especially where the argument can be made that allowing such permits wide latitudes in qualifying or even restricting either the general welfare or the civil rights of individual citizens. A good example being, the eventual recongition of slavery as an issue not of property and state based regulation of trade, but a human rights issue which transcended the right of individual states to decide for themselves on the matter. Does that make sense?

That would be my "diplomatic" answer. On a blunter note, Tuff, I'm part Native American. You will not get so much as a raised eyebrow out of me that the U.S. government can, does, has, and will continue to break its own precepts left and right as expedient, or as political pressure or social pressure demands, or as economic considerations dictate. The U.S. Government "assigned" itself all kinds of rights that it had no right to declare for itself, such as plenary power over Indian peoples. Whether or not you agree with that, let me phrase it to you this way. The U.S. government recognizes the sovereignty of Indian nations. Simultaneously, it declares plenary (fancy legalese for "complete") power over Indian nations. Does that make any sense to you, logically speaking? Yet that is the case. So, a failure to correspond perfectly to the strictest interpretation of the letter of the ideals in the Constitution, is not a shock to me, is not new, didn't start with "activist judges" or Roe V. Wade or any of the other things that people get ideologically bent out of shape over. That's a pragmatic answer, even though it's not pleasant.

P.S. You would not get any argument out of me that the Federal government has bloated into something that exists too much to expand and protect itself and perpetuate its own power. The problem I have with the "Fundamentalist" (excuse the term) interpretation of the strictest narrow reading of the Constitution is that few people outside of Constitutional scholar circles literally want to return to the bare precepts in a consistent fashion. Ideologues want to SURGICALLY apply those precepts just for specific topics, such as Roe v Wade or other wedge issues. That is the reason I have issue with much of the crowd that cries for small government and returning to states rights.

[drone]

Let me answer it delicately as I can. Yes, with the caveat that even the framers had an eye towards the future, in terms that there would be laws or amendments necessary to "bring about a more perfect union", things which intersected either the general welfare, or human civil rights which transcend the rights of states to intersect. That is basically already understood since other amendments to the Constitution recognized specific things; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, later, the prohibition of slavery (which was legal and hotly defended as within states' rights for a lot of our history.) So let me be clear, and say, that yes, in principle, those things not empowered to the Federal Government fall to the States. Which is not the same thing as saying those things in the domain of the states are forever and sacredly held as states only issues, especially where the argument can be made that allowing such permits wide latitudes in qualifying or even restricting either the general welfare or the civil rights of individual citizens. A good example being, the eventual recongition of slavery as an issue not of property and state based regulation of trade, but a human rights issue which transcended the right of individual states to decide for themselves on the matter. Does that make sense?

Technically, slavery isn't a good example here. By ratifying the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery became part of the Constitution, and therefore covered as a Federal power under the 10th.

The 10th isn't just states rights, it's the people's rights as well, and the limitation of federal power.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The Constitution is meant to both define the framework of the federal government, and define the limit of it's power. Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

I would be curious to hear the response to this question from the candidates. And I would be even more curious to see Ron Paul's head explode as he hears the responses. :bomb:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Technically, slavery isn't a good example here. By ratifying the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery became part of the Constitution, and therefore covered as a Federal power under the 10th.

The 10th isn't just states rights, it's the people's rights as well, and the limitation of federal power.
The Constitution is meant to both define the framework of the federal government, and define the limit of it's power. Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

I would be curious to hear the response to this question from the candidates. And I would be even more curious to see Ron Paul's head explode as he hears the responses. :bomb:

Exactly. People used to know what the Constitution said and then strove to change the bad and add the good. Now we just ignore it - it is sick. We are Constitutional Republic that rejects its own Constitution.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. The 10th showed some life a little over a decade ago with the Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez) decision and then in 2000 with the Morrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison) decision that struck down Biden's Violence Against Women Act that he loves to bring up.

It's still not to the point where I would like, but the Tenth isn't totally dead.

[Koga No Goshi]

Technically, slavery isn't a good example here. By ratifying the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery became part of the Constitution, and therefore covered as a Federal power under the 10th.

The 10th isn't just states rights, it's the people's rights as well, and the limitation of federal power.
The Constitution is meant to both define the framework of the federal government, and define the limit of it's power. Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

I would be curious to hear the response to this question from the candidates. And I would be even more curious to see Ron Paul's head explode as he hears the responses. :bomb:

I think that most (sane) people believe that in practice, a balance between no right of government to interfere and a duty of government to interfere is necessary to make a lot of the other things "happen", or "work." I do not dispute that you or Tuff's interpretation is correct in the most stringent sense. But I do disagree that the strictest interpretation would create a freer, better society overall, especially because of my previously stated concerns that people tend to want to adopt that philosophy just for specific political agendas and not overall.

And Tuff, you said you'd answer if I did.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Koga, the Constitution itself IS the balance most sane people look for. It enumerates what the federal government can and cannot do. The 10th ammendment is pretty darn direct, for Constitutional language. Considered in context of being the very last statement of the original document, it's very telling.

It says: If this document didn't already authorize the federal government to do something, then it's not authorized. If the federal government wants to do it anyway, they'll have to change this document. Ala the 13th ammendment, et. al.

Your point that "well, we want the government to work around it anyway" rings a little hollow to me. You're making an argument for limitless government, whether you're aware of it or not.

[Lemur]

If I may shift focus back to the election for a moment, I am getting a little concerned with the October negative-fest from McCain. I don't think this strategy can help him win (here's a good analysis of why (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/from_willie_horton_to_william.php)), but it may encourage certain loony people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html). It's one thing to question your opponent's capabilities and character, it's quite another to suggest that he's evil. This could make the Secret Service's job a lot harder ...


"One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," [Palin] said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/palinitesjewelsamadafpgetty_2.jpg

-edit-

Also, The Economist has a series of articles about the election which begin here (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12321683). If you can't access it because it's subscriber-based, let me know and I'll reprint the articles under spoil tags.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well, Koga, the Constitution itself IS the balance most sane people look for. It enumerates what the federal government can and cannot do. The 10th ammendment is pretty darn direct, for Constitutional language. Considered in context of being the very last statement of the original document, it's very telling.

It says: If this document didn't already authorize the federal government to do something, then it's not authorized. If the federal government wants to do it anyway, they'll have to change this document. Ala the 13th ammendment, et. al.

Your point that "well, we want the government to work around it anyway" rings a little hollow to me. You're making an argument for limitless government, whether you're aware of it or not.

I'm just stating it as it is, Don. Not as a strict interpretation of the law would entail. Everyone's always looking for the ideological slant around here. I never said "I want gov't to work around it anyway." I gave my answer as to why I think it has never fully observed it in a strict sense, and then I gave a blunt answer about how contradictions of our governing principles is nothing new.

[Koga No Goshi]

If I may shift focus back to the election for a moment, I am getting a little concerned with the October negative-fest from McCain. I don't think this strategy can help him win (here's a good analysis of why (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/from_willie_horton_to_william.php)), but it may encourage certain loony people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html). It's one thing to question your opponent's capabilities and character, it's quite another to suggest that he's evil. This could make the Secret Service's job a lot harder ...


"One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," [Palin] said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/palinitesjewelsamadafpgetty_2.jpg

-edit-

Also, The Economist has a series of articles about the election which begin here (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12321683). If you can't access it because it's subscriber-based, let me know and I'll reprint the articles under spoil tags.

I've heard quite a lot of this, not only people yelling that he's a terrorist but to kill him. And yes, it's a concern. But I would not expect it to stop or for McCain to call for moderation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Neither candidate is doing anything practical to shut up the rabid supporters from his side of the aisle. Both sides have them and all of the rabid fringers would serve us best by qualifying for Darwin awards -- not that it's likely to happen. But at least the rabid hate-mongers from both sides keep the bulk of the public disgusted with the whole process and willing to ignore who gets elected.:dizzy:

[Koga No Goshi]

Neither candidate is doing anything practical to shut up the rabid supporters from his side of the aisle. Both sides have them and all of the rabid fringers would serve us best by qualifying for Darwin awards -- not that it's likely to happen. But at least the rabid hate-mongers from both sides keep the bulk of the public disgusted with the whole process and willing to ignore who gets elected.:dizzy:

Let's not be obtuse though. I don't think McCain supporters are sincerely afraid at any moment McCain might be assasinated, unless it's by mother nature. At least that concern must be nowhere near as high as it is on the other side. You know, the old "glass ceiling" of how high black men go. ;)

[Lemur]

Looks like London's skinheads want in on the U.S. election: Man shot three times for wearing Obama shirt. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1070975/Man-shot-times-street-racist-gunman--wearing-Barack-Obama-T-shirt.html?ITO=1490)


A man told today how he was shot three times in a London street for wearing a Barack Obama T-shirt.

Dube Egwuatu was buying a mobile telephone top-up card in an off-licence when the gunman confronted him and glared at the top, which carries an image of the Democrat US presidential candidate underneath the legend 'Believe'.

The man then launched into a tirade of racist slurs, shouting 'I ******* hate ******' and urging 36-year-old Mr Egwuatu to leave the shop with him. [...]

Realising what had sparked the increasingly violent assault, the terrified Mr Egwuatu zipped up his jacket to cover the image of Mr Obama and walked to his car.

But the shaven-headed man, who was white, followed Mr Egwuatu and after pulling open the passenger door pointed the gun at him.

