NationStates Jolt Archive

This may have been brought up before, but hey, whatev'. Now you get a new thread about it.

Something I've noticed quite often is that Republicans, both the political sort and the pundit sort (my parents watch Fox.), is that they use words like 'authentic', 'uncorrupted' and 'honest' to describe her which, from what I've seen, is pretty much exactly the sort of image Obama is trying to keep.
So, NSG, I ask you, wouldn't it have been simpler for both parties to simply clone the opposing candidate if thats the sort of thing they wanted? I mean, the Republicans could've produced their very own religious-fanatic version of Obama and the Democrats would've gotten a war hero-by-proxy to snag the oh-so-critical 'Jaded 'Nam Vet' vote.

Also, rather amusingly, Pallin is apparently the first person to get any positive press from either side, since both parties are too concerned with slinging mud to clean the shit off their faces.

Yep the McCain campaign is on to win because they've taken the only thing that Obama had - a public image of being A Guy Who Changes stuff. A real, real shame, but from watching Fox in the UK, they are pushing her as a reformer and all that pish. Due to the fact that 95% (at least) of old people in the US a) vote and b) watch Fox News, Palin is going to win the Republicans the white house.

Yep the McCain campaign is on to win because they've taken the only thing that Obama had - a public image of being A Guy Who Changes stuff. A real, real shame, but from watching Fox in the UK, they are pushing her as a reformer and all that pish. Due to the fact that 95% (at least) of old people in the US a) vote and b) watch Fox News, Palin is going to win the Republicans the white house.

Not if the Alaskan special investigation comes back with an indictment. Then she'll be just like Nixon, only ousted before she even got in.

To use a hunting metaphor, McCain stepped in a bear trap with Palin. Her past is coming back to haunt her, and the indictment will make a lovely October Surprise.

Not if the Alaskan special investigation comes back with an indictment. Then she'll be just like Nixon, only ousted before she even got in.
Uhu... chances of that happening?

Outstandingly slim.

To use a hunting metaphor, McCain stepped in a bear trap with Palin. Her past is coming back to haunt her, and the indictment will make a lovely October Surprise.
Aye but McCain stepped on a somewhat charismatic beartrap. Obama just stepped on a fucking landmine in picking Joe Biden.

"Ah yes, we're up against an old war veteran, who should we pick?"
"Eh let's go for this perpetually angry pretty old guy who's been in office for about 2/3 of Obama's life and who makes pithy statements and such"
"Sounds good, really backs up our message of change and a different kind of campaign"
*Attacks on McCain pretty weak to eh show that the Dems are decent sorts or something*
"Bugger, now his VP is a woman, and we really can't afford to piss too many of those off"
"Piss... flaps..."
"Quite."

Uhu... chances of that happening?

Outstandingly slim.

We can always hope...

We can always hope...
Sí, se peude.

Aye but McCain stepped on a somewhat charismatic beartrap. Obama just stepped on a fucking landmine in picking Joe Biden.

"Ah yes, we're up against an old war veteran, who should we pick?"
"Eh let's go for this perpetually angry pretty old guy who's been in office for about 2/3 of Obama's life and who makes pithy statements and such"
"Sounds good, really backs up our message of change and a different kind of campaign"
*Attacks on McCain pretty weak to eh show that the Dems are decent sorts or something*
"Bugger, now his VP is a woman, and we really can't afford to piss too many of those off"
"Piss... flaps..."
"Quite."

Quite true, he wasn't in the top 5 picks I'd of chosen, but oh well. Work with what you got I suppose.

Aye but McCain stepped on a somewhat charismatic beartrap. Obama just stepped on a fucking landmine in picking Joe Biden.

"Ah yes, we're up against an old war veteran, who should we pick?"
"Eh let's go for this perpetually angry pretty old guy who's been in office for about 2/3 of Obama's life and who makes pithy statements and such"
"Sounds good, really backs up our message of change and a different kind of campaign"
*Attacks on McCain pretty weak to eh show that the Dems are decent sorts or something*
"Bugger, now his VP is a woman, and we really can't afford to piss too many of those off"
"Piss... flaps..."
"Quite."

It was a strategic move to counter the only successful attack McCain had levied against Obama at the time: inexperience. In retrospect, it looks like a foolish choice, but you know what they say about hindsight.

We can always hope...
I think it a bit disgusting to hold out hope that anyone has committed a crime. You may dislike her and/or what she stands for, but to hope she is indicted is going to far IMO. I equate it to some KKK nut job hoping Obama gets assassinated. It is never good Karma to wish that horrible things happen to people. I don't care who the people are.

Quite true, he wasn't in the top 5 picks I'd of chosen, but oh well. Work with what you got I suppose.
Aye. Would have been better to have been Sebelius to distance himself with Clinton but not with female Democrats. In my opinion.
It was a strategic move to counter the only successful attack McCain had levied against Obama at the time: inexperience. In retrospect, it looks like a foolish choice, but you know what they say about hindsight.
Yeah, but why even bother trying to compete on those grounds? "I'm not inexperienced because err my VP isn't" is just rubbish. And it kills his change thing in the face. But there we go.

I think it a bit disgusting to hold out hope that anyone has committed a crime. You may dislike her and/or what she stands for, but to hope she is indicted is going to far IMO. I equate it to some KKK nut job hoping Obama gets assassinated. It is never good Karma to wish that horrible things happen to people. I don't care who the people are.

You equate being indicted with being assassinated? Don't you feel there's a level of difference between those two? And he's not hoping that she's committed a crime, technically. He's hoping she's held accountable for a crime that he thinks she's already committed.

I think it a bit disgusting to hold out hope that anyone has committed a crime. You may dislike her and/or what she stands for, but to hope she is indicted is going to far IMO. I equate it to some KKK nut job hoping Obama gets assassinated. It is never good Karma to wish that horrible things happen to people. I don't care who the people are.

Not so much that I hope she commits a crime, so much as I hope that if she committed a crime, the indictments will come quickly.

If she's done nothing, why is she trying to stall such an investigation? I am a firm believer that politicians have more than just a duty to avoid impropriety, they must also avoid any indication of impropriety.

Yeah, but why even bother trying to compete on those grounds? "I'm not inexperienced because err my VP isn't" is just rubbish. And it kills his change thing in the face. But there we go.

Because those are exactly the grounds that the Republicans compete on. How many of Palin's political traits is the McCain campaign attributing to the both of them now?

I agree that it killed his change thing, but that was already dead anyway. He'd already crossed over to center before he even got the nomination. But I don't understand how we can't attribute Biden's experience to Obama's presidency, but we CAN attribute his Washington-insiderness to Obama's presidency.

Insiderness. That's right. :)

Something I've noticed quite often is that Republicans, both the political sort and the pundit sort (my parents watch Fox.), is that they use words like 'authentic', 'uncorrupted' and 'honest' to describe her which, from what I've seen, is pretty much exactly the sort of image Obama is trying to keep.
It's the same image that most politicians are trying to keep. No one wants to be described as "false," "corrupt" or a "pathological liar."

You equate being indicted with being assassinated? Don't you feel there's a level of difference between those two? And he's not hoping that she's committed a crime, technically. He's hoping she's held accountable for a crime that he thinks she's already committed.
He is hoping she committed a crime and that she is held accountable for it. If she did commit a crime then by all means hold her accountable. But to be held accountable and indicted, you have to commit the crime first and it is clear the hope here is that a crime was committed so she can be indicted. The level of difference between assassination and indictment is different, yes, but the issue is not the severity of the action, it is the hope that harm befalls someone.

Because those are exactly the grounds that the Republicans compete on.
:head... bang...:

That's like Obama trying to come across as The Patriotic Guy You Could Share A Cold One With At A Barbeque. That's a GOP game right there. No need to emulate it, because that will never work.
How many of Palin's political traits is the McCain campaign attributing to the both of them now?
Eh some%
I agree that it killed his change thing, but that was already dead anyway. He'd already crossed over to center before he even got the nomination. But I don't understand how we can't attribute Biden's experience to Obama's presidency, but we CAN attribute his Washington-insiderness to Obama's presidency.

Insiderness. That's right. :)
Because the claims that the Republicans were and to a limited extent still are] making is that Obama himself doesn't have enough experience. Still actually true even with Biden as VP. It just shows up up that little bit more in my eyes.

He is hoping she committed a crime and that she is held accountable for it. If she did commit a crime then by all means hold her accountable. But to be held accountable and indicted, you have to commit the crime first and it is clear the hope here is that a crime was committed so she can be indicted. The level of difference between assassination and indictment is different, yes, but the issue is not the severity of the action, it is the hope that harm befalls someone.

No. I have only given indication that I hope if Palin committed a crime, that she be held accountable. Her actions obviously merit questioning and investigating, seeing as how her actions are now being questioned and investigated :eek:.

My great hope is not that harm befalls a person, it's that a person running to be only one heartbeat (and not the youngest heartbeat at that) away from the highest office in the land is not deceiving the public whom she claims to want to serve. Her record in Alaska has definite baring on how she will act at the Federal level. That state record ought to examined, seeing as how its under scrutiny for malfeasance while in office. If she's cleared, great. If not, then it's better to know now.

It was a strategic move to counter the only successful attack McCain had levied against Obama at the time: inexperience. In retrospect, it looks like a foolish choice, but you know what they say about hindsight.

Uh, no, it was a choice based on what Biden would be able to do as Vice President; specifically, that he would be the best to help Obama get his policies through Congress.

In other words it was the best choice to make in that sense. It hurt him in electability, sure, but that's not the primary reason to choose a VP.

I think it a bit disgusting to hold out hope that anyone has committed a crime. You may dislike her and/or what she stands for, but to hope she is indicted is going to far IMO. I equate it to some KKK nut job hoping Obama gets assassinated. It is never good Karma to wish that horrible things happen to people. I don't care who the people are.

So you don't think that criminals should be punished for their crimes?

Or is that only the case when they're republican?

To use a hunting metaphor, McCain stepped in a bear trap with Palin. Her past is coming back to haunt her, and the indictment will make a lovely October Surprise.

There will be an October surprise however I don't think this is it. I just have a feeling something very negative will be dredged up from Obama's past.

So Palin is now a mixed race candidate with a difficult time while growing up and then worked among the people before becoming a senator? Oh, and has no experience (according to themselves)

Only the neocons could get away with something this absurd.

I'll believe the Republicans are trying to pass off I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary as the New Obama when they leak stories of her being an elitist closet Muslim who attends a radical Christian Church.

Well, two out of three is a good start.

:D

Yep the McCain campaign is on to win because they've taken the only thing that Obama had - a public image of being A Guy Who Changes stuff. A real, real shame, but from watching Fox in the UK, they are pushing her as a reformer and all that pish. Due to the fact that 95% (at least) of old people in the US a) vote and b) watch Fox News, Palin is going to win the Republicans the white house.

Except hes winning in all the polls. But you know, fuck those, you know better:rolleyes:

Except hes winning in all the polls. But you know, fuck those, you know better:rolleyes:

Wasn't Kerry winning in all the polls at one point? Or was that Gore? Hmmmm...Something to check on...

They're not trying to make her into the next Obama, they're being overrun by the next Theodore Roosevelt...

I'll show you:

Theadore Rosevelt article in Wikipedia 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt)
Theodore Roosevelt, also known as T.R., and to the public (but never to friends and intimates) as Teddy, was the twenty-sixth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Movement, he was a Governor of New York and a professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier. He is most famous for his personality: his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" personality.

In 1901, as Vice President, the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley after McKinley's assassination by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. He is the youngest person to become President.[4] He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen.

(In) December 1901 (he) asked Congress to curb the power of trusts "within reasonable limits." They did not act but Roosevelt did, issuing 44 lawsuits against major corporations; he was called the "trust-buster".

Roosevelt firmly believed: "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the railways engaged in interstate commerce." Inaction was a danger, he argued: "Such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other."

Sarah Palin article in Wikipedia 2048 (timetravel.dll.not.found)
Sarah Palin, also known as Sarah to the public and to friends, was the forty-fifth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Transparency in Government Movement, she was a Governor of Alaska and a professional fisherman, naturalist, explorer, hunter, mayor, and mother of five. She is most famous for her personality: her energy, and her vast range of interests and achievements, her model of femininity, and her "wild frontier" personality.

In 2010, as Vice President, the 46-year-old Palin succeeded President John McCain after McCains sudden death by brain aneurysm. She is the first woman to become President. She was an aggressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Washington insiders into the twenty first century of transparency in government. She distrusted wealthy energy brokers and lobbyist and dissolved forty monopolistic corporate fronts for energy corporations as a "trust buster". She was clear, however, to show she did not disagree with oil and energy development and oil drilling in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. Her "For the People" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through fair taxation of of oil drilling (not windfall taxes) and development and taxation of renewable energy sources through development) and the businessmen who brought the products to market.

In December 2010 she asked Congress to curb the excessive use of earmarks "within reasonable limits." They did not act but Palin did, issuing 44 veto's of major bills; she was called the "pork-barrel-buster".

Palin firmly believed: "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the big oil and energy companies engaged in interstate commerce." Inaction was a danger, she argued: "Such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other."

See, two from the same cut. :)

They're not trying to make her into the next Obama, they're being overrun by the next Theodore Roosevelt...

I'll show you:

Theadore Rosevelt article in Wikipedia 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt)
Theodore Roosevelt, also known as T.R., and to the public (but never to friends and intimates) as Teddy, was the twenty-sixth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Movement, he was a Governor of New York and a professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier. He is most famous for his personality: his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" personality.

In 1901, as Vice President, the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley after McKinley's assassination by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. He is the youngest person to become President.[4] He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen.

(In) December 1901 (he) asked Congress to curb the power of trusts "within reasonable limits." They did not act but Roosevelt did, issuing 44 lawsuits against major corporations; he was called the "trust-buster".

Roosevelt firmly believed: "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the railways engaged in interstate commerce." Inaction was a danger, he argued: "Such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other."

Sarah Palin article in Wikipedia 2048 (timetravel.dll.not.found)
Sarah Palin, also known as Sarah to the public and to friends, was the forty-fifth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Transparency in Government Movement, she was a Governor of Alaska and a professional fisherman, naturalist, explorer, hunter, mayor, and mother of five. She is most famous for her personality: her energy, and her vast range of interests and achievements, her model of femininity, and her "wild frontier" personality.

In 2010, as Vice President, the 46-year-old Pain succeeded President John McCain after McCains sudden death by brain aneurysm. She is the first woman to become President. She was an aggressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Washington insiders into the twenty first century of transparency in government. She distrusted wealthy energy brokers and lobbyist and dissolved forty monopolistic corporate fronts for energy corporations as a "trust buster". She was clear, however, to show she did not disagree with oil and energy development and oil drilling in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. Her "For the People" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through fair taxation of of oil drilling (not windfall taxes) and development and taxation of renewable energy sources through development) and the businessmen who brought the products to market.

In December 2010 she asked Congress to curb the excessive use of earmarks "within reasonable limits." They did not act but Palin did, issuing 44 veto's of major bills; she was called the "pork-barrel-buster".

Palin firmly believed: "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the big oil and energy companies engaged in interstate commerce." Inaction was a danger, she argued: "Such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other."

See, two from the same cut. :)

You're funny and creative. You ought to be a science fiction fantasy author...

Oh wait, there's all ready an article on a Palin presidency: It's called The Handmaid's Tale and Margaret Atwood wrote it back in 1985.

snip

That's good. Problem is, the GOP hated Roosevelt, and when he was elected, McKinley was young for a president, and the vice-president was a job reserved for putting unwanteds with too much power out to pasture early.

As Mark Hanna said when McKinley died, "that damned cowboy is president now."

See, two from the same cut. :)

Based on...what, the shit you just made up?

That's good. Problem is, the GOP hated Roosevelt, and when he was elected, McKinley was young for a president, and the vice-president was a job reserved for putting unwanteds with too much power out to pasture early.

As Mark Hanna said when McKinley died, "that damned cowboy is president now."

Thats not a problem, it's exactly the same. The Washington insider GOP elite hate her now too, and they will hate her even more after she roots out and exposes their corruption... If she wasn't so popular with the public, just like Theadore, she would be an outcast in her own party for not being one of the good old boys.

Well, as a native Idahoan, I do have to say that at least Sandpoint is known for something other than being the former headquarters of the Aryan Nations. . .

But don't use the words cowboy in conjunction with Sarah Palin. Cowboys herd stuff or grow stuff. Palin just shoots stuff. She's a hunter. . .and considering she shoots from helicopters, not a good one.

Based on...what, the shit you just made up?

Outside of McCain dying, it's the job they said they've assigned to her. Get the energy crisis under control via American drilling and renewable development etc., and weed out corruption in government back rooms.

.... She's a hunter. . .and considering she shoots from helicopters, not a good one.

Clearly you don't know what shooting wolves from helicopters is for. It's not for hunting, its for thinning out the wolf packs to control the caribou and moose herds. Being from Idaho I would have thought you'd understand that. Additionally, it's also clear you've never tried to shoot something from a hovering copter platform.

Clearly you don't know what shooting wolves from helicopters is for. It's not for hunting, its for thinning out the wolf packs to control the caribou and moose herds. Being from Idaho I would have thought you'd understand that. Additionally, it's also clear you've never tried to shoot something from a hovering copter platform.

Um. Don't know much about Idaho, do you?

Clearly almost as much as you know about wolf populations and the actual record of St. Palin!

Um. Don't know much about Idaho, do you? What, you think they don't have animal management programs there? I bet they do.

Clearly almost as much as you know about wolf populations and the actual record of St. Palin!

Really? Perhaps you're right, lets see what the ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) say about it...

Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future.

The Alaska Board of Game approves wildlife regulations through a public participation process. When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren't enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests.

Currently, five wolf control programs are underway that comprises about 9.4% of Alaska's land area. The programs use a closely controlled permit system allowing aerial or same day airborne methods to remove wolves in designated areas. In these areas, wolf numbers will be temporarily reduced, but wolves will not be permanently eliminated from any area. Successful programs allow humans to take more moose, and healthy populations of wolves to continue to thrive in Alaska. http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.control


Um, looks like I'm right. Now, what were you saying?

What, you think they don't have animal management programs there? I bet they do.

Really? Perhaps you're right, lets see what the ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) say about it...

Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future.

The Alaska Board of Game approves wildlife regulations through a public participation process. When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren't enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests.

Currently, five wolf control programs are underway that comprises about 9.4% of Alaska's land area. The programs use a closely controlled permit system allowing aerial or same day airborne methods to remove wolves in designated areas. In these areas, wolf numbers will be temporarily reduced, but wolves will not be permanently eliminated from any area. Successful programs allow humans to take more moose, and healthy populations of wolves to continue to thrive in Alaska. http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.control


Um, looks like I'm right. Now, what were you saying?

Wow. You can use Google. I'm so impressed.

And the ADFG echoing the sentiments of the Governor of Alaska? Shocking!

Clearly you don't know what shooting wolves from helicopters is for. It's not for hunting, its for thinning out the wolf packs to control the caribou and moose herds. Being from Idaho I would have thought you'd understand that. Additionally, it's also clear you've never tried to shoot something from a hovering copter platform.

I have not, although I'm aware of the fact that thinning is done via copter. But I do know that it's by far the easiest means of taking a wolf, and highly unsporting. The whole point of hunting a wolf is that it's one of the toughest game to bring down, and therefore one of the most thrilling catches if/when you do drop one.