After pleading with the man to leave him alone, the married former street warden put the keys in the ignition and turned the engine on.

The attacker then fired the gas-powered ball-bearing pistol three times, hitting the civil servant in the face, hand and shoulder. [...]

Mr Egwuatu, a data analyst with Croydon Council, said: 'The venom in his voice was frightening.

'He was telling me that he was going to kill me.

'I couldn't believe it was happening - and just because I was wearing an Obama T-shirt. He was trying to make me walk somewhere quieter, saying: 'I've got something for you,' and 'I'm going to kill you.'

[Ice]

I am not sure how that question even follows what I was saying. You may take the Constitution seriously but what I was saying was that most Americans have not even bothered to read it since they were forced to in the fifth grade. One citizen can't be a watchful eye over the government. Two citizens can't. It has to be a civic commitment or else it's gone. And I think it's long gone, in the case of the U.S. The viewership of American Idol outshines the election debates. What does that say about American people?

In my view, you could replace all the judiciaries in the country, you could vote everyone in Congress out on their rear ends five times straight. But that's not the source of the cancer, the source of the cancer is a spoiled and sheltered American citizen who thinks the point of being in a "free country" is to be free from even worrying about government or politics or other boring and tedious and depressing stuff, and get back to his sitcoms.

Do you disagree with that, or no?

This is why I have limited my arguments on internet forums and in real life. That description is basically spot on.

[Lemur]

This made me laugh — some Obama supporter giving Palin the Rove treatment. Palling around with secessionists (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its).

I guess Seamus was right. He usually is.

[PanzerJaeger]

If I may shift focus back to the election for a moment, I am getting a little concerned with the October negative-fest from McCain. I don't think this strategy can help him win (here's a good analysis of why (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/from_willie_horton_to_william.php)), but it may encourage certain loony people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html). It's one thing to question your opponent's capabilities and character, it's quite another to suggest that he's evil. This could make the Secret Service's job a lot harder ...


"One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," [Palin] said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/palinitesjewelsamadafpgetty_2.jpg



Oh noes!! That is something to be worried about. They've even spray-painted their tee shirts! :drama1:

[CountArach]

Oh noes!! That is something to be worried about. They've even spray-painted their tee shirts! :drama1:
Off topic I know, but in my state it was a criminal offence to wear offensive T-Shirts :furious3:

[PanzerJaeger]

Off topic I know, but in my state it was a criminal offence to wear offensive T-Shirts :furious3:

Don't you guys have free speech down there? And what's considered offensive? :inquisitive:

[CountArach]

Don't you guys have free speech down there? And what's considered offensive? :inquisitive:
We don't actually have a Bill of Rights, we are covered by an old British system whose name escapes me now.

And offensive was whatever the cops said it was.

[Tribesman]

This made me laugh — some Obama supporter giving Palin the Rove treatment. Palling around with secessionists.
:2thumbsup:
I wonder when someone is going to do the McCain palling around with terrorists , eugenics nuts , holocaust deniers , radical islamists , fraudsters , murderers , anti semites and neo-nazis one:idea2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We don't actually have a Bill of Rights, we are covered by an old British system whose name escapes me now.

Common law? And, if the police said it was offensive, is it a summary offence?

[CrossLOPER]

Common law? And, if the police said it was offensive, is it a summary offence?
Dude, he told you. It was whatever the police said it was.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Dude, he told you. It was whatever the police said it was.

I was asking if it was a summary offence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offense), if the penalty was given like a traffic ticket, or if the accused had the opportunity to defend himself.

[Lemur]

Watching the debate, almost in realtime for once. Did my ears just lie to me, or did Johnny Mac just claim that some of the $700 million bailout will go to terrorists? What the heck is he talking about?

[Xiahou]

Watching the debate, almost in realtime for once. Did my ears just lie to me, or did Johnny Mac just claim that some of the $700 million bailout will go to terrorists? What the heck is he talking about?I heard something like that about oil money I think.... didn't catch an association with the bailout. :shrug:

[Proletariat]

It was about energy independence, he said something about giving that much away each year to untrustworthy, oil producing states. Prolly could've chosen a more distinct number

[Crazed Rabbit]

Heehee, Brokaw couldn't see the teleprompter at the end.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Don't you guys have free speech down there? And what's considered offensive? :inquisitive:

It's not about offensive. It's about inciting crowds to the point where people are yelling "kill him!" about Obama and McCain hearing it and saying nothing. A leader would say something like "We won't have any of that kind of talk, that's not acceptable."

A petty person losing would view it as the last hope, perhaps.

[Koga No Goshi]

Don't you guys have free speech down there? And what's considered offensive? :inquisitive:

You vote for the party that was throwing out people with peace, anti war or protest t-shirts at Bush appearances left and right, or even forcing them to leave if they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car in the parking lot. So this sudden crusade for free speech is awfully hypocritical.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Another win for obama. Neither did better on foreign policy or with their closing statement, but McCain is weak on the economy. Next debate is all domestic policy. Can't see McCain gaining any ground in the debates.

[CrossLOPER]

I was asking if it was a summary offence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offense), if the penalty was given like a traffic ticket, or if the accused had the opportunity to defend himself.
My post still applies.

[PanzerJaeger]

It's not about offensive. It's about inciting crowds to the point where people are yelling "kill him!" about Obama and McCain hearing it and saying nothing. A leader would say something like "We won't have any of that kind of talk, that's not acceptable."

A petty person losing would view it as the last hope, perhaps.

I think you're lost.


You vote for the party that was throwing out people with peace, anti war or protest t-shirts at Bush appearances left and right, or even forcing them to leave if they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car in the parking lot. So this sudden crusade for free speech is awfully hypocritical.

:laugh4:

Do you think people with anti-Obama tees and signs are allowed in to his events? Only time I've seen that, they were promptly thrown out.

Speaking of hypocrisy.. :wall:

[PanzerJaeger]

McCain did much better this time around, as was to be expected in a town hall format. Obama did better than I expected as well.

[m52nickerson]

Another win for obama. Neither did better on foreign policy or with their closing statement, but McCain is weak on the economy. Next debate is all domestic policy. Can't see McCain gaining any ground in the debates.

Agreed, Obama won this debate. He explained his points better, tied issues together better, and hit McCain were he needed to.

McCain did not use anything new, and said "I know how" without telling anyone how.

[Gregoshi]

I wish they would spend less time talking about the other guy's policies and more about their's. I also wish they'd answer the stinkin' questions.

Obama seemed smoother in his answers for the most part and sounded more presidential. McCain sounded awkward when trying to connect with the audience and his answers seemed more of the "and then I'll wave my magic wand":7wizard: type than Obama's. However, they were both annoying in the way they dodged some of the questions by going into their campaign rhetoric. I'd love to see a moderator continue to ask the same question until he/she got a real answer from the candidates. Anyway, I'll give the nod to Obama again.

[Lemur]

I was only able to watch 2/3rds of it before getting calle away by a sick little girl baby, but it sure looked like Obama was dominating this one. The defining moment for me was when he had just gotten finished talking about how his mother died arguing with insurance companies, and McCain went straight in for some dumb jab about "We still haven't heard a number!" Dude. You don't make stupid little pokes at a guy moments after he talked about his dying mom.

Who knows, maybe Johnny Mac pulls it out in the last third. I'll see tomorrow. Meanwhile, how am I going to convince this two year old to sleep with her head propped up?

[Gregoshi]

Meanwhile, how am I going to convince this two year old to sleep with her head propped up?
Obama has a middle class program for that and Johnny Mac knows how.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think you're lost.



:laugh4:

Do you think people with anti-Obama tees and signs are allowed in to his events? Only time I've seen that, they were promptly thrown out.

Speaking of hypocrisy.. :wall:

I'm not the one whining and crying at criticism about the shirts.

[Koga No Goshi]

Agreed, Obama won this debate. He explained his points better, tied issues together better, and hit McCain were he needed to.

McCain did not use anything new, and said "I know how" without telling anyone how.

That and saying "General Petreaus says.." over and over, I noticed the focus group response bars flatlined when he did that. They did the same thing when he tried to take the tantrum again over preconditions. I think he comes off as a cranky grandpa making a mountain out of a molehill, and I'm surprised they didn't vet him to stop going on about things the audience isn't responding positively towards.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm not the one whining and crying at criticism about the shirts.

Neither am I. I just asked him a question.

Again, you're lost.

[KarlXII]

:2thumbsup:
I wonder when someone is going to do the McCain palling around with terrorists , eugenics nuts , holocaust deniers , radical islamists , fraudsters , murderers , anti semites and neo-nazis one:idea2:

Didn't McCain accept an endorsement from a well known anti-Catholic/Semite? I cannot recall clearly, I remember flipping past the story. :juggle2:

[Koga No Goshi]

Neither am I. I just asked him a question.

Again, you're lost.

You brought up freedom of speech as a defense of the borderline hatemob rhetoric starting to float around the McCain campaign appearances. If that's how you feel (that free speech should be paramount) then you're best off attacking Bush supporters instead of Obama ones. Stop defending "principles" in a one-sided fashion and you won't be called out for it quite so often.


I wonder when someone is going to do the McCain palling around with terrorists , eugenics nuts , holocaust deniers , radical islamists , fraudsters , murderers , anti semites and neo-nazis one

You forgot Joe Lieberman. Someone who gets praised by Michelle Malkin is pretty much a disqualification for President right there isn't it? :) For those who blissfully don't know who this little wonder-tart is, she's a Filipina-American who wrote a book defending the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment conveniently right around the time of scrambling to legally justify Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and such.

[PanzerJaeger]

You brought up freedom of speech as a defense of the borderline hatemob rhetoric starting to float around the McCain campaign appearances. If that's how you feel (that free speech should be paramount) then you're best off attacking Bush supporters instead of Obama ones. Stop defending "principles" in a one-sided fashion and you won't be called out for it quite so often.

:laugh4:

You are lost.

If you weren't so busy looking to attack at every angle, you'd realize that I just asked CA about the freaking tee shirts... oh and your misguided and completely unrelated attack on Bush applies just as easily to Obama. Nobody lets protesters into their events. :dizzy2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

McCain clearly lost the debate. I was not impressed.

Oh - btw Lemur, did you watch the Colbert Report where your buddy Silver from 538 ripped on McCain and kept saying he is non-partisan? Hey, he was wearing a purple tie, that must mean he isn't partisan!

That was a laughable mockery of middle-ground everywhere. I officially don't trust that site.

[Koga No Goshi]

McCain clearly lost the debate. I was not impressed.

Oh - btw Lemur, did you watch the Colbert Report where your buddy Silver from 538 ripped on McCain and kept saying he is non-partisan? Hey, he was wearing a purple tie, that must mean he isn't partisan!

I don't think someone need be partisan to rip on McCain at this point. From a strictly "how did the campaigns perform" campaign sense, it's over. It would take something drastic and unforeseen like a sudden terrorist attack to swing things at this point. McCain ran on a pure Karl Rove style campaign and it failed to gain enough traction, his one and only major boost was picking Palin, before anyone knew anything about her.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe, but the kid kept saying "I'm not partisan", even though in his precious FAQ he concedes that he supports Obama and almost always Democratic pols. I just don't know what partisan means anymore if it doesn't mean supporting one party (or group of individuals) over another. It's one thing to say you are not partisan in your professional life even if you are in your private life. It is another thing entirely to actively promote one party over another in your editorial and then go on television and claim impartiality. It is a gripe I have with a number of people on FOX news.

[Koga No Goshi]

Maybe, but the kid kept saying "I'm not partisan", even though in his precious FAQ he concedes that he supports Obama and almost always Democratic pols. I just don't know what partisan means anymore if it doesn't mean supporting one party (or group of individuals) over another. It's one thing to say you are not partisan in your professional life even if you are in your private life. It is another thing entirely to actively promote one party over another in your editorial and then go on television and claim impartiality. It is a gripe I have with a number of people on FOX news.

If someone insists 50 times they're not partisan, it's just as credible as when someone says 50 times that they're not racist. The lady doth protest too much.

But, don't be any more shocked seeing someone support Obama on the Colbert Report than I am when I glance at Fox 3 seconds after the debate is over and it already declared McCain/Palin the winner according to its "Fox text message poll."

[ICantSpellDawg]

If someone insists 50 times they're not partisan, it's just as credible as when someone says 50 times that they're not racist. The lady doth protest too much.

But, don't be any more shocked seeing someone support Obama on the Colbert Report than I am when I glance at Fox 3 seconds after the debate is over and it already declared McCain/Palin the winner according to its "Fox text message poll."

Go to MSNBC after the debate and see if you can keep your dinner in your stomach.

[Koga No Goshi]

Go to MSNBC after the debate and see if you can keep your dinner in your stomach.

*Shrug* There's balance in mainstream news now. I'm not losing sleep over it. When Fox was the only overtly biased network on TV and you had to go to cable late-night for anything progressive I didn't see anyone crying out for the fairness doctrine or equal time regulation.

[CountArach]

Common law? And, if the police said it was offensive, is it a summary offence?
It was a summary offence at the time.

I personally thought that McCain came off as somewhat uncertain about how best to handle the economy and jumped from place to place.

[Tribesman]

Didn't McCain accept an endorsement from a well known anti-Catholic/Semite? I cannot recall clearly, I remember flipping past the story.
Perhaps I should have added drug smugglers to the list so its clearer which group McCain actually belonged to and dealt with , as opposed to Obama who just sat on meetings with an ex-terrorist that had no terrorist agenda at them . :yes:

[OverKnight]

My friends, I just read the transcript of the debate and my friends I was not impressed by either candidate. Mostly, my friends, that one and the other one payed lip service to a question in the first few sentences of their reply and then rolled out pre-packaged talking points, some of which were word from word from the 1st debate.

I wish there was a debate where a moderator was empowered to pursue questions, force the candidates to actually, you know, answer the questions asked of them.

Perhaps if I had watched the debate I might have come out with a more positive impression, particularly if visuals seem to be heightened in a "Town Hall" style debate.

[Big_John]

i felt bad for mccain when he got the "thank you" joke out and giggled just seconds before obama trashed him.

[CountArach]

Best moment:

"Thank you all for joining us and... Senators you are in the way of my script"

[KukriKhan]

I embarrassedly admit: it put me to sleep, halfway through. Mister Cool-as-a-cucumber meets Mister Unbridled Optimism. v2.0 On the other hand, I watched it on C-Span, so had no talking heads telling me what to think.

From what I did see, overall winner: Brokaw. He laid down the 'timing rule' 4 times at my count, reminding both that they had personally signed off on the rules beforehand - yet chose to ignore the rule AND the repeated reminders from the Moderator. If I had been the Moderator, I'd have given them both 3 warning points and a 72-hour gag-order.

All I saw were reworked campaign stump speeches. No new information, or better insight into either man. Zero help to me as a voter. I'll watch v3.0, hoping to glean something, but frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Both camps seem to have decided that the contest is over, and the best tactic now is to ride it out until November, and make no mistakes.



It was like watching an NFL game, with no forward passes, and a running game that could only gain 5 yards, then retreat 5 yards.

[Koga No Goshi]

It was most definitely a valid criticism of this 2nd debate that both candidates just "fit" talking points that we've all heard before to whatever question was at hand.

But, given how much success the GOP in particular has done with a "uniform set of talking points, repeated consistently" strategy, and also how few people are as politically attentive as the people in this thread are, I wouldn't be surprised if the "idea" behind it is to always be giving the same viewpoints to any new voters or viewers who are tuning in. On the practical side.

On the cynical side, yeah, I think that the viewpoints are out, they're not going to fantastically morph or change, and both are just trying not to make mistakes. Also in fairness I think that McCain dragging out the same attack points from the first debate that didn't even resonate much the first time, like the "preconditions" dramatics, didn't help in terms of reducing the redundancy of what each candidate said and had to respond to.

[GeneralHankerchief]

There was one new feature offered in last night's debate: McCain's Bailout: The Expansion Pack (Housing Market Invasion). Aside from that, it was really a snoozefest.

[Don Corleone]

My friends, I just read the transcript of the debate and my friends I was not impressed by either candidate. Mostly, my friends, that one and the other one payed lip service to a question in the first few sentences of their reply and then rolled out pre-packaged talking points, some of which were word from word from the 1st debate.

I wish there was a debate where a moderator was empowered to pursue questions, force the candidates to actually, you know, answer the questions asked of them.

Perhaps if I had watched the debate I might have come out with a more positive impression, particularly if visuals seem to be heightened in a "Town Hall" style debate.

Hey there, Overnight. Always good to see a fellow chowderhead around these parts. Are you in Odin's neck of the woods (Springfield), or mine (I live in Southern NH, work in Wilmington)?

I couldn't bring myself to watch more than 1/2 hour of the debate. I think somebody needs to tell McCain that pacing around the stage like that makes him look manic, almost a visual queue confirming Obama's latest ad. Neither one said anything remotely of value as far as I could tell, but granted, I only had it on for 1/2 hour. Well, that's not 100% true... I did hear McCain talk about stabilizing housing by buying up mortgages and resetting the terms. Interesting. Last week, when a couple of economists proposed it, everyone was talking about how crazy of an idea it was. I give Obama the credit on that one, not jumping on the 'latest theory', but waiting to see what would actually make sense. One thing about the current crisis... money does not seem to slow it down... the Fed has thrown good money after bad and the LIBOR has continued to climb and the stock market.... well, Mrs. Corleone won't be visiting her folks this Christmas, let's just say that. :no::smash:

[Lemur]

Economist magazine polled a bunch of economists (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127), as well as interviewing them to see what they thought of the economic proposals of McCain and Obama. Results are worth a read. Full text below the tag.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/CUS955.gif

Examining the candidates

Oct 2nd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

[Lemur]

Oh - btw Lemur, did you watch the Colbert Report where your buddy Silver from 538 ripped on McCain and kept saying he is non-partisan? Hey, he was wearing a purple tie, that must mean he isn't partisan!
I finally got around to watching that. Here's the clip (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=187343), for those who don't do DVR. I didn't think he was notably partisan, certainly nothing that could compare to the more vehement hacks at Fox or MSNBC.

He slammed the Dems for being losers, and later compared McCain to a not-so-great baseball team. Ouch, that's one partisan dude, fer sure. Better hate on him something fierce! And how dare he apply baseball statistical methodology to the election and predict a winner?

Going all the way back to the now-locked thread about poll sites, I really don't understand why the rightwingers on the board got such a chapped set of buttocks about this guy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My post still applies.