The point, then, is simply that shooting is a necessary prerequisite to hunting, but good shot =/= good hunter. A good hunter is one who respects his prey enough to give it a fighting chance and still wins.

Wow. You can use Google. I'm so impressed.

And the ADFG echoing the sentiments of the Governor of Alaska? Shocking!

LOL, you lose.

I have not, although I'm aware of the fact that thinning is done via copter. But I do know that it's by far the easiest means of taking a wolf, and highly unsporting. The whole point of hunting a wolf is that it's one of the toughest game to bring down, and therefore one of the most thrilling catches if/when you do drop one.

The permits are issued on need to thin basis, and the aerial is done so it can be accomplished in one day over vast territories that are essentially the size of the state of Idaho if my guesstimate is on scale today... check the map in the link above.

LOL, you lose.

'Cuz you Googled what St. Palin and her cronies use to justify slaying wolf populations?

Is her opposition to protections for Polar Bears and Beluga whales also about protecting moose populations?

I do really have to ask because I'm truly not sure you understand. You do realize that you made all that shit up, right? Like, it's not real? It never happened? It's fiction?

Does any of that sink in?

The permits are issued on need to thin basis, and the aerial is done so it can be accomplished in one day over vast territories that are essentially the size of the state of Idaho if my guesstimate is on scale today... check the map in the link above.

Which is entirely true, but doesn't answer the substance of my critique of her as a hunter. If you have to use choppers to kill anything, it's effective and productive time-wise, but it's not something a hunter would use because it affords an uneven advantage. It's basically the same reason why inviting paraplegics, even those in the special olympics or murderball champs, to fistfights just seems crass: sure they can technically provide sport, but how well can they really fight back? A good hunter excels precisely because he gives his prey that fighting chance and still bags them.

'Cuz you Googled what St. Palin and her cronies use to justify slaying wolf populations?

Is her opposition to protections for Polar Bears and Beluga whales also about protecting moose populations?

Who is going to be best at measuring the Polar Bear populations? The ADFG or some Greenpeace group in San Diego or somewhere else?

As to the cook inlet belugas, what good do you think will happen by designating the entire area a critical habitat region for belugas? How many native American Inuit populations will suffer if the Feds com in there claiming they don't have the right to sustenance harvesting anymore? You expect them to pack up, move to California and gets jobs as clerks at the local Quik-Stop-n-Gas? Or maybe you just like belugas more than you like natives? Belugas herds that are said to be growing, not declining in popultion already without the designation.

I do really have to ask because I'm truly not sure you understand. You do realize that you made all that shit up, right? Like, it's not real? It never happened? It's fiction?

Does any of that sink in?

Of course the story was fiction, but the fiction context was based on the anticipated achievement of the objectives that McCain gave to Palin.

Which is entirely true, but doesn't answer the substance of my critique of her as a hunter. If you have to use choppers to kill anything, it's effective and productive time-wise, but it's not something a hunter would use because it affords an uneven advantage. It's basically the same reason why inviting paraplegics, even those in the special olympics or murderball champs, to fistfights just seems crass: sure they can technically provide sport, but how well can they really fight back? A good hunter excels precisely because he gives his prey that fighting chance and still bags them.

If that was the only method of hunting that Sarah Palin used, then you would have a point. It's not, thus your point is moot. Hunting wolves to thin the packs are accomplishing a needed task, not 'sport' in and of itself. But I'm not going to pretend that some people don't like doing it. I'm sure some of them do.

On the other hand, a sustenance hunter isn't there for sport anyhow, it's to feed the kids. (not that the Palins fall in that group, but the Inuit do)

Of course the story was fiction, but the fiction context was based on the anticipated achievement of the objectives that McCain gave to Palin.


yeah, see, there's your problem right there. In two months, Palin will be back in Alaska, another "also ran" and a political dead end.

yeah, see, there's your problem right there. In two months, Palin will be back in Alaska, another "also ran" and a political dead end.

Not to mention Margaret Atwood all ready wrote out a scenario of what a Palin Presidency would look like.

yeah, see, there's your problem right there. In two months, Palin will be back in Alaska, another "also ran" and a political dead end.

Then you don't have anything to worry about, do you.

Then you don't have anything to worry about, do you.

as long as people like McCain and Palin continue to make grabs at the reins of power, I have a lot to worry about.

As does every intelligent, freedom loving person in the country.

as long as people like McCain and Palin continue to make grabs at the reins of power, I have a lot to worry about.

As does every intelligent, freedom loving person in the country.

Says a whole lot about who really hates freedom doesn't it?

Says a whole lot about who really hates freedom doesn't it?

Shows a whole lot about spreading propaganda aggrandizement and hyperbole.

Shows a whole lot about spreading propaganda aggrandizement and hyperbole.

ooooh someone got a word a day calender.

Unfortunately for you...what I said was true. It's up to you to come to grips with the fact that you support politicians that specifically, explicitly stated that they are in favor of restricting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

I have no such problem.

ooooh someone got a word a day calender.

Unfortunately for you...what I said was true. It's up to you to come to grips with the fact that you support politicians that specifically, explicitly stated that they are in favor of restricting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

I have no such problem.

I like my gun, I like my religion, I like my freedom of speech. Which freedom did you have in mind?

I like my gun, I like my religion, I like my freedom of speech. Which freedom did you have in mind?

how sad that you think that this is the sum scope of your rights. You didn't even fully address the first two amendments.

And how pathetic it is that you seem to only be concerned about events that affect you directly.

I like my gun, I like my religion, I like my freedom of speech. Which freedom did you have in mind?

The freedom to recognize homosexuals as human beings and that as such they can marry and adopt children.

The freedom to recognize that women are just as good as men in economic and social matters, and are in most cases the final arbiter to what happens to their own bodies.

The freedom to recognize that there is a Constitutional separation between church and state and that religion should not drastically influence national policies on health, education or foreign affairs. If at all.

The freedom to recognize that Trickle Down Economics is not working and that unregulated, unrestricted Free Market Capitalism is just as horrible as unrestricted socialism.

So on and so forth.

Who is going to be best at measuring the Polar Bear populations? The ADFG or some Greenpeace group in San Diego or somewhere else?

What about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjuction with the ADFG and other knowledgeable entities? link (http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A0IJ)

Don't try to make us believe Palin's actually concerned about the polar bear populations, when she has made publicly clear she only cares about protections that might hurt drilling.

As to the cook inlet belugas, what good do you think will happen by designating the entire area a critical habitat region for belugas? How many native American Inuit populations will suffer if the Feds com in there claiming they don't have the right to sustenance harvesting anymore? You expect them to pack up, move to California and gets jobs as clerks at the local Quik-Stop-n-Gas? Or maybe you just like belugas more than you like natives? Belugas herds that are said to be growing, not declining in popultion already without the designation.

Well, at least here you give up all pretense of caring about the threatened species and try to make a weak-ass jobs argument instead. The science is sound. link (http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov&v%3afile=viv_1023%4024%3asZwdBf&v%3astate=root%7cN224&opener=full-window&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fws.gov%2fpolicy%2flibrary%2f99fr56297.pdf&rid=Ndoc31&v%3aframe=redirect&rsource=firstgov-msn&v%3astate=root%7cN224&rrank=0&)

As the Defenders of Wildlife explain, the issue for St. Palin is big oil:

Alaska's Cook Inlet beluga whales are a unique group of white whales whose numbers have dramatically declined in the past two decades due to pressures ranging from pollution to increased ship traffic. Governor Palin opposes the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whales, citing the listing as a threat to oil and gas development, despite their genetic uniqueness and the fact that their numbers have decreased from 1,300 in the 1980s to about 350 today.


And, going back to the wolf shooting, it is far from well-supported by Alaskans. To the contrary, they have twice voted to ban it and a third measure is in the works. linky (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8851174)

how sad that you think that this is the sum scope of your rights. You didn't even fully address the first two amendments.

And how pathetic it is that you seem to only be concerned about events that affect you directly.

Now THAT is funny. That's the entire Democratic party vote reasoning for the public enticement. Vote whats good for YOU, what we can do for YOU, decide what will serve YOU best. yadda yadda yadda. Like I'm the end all of existence, like even if it hurts the rest of the country and our principles, but I'll make out with the deal, I should vote that way...


*suspects the democratic party insiders group will send Neo Art a private message telling him to get off that track, cause that's their primary weapon*

Now THAT is funny. That's the entire Democratic party vote reasoning for the public enticement. Vote whats good for YOU, what we can do for YOU, decide what will serve YOU best.

Yeah, unlike Republicans, with that whole "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

No....wait.

yadda yadda yadda. Like I'm the end all of existence, like even if it hurts the rest of the country and our principles, but I'll make out with the deal, I should vote that way...*

you know what I find amusing? The ability for right wingers to talk out of both sides of their mouths at once. You literally have half the GOP screaming about how the Democrats are the "feel good about yourself" party, who only do things for themselves, and only vote for democrats out of their own self interest, just to help themselves, while at the same time screaming "OBAMA IS GOING TO RAISE TAXES! DON'T YOU FUCKING HEAR ME? HE'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR MOTHER FUCKING MONEY! HE WANTS YOUR MONEY!!!!!"

Only a true republican can simultaneously claim that DEMOCRATS are the ones who are about only voting for self interest and not the interests of the nation as a whole, and yet attack democrats for wanting to raise taxes.

you know what I find amusing? The ability for right wingers to talk out of both sides of their mouths at once. You literally have half the GOP screaming about how the Democrats are the "feel good about yourself" party, who only do things for themselves, and only vote for democrats out of their own self interest, just to help themselves, while at the same time screaming "OBAMA IS GOING TO RAISE TAXES! DON'T YOU FUCKING HEAR ME? HE'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR MOTHER FUCKING MONEY! HE WANTS YOUR MONEY!!!!!"

Only a true republican can simultaneously claim that DEMOCRATS are the ones who are about only voting for self interest and not the interests of the nation as a whole, and yet attack democrats for wanting to raise taxes.

And yet they seem not to notice when the taxes are raised anyways to bail out failing companies like AIG. Funny innit?

The freedom to recognize homosexuals as human beings and that as such they can marry and adopt children.

Where is that in the constitution?Did Jefferson put that in there when Madison wasn't looking?

The freedom to recognize that women are just as good as men in economic and social matters, Agreed, and that's not being hindered by McCain and Palin and are in most cases the final arbiter to what happens to their own bodies.
Freedom to do what? Illicit drugs? Drunk driving? Intentionally spread infectious and deadly diseases to the general public? What man, freedom to choose what?

The freedom to recognize that there is a Constitutional separation between church and state and that religion should not drastically influence national policies on health, education or foreign affairs. If at all.

Really, is that really what the Constitution says about religion. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage where it says that, cause boy, I don't recall seeing that anywhere in there nor in any of the forefather writings...

The freedom to recognize that Trickle Down Economics is not working and that unregulated, unrestricted Free Market Capitalism is just as horrible as unrestricted socialism.

Okay, now I just have to ask you, after all the other stuff you found that I never found in it before, and then this, I suspect that perhaps you are thinking of some foreign to me Constitution, and here I was thinking of the US constitution all this time. My mistake I'm sure.

Where is that in the constitution?Did Jefferson put that in there when Madison wasn't looking?

Wait, Jefferson? Do you actually know who wrote the constitution?

Really, is that really what the Constitution says about religion. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage where it says that, cause boy, I don't recall seeing that anywhere in there nor in any of the forefather writings...

The fact that you haven't seen something isn't a very good indication that it doesn't exist.

But I would start with the Federalist Papers.

I suspect that perhaps you are thinking of some foreign to me Constitution, and here I was thinking of the US constitution all this time.

Judging by your demonstrative grasp of US law, I'd say the US constitution is pretty foreign to you.

Agreed, and that's not being hindered by McCain and Palin
riiiiiiight.
When McCain voted against breast cancer research, voted against abortion rights and abstained from voting on pay equality legislation but publicly stated he was against it anyway; all this meant he wasn't hindering "The freedom to recognize that women are just as good as men in economic and social matters"?
So, if not hindering, what was he doing then?

riiiiiiight.
When McCain voted against breast cancer research, voted against bortion rights and abstained from voting on pay equality legislation but publicly stated he was against it anyway; all this meant he wasn't hindering "The freedom to recognize that women are just as good as men in economic and social matters"?
So, if not hindering, what was he doing then?

Washing his hands of the matter and letting the rabble deal with it as they saw fit just as Pontius Palin- er Pilate did with Jesus?"

What about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjuction with the ADFG and other knowledgeable entities? link (http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A0IJ)

Don't try to make us believe Palin's actually concerned about the polar bear populations, when she has made publicly clear she only cares about protections that might hurt drilling.


Well, at least here you give up all pretense of caring about the threatened species and try to make a weak-ass jobs argument instead. The science is sound. link (http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov&v%3afile=viv_1023%4024%3asZwdBf&v%3astate=root%7cN224&opener=full-window&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fws.gov%2fpolicy%2flibrary%2f99fr56297.pdf&rid=Ndoc31&v%3aframe=redirect&rsource=firstgov-msn&v%3astate=root%7cN224&rrank=0&)

As the Defenders of Wildlife explain, the issue for St. Palin is big oil:

Alaska's Cook Inlet beluga whales are a unique group of white whales whose numbers have dramatically declined in the past two decades due to pressures ranging from pollution to increased ship traffic. Governor Palin opposes the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whales, citing the listing as a threat to oil and gas development, despite their genetic uniqueness and the fact that their numbers have decreased from 1,300 in the 1980s to about 350 today.

And, going back to the wolf shooting, it is far from well-supported by Alaskans. To the contrary, they have twice voted to ban it and a third measure is in the works. linky (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8851174)


I don't have enough time to cover all of this, too many conversations at once and its getting too late. However, I will briefly say that your generic "Palin does it all for drilling" is nothing more than pandering to emotion. There are legitimate differences of opinion on how to satisfactorily safeguard our environment and still harvest its resources, to allow the Inuit to self sustain and the Alaskan to fish and harvest for his livelihood as well. To pretend that the hunter doesn't care about the Polar Bear nor the Beluga is poppycock. Trying to achieve the correct balance is the debate, not, kill it all or save it. You're attempt to present such limited options is either disingenuous or naive.

Wait, Jefferson? Do you actually know who wrote the constitution?

You think it was only one person? Silly boy, of course you don't. You know that Jefferson was out of the country, now don't you? But you should also know that I was specifically showing that I don't think it is in the actual existing constitution and I wanted him to explain how he thought that right would be in there.

The fact that you haven't seen something isn't a very good indication that it doesn't exist.

But I would start with the Federalist Papers.

Really, which one did you have in mind?

Judging by your demonstrative grasp of US law, I'd say the US constitution is pretty foreign to you.

Ah yes, ever the one to snap at a person who walks by the window aren't we.

LOL, you lose.

Eh? St. Palin never fired anybody that disagreed with her? I am shocked.

Who is going to be best at measuring the Polar Bear populations? The ADFG or some Greenpeace group in San Diego or somewhere else?


Actually I would take Defender of Wildlifes opinions over the ADFG anytime any place.

Oh right I forgot St. Palin fights the oil industry. :rolleyes:

Where is that in the constitution?Did Jefferson put that in there when Madison wasn't looking?

So the Constitution ended that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you know that inalienable right thing?


Really, is that really what the Constitution says about religion. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage where it says that, cause boy, I don't recall seeing that anywhere in there nor in any of the forefather writings...


You didn't look that hard.

Let's look at Madison:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Where is that in the constitution?Did Jefferson put that in there when Madison wasn't looking?

While I wouldn't wholly adopt the language used by Gauthier, the general point of those comments are supported by the Constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects such person's life, liberty, or property. Homosexuals are persons and are entitled to the same liberties and other protections as everyone else.

Agreed, and that's not being hindered by McCain and Palin

Bullshit. McCain and Palin oppose the social and economic (and legal) equality of genders on several fronts.

Freedom to do what? Illicit drugs? Drunk driving? Intentionally spread infectious and deadly diseases to the general public? What man, freedom to choose what?

From Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.


Really, is that really what the Constitution says about religion. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage where it says that, cause boy, I don't recall seeing that anywhere in there nor in any of the forefather writings...

The Constitution has two relevant passages concerning religion. The first is Article V, final clause: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The Second is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

As centuries of scholarship and litigation have made clear, one key effect and intent of these clauses were to create a wall of separation between Church and State.

In 1878, for example, the US Supreme Court explained the history of the First Amendment and the involvement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Court then said:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878).

Although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. {EDIT: *snips* examples already provided by TBF]

**this has been a public service announcement ---- WITH GUITAR!**

While I wouldn't wholly adopt the language used by Gauthier,

Then you and I agree.
the general point of those comments are supported by the Constitution. And the other general point of those comments is that they are not supported by the Constitution as clearly as you want to pretend they are which is exactly why you are afraid of the SC getting another conservative judge.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects such person's life, liberty, or property. Homosexuals are persons and are entitled to the same liberties and other protections as everyone else.

And as 'people' they are already covered in the Constitution, thus they are already protected. Only you want to identify new and previously unrecognized rights, which in itself is not a bad thing, else the Constitution would still be only granting rights to male property owners etc.,. But not every perceived right turns out to be a right, or else we wouldn't be obliged to follow our own laws...

Bullshit. McCain and Palin oppose the social and economic (and legal) equality of genders on several fronts. In your opinion, and if you opinion were so self evident, you would have nothing to fear from the courts systematically becoming more 'conservative.'

From Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Bolded that part, just cause.

The Constitution has two relevant passages concerning religion. The first is Article V, final clause: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The Second is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

As centuries of scholarship and litigation have made clear, one key effect and intent of these clauses were to create a wall of separation between Church and State.

In 1878, for example, the US Supreme Court explained the history of the First Amendment and the involvement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Court then said:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878).

Although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. {EDIT: *snips* examples already provided by TBF]

**this has been a public service announcement ---- WITH GUITAR!**


All very nice, thank you, especially the guitar accompaniment. But how exactly that can be translated into; that religion should not drastically influence national policies on health, education or foreign affairs. If at all,
is more than a stretch, seeing as how these same constitution authors who gave us this separation also were the ones that held Protestant services in the Congress Hall on Sundays in such numbers that it would be the largest single church congregation in the United States for decades... Later they would add Catholics too.

But clearly, where that wall is built and of what material, and what it holds back are interpreted differently by different people. You may think it stops ten commandment plaques, but it doesn't stop them all, you make think it stops cross symbols from government crests, but it doesn't stop them all, you may think it stops preachers from being able to exercise their freedom of speech and religion from their pulpits, but that freedom depriving law is only about 54 years old if memory serves... I suggest the wall isn't completely exposed to the light for everyones agreed upon interpretation. If it was, and it was your interpretation, then again, you would have nothing to worry about would you. But you know as well as I do, that the SC rulings are NOT always in agreement with your interpretations.

Eh? St. Palin never fired anybody that disagreed with her? I am shocked.

And that's related to wolf pack thinning how?

...Oh right I forgot St. Palin fights the oil industry. :rolleyes:

More than doubled the taxes they pay in Alaska and ended the back room special deals they had been making previously.