No. I was asking if the police had the ability to file a charge based on what they felt was offensive, or if they had the ability to immediately punish the wearer.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Does that last chart show the actual distribution of economists by party or is the survey tilted?

[Lemur]

That's what the economists who were polled say is their party affiliation, for what it's worth. This is the fourth Presidential election cycle where The Economist has polled economists, so it's a bit of a tradition. My understanding is that they're more concerned with polling qualified, well-respected economists than with creating any sort of neutrality.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's what the economists who were polled say is their party affiliation, for what it's worth. This is the fourth Presidential election cycle where The Economist has polled economists, so it's a bit of a tradition. My understanding is that they're more concerned with polling qualified, well-respected economists than with creating any sort of neutrality.

Which is how it should be on issues-based polls or points or policy analysis.

But yeah the media has been trained and backhanded that it needs to craft the appearance of neck and neck equality between the parties in order to be "balanced." Rather than giving equal weight to facts and falsehoods.

[KukriKhan]

That's what the economists who were polled say is their party affiliation, for what it's worth. This is the fourth Presidential election cycle where The Economist has polled economists, so it's a bit of a tradition. My understanding is that they're more concerned with polling qualified, well-respected economists than with creating any sort of neutrality.

That article is dated last Thursday, Oct 2nd. Three days after the first 'bailout package' was voted down, and the day before the 'bailout package v2.0' got passed, signed, sealed, and delivered.

One wishes the econ's had spoken up publicly about a more viable solution to the supposed crisis, rather than picking a candidate. They might as well have predicted the Superbowl, for all the leadership they've provided in these times.

Or maybe they think this isn't a crisis afterall. That the markets will correct themselves without gov't meddling. So they can afford to dally into politics.

I'm not saying they're wrong; it's clear to me that Obama will take the oath in January, barring some last-minute revelation that he routinely sleeps with Putin's illegimate 12-year cousin, while dining on sautee'd bar-b-qued aborted fetuses. <---(note: all of that is a lie, for effect - except the "Obama will win" bit).

I am saying: Johnny-come-lately so-called experts on economic policy and mechinations having, much less expressing, an opinion on who will "save the economy", are automatically suspect in my book, unless they've stood up to be counted with a firm, detailed, alternative plan of their own.

p.s. Where is econ21 when we need him?

[OverKnight]

Hey there, Overnight. Always good to see a fellow chowderhead around these parts. Are you in Odin's neck of the woods (Springfield), or mine (I live in Southern NH, work in Wilmington)?

I'm north of Boston in Somerville MA.

If I had any intestinal fortitude, I'd watch the debate instead of just reading the transcript to gain a full appreciation. I've been a bad voter, I didn't watch the Veep debate as well. :no: In my defense "folksiness" is like nails across a chalkboard to me. Everytime I hear Palin speak it reminds me of "Fargo", like she's a Hummel figurine come to life.

Shallow perhaps, but. . .aw geez.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm north of Boston in Somerville MA.

If I had any intestinal fortitude, I'd watch the debate instead of just reading the transcript to gain a full appreciation. I've been a bad voter, I didn't watch the Veep debate as well. :no: In my defense "folksiness" is like nails across a chalkboard to me. Everytime I hear Palin speak it reminds me of "Fargo", like she's a Hummel figurine come to life.

Shallow perhaps, but. . .aw geez.

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

"Could ya be a little more.... spa-cific?"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Fair enough question, considering Gibson himself didn't know.

Anyway, I suppose the Obama partisans will resist drawing anything from the fact that McCain treats reporters much better than Obama, though they're baised against him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml

NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
...
Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences.

Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.
...
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

And part of a new article from Camille Paglia:

Yes, both Todd and Sarah Palin, whom most people in the U.S. and abroad had never even heard of until six weeks ago, have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class cred, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism.

Although nothing will sway my vote for Obama, I continue to enjoy Sarah Palin’s performance on the national stage. During her vice-presidential debate last week with Joe Biden (whose conspiratorial smiles with moderator Gwen Ifill were outrageous and condescending toward his opponent), I laughed heartily at Palin’s digs and slams and marveled at the way she slowly took over the entire event. I was sorry when it ended! But Biden wasn’t — judging by his Gore-like sighs and his slow sinking like a punctured blimp. Of course Biden won on points, but TV (a visual medium) never cares about that.

The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses. The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. As for Palin’s brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don’t we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor? Something has gone seriously wrong with Democratic ideology, which seems to have become a candied set of holier-than-thou bromides attached like tutti-frutti to a quivering green Jell-O mold of adolescent sentimentality.

And where is all that lurid sexual fantasy coming from? When I watch Sarah Palin, I don’t think sex — I think Amazon warrior! I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal. The question that keeps popping up for me is whether Palin, who was born in Idaho, could possibly be part Native American (as we know her husband is), which sometimes seems suggested by her strong facial contours. I have felt that same extraordinary energy and hyper-alertness billowing out from other women with Native American ancestry — including two overpowering celebrity icons with whom I have worked.

One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is “dumb.” Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? (The value of Ivy League degrees, like sub-prime mortgages, has certainly been plummeting. As a Yale Ph.D., I have a perfect right to my scorn.) People who can’t see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism — the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary.

Which I again assume the partisans will ignore or dismiss so as to keep their assumptions intact.

And in something totally unrelated, I must express skepticism towards The Economist's "poll" posted by Lemur. They say it's unscientific and they are right. The methods used are poor for gaining any statistically significant data. It does bring up some points, like McCain's tense relationship with economists, but using it as a means to judge economist's approval of the two plans is not a good idea.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Biased against McCain? If Obama had said "(expletive) you" to a reporter, I doubt very much it wouldn't be playing around the clock.

McCain has been the darling of a private little media that followed around the "Straight Talk Express" for quite awhile now. And many of his little anger management outbursts have been politely unreported, or reported only very quietly.

But, yes, continue with the victim complex that you're on the receiving end of a big, bad, out to beat up McCain media. There is no basis whatsoever for a claim that the media is biased for Obama and against McCain outside of your imagination. When that accusation was levied for the millionth time they did a media study and found that Obama had been mentioned negatively more often than positively.

[CountArach]

I finally got around to watching that. Here's the clip (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=187343), for those who don't do DVR. I didn't think he was notably partisan, certainly nothing that could compare to the more vehement hacks at Fox or MSNBC.
Thanks for posting that up - I've been waiting for the clip. I thought it was one of his better media appearances and hopefully it will drive a lot of traffic to his site.

[Big_John]

i'll bite, CR.

my guess is paglia is suffering from the same hormonal responses as rich lowry. she's way out there, as per ususal. that said, i can't tell if this is facetious:

" People who can’t see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism — the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary."

i can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

but moreover, it's funny that a mccain voter should be interested in what camille paglia thinks. she's the elite of elite, and about as high up in the ivory tower as is conceivable. a veritable archetype of the out-of-touch, ivy-league intellectual that republicans seem to have adopted as their red-herring since 2000. strange bedfellows.

in any case, her analysis is not compelling. for one thing, i thought biden won easily, on 'debate points' and intangibles like poise and presence, and legitimacy (and arguably authenticity). and i never got any sense that biden himself felt otherwise, not sure where she's getting that. and her obsequious effusion about palin's native american contours and mystical energy is just... creepy. perhaps the "liberal journalists" edited palin's interviews to make her look like a dummy, but the alternative seems more likely, pagila's charge of cutting-room floor shenanigans notwithstanding.

[Big_John]

i should note, i've never followed pagila's work, but i did once see a c-span interview with susan sontag, in which sontag made pagila out to be a loon. so i'm not 100% impartial toward's pagila.

[PanzerJaeger]

Economist magazine polled a bunch of economists (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127), as well as interviewing them to see what they thought of the economic proposals of McCain and Obama. Results are worth a read. Full text below the tag.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/CUS955.gif

Examining the candidates

Oct 2nd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

What an amazingly revealing expose! Did they need to go to the trouble of visiting Kinkos to tell us a bunch of democrats would side with Obama's plan, though?

[ICantSpellDawg]

i'll bite, CR.

my guess is paglia is suffering from the same hormonal responses as rich lowry. she's way out there, as per ususal. that said, i can't tell if this is facetious:

" People who can’t see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism — the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary."

i can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

but moreover, it's funny that a mccain voter should be interested in what camille paglia thinks. she's the elite of elite, and about as high up in the ivory tower as is conceivable. a veritable archetype of the out-of-touch, ivy-league intellectual that republicans seem to have adopted as their red-herring since 2000. strange bedfellows.

in any case, her analysis is not compelling. for one thing, i thought biden won easily, on 'debate points' and intangibles like poise and presence, and legitimacy (and arguably authenticity). and i never got any sense that biden himself felt otherwise, not sure where she's getting that. and her obsequious effusion about palin's native american contours and mystical energy is just... creepy. perhaps the "liberal journalists" edited palin's interviews to make her look like a dummy, but the alternative seems more likely, pagila's charge of cutting-room floor shenanigans notwithstanding.

I like Paglia. I post her articles regularly. She is kind of a nut, but I respect her opinion. She is like a bi-sexual Andrew Sullivan that isn't overwhelmed by her ovaries. She usually comes out with unique insight that is true, though rarely realized.