So the Constitution ended that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you know that inalienable right thing? You mean those things granted to us by our creator? I think you are arguing with the wrong guy then, cause the other guy is the one that is saying that God can't be influential in our public enterprises, not me.


You didn't look that hard.

Let's look at Madison:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

And where in there did I find the part that says Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Reverends and religious laypersons lose their right to vote, voice their opinions and attempt to influence public policy the same as his non religious neighbors? Because the only way to stop all religious influence is to deny them the the rights granted to everyone else, if you are supporting the statement I was arguing again, which was, (not) influence national policies on health, education or foreign affairs. If at all.. Where in your quotes did they remove my right to attempt to influence health, education and foreign affairs simply because I'm religious and I preach in a church on Sunday mornings? (figuratively speaking)

More than doubled the taxes they pay in Alaska and ended the back room special deals they had been making previously.

And yet on a national level she opposes that very tax hike for them. Curious no?

And yet on a national level she opposes that very tax hike for them. Curious no?

There is a difference between "windfall" taxes, punishment for our jealousy, and fair and balanced taxes that are evenly and equally distributed year in and year out to give the people their fair share and still allow the big oil companies to profit and grow. Perhaps you can't tell the difference between the two?

There is a difference between "windfall" taxes, punishment for our jealousy, and fair and balanced taxes that are evenly and equally distributed year in and year out to give the people their fair share and still allow the big oil companies to profit and grow. Perhaps you can't tell the difference between the two?

I'm thinking you can't. Palin's tax hike on oil companies was specifically a windwall tax. Claiming that it only costs them $25 to pump the oil she hiked up their taxes on the profits.

I'm thinking you can't. Palin's tax hike on oil companies was specifically a windwall tax.

Nonsense, they weren't paying their fair share before, she corrected the corrupted special deals they had been making before.

Claiming that it only costs them $25 to pump the oil she hiked up their taxes on the profits.
Arguing that they couldn't afford to pay their fair share she argued that they could and they better get used to paying their fair share in the future too. special deals and sex favors for government overseers is coming to an end.

Nonsense, they weren't paying their fair share before, she corrected the corrupted special deals they had been making before.


Arguing that they couldn't afford to pay their fair share she argued that they could and they better get used to paying their fair share in the future too. special deals and sex favors for government overseers is coming to an end.

Paying "their fair share" on profits they earned because of the higher price of oil. Isn't that called a windfall tax?

Paying "their fair share" on profits they earned because of the higher price of oil. Isn't that called a windfall tax?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax

Very specifically, yes.

Paying "their fair share" on profits they earned because of the higher price of oil. Isn't that called a windfall tax?

No, they were being under taxed and not being properly monitored by the government officials charged with their oversight. High profits or low profits is irrelevant, fair rules and responsible oversight and fair taxation was applied to a system that had been broken. Windfall taxes are when you increase already fair taxes just cause you think you can and you think they can afford it.

No, they were being under taxed and not being properly monitored by the government officials charged with their oversight. High profits or low profits is irrelevant, fair rules and responsible oversight and fair taxation was applied to a system that had been broken. Windfall taxes are when you increase already fair taxes just cause you think you can and you think they can afford it.

Which being exactly what she did means we're in total agreement.

Which being exactly what she did means we're in total agreement.

Are you entirely incapable of understanding that the oil companies were being given unfair, backroom, shady deals with special privileges by corrupt government official who were providing the citizens with less than optimal oversight before Palin changed their corrupt deals in Alaska?

What part of criminal activity being stopped is eluding you?

Are you entirely incapable of understanding that the oil companies were being given unfair, backroom, shady deals with special privileges by corrupt government official who were providing the citizens with less than optimal oversight before Palin changed their corrupt deals in Alaska?

What part of criminal activity being stopped is eluding you?

What part of she passed a windfall tax on oil companies for Alaska then attacked Obama for proposing the same is eluding you?

See, I can be patronizing too.

What part of she passed a windfall tax on oil companies for Alaska then attacked Obama for proposing the same is eluding you?

See, I can be patronizing too.

Except you can't get your facts straight apparently.

while palin is being touted as the new sexier obama and an agent of change she is almost a stereotypical republican.

she hired unqualified cronies for big government jobs. she uses her office to settle personal scores. she uses non-governmental email accounts in an effort to make sure that they cant be subpoened. she invokes executive privilige to stop investigations into her actions.

not exactly "change we can believe in"

while palin is being touted as the new sexier obama and an agent of change she is almost a stereotypical republican.

She hired unqualified cronies for big government jobs. She uses her office to settle personal scores. She uses non-governmental email accounts in an effort to make sure that they cant be subpoened. She invokes executive privilige to stop investigations into her actions.

Not exactly "change we can believe in"

sexist!

while palin is being touted as the new sexier obama and an agent of change she is almost a stereotypical republican.

she hired unqualified cronies for big government jobs. she uses her office to settle personal scores. she uses non-governmental email accounts in an effort to make sure that they cant be subpoened. she invokes executive privilige to stop investigations into her actions.

not exactly "change we can believe in"

More like "same ol' shit we've been expecting."

As a non-USAmerican, I just want to say that the whole VP issue is pretty much viewed as a no-brainer outside of the USA.

Obviously, she's totally unqualified for the role. Obviously, Biden is a much better candidate in every way. Just as obviously, the USAmericans will vote for her.

I don't have enough time to cover all of this, too many conversations at once and its getting too late. However, I will briefly say that your generic "Palin does it all for drilling" is nothing more than pandering to emotion. There are legitimate differences of opinion on how to satisfactorily safeguard our environment and still harvest its resources, to allow the Inuit to self sustain and the Alaskan to fish and harvest for his livelihood as well. To pretend that the hunter doesn't care about the Polar Bear nor the Beluga is poppycock. Trying to achieve the correct balance is the debate, not, kill it all or save it. You're attempt to present such limited options is either disingenuous or naive.

To pretend that because she is a hunter, Palin must care about the environment and saving species is the real poppycock. There is a pattern of behavior here on every issue. It isn't a pure coincidence that Palin has become identified with the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill."

What is disingenuous is to pretend that Palin's position on protecting the Polar Bear or the Beluga whale have anything to do with legitimate differences about what is best for those species.

Palin herself sued THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION against listing the Polar bear with the primary reason given was it would hamper oil drilling.

To pretend that because she is a hunter, Palin must care about the environment and saving species is the real poppycock. There is a pattern of behavior here on every issue. It isn't a pure coincidence that Palin has become identified with the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill."

What is disingenuous is to pretend that Palin's position on protecting the Polar Bear or the Beluga whale have anything to do with legitimate differences about what is best for those species.

Palin herself sued THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION against listing the Polar bear with the primary reason given was it would hamper oil drilling.

Of course when I said hunters, I didn’t mean Sarah alone, but the huge number of conservation minded hunters who buy licenses and vote with the protection of the environment in mind. What you term protection and what a PETA member believes is protection and what the conservation hunter believes is protection are likely three different things.

As to the bears being place on the threatened list, the Palin Alaskan Administration believes that the decision to list a measurably healthy species as threatened or endangered before it actually happens is simply political and arbitrary. The reason the Polar Bears are listed as threatened now is NOT because of any decline in the current Polar Bear population, but because of computer modeling of future climate change and an unproven long-term anticipated impact of that future climate change on the bears. Normally speaking, Animal control methods count the animals, not the political proponents with a climate change agenda in congress. This time the politicians out counted the bears themselves.


Attorney General Talis Colberg will file a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act, attacking Kempthorne's decision as arbitrary because of what the Palin administration considers speculation about the melting of sea ice and the impact of such melting on polar bears.

The administration says Kempthorne clearly crossed a line.

"We believe that the secretary's decision to list a currently-healthy species is totally unprecedented and was not based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information as required by the Endangered Species Act," Assistant Attorney General Steven Daugherty said. "And that the secretary erred in his unwarranted expansion of the foreseeable future into periods where detailed forecasts of climate change are not possible."
http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8361212

As to the "Drill Baby Drill" stuff, yes, a huge majority of the American people want the US to begin drilling more at home and importing less from overseas, and Sarah Palin is a symbol of that desire.


EDIT: as to suing Bush's administration, you say that like it's a bad thing. You have a problem with Palin suing the Bush administration? You like Bush so much?

Then you and I agree.

To an extent. Fancy that. :eek:

And the other general point of those comments is that they are not supported by the Constitution as clearly as you want to pretend they are which is exactly why you are afraid of the SC getting another conservative judge.

My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old.

And as 'people' they are already covered in the Constitution, thus they are already protected.

Oh, goody, you got the point. Thus, homosexuals already have the right to marry their partners and to adopt.

Glad we could agree so easily.

Only you want to identify new and previously unrecognized rights, which in itself is not a bad thing, else the Constitution would still be only granting rights to male property owners etc.,. But not every perceived right turns out to be a right, or else we wouldn't be obliged to follow our own laws...

Since when is the right to marry a "new" right?

Since when is equal protection under the law a "new" right?

Did Brown v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), identify "new" rights or did they mere recognize consititutional obligations the government had not been fulfilling?

In your opinion, and if you opinion were so self evident, you would have nothing to fear from the courts systematically becoming more 'conservative.'

Um. The question was whether McCain and Palin oppose the social and economic (and legal) equality of genders on several fronts. Your answer is non-responsive.


Bolded that part, just cause.

I have no idea why you bolded that part, but I'm glad to see you beginning to understand the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment.


All very nice, thank you, especially the guitar accompaniment. But how exactly that can be translated into; that religion should not drastically influence national policies on health, education or foreign affairs.
If at all, is more than a stretch,

I've agreed it is a stretch (although I would stress the key word "drastically').

But it is also a stretch to say there is nothing wrong with a politician who publicly argues her political agenda is "God's will" and preaches about whether her constituents are "right with God."

seeing as how these same constitution authors who gave us this separation also were the ones that held Protestant services in the Congress Hall on Sundays in such numbers that it would be the largest single church congregation in the United States for decades... Later they would add Catholics too.

Come now. You know better than to make such a silly argument. The Founders did not always live up to their ideals. We don't judge freedom of speech and association by the standards of the Alien and Sedition Act.

But clearly, where that wall is built and of what material, and what it holds back are interpreted differently by different people. You may think it stops ten commandment plaques, but it doesn't stop them all, you make think it stops cross symbols from government crests, but it doesn't stop them all, you may think it stops preachers from being able to exercise their freedom of speech and religion from their pulpits, but that freedom depriving law is only about 54 years old if memory serves... I suggest the wall isn't completely exposed to the light for everyones agreed upon interpretation. If it was, and it was your interpretation, then again, you would have nothing to worry about would you. But you know as well as I do, that the SC rulings are NOT always in agreement with your interpretations.

And where in there did I find the part that says Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Reverends and religious laypersons lose their right to vote, voice their opinions and attempt to influence public policy the same as his non religious neighbors? Because the only way to stop all religious influence is to deny them the the rights granted to everyone else, if you are supporting the statement I was arguing again, which was, (not) influence national policies on health, education or foreign affairs. If at all.. Where in your quotes did they remove my right to attempt to influence health, education and foreign affairs simply because I'm religious and I preach in a church on Sunday mornings? (figuratively speaking)

I have no idea of about half of what you are rambling on about. Who said that religious people lose their right to vote? What Madison made very clear is that separation of Church and State is best for both Church and State. Of course we will quibble over the precise boundaries of that wall. But that is very different from ignoring the fact that there should be a wall and it should be kept high and wide.

Of course when I said hunters, I didn’t mean Sarah alone, but the huge number of conservation minded hunters who buy licenses and vote with the protection of the environment in mind. What you term protection and what a PETA member believes is protection and what the conservation hunter believes is protection are likely three different things.

As to the bears being place on the threatened list, the Palin Alaskan Administration believes that the decision to list a measurably healthy species as threatened or endangered before it actually happens is simply political and arbitrary. The reason the Polar Bears are listed as threatened now is NOT because of any decline in the current Polar Bear population, but because of computer modeling of future climate change and an unproven long-term anticipated impact of that future climate change on the bears. Normally speaking, Animal control methods count the animals, not the political proponents with a climate change agenda in congress. This time the politicians out counted the bears themselves.


Attorney General Talis Colberg will file a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act, attacking Kempthorne's decision as arbitrary because of what the Palin administration considers speculation about the melting of sea ice and the impact of such melting on polar bears.

The administration says Kempthorne clearly crossed a line.

"We believe that the secretary's decision to list a currently-healthy species is totally unprecedented and was not based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information as required by the Endangered Species Act," Assistant Attorney General Steven Daugherty said. "And that the secretary erred in his unwarranted expansion of the foreseeable future into periods where detailed forecasts of climate change are not possible."
http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8361212

As to the "Drill Baby Drill" stuff, yes, a huge majority of the American people want the US to begin drilling more at home and importing less from overseas, and Sarah Palin is a symbol of that desire.


EDIT: as to suing Bush's administration, you say that like it's a bad thing. You have a problem with Palin suing the Bush administration? You like Bush so much?

Nice try, but are you really going to equate the Bush Administration's recognition that polar bears are endangered with the policies of PETA?

EDIT: Did you read your own article? It makes clear that Palin's objection is NOT based on the science of whether the polar bears are threatened:

Kempthorne says the best available science indicates that the bears' primary habitat, sea ice, was shrinking and likely to further recede.

But the state came to a different conclusion. Initially the Palin administration cited independent science in its opposition to listing the polar bear as "threatened" under federal law. But it later back-tracked and said it actually came to its conclusions based on the same science used by the Interior Department.

Doug Vincent-Lang of the state Department of Fish and Game admitted to during a recent interview that no independent state-sanctioned studies of polar bear populations were performed.

But an analysis of federal and international science led the Palin administration to determine that polar bears did not deserve elevation to "threatened" status.

The lead polar bear scientist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service came to a different conclusion than that of the state, though, and even said he "wished he were wrong."

Scott Schliebe emphasized in a KTUU Channel 2 News interview that no independent state studies were conducted or administered to his team, which oversaw the science that led to the federal government's decision.

He also said he had "no doubt that polar bears are threatened."

"I believe after looking very closely at the data and the information that we've made a thorough and accurate assessment," he said. "I think it's -- I think it's rock solid."

University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner says the administration is on the wrong side of the science and is taking a political risk.

"It's kind of surprising, actually. I thought the Palin administration had agreed that they would work with the federal listing and do what they could to aid the polar bear recovery," he said. "Here with this lawsuit they actually show that either this is political bluster and posturing, or there's something very fundamental that the Palin administration disagrees with about endangered species, and their moral, ethical and legal obligation to protect them."

Sarah Palin is a symbol of that desire.

She's a symbol of a desire, that's for sure! ;) [/sexist]

...
My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old.

What's wrong with that? At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

Oh, goody, you got the point. Thus, homosexuals already have the right to marry their partners and to adopt.

Glad we could agree so easily.

Since when is the right to marry a "new" right?

Since when is equal protection under the law a "new" right?

Did Brown v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), identify "new" rights or did they mere recognize consititutional obligations the government had not been fulfilling?

Not everyone has the right to adopt, completely separate from the homosexual issues you try to associate with them. There are no laws that say, since John doe is a homosexual, John Doe is not allowed to get married. In fact, I don't think even the Census or our tax form even ask us who is homosexual and who is not. There is no socially identifiable trait that identifies homosexual vs., non-homosexual, it's not a minority issue at all. But you are right about Justice Thomas not agreeing with your interpretations, he doesn't even think there should be racial separations between individual rights...
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_go_su_co/thomas_affirmative_action;_ylt=AkwScvfBrqwf86TOsFc2MiRMEP0E)

Um. The question was whether McCain and Palin oppose the social and economic (and legal) equality of genders on several fronts. Your answer is non-responsive.

And since its such bland no-specific question, my answer will remain unspecific.

I have no idea why you bolded that part, but I'm glad to see you beginning to understand the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment.

It's about having babies. About how the right to have babies is a paramount right, and the right to not have babies is paramount. Nothing about being granted the right to adopt babies or kill the babies that are already here...

I've agreed it is a stretch (although I would stress the key word "drastically').

But it is also a stretch to say there is nothing wrong with a politician who publicly argues her political agenda is "God's will" and preaches about whether her constituents are "right with God."

Well, it takes all kinds. I think there was quite a bit of recognition in divine providence with the forefathers, so its not exactly unAmerican to pray not so much that God is on our side but that we are on God's side.

Come now. You know better than to make such a silly argument. The Founders did not always live up to their ideals. We don't judge freedom of speech and association by the standards of the Alien and Sedition Act. My point isn't that they didn't live up to their ideals, but that in this case you misinterpret their ideals if you think they didn't intend to allow public acknowledgment of God in the public square.

I have no idea of about half of what you are rambling on about. Who said that religious people lose their right to vote? What Madison made very clear is that separation of Church and State is best for both Church and State. Of course we will quibble over the precise boundaries of that wall. But that is very different from ignoring the fact that there should be a wall and it should be kept high and wide.

And if the US ever starts saying something like; Only Protestant Christians who attend church at least once a month are allowed to vote or own property or some such other thing, OR if the government says that they will start to build churches of a certain denomination and contribute to that church's funds via the public purse, but until then it seems to me that the wall is standing tall and is as strong as ever. Only you guys want to turn that wall into a hedgerow that grows wider and wider with age. I and others believe that the brick wall that was built before doesn't need to be expanded, it still works.

If he wanted to remove the religious ability to influence the politic of today, he would have to remove their right to vote.

Nice try, but are you really going to equate the Bush Administration's recognition that polar bears are endangered with the policies of PETA?

I never equated the Bush position with PETA, I equated your position with Bush and a third position to PETA.

EDIT: Did you read your own article? It makes clear that Palin's objection is NOT based on the science of whether the polar bears are threatened:

Kempthorne says the best available science indicates that the bears' primary habitat, sea ice, was shrinking and likely to further recede.

But the state came to a different conclusion. Initially the Palin administration cited independent science in its opposition to listing the polar bear as "threatened" under federal law. But it later back-tracked and said it actually came to its conclusions based on the same science used by the Interior Department.

Doug Vincent-Lang of the state Department of Fish and Game admitted to during a recent interview that no independent state-sanctioned studies of polar bear populations were performed.

But an analysis of federal and international science led the Palin administration to determine that polar bears did not deserve elevation to "threatened" status.

The lead polar bear scientist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service came to a different conclusion than that of the state, though, and even said he "wished he were wrong."

Scott Schliebe emphasized in a KTUU Channel 2 News interview that no independent state studies were conducted or administered to his team, which oversaw the science that led to the federal government's decision.

He also said he had "no doubt that polar bears are threatened."

"I believe after looking very closely at the data and the information that we've made a thorough and accurate assessment," he said. "I think it's -- I think it's rock solid."

University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner says the administration is on the wrong side of the science and is taking a political risk.

"It's kind of surprising, actually. I thought the Palin administration had agreed that they would work with the federal listing and do what they could to aid the polar bear recovery," he said. "Here with this lawsuit they actually show that either this is political bluster and posturing, or there's something very fundamental that the Palin administration disagrees with about endangered species, and their moral, ethical and legal obligation to protect them."



I agree that they disagree with each other, I linked the source because it's reliable, not because everyone in it agrees with me.

I do always love hearing how secular marriage is a special right. I think a judge married my parents.

I do always love hearing how secular marriage is a special right. I think a judge married my parents.

But...it's not. Loving v Virginia, right?

But...it's not. Loving v Virginia, right?

Well you know you can't trust those activist judges. Always legislating from the bench. This law is unconstitutional and that law isn't kosher and blah blah. HANG 'EM ALL!

If not for Loving vs. Virginia Obama's parents would of never married, and he wouldn't of been born. Then Hillary would of won the nomination! DAMN YOU EVIL JUDGES!

And if the US starts saying something like; Only Protestant Christians who attend church at least once a month are allowed to vote or own property or some such other thing, OR if they government says that they will start to build churches of a certain denomination and contribute to that churches fund via the public purse, then it seems to me that the wall is standing tall and is as strong as ever.


Ok so you have a rudimentary understanding of the clause.

Only you guys want to turn that wall into a hedgerow that grows wider and wider with age. I and other believe that the brick wall that was built before doesn't need to be expanded, it still works.


Ok maybe not.

If he wanted to remove the religious ability to influence the politic of today, he would have to remove their right to vote.

Nope you don't.

All I'm completely sure is that this is one of the dirtiest elections I've ever seen. And the bullshit spouted. (On both sides but with more coming from the Right AS USUAL)

All I'm completely sure is that this is one of the dirtiest elections I've ever seen. And the bullshit spouted. (On both sides but with more coming from the Right AS USUAL)

No no no. This may be the dirtiest, sleeziest election in some time, but its not even close to whos doing it. This is the nicest I have ever seen the democrats be, to ANYBODY.

Like I said, its the dirtiest election with the most lies ever told, but its one side, and one side alone that is making it this bad.

Nope you don't.

Now, now... don't rush to judgement - maybe Baldy has a point. He seems to be arguing that 'religious' people are incapable of voting without bias... in which case they'd need some kind of nannystate protection to help them.

What's wrong with that?

You need someone to explain to you what's wrong with a judge ignoring the Constitution and precedent to impose a political agenda? Seriously?

At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

(a) Many of those precedents effectively ignored the Constitution.
(b) The Constitution was amended in both cases, thus rendering precedent moot.

Not everyone has the right to adopt, completely separate from the homosexual issues you try to associate with them.

There is no "right to adopt," so you are correct that not everyone has it. However, everyone does have the right to equal protection under the law. Arbitrarily selecting groups that will be treated differently by the law is a violation of equal protection.

If the government is going to oversee adoptions, it must do so in a manner that preserves equal protection. Denying someone the ability to adopt a child based on the fact that they are homosexual is akin to denying them the ability to get a driver's license on that same criteria. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to live up to the responsibilities associated with the action and everything to do with arbitrary discrimination against a specific group of citizens.

There are no laws that say, since John doe is a homosexual, John Doe is not allowed to get married.

Of course there aren't. Marriage isn't a single person thing. Instead, the law says that, if a couple is composed of two members of the same sex, they cannot get married. In other words, if they are homosexual, they cannot get married.

It's about having babies. About how the right to have babies is a paramount right, and the right to not have babies is paramount. Nothing about being granted the right to adopt babies or kill the babies that are already here...

My point isn't that they didn't live up to their ideals, but that in this case you misinterpret their ideals if you think they didn't intend to allow public acknowledgment of God in the public square.

I think you're misinterpreting TCT if you think he's trying to suggest that one cannot acknowledge God in the public square.

And if the US ever starts saying something like; Only Protestant Christians who attend church at least once a month are allowed to vote or own property or some such other thing, OR if the government says that they will start to build churches of a certain denomination and contribute to that church's funds via the public purse, but until then it seems to me that the wall is standing tall and is as strong as ever.

Ah, I see. So enforcing the precepts of a given religion on everyone is ok so long as you don't actually build an actual church.

Yeah, that's freedom of religion. :rolleyes:

Only you guys want to turn that wall into a hedgerow that grows wider and wider with age. I and others believe that the brick wall that was built before doesn't need to be expanded, it still works.

Maybe it works if you happen to be a member of the dominant religion. It has never fully worked for those who aren't.

If he wanted to remove the religious ability to influence the politic of today, he would have to remove their right to vote.

Again, you're burning a strawman of your own devising. No one is suggesting that the religious cannot influence politics.

The suggestion is that religion should not be enforced upon the public. One need not remove the right to vote to effect that end. I don't know about you, but I can have religious beliefs without seeking to enforce them on others.

Now, now... don't rush to judgement - maybe Baldy has a point. He seems to be arguing that 'religious' people are incapable of voting without bias... in which case they'd need some kind of nannystate protection to help them.

Maybe Baldy is incapable of doing so, but I know that I, for one, am perfectly capable of voting without attempting to enforce my religion on others.

No nannystate for me, kk? =)

I'm sick of both of the two. I'm going Bob Barr, and hoping Zak De La Rocha will run too.

Maybe Baldy is incapable of doing so, but I know that I, for one, am perfectly capable of voting without attempting to enforce my religion on others.

No nannystate for me, kk? =)

Sorry, fair's fair. Baldy says y'all can't be trusted.

Yep the McCain campaign is on to win because they've taken the only thing that Obama had - a public image of being A Guy Who Changes stuff. A real, real shame, but from watching Fox in the UK, they are pushing her as a reformer and all that pish. Due to the fact that 95% (at least) of old people in the US a) vote and b) watch Fox News, Palin is going to win the Republicans the white house.

everyone is giving up way to easily. Look at the state polls, not the national ones. The state ellectoral votes decide who wins. Secondly, McCain's post Palin/post Convention bump is probably still fairly fresh. Wait till polls taken during the last few days of Depression-level financial crisis come out. Also, we still have a month and a half to go. A lot can change in this time. Personally, I think the debates may prove decisive, and Palin will never be a match for Biden in that arena. This isn't over yet, not by a long shot.

What will ensure a McCain victory is if Obama supporters are so convivce that all is lost that they stop donating and stay home on ellection day. What scares me is spineless, defeatist democrats bringing about a self-fullfilling prophecy.

What will ensure a McCain victory is if Obama supporters are so convivce that all is lost that they stop donating and stay home on ellection day. What scares me is spineless, defeatist democrats bringing about a self-fullfilling prophecy. I agree.

You know I read a thing about the average age of people in polls, 67% are all over 45.(The majority of those mid 50s) While only 8% polled on average is the 20 to 30 crowd.

Obama's strong point is the 18-34 crowd currently. (No big suprise since the Republicans usually ignore anyone under 50 in order to get the "Old Fundi Vote") So if the polls never really reach this group Obama might have a larger lead than the polls list.

You know if the Republicans continue only trying to appeal to the Older ages they are eventually going to wipe themselves out when their core followers die.

I agree.

You know I read a thing about the average age of people in polls, 67% are all over 45.(The majority of those mid 50s) While only 8% polled on average is the 20 to 30 crowd.

Obama's strong point is the 18-34 crowd currently. (No big suprise since the Republicans usually ignore anyone under 50 in order to get the "Old Fundi Vote") So if the polls never really reach this group Obama might have a larger lead than the polls list.

You know if the Republicans continue only trying to appeal to the Older ages they are eventually going to wipe themselves out when their core followers die.

You're forgetting that, for all their crowing about sex, fundies tend to reproduce like rabbits.

You're forgetting that, for all their crowing about sex, fundies tend to reproduce like rabbits.

Not directly. Their teenage children are only taught abstinence and thus experiment with sex in secret and the girl ends up pregnant. That's how Fundies reproduce.

You're forgetting that, for all their crowing about sex, fundies tend to reproduce like rabbits.

you forgeting thats likely their reason for teaching abstinence only. so they can attempt to out reproduce other voting blocks.

What's wrong with that? At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

I'm going to let this stand here in obvious proof that you don't know a thing about the US Constitution

I'm going to let this stand here in obvious proof that you don't know a thing about the US Constitution

You do have to admit the screen name is truth in advertising though.

Maybe Baldy is incapable of doing so, but I know that I, for one, am perfectly capable of voting without attempting to enforce my religion on others.


Does the time you kept trying to stab me with your cross count? :p

No nannystate for me, kk? =)

Ok but will you still be my nanny? :D

Balderdash71964 said:
What's wrong with that? At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

I'm going to let this stand here in obvious proof that you don't know a thing about the US Constitution

What, you think women and black men were allowed to vote for the first century of American history? Somehow you think my simple statement of fact is erroneous? Well lets see if you are right, shall we?

Article. IV. Section 2
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

Not until 1865 did the 13th amendment overturned this…And in 1870 for the first time black ex-slaves were recognized with the right to vote…

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And it was 1920 before women (white or black etc.,) were granted the right to vote via amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Well gee Neo Art, it looks like I'm right and you must be thinking of something else? Because honestly, you're just embarrassing yourself with these bizarre objections to simple facts of history...

US Constitution Link (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec4)

*SNIP*

US Constitution Link (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec4)

I admit I had to re-read the original exchange.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe View Post
...
My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old.

What's wrong with that? At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

I have to agree with Neo as you seem to read the document but you really don't understand it.....

I admit I had to re-read the original exchange.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe View Post
...
My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old.

I have to agree with Neo as you seem to read the document but you really don't understand it.....

Well if I don't then neither does Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. But you go ahead and side with Neo and TCT, I'll stick with the justices thank you very much.

Well if I don't then neither does Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. But you go ahead and side with Neo and TCT, I'll stick with the justices thank you very much.

Scalia??? The self proclaimed expert on the Constitution who said "The Founding Fathers never used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'"

Roberts??? Mr. "stare decisis" It seems he forgot about that.

Alito??? The extreme right ideologue.

Thomas???????!?!?!?!??!?!?! :D :D :D The fact you mention him really shows you don't understand the Constitution. You and Thomas would get along great!

What, you think women and black men were allowed to vote for the first century of American history? Somehow you think my simple statement of fact is erroneous? Well lets see if you are right, shall we?

Article. IV. Section 2
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

Not until 1865 did the 13th amendment overturned this…And in 1870 for the first time black ex-slaves were recognized with the right to vote…

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And it was 1920 before women (white or black etc.,) were granted the right to vote via amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Well gee Neo Art, it looks like I'm right and you must be thinking of something else? Because honestly, you're just embarrassing yourself with these bizarre objections to simple facts of history...

US Constitution Link (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec4)

Wrong, sir, wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_during_the_American_Revolution#Original_New_Jersey_State_Constitution

In 1776, the first New Jersey State Constitution was drafted. It was written during the period of the Revolutionary War, and was designed to create a basic framework for the state government. The constitution recognized the right of suffrage for women and black men who met certain property requirements. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 gives the vote to "all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money." This included blacks, spinsters, and widows. (Married women could not own property under the common law.) It had been held that this was an accident of hasty drafting: the British were at Staten Island when the constitution was proclaimed. The Constitution declares itself temporary, and it was to be void if there was reconciliation with Great Britain.[8]

Both sides in elections mocked the other for relying on "petticoat electors" and each accused the other of letting unqualified women (including married women) vote. A Federalist legislature passed a voting rights act which applied only to those counties where the Federalists were strong. A Democratic legislature extended it to the entire state. In 1807, as a side-effect of a reconciliation within the Democratic Party, the legislature reinterpreted the constitution (which had been an ordinary act of the Provincial Congress) to mean universal white male suffrage, with no property requirement. However, they disenfranchised paupers, to suppress the Irish vote.

Good post Kyronea, I love arguments about the Constitution -- always fun. I am more interested in where we as a country are going to go rather than what some people a few hundred years ago though -- they might have been great men but they also owned slaves, believed in owning land to be a pre-requisite for voting rights, etc. We as a county have to live forward IMO, and while referring to our past is worthwhile arguing "intent" and such to justify the issues that face the nation today is silly.

On the subject of the original thread header, personally I think choosing Palin has a 75% chance of biting McCain in the butt -- pregnant un-wed teenage daughter, ethics investigation, and a habit of making un-true statements (eg. she was against the "bridge to nowhere"/didn't take the money for it). Also, there is always the chance that people will take issue with McCain choosing her solely because she is a woman and not because she is qualified to be President if something happens to McCain (a strong possibility since he is old and has health issues).

Meanwhile the entire economy takes a dump and suddenly the whole "Republicans f'd up the country" thing comes back since things are so bad even middle-America is getting an education in the terms "mortgage crisis" and "deregulation". Who knows, people might actually equate 8 years of one party rule and their choices to choose certain policies with the current economic meltdown and decide that Obama is the way to go. It's always fun to argue about the Constitution, ethics, and religion but it all loses it's appeal when immediate issues such as economics and bread being on the table raise their heads.

Then again I still think it's odd that McCain is able to even get this much support by playing the "I'm not a Republican" strategy. Baffles the hell out of me but whatever. At least it is an interesting show for a Social Sciences grad like me to watch.

Personally I think choosing Palin has a 75% chance of biting McCain in the butt -- pregnant un-wed teenage daughter, ethics investigation, and a habit of making un-true statements (eg. she was against the "bridge to nowhere"/didn't take the money for it). Also, there is always the chance that people will take issue with McCain choosing her solely because she is a woman and not because she is qualified to be President if something happens to McCain (a strong possibility since he is old and has health issues).

Meanwhile the entire economy takes a dump and suddenly the whole "Republicans f'd up the country" thing comes back since things are so bad even middle-America is getting an education in the terms "mortgage crisis" and "deregulation". Who knows, people might actually equate 8 years of one party rule and their choices to choose certain policies with the current economic meltdown and decide that Obama is the way to go.

Then again I still think it's odd that McCain is able to even get this much support by playing the "I'm not a Republican" strategy. Baffles the hell out of me but whatever. At least it is an interesting show for a Social Sciences grad like me to watch.
It's a statement on where we stand as a country. We have a definitive right-wing shift compared to most other democracies, and as such a figure like McCain is able to garner far more support than he would otherwise.

It's really not surprising that we have that sort of shift, either, and it's not difficult to see why. During the Cold War, we were involved in a serious conflict of interest. Two superpowers, both vying for control over the world's economy and resources, and with some ideological differences. These differences were played up as much as possible; anything that made the United States different from the Soviet Union was promoted as much as possible. That's why we had things like "Under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and McCarthyism.

Unfortunately, those effects aren't going to dissipate immediately. They will remain for at least another couple generations until we finally shake off Cold War stigmas on anything left-wing, and stop being so ridiculously jingoistic. It will happen over time, though not soon enough to help Obama much.

They will remain for at least another couple generations until we finally shake off Cold War stigmas on anything left-wing, and stop being so ridiculously jingoistic. It will happen over time, though not soon enough to help Obama much.
U.S.A will probably be pushed towards the centre in an attempt to be differentiated from a resurgent religious, right-wing, nationalist Russia :p.

To use a hunting metaphor, McCain stepped in a bear trap with Palin. Her past is coming back to haunt her, and the indictment will make a lovely October Surprise.

Is it?

The current president was an alcohol addict, coke sniffer, went bankrupt, etc. As a young man he looked as a complete loser. He was lucky that his family was rich.

For me, having a past seems giving candidates an advantage.

Is it?

The current president was an alcohol addict, coke sniffer, went bankrupt, etc. As a young man he looked as a complete loser. He was lucky that his family was rich.

And as a President he was also a complete loser. Your point?

My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old.

What's wrong with that? At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

I'm going to let this stand here in obvious proof that you don't know a thing about the US Constitution

What, you think women and black men were allowed to vote for the first century of American history? Somehow you think my simple statement of fact is erroneous? Well lets see if you are right, shall we?

Article. IV. Section 2
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

Not until 1865 did the 13th amendment overturned this…And in 1870 for the first time black ex-slaves were recognized with the right to vote…

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And it was 1920 before women (white or black etc.,) were granted the right to vote via amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Well gee Neo Art, it looks like I'm right and you must be thinking of something else? Because honestly, you're just embarrassing yourself with these bizarre objections to simple facts of history...

US Constitution Link (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec4)

Well if I don't then neither does Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. But you go ahead and side with Neo and TCT, I'll stick with the justices thank you very much.

I'll come back to the rest of our dispute later, but this inanity deserves special mention.

First, my complaint was about judges that ignore the Constitution AND the weight of precedent in favor of their political agenda. Your "what's wrong with that?" tells us all we need to know about your devotion to our Constitution. It is merely a scrap of paper that sometimes get in the way of your right-wing agenda.

Second, as was pointed out by Neo and Dem, your examples are not cases of centuries of precedent overturned by judicial decisions. Rather they are flaws in the original Constitution that had to be corrected by Amendments. By responding as you did to Neo, you only dug yourself a deeper hole and your snideness about it should only add to your embarassment.

Third, on what issue exactly are you saying Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have voted together in a way that is inconsistent with anything I have said about the Constitution?

Fourth, you do realize that (although it is better than nothing) having only 4 of 9 Justices agree with you means your side loses?

What's wrong with that? At one time, slavery and women not being allowed to vote had a century of precedents behind them too.

You see nothing wrong with a Justice ignoring the Constitution AND a century or more of precedents in order to impose a political agenda? Apparently you either don't know why we have a Constitution or you don't agree with it.


Not everyone has the right to adopt, completely separate from the homosexual issues you try to associate with them. There are no laws that say, since John doe is a homosexual, John Doe is not allowed to get married. In fact, I don't think even the Census or our tax form even ask us who is homosexual and who is not. There is no socially identifiable trait that identifies homosexual vs., non-homosexual, it's not a minority issue at all.

My, my, aren't we being disingenuous?

A law that singles out homosexuals and says they cannot adopt denies them equal protection under the law. Duh.

A law that denies same-sex marriage violates both the Equal Protection Clause (by discriminating on the grounds of gender) and the Due Process Clause (by denying a fundamental liberty).

Your argument that homosexuals are allowed to marry people other than their partners and therefore aren't being discriminated against is the same argument that said anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional because they didn't deny anyone the right to marry within their own race. That argument, like yours, was both wrong and morally offensive.

And liberty and equality aren't minority issues. They are issues we should all care about.

But you are right about Justice Thomas not agreeing with your interpretations, he doesn't even think there should be racial separations between individual rights...
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_go_su_co/thomas_affirmative_action;_ylt=AkwScvfBrqwf86TOsFc2MiRMEP0E)

Are you trying to convince me that Thomas is an idiot? 'Cuz I knew that.


And since its such bland no-specific question, my answer will remain unspecific.

*sigh*

Fine. McCain and Palin are against the social, economic, and legal equality of women BECAUSE (among other reasons):


They would deny women the right to control their own bodies,

They are against equal pay for equal work,

They oppose hate crime laws,

They oppose effective sex-education programs,

They have opposed attempts to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives,

They oppose affirmative action


Now, can you document from their records how McCain and Palin have tried to advance the equality of women?


It's about having babies. About how the right to have babies is a paramount right, and the right to not have babies is paramount. Nothing about being granted the right to adopt babies or kill the babies that are already here...

Um. You are mangling one sentence out of a paragraph I quoted which is from an entire Supreme Court opinion on why their is a right to abortion. Even that one sentence said the right not to BEAR children is paramount. To "bear" a child is to give birth to one, not just to conceive of one.

Regardless, you are far afield of the original point, which is that the Constitution protects substantive liberties. Among those liberties is the right to abortion. Here is another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Other than you personal views on abortion conflicting with the Constitution, to what part of the above do you object?


Well, it takes all kinds. I think there was quite a bit of recognition in divine providence with the forefathers, so its not exactly unAmerican to pray not so much that God is on our side but that we are on God's side.