About Palin being brighter than people are giving her credit for - that is almost certainly true. My concerns from her interviews stem from her not being as bright as necessary for this particular job - although the debate helped clear that up for me a bit. She is a gifted politician and understands people.

Susan Sontag was a loon. If she thought Paglia was crazy, I don't see how that hurts Paglia's reputation. 911 conspiracy theorists think everyone in the U.S. Government is crazy for killing all of those people and then lying about it forever...

[Don Corleone]

Forget the presidency, forget either house... Republicans have a new fireline... the supermajority in the Senate.... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html)What do you guys think? 60 seats in the senate, both houses and the White House too much power to give to either party?

Heck, they could make it illegal to be anything but a Democrat if they so choose. :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Forget the presidency, forget either house... Republicans have a new fireline... the supermajority in the Senate.... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html)What do you guys think? 60 seats in the senate, both houses and the White House too much power to give to either party?

Heck, they could make it illegal to be anything but a Democrat if they so choose. :laugh4:


Eh, I don't know. It worries me to an extent, but the reality is that not all Democrat Senators toe the party line, not would they in particular if the part suggested something totally anathema to Democratic values. Not all Democrats are mini-Stalins. 60 out of 100 isn't the worst thing I've heard of.

It's enough to get me worried, but it isn't my main conern. Republicans totally blew everything when they had both houses and the executive. They didn't have this kind of majority, but I'm sure that the Democrats will blow it and we'll be back to the drawing boards in no time.

[drone]

Forget the presidency, forget either house... Republicans have a new fireline... the supermajority in the Senate.... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html)What do you guys think? 60 seats in the senate, both houses and the White House too much power to give to either party?

Heck, they could make it illegal to be anything but a Democrat if they so choose. :laugh4:

Until the Republican Supreme Court slaps them down. ~D

Yes, it's very worrying. I think they will get the super-majority, and it will be full speed ahead for every pet project and pork for 2 years. Hopefully the overall craptasticness of the economy prevents them from going overboard, but I'm not holding my breath. Payback can be a :daisy: though for the GOP. The blowback from the past 8 years will be ugly. :yes: I'm sure the neocons will be shredding anything and everything on their way out the door. Bush's pardon list will be long and humorous.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Stomping out a few of the hysterical anti-Palin rumors (like the 'she charged for rape kits' falsehood), here's I've got some more information on Palin's hacked yahoo account:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=989307&cid=25301869
Someone says there that the type of personal emails about others campaigning would not be allowed on a state email account.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/the-story-behind-the-palin-e-mail-hacking/
And here we have a quote from the hacker saying he found nothing incriminating:


There are several misconceptions and errors in most accounts of this story, including your post. Most significantly, the perpetrator(s) were not members of an infamous group of hackers. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this, because in all the media coverage regarding the war with Scientology the media has completely failed to explain what Anonymous is.
....
>> rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:58:04 No.85782727

this is all verifiable if some anal /b/tard wants to think Im a troll, and there isn’t any hard proof to the contrary, but anyone who had followed the thread from the beginning to the 404 will know I probably am not, the picture I posted this topic with is the same one as the original thread.

I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family

I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big

Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this :daisy: ever got to the FBI I was :daisy:, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to :daisy: all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state

CR

[Lemur]

Stomping out a few of the hysterical anti-Palin rumors (like the 'she charged for rape kits' falsehood)
I was unaware that had been disproved in some way. Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/). The only article a quick Google brings up that "disproves" it is here (http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/11/the_palin_rape_kit_myth), and the only proof it offers is a statement from a Palin spokesperson. If you have something of greater substance, share please.

Not that it matters; Palin is already toxic among independents (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/as-palins-star-dims-fey-turns-superstar/) and undecideds. She's only playing well to the reddest of the red.

As for her possible use of private email to circumvent the law, there's a lawsuit (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/546167.html) going on, in case you didn't know. I think I'll wait for the results from that before taking an anonymous email on Michelle Malkin's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt_YcQlYxyY) website.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Your very first link says the police chief charged for the kits, not Palin. And the current police chief said there's no record of that being done. (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/273965.php) But don't let evidence (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/274003.php)get in the way of attacks.

As for her not being popular among independents, gee, could that be because of the mountain of slime and smears dumped on her by the media? When a show on MSNBC rhetorically asks if an AP article is from the dailykos, its clear the media is fighting for Obama.


I think I'll wait for the results from that

You've been more than ready to slam her on the troopergate thing before waiting for the results from that.

CR

[Lemur]

Whoa there, I link to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/) and you respond with Confederate Yankee: Because Liberalism is a Persistent Vegetative State (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/)? And this strikes you as an authoritative move? Yee-ouch. Can you cite a news source, as opposed to a political advocacy group?

Please feel free to quote from where I "slammed" Palin for troopergate, beyond getting irritated that she's suddenly stonewalling the investigation and trying to move it to after the election. Show me where I've come to some sort of conclusion about her behavior as governor in that case.

Meanwhile, the attempt to turn the G.O.P. into a White Christian Identity Party gets explicit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803601_pf.html):


Even the opening prayer was politically charged. "O God, we are in a battle that is raging for the soul of this nation," the preacher said. "You, O God, have raised up Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin for such a time as this." The preacher went on: "Help them, O God, to strengthen our economy, to keep our taxes and spending low ... and grant them the privilege of being elected the next president and vice president."

[Crazed Rabbit]

Way to dodge the issue, and the fact that the blog actually quoted people in Wasilla, and facts and testimony in the Alaskan legislature.

That's a huge logical fallacy, and your resorting to it shows how feeble that anti-Palin argument is.

CR

[Lemur]

Way to dodge the issue, and the fact that the blog actually quoted people in Wasilla, and facts and testimony in the Alaskan legislature.
The blog claims that it made calls to a city clerk who couldn't find records. The blog also bills itself as a partisan mouthpiece. Maybe I should put a little more stock in the local newspaper (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/523708.html)?


When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

That's the Anchorage Daily News. And since when is it "dodging the issue" to ask one of our fellow Orgahs to come up with backing evidence that isn't from an advocacy group? Who's got a "feeble" argument here?

-edit-

Look, CR, I'm not trying to be obtuse or unreasonable. If the rape kit thing is a big fat lie, surely there are some more mainsteram Republican sources who are covering this. Gimme something, anything, how about National Review? They hate the daylights out of Obama, and they'd love to embarrass his supporters. Can you cite them? How about Fox News? I'm not asking that you find an unbiased source, whatever that means, just that you pull from a slightly more mainstream bucket.

[Xiahou]

I was unaware that had been disproved in some way. Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/).I was unaware that it had been proved in some way. Even your link makes no mention of a victim ever being charged for a rape kit in Wasilla. All it has ever been is half-truths and innuendo.

Edit:
Gimme something, anything, how about National Review?

Here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=) you go.

[Lemur]

All it has ever been is half-truths and innuendo.
Feel free to dismiss it as a liberal lie, then. More sources:

McClatchy Washington Bureau (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html)


Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm)


In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

If these statements are untrue, Plain certainly has grounds to sue for libel. I suppose you could make the argument that it was the Police charging for the rape kits, not the Mayor's office, but that seems like a rather weak dodge.


Here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=) you go.
Interesting read, thank you Xiahou. What jumps out immediately is that the NRO cites a local newspaper's article (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt) on the subject, which confirms the notion that Wasilla was charging for rape kits.


While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer," Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.

"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs," Fannon said.

"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things," Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

So there you have the Police Chief speaking on the record to a local reporter in May of 2000, when nobody cared about Sarah Palin any more than we care about the mayors of thousands of small towns in America. Maybe I'm being dense, but this completely cuts the legs out from under the NRO piece which cites this very article.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The blog claims that it made calls to a city clerk who couldn't find records. The blog also bills itself as a partisan mouthpiece.

And CNN et al aren't?

Is the state of Alaska good enough? (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?ch=H&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&session=21&comm=STA&date=20000309&time=0820)


DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
testified in support of HB 270. He noted that it has always been
the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the
collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal
prosecution. Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever
thought it appropriate to bill a victim or even by extension bill
the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not
think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual
assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He
emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay
because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of
evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police
agency that has requested payment. The Department of Public
Safety paid $48,659 in fiscal year (FY) 1999 for sexual assault
exams in the state, and so far in FY 2000 the department has paid
$22,880. He indicated that paying for exams had never been an
issue in the department or in the Anchorage Police Department.
He reiterated Representative Croft's comment that Alaska Cares
handles juvenile sexual assault exams, and the department is
pleased with the proposed CS because it leaves payment of
juvenile exams with Alaska Cares.

Number 1750

CHAIR JAMES asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Smith is
saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams.

MR. SMITH replied that the department might have been billed, but
he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim.

Here's something from national review, which basically says the same thing as the blog:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=

EDIT: Since this lie is important to you, let me state some things I gleaned from the NR article:
Wasilla was not mentioned once by the democrat Croft in all the hearings on his bill. What you are basically saying is that this story, though never proven, has to be disproven before you'll stop accusing Palin of it.

CR

[Lemur]

What you are basically saying is that this story, though never proven, has to be disproven before you'll stop accusing Palin of it.
Smooth those hackles down, CR, we're still having a friendly discussion here. What I just said was that a May 2000 article (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt) quotes the Wasilla Police Chief telling a local newspaper he charges for the rape kits, and that he is irritated by the new law which disallows the practice. Why did he say such a thing? Can you come up with a solution that absolves Palin without requiring a time machine?

-edit-

Since neither CR nor Xiahou appears to be ready to continue this discussion at the moment, I'll hit you with some more Palin news: Hugh Hewitt's book, How Sarah Palin Won the Election ... and Saved America is having trouble (http://www.observer.com/2008/media/hugh-hewitts-how-sarah-palin-won-election-and-saved-america-does-not-yet-have-publisher) finding a publisher.

[Koga No Goshi]

There is speculation that the reason she line item vetoed budget spending for rape kits was because in each kit was one of those retroactive contraceptive pills. I don't recall which brand or name the pill was but I'm sure we can guess the reason why, politically, she'd oppose that. Seeing as how the pro-life GOP campaign machine is what blitzkrieged her into political office.

[Koga No Goshi]

I like Paglia. I post her articles regularly. She is kind of a nut, but I respect her opinion. She is like a bi-sexual Andrew Sullivan that isn't overwhelmed by her ovaries. She usually comes out with unique insight that is true, though rarely realized.

About Palin being brighter than people are giving her credit for - that is almost certainly true. My concerns from her interviews stem from her not being as bright as necessary for this particular job - although the debate helped clear that up for me a bit. She is a gifted politician and understands people.

Susan Sontag was a loon. If she thought Paglia was crazy, I don't see how that hurts Paglia's reputation. 911 conspiracy theorists think everyone in the U.S. Government is crazy for killing all of those people and then lying about it forever...

Personally I never thought Palin was Forrest Gump levels of Stupid. She's certainly brighter than George W. Bush from what I can intuit. I do think that as Governor of a relatively obscure, distanced from the "homeland" state, she's been very much insulated in local concerns and has not paid much or any attention to foreign affairs. Apparently to such an extent that she can't even bluff her way through it in cold interviews. I would doubt that many Governors are exactly "experts" on our foreign policy at any given moment, but they probably pay at least enough attention to be able to make a convincing bluff at a press conference.

I do, however, think that perception of IQ drops fairly radically when you are canned into having to stick to GOP talking points. These things are designed to reach people who shop at Wal Mart and have possibly been guests on Jerry Springer. Wafer-thin, simplistic, easy to digest and lacking in substance or analytical depth audio quotes and soundbytes for big issues, keeping everything in the easy realm of black and white. (This leads to the constant criticism of Democrats as being "too nuanced" or "not having a message", which generally just means they give a more detailed answer than a Republican counterpart might on the same issue.) From a marketing perspective the fact that the Republicans are so good at staying on talking point is a net positive because it gives them the appearance of all having a clear message and being on board. From an intelligence standpoint not only is it implausible that so many different people from different backgrounds would have precisely the same shallow views on every conceivable topic, but it erodes credibility when you are constantly wondering "is that Republican REALLY a fanatic fundamentalist? Do they REALLY think gay people, divorce and abortion are the worst things plaguing our society?" So, when someone is sticking straight to the talking points, both their intelligence and their credibility come into question, for me. It's hard to believe an honest and intelligent person would happen to share dovetailed views with scarcely literate people in rural Arkansas.

[Lemur]

There is speculation that the reason she line item vetoed budget spending for rape kits was because in each kit was one of those retroactive contraceptive pills.
Yup, every rape kit contained emergency contraception, the so-called "day after pill." Considering Palin's base was and is pro-life white Christians, it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to make the connection. State funding for any sort of day-after pill would be anathema to these people.

If John McCain wins this election, there are going to be a lot of far-right pro-lifers praying night and day that he dies of a heart attack. Frankly, I don't think he'll be able to govern effectively if he wins. The Dems will take their time forgiving him for such a distasteful, dishonorable campaign, and the far right will go back into its reflexive I-hate-McCain crouch. He will lack any sort of base. He'll be unable to make anything happen.

[Xiahou]

There is speculation that the reason she line item vetoed budget spending for rape kits was because in each kit was one of those retroactive contraceptive pills. I don't recall which brand or name the pill was but I'm sure we can guess the reason why, politically, she'd oppose that. Seeing as how the pro-life GOP campaign machine is what blitzkrieged her into political office.

She line item vetoed it now? :laugh4:
Source please.

Edit:
Here's (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml) a piece by CBS's Dean Reynolds comparing being a journalist on the Obama Campaign with the McCain campaign. (Hint: He much prefers the McCain campaign)

[Lemur]

Kinda glad Koga threw you a lifeline, eh? Keeps you from having to explain the reason the Wasilla Police Chief talked to a local paper about charging victims for rape kits in 2000. You contend that there's no evidence this ever happened, that it's all innuendo and liberal slime.

I say there's a text quoted in the NRO, no less, that shows the Police Chief was talking about the practice way before anyone thought Sarah Palin was going to be anything besides Mayor of Wasilla. Explain that away, please.

-edit-


Edit:
Here's (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml) a piece by CBS's Dean Reynolds comparing being a journalist on the Obama Campaign with the McCain campaign. (Hint: He much prefers the McCain campaign)
Got Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2032553&postcount=2938) much? Grasping at straws much?

[Xiahou]

I say there's a text quoted in the NRO, no less, that shows the Police Chief was talking about the practice way before anyone thought Sarah Palin was going to be anything besides Mayor of Wasilla. Explain that away, please.The guy's an idiot? I dunno. :shrug:

You should know, Lemur, that I can't prove a negative. I have still seen no records of rape victims in Wasilla being charged for their rape kits, and I certainly haven't seen any evidence that such a thing was supported by Palin. Most of the hype seems to be based on a conference call setup by the Obama campaign with a Democrat legislator in Alaska- it's a political smear.

Here (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544) is a memo from the current mayor saying they have absolutely no record of a victim ever being billed for a rape kit. Here (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.aspx) is an article on Slate about the issue. I think they say it well:
But the fact remains that this is a nasty and untrue rumor about Sarah Palin that's been circulating for weeks. If you're an Obama supporter who gets frustrated that people still believe he's Muslim or won't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, you should understand the frustration that Palin supporters feel when this slime is taken at face value.

I don't expect you'll find this compelling, nor do I really care. Koga makes things up (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2032980&postcount=2958) out of whole cloth and you (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2033070&postcount=2960) sound off in agreement. I guess it's not the evidence so much as the seriousness of the charge, eh? Dan Rather would be proud.....

[Lemur]

Doesn't sound as though anyone can explain the Police Chief's statement. Also, if the city was trying to pass the cost off on rape victims' insurance companies, as your Slate source (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.aspx) states, how is that different from charging the victims? Or are you one of those people who believes that insurance money comes from the magical land of free stuff?


Samuels also quotes from an article in the local Wasilla paper that police chief Charlie Fallon didn't want to pass the burden along to taxpayers. That is an undeniably boneheaded and offensive statement. What she leaves out is his statement that he was TRYING to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES, not victims. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible," is what he said.

As for the letter from the current mayor, I'm not sure what to think. If it's on the up-and-up, hooray. But rape victims were never charged, were they? just their insurance companies. 'Cause that's a completely different animal.

My agreement with Koga was strictly about Palin's probable motivation. But thanks for playing the guilt-by-association game, just like your favorite candidate. I haven't seen you distancing yourself from our resident fascist lately, friend, so let's not go there.

[Strike For The South]

Gentleman, We are all going to get screwed in the end...so why the hate?

[Crazed Rabbit]

From the DRUDGE:

WASH TIMES Friday: Obama secretly tried to sway Iraqi government to ignore Bush deal on keeping troops in Iraq... Developing...

Now that's some really principled and bipartisan leadership there.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga makes stuff up out of whole cloth

Coming from you? Or CR or Panzer? Funny.

Oh and yes, I confused her line item vetoing funding for the pregnant women's centers with the rape kit. Similar issues. So shoot me.

"Eric Croft, a former Alaska state representative who sponsored the 2000 legislation, told CNN that "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it."

From http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

For all Croft now claims that Wasilla's chief mounted a campaign against the bill, Wasilla was not once mentioned in the hearings for the bill.

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.


Coming from you? Or CR or Panzer? Funny.

Oh and yes,

Not as funny as that.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

Coming from you? Or CR or Panzer? Funny.

Please don't confuse me with those two. Dismissing Xiahou or CR out of hand just won't fly... you'll have to do better than that or cede the point. ~:doh:

[Koga No Goshi]

For all Croft now claims that Wasilla's chief mounted a campaign against the bill, Wasilla was not once mentioned in the hearings for the bill.

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.

I never said any such thing. The reason you leap to that conclusion though is because you are projecting your own behavior onto me. You could do a forum search and find me saying the Dems were wrong on this, wrong on that, that I didn't like Clinton, etc. etc., many times. But with you? We always have to go through the exhaustive litany of justifications first including but not limited to:

1) The media was biased
2) The media was involved in an open conspiracy against Republicans
3) The most right-wing lunatic blogs I could find say this story is bunk
4) It's a lie made up by Democrats
5) It was actually Clinton's fault, the Reps just got blamed for it

But, while we're on the topic of

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.

I would not get into credibility wars right after my party had given the country 8 years of Dubya. ;)


Please don't confuse me with those two. Dismissing Xiahou or CR out of hand just won't fly... you'll have to do better than that or cede the point.