Which isn't what I objected to at all. I said:

But it is also a stretch to say there is nothing wrong with a politician who publicly argues her political agenda is "God's will" and preaches about whether her constituents are "right with God."

My point isn't that they didn't live up to their ideals, but that in this case you misinterpret their ideals if you think they didn't intend to allow public acknowledgment of God in the public square.

Um. MY point was that the Founders didn't always live up to their ideals. If your point is that the behavior you cited (holding "Protestant services in the Congress Hall on Sundays in such numbers that it would be the largest single church congregation in the United States for decades... Later they would add Catholics too.") and I cited (the Alien and Sedition Act) are consistent with the Founders ideals, then you are sadly mistaken.

And if the US ever starts saying something like; Only Protestant Christians who attend church at least once a month are allowed to vote or own property or some such other thing, OR if the government says that they will start to build churches of a certain denomination and contribute to that church's funds via the public purse, but until then it seems to me that the wall is standing tall and is as strong as ever. Only you guys want to turn that wall into a hedgerow that grows wider and wider with age. I and others believe that the brick wall that was built before doesn't need to be expanded, it still works.

You appear to have an ridiculously narrow idea of what violates the separation of Church and State. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Again, what in the above do you think is wrong?

Or to put it another way, which of the things the Court in Everson said violates the Establishment Clause do you think should be allowed?

I'll come back to the rest of our dispute later, but this inanity deserves special mention.

First, my complaint was about judges that ignore the Constitution AND the weight of precedent in favor of their political agenda. Your "what's wrong with that?" tells us all we need to know about your devotion to our Constitution. It is merely a scrap of paper that sometimes get in the way of your right-wing agenda.

Second, as was pointed out by Neo and Dem, your examples are not cases of centuries of precedent overturned by judicial decisions. Rather they are flaws in the original Constitution that had to be corrected by Amendments. By responding as you did to Neo, you only dug yourself a deeper hole and your snideness about it should only add to your embarassment.

Third, on what issue exactly are you saying Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have voted together in a way that is inconsistent with anything I have said about the Constitution?

Fourth, you do realize that (although it is better than nothing) having only 4 of 9 Justices agree with you means your side loses?

You can pretend that your accusations against the 'other' side not having the proper respect for precedent is any more valid than the Conservatives complaints of liberal judges litigating from the bench, neither your complain nor theirs is more valid than the other. Your statement is and was opinion that is not fact. I duly ignored the irrelevant implication accusation that only your side has reverence for the constitution and focused instead only on the final result of your conclusion, which is that you disagree with their rulings/findings. So I jumped straight to that, the constitution does need to be changed from time to time, but ignoring precedent is an accusation both sides can use against the other and neither is worth refuting IMO.

You think Scalia's reasonings are what? Based on ignorance, based on insanity, conjecture of fantasy? If so, I'll give you your tinfoil hat and you're free to proceed without my hindrance because I'll recognize it for what it is, paranoid delusion. But if you are capable of recognizing that you simply came to a different conclusion than judges like Scalia do and you can clearly see that his opinions are based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution and how it should be interpreted, even though you disagree with it, then we have something to talk about. If so, than stop with the pretentious hyperbole that somehow your side interprets the constitution patriotically and the other side simply has a religious agenda that they want to implement, damn the methodology...

Your third point is mind boggling, I don't understand it. You said: My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old. Clearly it is YOUR argument that they disagree with you on the issues that they have voted on so how can you ask me to identify your issues for you when you want me to explain how Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have voted together in a way that is inconsistent with anything I have said about the Constitution?. I don't know, you have to tell us.

Your fourth point, you do realize that (although it is better than nothing) having only 4 of 9 Justices agree with you means your side loses, yes, you and I both recognize this, and this is why you stated you were against another conservative President for fear that they would place a fifth that is more conservative than Kennedy I assume, and I on the other hand would look forward to the event.

I never equated the Bush position with PETA, I equated your position with Bush and a third position to PETA.

I agree that they disagree with each other, I linked the source because it's reliable, not because everyone in it agrees with me.

The relevant points which you seem to be obviously avoiding are:


Even the BUSH ADMINISTRATION believes the polar bears are threatened -- let alone scientific and environmental groups
The science, which I already cited and which is referred to in your article, shows the polar bears are threatened
As your article admits, the Palin Administration has no scientific basis to oppose protection of the polar bear
The reason the Palin Administration opposes protection of the polar bear has nothing to do with a dispute about what is best for the polar bear
The true reason the Palin Administration opposes protection of the polar bear is that it may interfere with oil drilling and other "resource" usage

You can pretend that your accusations against the 'other' side not having the proper respect for precedent is any more valid than the Conservatives complaints of liberal judges litigating from the bench, neither your complain nor theirs is more valid than the other. Your statement is and was opinion that is not fact. I duly ignored the irrelevant implication accusation that only your side has reverence for the constitution and focused instead only on the final result of your conclusion, which is that you disagree with their rulings/findings. So I jumped straight to that, the constitution does need to be changed from time to time, but ignoring precedent is an accusation both sides can use against the other and neither is worth refuting IMO.

You think Scalia's reasonings are what? Based on ignorance, based on insanity, conjecture of fantasy? If so, I'll give you your tinfoil hat and you're free to proceed without my hindrance because I'll recognize it for what it is, paranoid delusion. But if you are capable of recognizing that you simply came to a different conclusion than judges like Scalia do and you can clearly see that his opinions are based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution and how it should be interpreted, even though you disagree with it, then we have something to talk about. If so, than stop with the pretentious hyperbole that somehow your side interprets the constitution patriotically and the other side simply has a religious agenda that they want to implement, damn the methodology...

Your third point is mind boggling, I don't understand it. You said: My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old. Clearly it is YOUR argument that they disagree with you on the issues that they have voted on so how can you ask me to identify your issues for you when you want me to explain how Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have voted together in a way that is inconsistent with anything I have said about the Constitution?. I don't know, you are tell us.

Your fourth point, you do realize that (although it is better than nothing) having only 4 of 9 Justices agree with you means your side loses, yes, you and I both recognize this, and this is why you stated you were against another conservative President for fear that they would place a fifth that is more conservative than Kennedy I assume, and I on the other hand would look forward to the event.


My problem is that I don't believe Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas are making decisions "based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution". I think they're making decisions based on trying to fit The Constitution to their pre-established ideology/religion.

You see nothing wrong with a Justice ignoring the Constitution AND a century or more of precedents in order to impose a political agenda? Apparently you either don't know why we have a Constitution or you don't agree with it.

Pretentious hyperbole. Fine, you and your liberal activists judges who want to litigate from the bench! Get back thee socialist proponent manipulating society for your humanist secularism! :rolleyes:

My, my, aren't we being disingenuous?

A law that singles out homosexuals and says they cannot adopt denies them equal protection under the law. Duh.

A law that denies same-sex marriage violates both the Equal Protection Clause (by discriminating on the grounds of gender) and the Due Process Clause (by denying a fundamental liberty).

Your argument that homosexuals are allowed to marry people other than their partners and therefore aren't being discriminated against is the same argument that said anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional because they didn't deny anyone the right to marry within their own race. That argument, like yours, was both wrong and morally offensive.

And liberty and equality aren't minority issues. They are issues we should all care about.

And when you find that the people re-write their own constitutions to stop the forced alteration of their societies, you think what? You think you're doing good? You think that the homosexuals in those states that have felt the need to change their constitutions will somehow be better off because of your attempt to force them to see society in the same way you do? It would be no different if the Muslims or Mormons were pushing hard and trying to force the states to recognize polygamy marriages, the people would fight back and if the only way of stopping it was to change the constitutions, then they would do so. This isn't simply a homophobic knee jerk response. Society determines why they recognize marriages at all, society tells the government how they want marriages treated and honored or not. If that marriage be polygamous, or monogamous, if it be child producing or simply a business partnership, it doesn't matter.

Are you trying to convince me that Thomas is an idiot? 'Cuz I knew that.

:rolleyes:

Fine. McCain and Palin are against the social, economic, and legal equality of women BECAUSE (among other reasons):


They would deny women the right to control their own bodies,

They are against equal pay for equal work,

They oppose hate crime laws,

They oppose effective sex-education programs,

They have opposed attempts to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives,

They oppose affirmative action


Now, can you document from their records how McCain and Palin have tried to advance the equality of women?
*Freedom to do what? Kill their own offspring?
*No they are not. They're not against women making equal pay in the work force.
*They do not, they disagree that they we need supplemental sentencing guidelines for what are already a crimes.

Your next two are essentially the same *No they are not. You and they simply disagree on the best way to educated for the purposes of sex education. Pretending that your method is somehow unquestionably better or proven to be right, and their is wrong, is just partisan BS.

*lots of people are against affirmative action laws. Some think they are past their usefulness.
Um. You are mangling one sentence out of a paragraph I quoted which is from an entire Supreme Court opinion on why their is a right to abortion. Even that one sentence said the right not to BEAR children is paramount. To "bear" a child is to give birth to one, not just to conceive of one.

Agree with the concept, but once the child is here, its too late to just kill it. You and them argue about when it is 'here'.

Regardless, you are far afield of the original point, which is that the Constitution protects substantive liberties. Among those liberties is the right to abortion. Here is another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Other than you personal views on abortion conflicting with the Constitution, to what part of the above do you object?

Should I look up the opinions of the judges that defended the slave owners rights and privileges and liberties as well? Because those too were over-turnable.

Which isn't what I objected to at all. I said:

You appear to have an ridiculously narrow idea of what violates the separation of Church and State. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

[INDENT]The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Again, what in the above do you think is wrong?

Or to put it another way, which of the things the Court in Everson said violates the Establishment Clause do you think should be allowed?

That's odd, I think he said exactly what I said, only mine was briefer.

My problem is that I don't believe Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas are making decisions "based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution". I think they're making decisions based on trying to fit The Constitution to their pre-established ideology/religion.

I know you feel that way, and that's why I think you wear a conspiracy paranoia tinfoil hat at night.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_inbox_2008

I'll just drop some of these links here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091902806.html

Oh, what's that? I dropped some links? Oops.

I know you feel that way, and that's why I think you wear a conspiracy paranoia tinfoil hat at night.

Scalia thinks that the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist.

You can pretend that your accusations against the 'other' side not having the proper respect for precedent is any more valid than the Conservatives complaints of liberal judges litigating from the bench, neither your complain nor theirs is more valid than the other. Your statement is and was opinion that is not fact. I duly ignored the irrelevant implication accusation that only your side has reverence for the constitution and focused instead only on the final result of your conclusion, which is that you disagree with their rulings/findings. So I jumped straight to that, the constitution does need to be changed from time to time, but ignoring precedent is an accusation both sides can use against the other and neither is worth refuting IMO.

Um. My comments were very specific and well-grounded. Perhaps you don't know Scalia and Thomas very well.

Scalia has publicly stated that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Here (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm) is a definition of stare decisis. In short, it is a respect for precedent. And Thomas's public statements and written opinions confirm that he has little respect for it -- even where precedents are centuries old and repeatedly confirmed.

Similarly, Scalia has little respect for precedent that he doesn't agree with (unless it is convenient for a particular case to pretend to agree with that precedent). Such as the whole line of substantive due process cases I cited from Washington v. Glucksberg. Or even such bedrock cases as Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

So when I criticize Scalia and Thomas for not respecting centuries old precedent, yes, my criticism has some validity.

Aside from that, your comment "what's wrong with that?" was irretreivable stupid -- no matter how much you may wish to cover it up.

EDIT: I also note you appear to be fundamentally confused about the difference between overturning precedent and actually changing the Constitution through amendment.

You think Scalia's reasonings are what? Based on ignorance, based on insanity, conjecture of fantasy? If so, I'll give you your tinfoil hat and you're free to proceed without my hindrance because I'll recognize it for what it is, paranoid delusion. But if you are capable of recognizing that you simply came to a different conclusion than judges like Scalia do and you can clearly see that his opinions are based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution and how it should be interpreted, even though you disagree with it, then we have something to talk about. If so, than stop with the pretentious hyperbole that somehow your side interprets the constitution patriotically and the other side simply has a religious agenda that they want to implement, damn the methodology...

I think Scalia's reasonings are justifications for his agenda. That is hardly tin hat territory, as he is pretty open about it.

Your third point is mind boggling, I don't understand it. You said: My concern is about getting another judge that ignores the Constitution and the weight of precedent in order to impose a political agenda. Judges like Scalia and Thomas that would overturn precedents that are literally centuries old. Clearly it is YOUR argument that they disagree with you on the issues that they have voted on so how can you ask me to identify your issues for you when you want me to explain how Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have voted together in a way that is inconsistent with anything I have said about the Constitution?. I don't know, you have to tell us.

First, Scalia & Thomas =/= Scalia, Roberts, Alito, & Thomas. Although you may be right that Roberts and Alito are no better than Scalia and Thomas, the evidence is insufficient to confirm that conclusion.

Second, you were the one snidely trumpting how you'd take Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas's opinions over mine and that of Neo Art. My question is on what point? Or did your rhetoric just get away from you?

Your fourth point, you do realize that (although it is better than nothing) having only 4 of 9 Justices agree with you means your side loses, yes, you and I both recognize this, and this is why you stated you were against another conservative President for fear that they would place a fifth that is more conservative than Kennedy I assume, and I on the other hand would look forward to the event.

Again, you were the one making smug and snide statements about understanding the Constitution and how you were "siding with the [J]ustices." My response was to point out that you were being silly and also to note that you appear to have no clue as to what you are "siding" with the Justices about.

BTW, did you skip my second point because you ARE embarassed at having put your foot in your mouth?

I know you feel that way, and that's why I think you wear a conspiracy paranoia tinfoil hat at night.

This, I believe, would veer somewhere between an actual flame, and just flamebait.

I make a certain amount of allowance for you already, kndly do not try my patience.

Quite simply, when someone who openly folows an ideology, or openly embraces a religion, examines a source and finds only evidence of their OWN beliefs... I think it's a little beyond belief to accept that they were entirely honest in their approach, no matter how rigourous they may have been.

Pretentious hyperbole. Fine, you and your liberal activists judges who want to litigate from the bench! Get back thee socialist proponent manipulating society for your humanist secularism! :rolleyes:

Dealt with in my post above. No need to further your embarassment.


And when you find that the people re-write their own constitutions to stop the forced alteration of their societies, you think what? You think you're doing good? You think that the homosexuals in those states that have felt the need to change their constitutions will somehow be better off because of your attempt to force them to see society in the same way you do? It would be no different if the Muslims or Mormons were pushing hard and trying to force the states to recognize polygamy marriages, the people would fight back and if the only way of stopping it was to change the constitutions, then they would do so. This isn't simply a homophobic knee jerk response. Society determines why they recognize marriages at all, society tells the government how they want marriages treated and honored or not. If that marriage be polygamous, or monogamous, if it be child producing or simply a business partnership, it doesn't matter.

Curious. You went from claiming discrimination against homosexuals didn't violate the Constitution to talking about how constitutions can be changed to allow such discrimination. I'll take that as an admission that laws that say homosexual can't adopt and can't marry their partners are violations of the Constitution.

Further, your rant not withstanding, the whole point of having a Constitution is that some things are NOT up to the simple majority (or "society"). As I noted, society said that people of different races couldn't get married, but the Constitution overrode that.


*Freedom to do what? Kill their own offspring?

No. As I said, freedom to control one's own body. (Also a whole host of liberties are involved.)

*No they are not. They're not against women making equal pay in the work force.

They are against legislation making sure that women make equal pay in the work force. And McCain said that women didn't need such legislation, but rather needed "more education and training."


*They do not, they disagree that they we need supplemental sentencing guidelines for what are already a crimes.

Um. Check you candidates' positions a little better. On the Issues makes clear that both McCain and Palin are opposed to hate crime legislation.

Your next two are essentially the same *No they are not. You and they simply disagree on the best way to educated for the purposes of sex education. Pretending that your method is somehow unquestionably better or proven to be right, and their is wrong, is just partisan BS.

The first of my two points refers to McCain voting against $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

The second of my two points does refer to McCain/Palin's opposition to comprehensive sex education. And the many, many studies that show comprehensive sex education is better than abstinence-only education are far from simply partisan.

*lots of people are against affirmative action laws. Some think they are past their usefulness.

Lots of people are wrong. But I'm pretty sure McCain never supported them -- rather than have recently concluded they are past their usefulness.

I challenged you to document from their records "how McCain and Palin have tried to advance the equality of women." You failed to respond.

Agree with the concept, but once the child is here, its too late to just kill it. You and them argue about when it is 'here'.

You've totally lost the plot. The whole point of the quote was how a woman's liberty interests are infringed by forcing her to give birth to a child against her will.

Regardless, it actually doesn't matter "when [the unborn child] is 'here'" except as a counter-balance to that interest in the latter stages of pregnancy.

Should I look up the opinions of the judges that defended the slave owners rights and privileges and liberties as well? Because those too were over-turnable.

ROTFLASTC.

First, you are comparing Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to judges that defended slave owners? I thought Scalia and Thomas at least were your pals.

Second, you would really compare the rights to marry, to have children, to direct the education of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, and to bodily integrity to the rights of slave owners?

Third, again you are talking not about a change in precedent, but a change in the Constitution through Amendment. I'm starting to think you have no clue as to the role of judges under our Constitution.

Fourth, nice dodge of the question about to what in the passage you objected.

That's odd, I think he said exactly what I said, only mine was briefer.

Um. No.

You might want to review what you said and what the Court said.

You might note little phrases like "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

And, again, nice dodge of the question of what about the Court's Establishment Clause holdings you disagree.

My problem is that I don't believe Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas are making decisions "based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution". I think they're making decisions based on trying to fit The Constitution to their pre-established ideology/religion

Well, then that is your problem. The interesting thing is that it is others.. the Ginsburg variety, that make decisions based on other things than the constitution, and they admit that.

Like it or not, the fact is the liberals of the side of the court, at this time, are the ones that come up with rulings that have nothing to do with constitutional history. It's how we now have such things as kelo, and Roe Vs Wade.

The facts just aren't in your corner, dear.

You think that the homosexuals in those states that have felt the need to change their constitutions will somehow be better off because of your attempt to force them to see society in the same way you do?

They are hardly worse off, since if marriage had never been on the table at all they wouldn't have the right anyway.

Every movement for social change generates a backlash.

Society determines why they recognize marriages at all, society tells the government how they want marriages treated and honored or not.

Agreed.

The problem is that society's stance is inconsistent: it has one standard for opposite-sex couples (marriage is a legal arrangement between a couple that is not necessarily tied to reproduction or child-raising) and another standard for same-sex couples (marriage does not exist.)

That is not fair. We know that arbitrarily unequal treatment in general is not fair, so we democratically put guarantees of equal protection in our national and state constitutions.

We should welcome it when the courts ensure that these guarantees actually mean something.

Pretending that your method is somehow unquestionably better or proven to be right, and their is wrong, is just partisan BS.

The empirical evidence on this one is pretty overwhelming.

But, then, everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias.

My problem is that I don't believe Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas are making decisions "based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution". I think they're making decisions based on trying to fit The Constitution to their pre-established ideology/religion

Well, then that is your problem. The interesting thing is that it is others.. the Ginsburg variety, that make decisions based on other things than the constitution, and they admit that.