Concede what point? He said I made something up, and I said no, I confused it with her vetoing budget spending on the shelters for pregnant homeless teens.

[CrossLOPER]

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.
MOST CERTAINLY NOT GOOD SIR. :stare:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Way to avoid addressing the fact that Wasilla was never mentioned in any of the hearings Croft was in.

I think he's just saying what he is now to make political hay out of it.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Way to avoid addressing the fact that Wasilla was never mentioned in any of the hearings Croft was in.

I think he's just saying what he is now to make political hay out of it.

CR

Could be. But even if it's a rumor it is certainly a far more on topic one than "Obama is a Muslim"... Palin doesn't deny opposing reproductive choice.

[Big_John]

From the DRUDGE:saw this too, is this just rehash of the taheri nypost article from sept 15 that went nowhere? or is there something new for october?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

[Redleg]

As I was driving down the road this morning and returning this afternoon. It seems the talk radio has got a new wind on the Birth Certificate issue if the author of Obamanation's return from a trip to Kenya. Then there is this lawyer from Penn. who has a court case against Obama demanding he produce a Birth Certificate. And it seems there is a claim by some of these guys that CNN proved Obama attempted to deceive the public about his connection to Mr. Ayers. Its not surprising that doing a little research tonight, that I can not (LOL double negative in the sentence)find any of the so called reference material expect for the lawyer's website.

http://obamacrimes.com/


So who thinks it's just the pundits attempting to bring about the October Surprise? I sort of lean in that direction because of the timing of it all.

[OverKnight]

Snopes has an article on this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Like Ayers, this issue seems to have been out there for a long time. It seems that with time running out, a lot of it is being rehashed to try to blunt Obama's rise in the polls.

While we're at it, factcheck on rape kits:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

[Lemur]

While we're at it, factcheck on rape kits:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html
Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Meanwhile, I get the impression that McCain is riding a tiger when it comes to inciting the crazies. Does the Name Yitzhak Rabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin#Assassination_and_aftermath) ring a bell? I'm not the only one getting creeped out (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/better_to_be.html) by the foam-at-the-mouth crowd ...


I'm beginning to worry about the level of craziness on the Republican side, the over-the-top, stampede-the-crowd statements by everyone from McCain on down, the vehemence of the crowds that McCain and Palin are drawing with people shouting "Kill him" and "He's a terrorist" and "Off with his head."

Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He's a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he'd admonish the man. But he didn't. And now he's selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it's all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower.

-edit-

Another commentator gets it (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/the_unthinkable_1.php):


When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.

This was not some notion bandied about by conspiracy theorist, but an accusation proffered by men who were the pillars (http://www.frostillustrated.com/full.php?sid=1384) of the modern Republican Party:


As late as 1964, Falwell was attacking the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "civil wrongs" legislation. He questioned "the sincerity and intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." Falwell charged, "It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed."

[...] Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some **** pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Meanwhile, I get the impression that McCain is riding a tiger when it comes to inciting the crazies. Does the Name Yitzhak Rabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin#Assassination_and_aftermath) ring a bell? I'm not the only one getting creeped out (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/better_to_be.html) by the foam-at-the-mouth crowd ...


I'm beginning to worry about the level of craziness on the Republican side, the over-the-top, stampede-the-crowd statements by everyone from McCain on down, the vehemence of the crowds that McCain and Palin are drawing with people shouting "Kill him" and "He's a terrorist" and "Off with his head."

Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He's a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he'd admonish the man. But he didn't. And now he's selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it's all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower.

-edit-

Another commentator gets it (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/the_unthinkable_1.php):


When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.

This was not some notion bandied about by conspiracy theorist, but an accusation proffered by men who were the pillars (http://www.frostillustrated.com/full.php?sid=1384) of the modern Republican Party:


As late as 1964, Falwell was attacking the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "civil wrongs" legislation. He questioned "the sincerity and intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." Falwell charged, "It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed."

[...] Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some **** pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.

My parents who lived through a lot of this time period obviously, have been talking about this as well. Both are very politically engaged this year. And even my dad, a Republican by voting record since before I was born, has been saying McCain HAS to put a stop to this. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I do not see any sufficient incentive for McCain to do so. I will be pleasantly surprised if what we are seeing is NOT the tenor of the race till election day.

I've already "joked" to a friend going to an Obama appearance next week, "you know you have to be ready to jump in front of a lone gunman right?" It's not funny, but we're all thinking it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Meanwhile, I get the impression that McCain is riding a tiger when it comes to inciting the crazies. Does the Name Yitzhak Rabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin#Assassination_and_aftermath) ring a bell? I'm not the only one getting creeped out (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/better_to_be.html) by the foam-at-the-mouth crowd ...


I'm beginning to worry about the level of craziness on the Republican side, the over-the-top, stampede-the-crowd statements by everyone from McCain on down, the vehemence of the crowds that McCain and Palin are drawing with people shouting "Kill him" and "He's a terrorist" and "Off with his head."

Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He's a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he'd admonish the man. But he didn't. And now he's selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it's all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower.

-edit-

Another commentator gets it (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/the_unthinkable_1.php):


When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.

This was not some notion bandied about by conspiracy theorist, but an accusation proffered by men who were the pillars (http://www.frostillustrated.com/full.php?sid=1384) of the modern Republican Party:


As late as 1964, Falwell was attacking the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "civil wrongs" legislation. He questioned "the sincerity and intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." Falwell charged, "It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed."

[...] Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some **** pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.

:laugh4:

What a complete non-story. Where has the Leemster been the last 8 years while the crazies have been calling for Bush to be tortured and killed at anti-war rallies - all the while bolstered by extreme rhetoric from far left politicians such as Murtha? Has the Leemster ever been to a political rally and witnessed first hand the type of people such events draw? This meme that since Obama is black he is at some greater risk of being assassinated is ridiculous. Bush has garnered extreme hatred for years, but nobody on the left stood up to say "tone it down guys".

McCain is well within the bounds of reasonable campaigning to question Obama's ties to terrorists. Crazies will always make such inferences to justify their opinions. The McCain campaign has already stated that it does not condone or approve of this kind of activity.

Btw - the MLK reference gets its own :laugh4:. Is this what its come to? Not that I think that adulterer is a great man, but crowning Obama the next MLK is essentially deification in this country. :dizzy2:

[Gregoshi]

Bush has garnered extreme hatred for years, but nobody on the left stood up to say "tone it down guys".


PJ, that's because the folks on the left don't have any guns. The best they could do would be to chuck a 50 pound bundle of tax legislation at Bush. :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:laugh4:

What a complete non-story. Where has the Leemster been the last 8 years while the crazies have been calling for Bush to be tortured and killed at anti-war rallies - all the while bolstered by extreme rhetoric from far left politicians such as Murtha? Has the Leemster ever been to a political rally and witnessed first hand the type of people such events draw? This meme that since Obama is black he is at some greater risk of being assassinated is ridiculous. Bush has garnered extreme hatred for years, but nobody on the left stood up to say "tone it down guys".

McCain is well within the bounds of reasonable campaigning to question Obama's ties to terrorists. Crazies will always make such inferences to justify their opinions. The McCain campaign has already stated that it does not condone or approve of this kind of activity.

Btw - the MLK reference gets its own :laugh4:. Is this what its come to? Not that I think that adulterer is a great man, but crowning Obama the next MLK is essentially deification in this country. :dizzy2:

Panzer:

I have never personally heard anyone call for Bush's assassination, for which I am thankful. I have heard him disparaged in any number of ways, but no actual threat. It strikes me that most of the leftie loons at such rallies don't want him dead -- what they actually want is for he and his entire administrative hierarchy to be publicly humiliated for months on end in a public trial and subsequently jailed for war crimes. The goal is, as much as anything else, the public debasement of all things connected to Bush. As this would also end the GOP, they'd also achieve a more short term objective as well.

I do fear somewhat for Obama's safety and disagree with you as to whether his ethnicity makes his risk higher. There are loons on both ends of the US political spectrum, so I am sure both have received threats therefrom, however there is another slice of looney-dum [sic on purpose], the would be race-warriors, who also poses a threat to Obama.


The "mantle" of MLK has been passed around a bit since his murder, but Obama wears it better than many who've sought it more directly. BTW, what in heaven's name do you have to do to be a "great man" if MLK can't get kudos?


Sad news for the GOP. National polls suggest that McCain has to collect the remaining uncommitted voters at about 2 for 1 to pass Obama. A very tall order in these economic times...

[OverKnight]

The last half of the 20th Century has shown that right-wing nutjobs are better assassins than left-wing nutjobs.

Wounded:

Ronald Reagan


Dead:

John Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
Martin Luther King


Missed: A lot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Assasinations

There will always be some crazies, but kicking the hornet's nest isn't a great move.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, I believe JFK's killer was a communist. His brother's killer was angry over Robert's support of Israel. MLK's killer looked to be a petty racist criminal.

Even Reagan's attacker wasn't left wing so much as a really weird celebrity stalker type.

CR

[Spino]

The last half of the 20th Century has shown that right-wing nutjobs are better assassins than left-wing nutjobs.

Wounded:

Ronald Reagan


Dead:

John Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
Martin Luther King


Missed: A lot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Assasinations

There will always be some crazies, but kicking the hornet's nest isn't a great move.

Ummmm....