Like it or not, the fact is the liberals of the side of the court, at this time, are the ones that come up with rulings that have nothing to do with constitutional history. It's how we now have such things as kelo, and Roe Vs Wade.

The facts just aren't in your corner, dear.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg had anything to do with Roe v Wade?

This, I believe, would veer somewhere between an actual flame, and just flamebait.

I make a certain amount of allowance for you already, kndly do not try my patience.

Coming from you, that's priceless. The king of off topic one liners that insult the poster instead of the opinion... :rolleyes:

My problem is that I don't believe Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas are making decisions "based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution". I think they're making decisions based on trying to fit The Constitution to their pre-established ideology/religion

Well, then that is your problem. The interesting thing is that it is others.. the Ginsburg variety, that make decisions based on other things than the constitution, and they admit that.

Like it or not, the fact is the liberals of the side of the court, at this time, are the ones that come up with rulings that have nothing to do with constitutional history. It's how we now have such things as kelo, and Roe Vs Wade.

The facts just aren't in your corner, dear.

Oh, isn't that an adorable first post?

Sorry, dear, but the facts aren't in your corner.

I'd love to see you provide an example of Justice Ginsburg admitting to making a constitutional decision on grounds not relevant to the Constitution.

Although I agree with O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. City of New London (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108), 545 U.S. 469 (2005), that is a particularly bad example of alleged "legislation from the bench" or liberalism run wild.

As I've already cited from Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992) and Washington v. Glucksberg (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-110), 521 U.S. 702 (1997), Roe was consistent with and grounded in over a century of precedent. So it's a little silly to hear you claim it had nothing to do with consitutional history.

But, while were on the subject, what do you think of Scalia and Thomas's views regarding constitutional precedent?

Um. My comments were very specific and well-grounded. Perhaps you don't know Scalia and Thomas very well.

Scalia has publicly stated that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Here (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm) is a definition of stare decisis. In short, it is a respect for precedent. And Thomas's public statements and written opinions confirm that he has little respect for it -- even where precedents are centuries old and repeatedly confirmed.

Similarly, Scalia has little respect for precedent that he doesn't agree with (unless it is convenient for a particular case to pretend to agree with that precedent). Such as the whole line of substantive due process cases I cited from Washington v. Glucksberg. Or even such bedrock cases as Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

So when I criticize Scalia and Thomas for not respecting centuries old precedent, yes, my criticism has some validity.

And thus, you would vote on the other side of the fence from them. Your point being what? Are they, or are they not, representatives of a constitutional interpretation ideology that is logical or not?

Aside from that, your comment "what's wrong with that?" was irretreivable stupid -- no matter how much you may wish to cover it up.

EDIT: I also note you appear to be fundamentally confused about the difference between overturning precedent and actually changing the Constitution through amendment.

Nonsense. I recognize, and so do you, that sometimes it is necessary to reinterpret past rulings to correct for mistakes. You want to pretend that conservative judges can't or shouldn't but you support 'liberal' judges doing the same sort of rulings as per other threads in this forum you have posted in. I suspect your bias is showing.

I think Scalia's reasonings are justifications for his agenda. That is hardly tin hat territory, as he is pretty open about it.

First, Scalia & Thomas =/= Scalia, Roberts, Alito, & Thomas. Although you may be right that Roberts and Alito are no better than Scalia and Thomas, the evidence is insufficient to confirm that conclusion.

Second, you were the one snidely trumpeting how you'd take Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas's opinions over mine and that of Neo Art. My question is on what point? Or did your rhetoric just get away from you?

Again, you were the one making smug and snide statements about understanding the Constitution and how you were "siding with the [J]ustices." My response was to point out that you were being silly and also to note that you appear to have no clue as to what you are "siding" with the Justices about.

If you read my post as snidely trumpeting that's your problem. All I'm saying is that I agree with their overall ideology of how the Constitution should be interpreted in the general sense. You would have us believe that conservative judges do it incorrectly from either ignorance or malice, again, I assert that it's your bias showing again.


BTW, did you skip my second point because you ARE embarassed at having put your foot in your mouth?

I skipped it because I disagree with you and believe it is obvious that I do so, how many times must we repeat ourselves? If you want to think that simply because I stopped remarking ad naseum is a sign that I'm embarrassed by my positions, then I allow you your moment of self delusion.

Scalia thinks that the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist.

Scalia thinks a lot of things dont exist. Im also pretty sure he cant read.


Well, then that is your problem. The interesting thing is that it is others.. the Ginsburg variety, that make decisions based on other things than the constitution, and they admit that.

Yeah, youre gonna have to prove that.

Curious. You went from claiming discrimination against homosexuals didn't violate the Constitution to talking about how constitutions can be changed to allow such discrimination. I'll take that as an admission that laws that say homosexual can't adopt and can't marry their partners are violations of the Constitution.

Did I claim that discrimination against homosexuals didn't violate the Constitution? Hmmm, really? I thought that I said as people they are already protected by the constitution just like everyone else. Perhaps you would like to quote me saying I thought the Constitution should be changed to allow discrimination? No, it's just more hyperbole on your part.

They are against legislation making sure that women make equal pay in the work force. And McCain said that women didn't need such legislation, but rather needed "more education and training."

He said that about auto-workers losing their jobs in Michigan too. I suspect that he believes it outside of gender motivation. Why do you think otherwise?

Um. Check you candidates' positions a little better. On the Issues makes clear that both McCain and Palin are opposed to hate crime legislation.

Thats what I said. And I stated why they are against it.

The first of my two points refers to McCain voting against $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

The second of my two points does refer to McCain/Palin's opposition to comprehensive sex education. And the many, many studies that show comprehensive sex education is better than abstinence-only education are far from simply partisan.

Annnnd? What? They disagree with you. Lots of people disagree with you. Apparently the less outside of the family opportunities to access birth control and non-parent approved abortions etc., reduces teen abortions in those states. Some people call that success, whereas your side will call it failure and proof that more teens are likely having unwanted children etc. It's a different world outlook, you have one, they have another.

Lots of people are wrong. But I'm pretty sure McCain never supported them -- rather than have recently concluded they are past their usefulness.

I challenged you to document from their records "how McCain and Palin have tried to advance the equality of women." You failed to respond.

You claimed negatives, I refuted your negatives. I continue to do so.

You've totally lost the plot. The whole point of the quote was how a woman's liberty interests are infringed by forcing her to give birth to a child against her will.

Regardless, it actually doesn't matter "when [the unborn child] is 'here'" except as a counter-balance to that interest in the latter stages of pregnancy.

I didn't lose the point, I have a different point. The other point is that if the baby is in the womb, then it's here already and the choice to not have children is no longer a choice, your point is that there is no baby yet... It's quite simple really.

ROTFLASTC.

First, you are comparing Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to judges that defended slave owners? I thought Scalia and Thomas at least were your pals.

Nice try, but I never associated particular judges to defending slave owners, I defended the idea that changing precedent is sometimes the correct thing to do.

Second, you would really compare the rights to marry, to have children, to direct the education of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, and to bodily integrity to the rights of slave owners?

They argued it for many years that it was their fundamental right, I didn't argue it for them. I disagree with their reasoning, not all perceived rights are in fact rights.

You might note little phrases like "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

Again, I think I summed it up accurately, you would read more in-between the lines than I do is all.

U.S.A will probably be pushed towards the centre in an attempt to be differentiated from a resurgent religious, right-wing, nationalist Russia :p.

I find it unlikely to see that happening. Nationalistic? Yes. Religious? Not really. Not anywhere near to the same extent as the United States.

its the states . . . its messed up . . .thats not news, that's olds!

Darn you Cat, you don't leave much to add! :)

Coming from you, that's priceless. The king of off topic one liners that insult the poster instead of the opinion... :rolleyes:

So - called on ad hominem which I told you I was going to ignore, your brilliant and reasoned next step is.... ad hominem, again?

And thus, you would vote on the other side of the fence from them. Your point being what? Are they, or are they not, representatives of a constitutional interpretation ideology that is logical or not?

Are those goal posts on a conveyor belt or some kind of a pulley system? 'Cuz you sure like moving them.

My original point (which has been explained to you ad naseum) is that Justices Scalia and Thomas have little or no respect for precedent. You said that point was not "valid" and was merely "opinion that is not fact." I back up my opinion with facts and you go off on a tangent about whether or not they have a logical constitutional interpretation ideology -- something I have never commented on.

But just to add to the mix, Scalia and Thomas are advocates of an constitutional interpretation approaches that, to me, are both illogical and wrong.


Nonsense. I recognize, and so do you, that sometimes it is necessary to reinterpret past rulings to correct for mistakes. You want to pretend that conservative judges can't or shouldn't but you support 'liberal' judges doing the same sort of rulings as per other threads in this forum you have posted in. I suspect your bias is showing.

Um. Your accusations of "bias" don't hide the fact that you aren't responding to the substance of my post or the subject of our discussion.

Of course, Justices should sometimes reinterpret or correct past rulings. I never said or implied otherwise. That is different from having little or no respect for stare decisis.

Yes, I've agreed with "liberal" decisions that overturned precedent like Brown v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html), 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Yes, I disagree with Justice Thomas's desire to overturn decades of precedent and hold that students have no constitutional rights in schools whatsoever. Morse v. Frederick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278#concurrence1), 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007) (J. Thomas, concurring). Of course, those are my opinions, but the whole point of this forum is we discuss such opinions and their underlying validity. Simply accusing me of bias is childish and unproductive.

Regardless, back to the actual point I was making in the post to which you were responding, you keep confusing changing precedent (i.e., reinterpreting the Constitution in a way that is different from past cases) and changing the Constitution itself through Amendment. All the examples you have given of reversing precedent were not actually reverses in precedent but were cases of the Constitution being amended.



If you read my post as snidely trumpeting that's your problem. All I'm saying is that I agree with their overall ideology of how the Constitution should be interpreted in the general sense. You would have us believe that conservative judges do it incorrectly from either ignorance or malice, again, I assert that it's your bias showing again.

Again, you don't actually respond to anything I have said or what we have been trying to discuss, but rather build a strawman and accuse me of bias.


I skipped it because I disagree with you and believe it is obvious that I do so, how many times must we repeat ourselves? If you want to think that simply because I stopped remarking ad naseum is a sign that I'm embarrassed by my positions, then I allow you your moment of self delusion.

*sigh*

This is truly sad. In a line of argument that I laid out a few posts ago (here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14025929&postcount=122)), you claimed that slavery and women not be allowed to vote were examples of centuries of precedent. It was pointed out this was a stupid comment because those injustices had nothing to do with precedent and everything to do with flaws in the Constitution that required correction -- not by activist judges -- but by amendment. You scoffed at that argument claiming that Neo Art was "embarassing [himself]" by pointing out your error. Since then, you have pointedly ignored that evidence that it was you that should be embarassed.

So maybe I was giving you too much credit in thinking you actually cared about having made an idiotic set of statements.

Did I claim that discrimination against homosexuals didn't violate the Constitution? Hmmm, really? I thought that I said as people they are already protected by the constitution just like everyone else. Perhaps you would like to quote me saying I thought the Constitution should be changed to allow discrimination? No, it's just more hyperbole on your part.

Is there a Nobel Prize for avoiding the point? 'Cuz you are a shoo-in.

1. I haven't mischaracterized your position at all, but let's remove all doubt: do you or do you not agree that laws that say homosexuals can't adopt and can't marry their partners are violations of the Constitution?

2. I talked about how the Constitution protected homosexuals from discrimination and you responded by ranting about "people re-writ[ing] their own constitution to stop the forced alteration of their societies." Remember that? Or do you ignore what you've written along with what I've written?

He said that about auto-workers losing their jobs in Michigan too. I suspect that he believes it outside of gender motivation. Why do you think otherwise?

Nice try. McCain has consistently opposed and continues to oppose legislation against sex discrimination in the payment of wages. You may wish to pretty it up, but the record is there.

EDIT: Back to McCain's comment that women don't need legislation to get equal pay for equal rights, but rather need "education and training," I don't think you've (or McCain) have thought it through: Does this mean that, according to McCain, women already in the work force need yet more education and training for a job they already perform and that other men do in order to get paid the same as those men?

Thats what I said. And I stated why they are against it.

Um. Again, your reading comprehension seems to be failing you.

I said: "They oppose hate crime laws."

You said: "They do not" and then provided some justification for opposing hate crime laws.

We seem to agree that McCain and Palin oppose hate crime laws, but you don't want to admit it.

Annnnd? What? They disagree with you. Lots of people disagree with you.

Again, lots of people can be wrong. We argue about that stuff here.

Regardless, your point is a rather pathetic attempt at an appeal to popularity. Fail.

Apparently the less outside of the family opportunities to access birth control and non-parent approved abortions etc., reduces teen abortions in those states. Some people call that success, whereas your side will call it failure and proof that more teens are likely having unwanted children etc. It's a different world outlook, you have one, they have another.

Reduced access to birth control reduces teen abortions? Source, please.

Reduced access to abortion reduces teen abortions? Duh. But that isn't relevant to what kind of sex education we should provide nor is it relevant to either reducing teen pregnancy or STDs.

Despite your attempt to obfuscate, the point is that McCain and Palin oppose comprehensive sex education and support abstinence-only education. As I mentioned, there are many, many studies showing the superiority of comprehensive sex education by almost any measure (including the Bush Administration's own evaluations of abstinence-only programs). link (http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf), link (http://www.sexedlibrary.org/programefficacy.html).

And to further illustrate just how inane McCain's position on sex education is, we have this: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13541479&postcount=2213)


You claimed negatives, I refuted your negatives. I continue to do so.

You haven't refuted my negatives -- and there are lots more where they came from. Those were just off-the-top-of-my-head. Here are more:

McCain opposed legislation that would require the same insurance coverage for birth control pills as for other prescriptions
McCain
voted
against
extending
Medicaid
coverage
to
pregnant
women
and
infants
up
to
one
year
of age
with
incomes
below
the
Federal
poverty
line
McCain opposed allocating $214
million
fund
breast
cancer
research
McCain has repeatedly voted against legislation and funding to fight domestic violence and rape. (Including opposing the Violence Against Women Act, which among other things made it so rape victims don't have to pay for rape kits the way Sarah Palin required in Wasilla)
McCain has repeatedly opposed funding for child care


EDIT: In creating the above list, I used a variety of sources, including this pdf (http://obama.3cdn.net/0229472a1e45d95f49_0om6bx014.pdf), which comes from the Obama camp. I should have noted this in my original post. :$

Regardless, your inability or unwillingness to provide even a single example (let alone a consistent record) of McCain and Palin trying to advance the equality of women speaks volumes.


I didn't lose the point, I have a different point. The other point is that if the baby is in the womb, then it's here already and the choice to not have children is no longer a choice, your point is that there is no baby yet... It's quite simple really.

OK. The original question was what freedom did McCain and Palin oppose with their extreme position on abortion. I used Supreme Court cases to illustrate the host of liberty interests that are at issue there. That is the plot you lost.

Regardless, you don't actually have a clue as to my position on abortion. You are right that I don't think an embryo or a zygote is a person, but that isn't the whole dispute. I also think a woman has a right to control her own body (especially early in the pregnancy) that exists whether or not there is a "baby" yet.


Nice try, but I never associated particular judges to defending slave owners, I defended the idea that changing precedent is sometimes the correct thing to do.

1. Again, ending slavery was done by constitutional amendment and not by a change in precedent.

2. I quote Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas on substantive due process rights and you say "[s]hould I look up the opinions of the judges that defended the slave owners rights ... as well?" Surely your grasp of rhetoric is sufficient to recognize you did compare those Justices to those judges.


They argued it for many years that it was their fundamental right, I didn't argue it for them. I disagree with their reasoning, not all perceived rights are in fact rights.

Who said all perceived rights are (or even should be) constitutional rights? You are arguing with a strawman. Which appears to be your way of avoiding explaining what exactly about the over a century-old line of precedent protecting liberty interests you disagree with -- other than you don't like abortion, so the Court must be wrong.


Again, I think I summed it up accurately, you would read more in-between the lines than I do is all.

*sigh*

I give up on this one. Even if you can't see the difference between what you said and the Court said, I'm sure everyone else can.

Does the time you kept trying to stab me with your cross count? :p

Depends on whether or not you liked it.

Ok but will you still be my nanny? :D

Of course! =)

The Cat Tribe,

Your ‘original point’ was an insinuation that Justices Scalia and Thomas have little or no respect for precedent, and by that you meant to convey that you think they are wrongly interpreting the constitution and treating it disrespectfully when they change precedent that you favored. I responded by pointing out that this is simply your opinion and is not fact, then you attempted to show that they do in fact disregard precedent by showing when they do it. But that doesn't address my argument, but I countered by reminding you that precedent sometimes needs to be changed and you agreed when you said Of course, Justices should sometimes reinterpret or correct past rulings. I never said or implied otherwise. But you ignore that agreement and continue to try to show that you think the Conservative judges do it wrongly by showing that they do it at all... Flabbergasting.

What you are missing is that your position isn’t a counter argument to my original statement at all. You do have a bias against the judges and you are not an impartial judge to decide if you can judge their rulings fairly since you’ve already admitted that you think they are advocates of an constitutional interpretation approaches that, to me (TCT), are both illogical and wrong.

Thus, no matter what ruling or step by step systematic explanation of their position I post, you will think it wrong and unconvincing or illogical etc. I have already defended their positions, I have defended their ideology of constitution interpretation and I agree with it. I see no point is repeating ourselves ad naseum when you freely admit that you are not going to be convince by any interpretation that requires you to concede that they have a logical ideology for interpreting the constitution that simply differs from your own.

So when you say: Your accusations of "bias" don't hide the fact that you aren't responding to the substance of my post or the subject of our discussion I see it as irrelevant obfuscation of the real issue, and that is that you are biased and even though you freely say so you don’t seem to be able to process that fact when you form your debate positions.

As you have said before, admittedly in other threads as well, that you don’t really care what I say because you think I’m lying or not being honest about my positions anyway. You’ve said; I have plenty of reasons not to like Palin, and I (unlike you) have been honest in saying … She supports a radical religious agenda that you agree with and I don't. That is the real source of this dispute -- but you've been unwilling to admit that, and thus I’m resigned to the fact that I can type whatever I want, have Rehnquist’s ghost write a post for me and it would be denounced as ignorant or showing a clear lack of understanding to your point or the topic of the thread, or that I'm not being honest etc.

As to answering your posts point for point, when you start writing them yourself instead of copying Obama’s prochoiceamerica.com (www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/women-compare-public-9-3-08-final.pdf).pdf’s and other opinion pieces from other sources, then I will consider it. But I’m not going to just sit down and post a bunch responses to political brochures and opinion pieces and neither am I going to start posting McCain website advocacy group brochures either and expect you to argue against their assertions point by point and then complain that you are dropping arguments if you don’t, like you attempt to do to me.

You can pretend that your accusations against the 'other' side not having the proper respect for precedent is any more valid than the Conservatives complaints of liberal judges litigating from the bench, neither your complain nor theirs is more valid than the other.

Actually, that's not true. No one can demonstrate justices legislating from the bench. (The phrase is "legislating" by the way. "Litigating" would be what the lawyers are doing). It's essentially a useless phrase that equates to "They made a decision I don't like, so I'm going to call it legislation even though it isn't."

The court does one of two things - upholds legislation or overturns it. Neither of these things involve actually making new legislation. At most, the courts might provide guidance on how to take an overturned law and bring it within the bounds of the Constitution.

Interestingly enough, the complaint of "legislating from the bench" has been made in both instances - overturning legislation and upholding it.

On the other hand, whether for good or ill, breaking with legal precedent can often be clearly demonstrated.

You think Scalia's reasonings are what? Based on ignorance, based on insanity, conjecture of fantasy?

Hard to tell sometimes. Sometimes he starts out saying something intelligent, and then jumps off to the side and confuses the hell out of me.

For instance, I can't find the quote right now, but I've seen one that, paraphrased, was the following:

The Supreme Court can't determine morality.
The Congress can't determine morality.
The states can.

See, he had me on the first two. It seemed like he was really going somewhere. But then he just jumped off the train.

But if you are capable of recognizing that you simply came to a different conclusion than judges like Scalia do and you can clearly see that his opinions are based on a systematic and logical interpretation of the constitution and how it should be interpreted, even though you disagree with it, then we have something to talk about.

I don't know about systematic and logical. Personally, I'd say something more like, "Completely unworkable." The idea that the basis of our governmental system could only be looked at from our ideas about the point of view of people who lived over 200 years ago is, quite simply put, unworkable.

And when you find that the people re-write their own constitutions to stop the forced alteration of their societies, you think what?

That such bigotry in government is exactly what the guarantee of equal protection was meant to prevent.

You think you're doing good? You think that the homosexuals in those states that have felt the need to change their constitutions will somehow be better off because of your attempt to force them to see society in the same way you do?

The issue isn't how they see society. It's how they treat their citizens.

Society determines why they recognize marriages at all, society tells the government how they want marriages treated and honored or not.

And, luckily, the government is bound by certain restrictions - such as the one requiring it to provide equal protection under the law.

If you have a problem with that requirement, that's your opinion. Personally, I think it is an absolute necessity in a valid government.

*Freedom to do what? Kill their own offspring?

Control the use of their own bodies.

*No they are not. They're not against women making equal pay in the work force.

No, just against any kind of legal protections to ensure that it happens.

Your next two are essentially the same *No they are not. You and they simply disagree on the best way to educated for the purposes of sex education. Pretending that your method is somehow unquestionably better or proven to be right, and their is wrong, is just partisan BS.

Actually, TCT's view of sex education is pretty much proven to be right. If you want to reduce risky sexual behavior, teen pregnancy, abortion rates, etc., you provide comprehensive sex ed. The data is out there.

Scalia thinks that the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist.

Oh, it exists. It just doesn't mean anything. =)


Like it or not, the fact is the liberals of the side of the court, at this time, are the ones that come up with rulings that have nothing to do with constitutional history. It's how we now have such things as kelo, and Roe Vs Wade.

Have you read either decision?

I agree that the country is at a turning point. But is this a good thing. I pray that McCain is elected because I truly fear what Barack Obama will do to this country which I love. McCain is the better candidate in so many ways that it takes the politically blind to even want Obama as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. 2/3 of the individuals supporting Obama are doing so only because it is the "cool thing to do." Personally, I would tend to vote against any candidate whose most outspoken supporters are Paris Hilton and Oprah. Give me a war hero any day. At least I know that he will not falter under threat of war.

I agree that the country is at a turning point. But is this a good thing. I pray that McCain is elected because I truly fear what Barack Obama will do to this country which I love. McCain is the better candidate in so many ways that it takes the politically blind to even want Obama as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. 2/3 of the individuals supporting Obama are doing so only because it is the "cool thing to do." Personally, I would tend to vote against any candidate whose most outspoken supporters are Paris Hilton and Oprah. Give me a war hero any day. At least I know that he will not falter under threat of war.

Did I claim that discrimination against homosexuals didn't violate the Constitution? Hmmm, really? I thought that I said as people they are already protected by the constitution just like everyone else.

They are protected by the Constitution.

Unfortunately, there are laws out there that violate that protection and have not yet been overturned. When asked about those laws, you go on a rant about how society determines the laws.

Annnnd? What? They disagree with you. Lots of people disagree with you. Apparently the less outside of the family opportunities to access birth control and non-parent approved abortions etc., reduces teen abortions in those states. Some people call that success, whereas your side will call it failure and proof that more teens are likely having unwanted children etc. It's a different world outlook, you have one, they have another.

Wait....reducing teen abortions is the whole goal? Clearly all we need to do is tell kids that abortions are evil and make them illegal then!

And here I thought that making teens safer and reducing unplanned pregnancies was important. Silly me.

I pray that McCain is elected because I truly fear what Barack Obama will do to this country which I love.

Funny, I pray that McCain is not elected because I truly fear what he would do to this country.

McCain is the better candidate in so many ways that it takes the politically blind to even want Obama as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Ah, the old, "Anyone who disagrees with me is blind" tactic.

Two posts in and you're already trying that one?

2/3 of the individuals supporting Obama are doing so only because it is the "cool thing to do."

2/3 of statistics are pulled out of someone's ass.

Personally, I would tend to vote against any candidate whose most outspoken supporters are Paris Hilton and Oprah.

Personally, I would tend to wonder where someone who said this was getting their (mis)information.

Give me a war hero any day. At least I know that he will not falter under threat of war.

A war hero who is rattling the sabers just as loud as Bush and then doesn't want to take care of our veterans when they do come home from ill-conceived wars?

Yeah, no thanks.

Ah, the old, "Anyone who disagrees with me is blind" tactic.

Two posts in and you're already trying that one?

One. His first post is a double-post.

Wait, since when does getting shot down make you a war hero? Isn't a prerequisite for herodom to accomplish something competently?

The Cat Tribe,

Your ‘original point’ was an insinuation that Justices Scalia and Thomas have little or no respect for precedent, and by that you meant to convey that you think they are wrongly interpreting the constitution and treating it disrespectfully when they change precedent that you favored. I responded by pointing out that this is simply your opinion and is not fact, then you attempted to show that they do in fact disregard precedent by showing when they do it. But that doesn't address my argument, but I countered by reminding you that precedent sometimes needs to be changed and you agreed when you said Of course, Justices should sometimes reinterpret or correct past rulings. I never said or implied otherwise. But you ignore that agreement and continue to try to show that you think the Conservative judges do it wrongly by showing that they do it at all... Flabbergasting.

What you are missing is that your position isn’t a counter argument to my original statement at all. You do have a bias against the judges and you are not an impartial judge to decide if you can judge their rulings fairly since you’ve already admitted that you think they are advocates of an constitutional interpretation approaches that, to me (TCT), are both illogical and wrong.

Thus, no matter what ruling or step by step systematic explanation of their position I post, you will think it wrong and unconvincing or illogical etc. I have already defended their positions, I have defended their ideology of constitution interpretation and I agree with it. I see no point is repeating ourselves ad naseum when you freely admit that you are not going to be convince by any interpretation that requires you to concede that they have a logical ideology for interpreting the constitution that simply differs from your own.

So when you say: Your accusations of "bias" don't hide the fact that you aren't responding to the substance of my post or the subject of our discussion I see it as irrelevant obfuscation of the real issue, and that is that you are biased and even though you freely say so you don’t seem to be able to process that fact when you form your debate positions.

As you have said before, admittedly in other threads as well, that you don’t really care what I say because you think I’m lying or not being honest about my positions anyway. You’ve said; I have plenty of reasons not to like Palin, and I (unlike you) have been honest in saying … She supports a radical religious agenda that you agree with and I don't. That is the real source of this dispute -- but you've been unwilling to admit that, and thus I’m resigned to the fact that I can type whatever I want, have Rehnquist’s ghost write a post for me and it would be denounced as ignorant or showing a clear lack of understanding to your point or the topic of the thread, or that I'm not being honest etc.

As to answering your posts point for point, when you start writing them yourself instead of copying Obama’s prochoiceamerica.com (www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/women-compare-public-9-3-08-final.pdf).pdf’s and other opinion pieces from other sources, then I will consider it. But I’m not going to just sit down and post a bunch responses to political brochures and opinion pieces and neither am I going to start posting McCain website advocacy group brochures either and expect you to argue against their assertions point by point and then complain that you are dropping arguments if you don’t, like you attempt to do to me.

Wait, wait. Your main point is that I'm biased and can't criticize the positions of you, Justice Scalia, or Justice Thomas because I don't agree with you, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas.

And even though this is a forum where we discuss opinions and try to support them with facts, you can't debate with me because of this bias that says you are wrong.

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

I'll deal with the rest of your blather in more detail later, but I thought you "main point" was so ridiculous it called for a quicker reply.

Wait, wait. Your main point is that I'm biased and can't criticize the positions of you, Justice Scalia, or Justice Thomas because I don't agree with you, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas.

Silly TCT. Didn't you know that examining the facts and coming to a conclusion means you're just biased?

Wait, since when does getting shot down make you a war hero? Isn't a prerequisite for herodom to accomplish something competently?

It's more in regard to his conduct as a prisoner of war for both his own stamina and his dedication to his fellow prisoners. Since in that situation I would have been curled up in a pool of my own pee weeping I can say that it's rather remarkable and I can salute him for the strength of character to have survived that with even a shred of dignity. While I do salute that, it does not earn him my vote. Because I'm not going to vote for the man doesn't mean I have to devalue everything he's done. I do not agree with his policies or with the people he is likely to appoint, nor those he will be beholden to. No amount of character building in his past will overcome that.

Silly TCT. Didn't you know that examining the facts and coming to a conclusion means you're just biased?

Oh nice. :rolleyes:

Like you ignored the facts to come to your sarcastic remark? I showed through quotes that TCT is biased against the conservative judges own reasoning/opinions AND I showed through quotes that he thinks whatever argument I make even before I make it is actually a cover for my supposedly 'secret religious agenda', I've shown that he's 'poisoned the well' (so to speak) of any argument I could make before I even make it, so why make it? Is there an impartial judge around these forums that is going around scoring our debates? I think not.

Oh nice. :rolleyes:

Like you ignored the facts to come to your sarcastic remark? I showed through quotes that TCT is biased against the conservative judges own reasoning/opinions

No, you showed that TCT disagrees with some of their reasoning and opinions.

In other words, TCT has examined both their reasoning and opinions and found them lacking. That isn't "bias", it's disagreement.

AND I showed through quotes that he thinks whatever argument I make even before I make it is actually a cover for my supposedly 'secret religious agenda', I've shown that he's 'poisoned the well' (so to speak) of any argument I could make before I even make it, so why make it?

Maybe if you made a consistent argument, it wouldn't seem like it all comes back to the religious agenda?

Again, TCT didn't suddenly come to the conclusion that you had a religious agenda without ever interacting with you. He's come to that conclusion through interacting with you. He may be wrong, but that doesn't mean he just has some sort of malicious bias against you, either.

Is there an impartial judge around these forums that is going around scoring our debates? I think not.

You should hope not...

Wow. Reading this thread is sort of like watching people repeatedly bang their head against a brick wall.

No, you showed that TCT disagrees with some of their reasoning and opinions.

In other words, TCT has examined both their reasoning and opinions and found them lacking. That isn't "bias", it's disagreement.

Of course it's disagreement. But lets see you dissect the sentence and make it mean what YOU said: ...
But just to add to the mix, Scalia and Thomas are advocates of an constitutional interpretation approaches that, to me, are both illogical and wrong....

He said, their constitutional interpretation approaches, this is NOT a sentence that indicates some of their rulings, its a comment against their fundamental basic ideology of how they interpret the Constitution. And as such, it means he is biased against any argument of mine that might be similar to theirs.

Maybe if you made a consistent argument, it wouldn't seem like it all comes back to the religious agenda?

Again, TCT didn't suddenly come to the conclusion that you had a religious agenda without ever interacting with you. He's come to that conclusion through interacting with you. He may be wrong, but that doesn't mean he just has some sort of malicious bias against you, either.

His opinion of me is totally irrelevant, but the repeated statements show that whatever argument I make are futile before they are even posted, he wouldn't believe it anyway, thus, malicious bias was not my objection to him and it's funny that you thought it was my point. Consistency of argument I think is lacking in your position here, not mine.

After making several points about why I'm endorsing Palin on the ticket, about anti-corruption and transparency in government reformer, among other points, TCT repeatedly says things like;

But my point was that you don't really like Palin because of her "reformer" or "anti-corruption" positioning, but rather because of her conservative agenda -- particularly her radical religious agenda. C'mon, Baldy, just admit it.

Malicious bias is irrelevant, it proves there is nothing I can say in my defense because his judgment is clouded. You call it what you will, I would call for a Judge to remove himself if he made such comments, thankfully TCT is not a judge here.

After making several points about why I'm endorsing Palin on the ticket, about anti-corruption and transparency in government reformer, among other points, TCT repeatedly says things like;

But my point was that you don't really like Palin because of her "reformer" or "anti-corruption" positioning, but rather because of her conservative agenda -- particularly her radical religious agenda. C'mon, Baldy, just admit it.

Malicious bias is irrelevant, it proves there is nothing I can say in my defense because his judgment is clouded. You call it what you will, I would call for a Judge to remove himself if he made such comments, thankfully TCT is not a judge here.

But is it really an unfair argument to make - that you might be backing Palin for her uber-conservative agenda - when you've admitted that you'd be happy to see supreme court judges replaced for exactly those reasons? And.. how would those supreme court judges get nominated?

Of course it's disagreement. But lets see you dissect the sentence and make it mean what YOU said:

He said, their constitutional interpretation approaches, this is NOT a sentence that indicates some of their rulings, its a comment against their fundamental basic ideology of how they interpret the Constitution. And as such, it means he is biased against any argument of mine that might be similar to theirs.

Or, you know, it means he's examined their approach to interpretation (ie. their reasoning) and found it to be illogical and wrong.

This does, of course, mean that he will likely consider the same arguments made by you to also be illogical and wrong.

But again, it doesn't represent bias. It represents TCT's own conclusions from examining the evidence.

His opinion of me is totally irrelevant, but the repeated statements show that whatever argument I make are futile before they are even posted, he wouldn't believe it anyway,

....or, perhaps, that you have yet to make an argument that has convinced him otherwise.

After making several points about why I'm endorsing Palin on the ticket, about anti-corruption and transparency in government reformer, among other points, TCT repeatedly says things like;

...probably because when those points are debunked, you shift goalposts and/or move on to another point. Believe it or not, behavior like that does suggest an different underlying motive.

But is it really an unfair argument to make - that you might be backing Palin for her uber-conservative agenda - when you've admitted that you'd be happy to see supreme court judges replaced for exactly those reasons? And.. how would those supreme court judges get nominated?

Of course it's unfair. But 'unfair' is not my complaint. My point was that I'm not going to endlessly participate in that fruitless dialog with him. But you failed to notice, or at least failed to mention (probably because you are TCT's side), is that HE is the one that has posted arguments against his own viewpoints just to attack a position he does not like. Not me.

So after TCT made several arguments along the lines that Palin is not a fiscal conservative, like; Palin can't claim to be a fiscal conservative based on her record in Alaska. Facts are stubborn things. I questioned his motivation and asked, Since when do YOU support fiscal conservatism? Is that your complaint with her? She isn't fiscal conservative enough for The Cat-Tribe?, and he said…
..
So, I've been arguing in your ballpark so to speak, by discussing Palin's less than impressive credentials....

He doesn’t feel the need to believe his own arguments, if he thinks they will impact my judgment of the question (whatever the question might be). Which is essentially what you think I am liable of doing in your question.

I can show you TCT having an ulterior motive for arguing a certain point of view/angle, but can you show that I have done anything similar? If not, why accuse me of having ulterior motives when arguing with someone that considers that method fair game and has admittedly done so?

Or, you know, it means he's examined their approach to interpretation (ie. their reasoning) and found it to be illogical and wrong.

This does, of course, mean that he will likely consider the same arguments made by you to also be illogical and wrong.

But again, it doesn't represent bias. It represents TCT's own conclusions from examining the evidence.

That IS a bias against the arguments I would make, you just think they are justifiable opinions. That doesn't make them not biases.

....or, perhaps, that you have yet to make an argument that has convinced him otherwise.

And I submitted the two opinions of his that shows he's not open to my type of argument NOR my arguments because he thinks my arguments are dishonest. So um, yeah, your right, I didn't convince him otherwise and his mind is closed to further discussion...


...probably because when those points are debunked, you shift goalposts and/or move on to another point. Believe it or not, behavior like that does suggest an different underlying motive.

Umm, yeah, okay. It must be my fault that he's biased against Scalia and Thomas type of opinions. Okay then. :rolleyes:

He doesn’t feel the need to believe his own arguments, if he thinks they will impact my judgment of the question (whatever the question might be).

....wait, what? How does pointing out that Sarah Palin is not a fiscal conservative mean TCT is disagreeing with his own arguments? When did he argue that she was a fiscal conservative, or even that being a fiscal conservative was something he approved of?

Seriously, do you read what other people post at all?

Of course it's unfair. But 'unfair' is not my complaint. My point was that I'm not going to endlessly participate in that fruitless dialog with him. But you failed to have noticed that, or at least failed to mention (probably because you are TCT's side), is that HE is the one that has posted arguments against his own viewpoints just to attack a position he does not like. Not me.

So after making several arguments that Palin is not a fiscal conservative like; 1) Palin can't claim to be a fiscal conservative based on her record in Alaska. Facts are stubborn things. I questioned him ans asked, [I]Since when do YOU support fiscal conservatism? Is that your complaint with her? She isn't fiscal conservative enough for The Cat-Tribe?[/I, and he said…

The point is that it is irrelevant whether or not TCT places a particular level of value on fiscal conservatism. He was attacking the claim that Palin was a fiscal conservative, not making a value judgement on fiscal conservatism in general.

You seem to miss this type of point in multiple instances. Take, for instance, the earmark discussion.

Palin is running on an anti-earmark ticket. Obama is not. Therefore, it is perfectly valid to point out that Palin's own copious use of earmarks as a counter to claims that she will battle earmarks. One's opinion of earmarks or the process itself is irrelevant, as the point is Palin's own hypocrisy on the issue.

He doesn’t feel the need to believe his own arguments, if he thinks they will impact my judgment of the question (whatever the question might be). Which is essentially what you think I am liable of doing in your question.

Or, rather, he doesn't have to agree that something is bad just because you do. You've made it clear that you value fiscal conservatism. You claim to like Palin because of this. Thus, facts that would contradict the idea that Palin is a fiscal conservative should alter your judgment of her, unless you can actually show them to be untrue. Instead, you attack TCT on the basis of whether or not he shares your opinion of fiscal conservatism in general.

And this is precisely the type of behavior that suggests that your actual reasons for supporting Palin are something other than what you're saying.

It goes something like this:

Baldy: I like Palin because she's a fiscal conservative.
Others: Numerous examples Palin's lack of fiscal conservatism.
Baldy: You don't even like fiscal conservatism, why should you care?
TCT: It doesn't really matter what I think on it. I dislike Palin for other reasons. But I know you value it, and Palin isn't fiscally conservative.
Baldy: BIAS! BIAS!!

Baldy: Palin is opposed to earmarks.
Others: Look at how many earmarks she obtained.
Baldy: OBAMA ASKED FOR MORE!
Others: Well, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Baldy: (quotes by Obama that don't say what Baldy thinks they do)
Others: Like we said, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Baldy: You just hate Sarah! Hypocrisy! Meanies!