Ronald Reagan was shot by an attention whoring nutjob who had a thing for left wing nutjob Jodie Foster who played the part of an exploited child prostitute in Taxi Driver who was saved by a mentally unstable nutjob who may have had right wing leanings.

Lee Harvey Oswald was not a right wing nut job. He was also an attention whoring nutjob who defected to the Soviet Union and was subsequently kicked out because that country's left wing nutjobs thought he was one of the most annoying nutjobs to ever defect to their country. True, Oswald was an ex-Marine but the last I checked right wing nutjobs have an allergic reaction to all things Communist.

Sirhan Sirhan was a Jew hating nutjob who had no political affiliation beyond his devotion to the Palestinian people. I assume you associate all Jew hating nutjobs as being right wing by default. Given the intellectual fallout caused by the Holocaust I might give you this one.

MLK was assassinated by a racist southerner who probably had Democratic sympathies. Whether that makes him a right or left wing nutjob or simply a racist nutjob i'll leave to you to decide. As with Sirhan Sirhan I assume you consider all racist nutjobs to be right wing nutjobs.

Now... You may want to consider that some of the CIA's best assassins were employed by Democratic administrations during the Cold War. Perhaps one could spin that as saying the best right wing nutjob assassins were employed by left wing nutjob leaders looking to impose their ideology on the rest of the world.

:wink:

[Gregoshi]

Perhaps one could spin that as saying the best right wing nutjob assassins were employed by left wing nutjob leaders looking to impose their ideology on the rest of the world.
How's that go again...righty tighty, lefty loosey? :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Another grumpy ex-McCain supporter (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.mccain10oct10,0,7557571.story) chimes in:


John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.

John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that surround the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post-9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are a bitterly divided country on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there.

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.

John McCain, you're walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out "Terrorist" or "Kill him," history will hold you responsible for all that follows.

John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are playing with fire, and you know it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer:

I have never personally heard anyone call for Bush's assassination, for which I am thankful. I have heard him disparaged in any number of ways, but no actual threat. It strikes me that most of the leftie loons at such rallies don't want him dead -- what they actually want is for he and his entire administrative hierarchy to be publicly humiliated for months on end in a public trial and subsequently jailed for war crimes. The goal is, as much as anything else, the public debasement of all things connected to Bush. As this would also end the GOP, they'd also achieve a more short term objective as well.

I've never personally heard anyone call for Obama's assassination either.

I have witnessed this invective towards Bush on campus - coming from professors no less. The hatred towards Bush is staggering.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Scumbags10.jpg



I do fear somewhat for Obama's safety and disagree with you as to whether his ethnicity makes his risk higher. There are loons on both ends of the US political spectrum, so I am sure both have received threats therefrom, however there is another slice of looney-dum [sic on purpose], the would be race-warriors, who also poses a threat to Obama.

I just don't agree. Race is no more or less of a reason for nuts to target Obama than, say, Bush's evangelist Christianity, Clinton's "shame" to the office of POTUS, or Reagan's feirce anti-communism. People were fervent about all of those.



The "mantle" of MLK has been passed around a bit since his murder, but Obama wears it better than many who've sought it more directly. BTW, what in heaven's name do you have to do to be a "great man" if MLK can't get kudos?

The truth about MLK and the narrative aren't one in the same.

[Strike For The South]

The truth about MLK and the narrative aren't one in the same.

and here is where the ice gets thin:book: I agree with you but personal life should not take away from the mans public accomplishments.

[Koga No Goshi]

:laugh4:

What a complete non-story. Where has the Leemster been the last 8 years while the crazies have been calling for Bush to be tortured and killed at anti-war rallies -

Oh yes, because we have a history that shows an equal likelihood of assasinations of conservative white male politicians as any other type. Same same same.

Panzer, you clearly listen to too much talk radio scum like Michael Savage who get on there all day and deconstruct progressive figures like MLK Jr. and dismisses that there is any race problem in the U.S., it's all just a conspiracy made up by the left.

And yes, as Seamus basically said.... the left calls for things like war crimes hearings or Congressional hearings or impeachment proceedings. We don't go into churches and blow them up because they are white, or go into doctors offices that won't perform abortions and blow them up for not being pro-choice. But the same is not true in reverse.

You are simply LYING... flat out lying, if you claim to believe that partisanship has the same track record on the issue of the use of violence and assasination to avert unwanted change. You're not even deluded or ignorant, you're lying. There is no way to believe that. Nor any way to believe that pro-war, pro-business groups in the U.S. undergo surveillance or even the arrest and/or assasination of their leaders that anti-war, pro-integration or other movements have in the U.S. throughout its history. Even when Dems are in control.

[Koga No Goshi]

The truth about MLK and the narrative aren't one in the same.

I'm sure you have a lot of Michael Savage stories to tell us to explain that one, but it's all just a smokescreen for your racist beliefs. And a typical tactic of right-wingers to engage in character assasination over irrelevant things in a pathetic attempt to undermine the importance of many figures who have worked for progressive causes in U.S. history.

Out of curiosity, would any of you righties abandon McCain if a young woman came forward with proof he had an affair with her? Or would you just start making sarcastic remarks that she must be a Democratic operative?

[Lemur]

Interesting, the McCain campaign came out and defended (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx) the people shouting things like "Kill him!" at the rallies. Their counter-argument is based entirely on bittergate. I guess the upshot is that they approve of this behavior. Weird, man.


Earlier today, Obama remarked on recent outbursts of "Traitor!" "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" at McCain campaign events. "It's easy to rile up a crowd," Obama said. "Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States."

In response, McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace released this statement, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports. "Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people Obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith."

[Koga No Goshi]

Surprise surprise. So now those people only shouted "kill him" because they're victims of the horrible vitriol of mean, mean Barack Obama.

[Gregoshi]

The McCain campaign appears to be disintegrating before our very eyes. :no:

[drone]

Indeed. I would think that threats to kill a sitting US Senator would be frowned upon at the least.

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed. I would think that threats to kill a sitting US Senator would be frowned upon at the least.

It has always been fair game in America when it comes to a progressive. More than usual, it's been the tradition.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Out of curiosity, would any of you righties abandon McCain if a young woman came forward with proof he had an affair with her? Or would you just start making sarcastic remarks that she must be a Democratic operative?


I am notorious for my immediate abandonment of candidates who cheat on their wives. If Romney was ever caught in that act it would be the last time you ever heard me say a nice thing about the guy. I would hold the same standard to Republicans. Over years and years of not cheating I can forgive a candidate, but not entirely. It still bugs the crap out of me that McCain cheated on his first wife.

[Tribesman]

The McCain campaign appears to be disintegrating before our very eyes.
Thats just an illusion just wait , Palin will ride to centre stage on the back of a polar bear with an oil pipe up its behind , waving a mini16 in one hand and the stars and stipes in the other and McCain will come out of the closet with an ex Thai tiger who was his bitch in prison and who has now due to the wonders of private medical provisions become a tigress .

[Strike For The South]

I'm sure you have a lot of Michael Savage stories to tell us to explain that one, but it's all just a smokescreen for your racist beliefs. And a typical tactic of right-wingers to engage in character assasination over irrelevant things in a pathetic attempt to undermine the importance of many figures who have worked for progressive causes in U.S. history.

Out of curiosity, would any of you righties abandon McCain if a young woman came forward with proof he had an affair with her? Or would you just start making sarcastic remarks that she must be a Democratic operative?

Every great American has skeletons in his closet even the white ones.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am notorious for my immediate abandonment of candidates who cheat on their wives. If Romney was ever caught in that act it would be the last time you ever heard me say a nice thing about the guy. I would hold the same standard to Republicans. Over years and years of not cheating I can forgive a candidate, but not entirely. It still bugs the crap out of me that McCain cheated on his first wife.

Well at least you are consistent, although it still rankles me that Dems seem to be "infamous" in the popular opinion for affairs, when you have crap like Foley and Larry Craig and Giuliani and Hastert (many of whom gleefully participated in Clinton's scandal) over on the R side.

[drone]

Well at least you are consistent, although it still rankles me that Dems seem to be "infamous" in the popular opinion for affairs, when you have crap like Foley and Larry Craig and Giuliani and Hastert (many of whom gleefully participated in Clinton's scandal) over on the R side.

We have a thread for that (or did it get locked?). Talk to Lemur or look through the past ~6 months for toe-tapping. ~D

You need to lay off with the Democratic persecution complex. Coming from a side that supposedly rejects stereotypes, you seem to rely on them in your arguments with a vengeance. :bow:

[Spino]

Thats just an illusion just wait , Palin will ride to centre stage on the back of a polar bear with an oil pipe up its behind , waving a mini16 in one hand and the stars and stipes in the other and McCain will come out of the closet with an ex Thai tiger who was his bitch in prison and who has now due to the wonders of private medical provisions become a tigress .

Joke all you like but I'd pay good money to see that.

[Koga No Goshi]

We have a thread for that (or did it get locked?). Talk to Lemur or look through the past ~6 months for toe-tapping. ~D

You need to lay off with the Democratic persecution complex. Coming from a side that supposedly rejects stereotypes, you seem to rely on them in your arguments with a vengeance. :bow:

It tends to get under my skin when things the Reps do on a much more overt or organized level somehow winds up getting blamed as a Dem issue. Such as coded hate rhetoric, voter suppression or misconduct. It's not about stereotypes, it's about rhetoric vs. practice.