And this is precisely the type of behavior that suggests that your actual reasons for supporting Palin are something other than what you're saying.

It goes something like this:

Baldy: I like Palin because she's a fiscal conservative.
Others: Numerous examples Palin's lack of fiscal conservatism.
Baldy: You don't even like fiscal conservatism, why should you care?
TCT: It doesn't really matter what I think on it. I dislike Palin for other reasons. But I know you value it, and Palin isn't fiscally conservative.
Baldy: BIAS! BIAS!!

Baldy: Palin is opposed to earmarks.
Others: Look at how many earmarks she obtained.
Baldy: OBAMA ASKED FOR MORE!
Others: Well, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Baldy: (quotes by Obama that don't say what Baldy thinks they do)
Others: Like we said, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Baldy: You just hate Sarah! Hypocrisy! Meanies!

Looks like a Bushevik to me, whaddaya think?

That IS a bias against the arguments I would make, you just think they are justifiable opinions. That doesn't make them not biases.

Actually, it does. The fact that TCT may disagree with your arguments for the same reason that he disagrees with those made by Scalia or Thomas does not mean that he has any a priori bias against you. It just means he happens to have already seen and examined those arguments.

Disagreement != bias.

And I submitted the two opinions of his that shows he's not open to my type of argument NOR my arguments because he thinks my arguments are dishonest. So um, yeah, your right, I didn't convince him otherwise and his mind is closed to further discussion...

The fact that you haven't convinced him otherwise doesn't mean he is not open to evidence that would convince him.

It could very well mean you haven't provided such evidence.

You haven't shown that he isn't "open" to anything. You may have come to that conclusion, but that's a different thing, now isn't it?

Umm, yeah, okay. It must be my fault that he's biased against Scalia and Thomas type of opinions. Okay then. :rolleyes:

No, but it is largely your fault that he thinks your true reasons for supporting Palin are religious in nature.

That IS a bias against the arguments I would make, you just think they are justifiable opinions. That doesn't make them not biases.

....um, yes, actually it does.

Defintions for "bias":
"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice"
"a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment; see also 'prejudice'."

Do you know what prejudice means? It means you judge BEFORE knowing the facts. Analyzing the facts and arriving at a conclusion is, by definition, not "prejudice" or "bias." By your personal definition, every judge in history has been "biased" towards everyone who ever won a case in front of them.

....wait, what? How does pointing out that Sarah Palin is not a fiscal conservative mean TCT is disagreeing with his own arguments? When did he argue that she was a fiscal conservative, or even that being a fiscal conservative was something he approved of?

Seriously, do you read what other people post at all?

That was an example of TCT being willing to argue against someone else having a good opinion of Palin by using their own standards of 'good' and then saying so and so isn't 'good' in that way. But TCT doesn't think that 'good' thing is good at all. TCT in fact thinks those are 'bad' things.

Like arguing with a bigot. Oh man, I think so and so is partially black, I can't believe you would vote for them... Thus trying to get them to not like so and so candidate. But deep down, you don't care if they are black or not, you just don't want the other guy to like vote for them. IN fact, your side would LIKE the idea that black barriers were coming down.

And in this case, Sarah Palin. TCT doesn't need her to be a fiscal conservative for him to like her, he's not going to like her, but he think conservatives can be talked out of their desire to vote for her by pointing out that maybe she is tainted somehow, tainted by not being conservative enough etc., etc., etc. But TCT doesn't want conservative at all and has an ulterior motive for arguing that she's not 'conservative enough.'

Of course it's unfair.


Is it? Why?

You've once expressed a preference for militant conservatism in the highest offices... why is it unfair to suspect you might favour a candidate for another high office, on the same premise?


But 'unfair' is not my complaint. My point was that I'm not going to endlessly participate in that fruitless dialog with him. But you failed to notice, or at least failed to mention (probably because you are TCT's side),


Awesome. So - anyone that makes any point about anything you say, is part of some 'bias conspiracy'?


...is that HE is the one that has posted arguments against his own viewpoints just to attack a position he does not like. Not me.


You don't have to believe arguments to make them. Where is that written?

I have often argued that Paul is anathema to Christianity, because I believe that the Pauline position is anti-Christian... (and, within a discussion of Christianity, I maintain that position) but I don't even accept that Paul was a real person. You don't HAVE to believe a viewpoint to argue it.


So after TCT made several arguments along the lines that Palin is not a fiscal conservative, like; Palin can't claim to be a fiscal conservative based on her record in Alaska. Facts are stubborn things. I questioned his motivation and asked, Since when do YOU support fiscal conservatism? Is that your complaint with her? She isn't fiscal conservative enough for The Cat-Tribe?, and he said…


Motivation is irrelevent.

If TCT can show that Palin isn't a fiscal conservative, it doesn't matter what TCT's position on fiscal conservatism is. If the facts support the argument, an argument for 'bias' is a nonsense.

It's like us debating what colour the sun is at sunset, and I'm saying it's red, and you're saying my opinion is worth nothing "because I'm a commie".


I can show you TCT having an ulterior motive for arguing a certain point of view/angle, but can you show that I have done anything similar?


Yes.

But, as I said - the facts aren't beholden to motive.


If not, why accuse me of having ulterior motives when arguing with someone that considers that method fair game and has admittedly done so?

I'm not accusing you of ulterior motive - I'm accusing you of misrepresenting your position. You say you support Palin as a reformer, and - given that the evidence shows her to be at least as corrupt as the rest, I don't buy it. Far more likely, to me, is that you support her militant conservatism, and 'reformer' is just a convenient aside. More likely, because you've admitted being attracted to militant conservatism.

That was an example of TCT being willing to argue against someone else having a good opinion of Palin by using their own standards of 'good' and then saying so and so isn't 'good' in that way. But TCT doesn't think that 'good' thing is good at all. TCT in fact thinks those are 'bad' things.

So?

Why is that a problem?

Meanwhile, I'm not sure that TCT would really think that being fiscally conservative is a "bad" thing.

Like arguing with a bigot. Oh man, I think so and so is partially black, I can't believe you would vote for them... Thus trying to get them to not like so and so candidate. But deep down, you don't care if they are black or not, you just don't want the other guy to like vote for them. IN fact, your side would LIKE the idea that black barriers were coming down.

Are you really comparing your own views on fiscal policy to bigotry?

And in this case, Sarah Palin. TCT doesn't need her to be a fiscal conservative for him to like her, he's not going to like her, but he think conservatives can be talked out of their desire to vote for her by pointing out that maybe she is tainted somehow, tainted by not being conservative enough etc., etc., etc. But TCT doesn't want conservative at all and has an ulterior motive for arguing that she's not 'conservative enough.'

He's pointing out that your claims about her aren't true. Yes, he has other reasons to dislike her, so that particular line of discussion is fairly irrelevant to his opinion.

I don't see how it is automatically a problem to point this out, however. Suppose you told us that you liked McCain because he was opposed to stem cell research. Would the fact that I favor such research make it a problem for me to point out that he, in fact, supports it?

....
It goes something like this:

Baldy: I like Palin because she's a fiscal conservative.
Others: Numerous examples Palin's lack of fiscal conservatism.
Baldy: You don't even like fiscal conservatism, why should you care?
TCT: It doesn't really matter what I think on it. I dislike Palin for other reasons. But I know you value it, and Palin isn't fiscally conservative.
Baldy: BIAS! BIAS!!

Baldy: Palin is opposed to earmarks.
Others: Look at how many earmarks she obtained.
Baldy: OBAMA ASKED FOR MORE!
Others: Well, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Baldy: (quotes by Obama that don't say what Baldy thinks they do)
Others: Like we said, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Baldy: You just hate Sarah! Hypocrisy! Meanies!


OMgoodness you are posting like a school yard bully chanting, honestly, try having a conversation without the personal 'taunts'.

TCT can't 'define' my fiscal conservatism' for me. IF I say Palin is fiscal conservative by doing this and this, and thats what I want her to do in Washington, and TCT says, well she doesn't go even 'further' into fiscal conservatism so she's not good enough, then TCT needs to think going in that direction is the correct direction to go, but he doesn't, he believes the exact opposite. If he does anyway, in the end, I haven't lost my point that she's still conservative in the manner I first cited and my justification for supporting he isn't even challenged by argument yet.

...
Are you really comparing your own views on fiscal policy to bigotry?
...

Really, that's the extent of your reading comprehension? I use a method sample to explain the problem with the method and you want to pretend it implies my bigotry? Nice.

When you get a real argument I'll continue.

...
Motivation is irrelevent.
....

That's where you are wrong. In this format, motivation makes an okay argument elsewhere, trolling or flamebait here. Motivation here being the only difference between the two arguments. If you don't believe your own arguments here but say them to get a negative response only, I think it's called trolling.

That's where you are wrong. In this format, motivation makes an okay argument elsewhere, trolling or flamebait here. Motivation here being the only difference between the two arguments. If you don't believe your own arguments here but say them to get a negative response only, I think it's called trolling.

Evidence that TCT does not believe his argument that Palin is not a fiscal conservative?

....um, yes, actually it does.

Defintions for "bias":
"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice"
"a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment; see also 'prejudice'."

Do you know what prejudice means? It means you judge BEFORE knowing the facts. Analyzing the facts and arriving at a conclusion is, by definition, not "prejudice" or "bias." By your personal definition, every judge in history has been "biased" towards everyone who ever won a case in front of them.

No, I'm sorry, but just no. You can't have a pre-conclussion in mind before you hear the argument, if you do, you are biased. TCT already said that he is against the ideology of a viewpoint I have, thus, my debate content is pointless, he's already against it before reading it. That is bias. Check you ditionary again, it doesn't say what you said.

Evidence that TCT does not believe his argument that Palin is not a fiscal conservative?

Fiscal conservative was an example of the tactic, not important in itself TCT SAID: I've been arguing in your ballpark so to speak, by discussing Palin's less than impressive credentials. IN your ballpark, he means he's pretending that she doesn't meet MY credentials by pushing MY credentials past where I put them. He however doesn't agree with what my credentials are at all and would in fact wish that HIS candidate would go in the opposite direction of his pretend objection with my candidate.

Is it just me or does anything think the recent "debate" on this thread sounds a lot like a Creationist trying to refute Evolution, or Muhammad Saeed "Baghdad Bob" al-Sahhaf trying to convince the world that Iraq wasn't being overrun?

That's where you are wrong. In this format, motivation makes an okay argument elsewhere, trolling or flamebait here. Motivation here being the only difference between the two arguments. If you don't believe your own arguments here but say them to get a negative response only, I think it's called trolling.

Nope - not even true.

You are frowned upon for misrepresenting your BELIEFS in this forum, but there is no judgment implicit on presenting FACTS that do not sit with your own values.

Moderation might jump on you if you pretend to be a commie when you're a capitalist, or pretend to be racist, for the sake of responses. But, commies are allowed to post data from the Financial Times. Data is not subject to motivation.

If TCT shows Palin to be less than fiscally conservative, his personal beliefs are irrelevent - debate the data, not the poster.

<snip>
He doesn’t feel the need to believe his own arguments, if he thinks they will impact my judgment of the question (whatever the question might be).
So, according to you, showing you the flaws in your own arguments by arguing within the parameters of your arguments is "trolling"?

Heh, yeah, uh... no. :D That's called debating, B. And from what I've been reading, it's also called winning the debate.

Which is essentially what you think I am liable of doing in your question.
What, that you're capable of arguing things you don't believe? Yeah, I think most of us have come to that conclusion based on your posts alone -- not TCT's or anyone else's. You've posted enough, and contradicted yourself enough, to clue us to that.

No, I'm sorry, but just no. You can't have a pre-conclussion in mind before you hear the argument, if you do, you are biased. TCT already said that he is against the ideology of a viewpoint I have, thus, my debate content is pointless, he's already against it before reading it. That is bias. Check you ditionary again, it doesn't say what you said.
Yeah, you can. It's called having a prejudice.

Fiscal conservative was an example of the tactic, not important in itself TCT SAID: I've been arguing in your ballpark so to speak, by discussing Palin's less than impressive credentials. IN your ballpark, he means he's pretending that she doesn't meet MY credentials by pushing MY credentials past where I put them. He however doesn't agree with what my credentials are at all and would in fact wish that HIS candidate would go in the opposite direction of his pretend objection with my candidate.
B, you have altered your criteria so many times, Palin herself wouldn't be able to tell whether she meets them or not.

The bottom line is this: Over an unconscionable length of time you have twisted your own words, moved your goalposts around like they were on wheels, deflected arguments, attempted to redefine basic English words, dropped arguments, ignored questions, and done a host of other things that create the strong impression that you are either dishonest or just love to watch yourself type. Your most recent tactic to try to deflect criticism of Palin is to try to make the debate be about TCT. But you are fooling no one. Everyone knows that you would support her even if she came to your house and ate your child right in front of her. You refuse to say why, but frankly, based on your posting history in NSG observed over a significant time period, I agree with TCT. It's because she's a fundamentalist.

You refuse to say why, but frankly, based on your posting history in NSG observed over a significant time period, I agree with TCT. It's because she's a white fundamentalist.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

I'm generally staying out of all this nonsense, but let's be a bit fair: I'm not sure that Baldy has ever said anything racist and I don't think racism has anything to do with his support of the McCain/Palin ticket.

I'm generally staying out of all this nonsense, but let's be a bit fair: I'm not sure that Baldy has ever said anything racist and I don't think racism has anything to do with his support of the McCain/Palin ticket.

Between the re-imagining of Jesus as milky white, the evangelical justification for slavery, missionaries withholding aid and food for to get people to convert, the church's silent acceptance of the holocaust, and the lies spread about condoms and AIDS in Africa, the fundamentalist perspective is, historically, a profoundly racist one.

So I wouldn't be surprised.

Is it just me or does anything think the recent "debate" on this thread sounds a lot like a Creationist trying to refute Evolution

yes. for a rather simple reason, in fact.

Between the re-imagining of Jesus as milky white, the evangelical justification for slavery, missionaries withholding aid and food for to get people to convert, the church's silent acceptance of the holocaust, and the lies spread about condoms and AIDS in Africa, the fundamentalist perspective is, historically, a profoundly racist one.

So I wouldn't be surprised.

Id have to agree, there is some deeply ingrained racism in Christian fundies, whether they know it or not.

all this supreme court talk seems to me to be very iffy in any case.

if you are conservative and are hoping for a mccain presidency because he will use his great judgement to choose good conservative justices for the supreme court you might want to consider how good his judgement was in picking a pretty neophyte for VP.

maybe you want to pretend that mrs palin was a carefully considered choice but the evidence is that he barely knew anything about her and chose her for her religion and her dynamic personality. if he is going to be so rash about the person who would be "a heartbeat away" why do you think he is going to be careful about the supreme court?

maybe you want to pretend that mrs palin was a carefully considered choice but the evidence is that he barely knew anything about her and chose her for her religion and her dynamic personality.

well, that and he was having a temper tantrum about being told he couldn't have joementum

OMgoodness you are posting like a school yard bully chanting, honestly, try having a conversation without the personal 'taunts'.

TCT can't 'define' my fiscal conservatism' for me. IF I say Palin is fiscal conservative by doing this and this, and thats what I want her to do in Washington, and TCT says, well she doesn't go even 'further' into fiscal conservatism so she's not good enough, then TCT needs to think going in that direction is the correct direction to go, but he doesn't, he believes the exact opposite. If he does anyway, in the end, I haven't lost my point that she's still conservative in the manner I first cited and my justification for supporting he isn't even challenged by argument yet.

Here's my summary of things: Palin runs as a fiscal conservative. It can be proven she is not very good at that. So the logic is not inconsistent.

Palin is running against earmarks and she is a big time requester of earmarks. Obama is not running on that platform, so he is not being inconsistent in his views. Pointing out he has requested earmarks is irrelevant. I don't really need to delve any further into things here.

There are many other reasons to dislike Palin, and these are just a few. Hell, Sarah Palin can't even run on what Sarah Palin supposedly stands for when put up to factcheck.org. So she's throwing stones while still inside her own glass house.

Here's my summary of things: Palin runs as a fiscal conservative. It can be proven she is not very good at that. So the logic is not inconsistent.

Palin is running against earmarks and she is a big time requester of earmarks. Obama is not running on that platform, so he is not being inconsistent in his views. Pointing out he has requested earmarks is irrelevant. I don't really need to delve any further into things here.

There are many other reasons to dislike Palin, and these are just a few. Hell, Sarah Palin can't even run on what Sarah Palin supposedly stands for when put up to factcheck.org. So she's throwing stones while still inside her own glass house.


The logic of your deduction is seriously flawed.

As a voter I only have two real options. If I want to vote for the most fiscally conservative ticket, with the most resistence to earmarks, it's the McCain-Palin ticket, not the Obama-Biden ticket. If you want to argue that McCain-Palin isn't fiscally conservative enough, and that they won't cut earmarks enough etc., then put up a candidate that is MORE fiscally conservative and will cut back earmarks even more, until then, McCain_Palin IS the fiscally conservative anti-earmark choice in this race.

all this supreme court talk seems to me to be very iffy in any case.

if you are conservative and are hoping for a mccain presidency because he will use his great judgement to choose good conservative justices for the supreme court you might want to consider how good his judgement was in picking a pretty neophyte for VP.

maybe you want to pretend that mrs palin was a carefully considered choice but the evidence is that he barely knew anything about her and chose her for her religion and her dynamic personality. if he is going to be so rash about the person who would be "a heartbeat away" why do you think he is going to be careful about the supreme court?

Boy have you got that backwards. Have you noticed how much we like Palin? It INCREASES our confidence in McCain making good selections. Now from your point of view, if you were hoping for more liberal picks from McCain, then I can understand how you are disappointed, but then, people with that outlook weren't going to vote for McCain anyway.

Boy have you got that backwards. Have you noticed how much we like Palin? It INCREASES our confidence in McCain making good selections. That increases my confidence in your inability to differentiate between a good and a bad selection. Palin, objectively seen, has numerous flaws, foremost among them her complete ignorance of certain aspects of politics, that make her a bad choice for VP.

I'm generally staying out of all this nonsense, but let's be a bit fair: I'm not sure that Baldy has ever said anything racist and I don't think racism has anything to do with his support of the McCain/Palin ticket.

Thank you.

That increases my confidence in your inability to differentiate between a good and a bad selection. Palin, objectively seen, has numerous flaws, foremost among them her complete ignorance of certain aspects of politics, that make her a bad choice for VP.

Objectively seen? Who around here is objective? LOL

She's a fantastic choice.

Objectively seen? Who around here is objective? LOL
Subjectively seen she's a nimwit Republican abstinence only supporter who couldn't manage to get that message through to her own daughter that engages in divisive partisan politics.

You don't need to be a "liberal" to see her flaws, but you certainly have to be a diehard conservative to ignore them.

Boy have you got that backwards. Have you noticed how much we like Palin? It INCREASES our confidence in McCain making good selections. Now from your point of view, if you were hoping for more liberal picks from McCain, then I can understand how you are disappointed, but then, people with that outlook weren't going to vote for McCain anyway.

I can't help but note the "We like Palin" group grows smaller daily. Her favorability rating has been sliding pretty steadily.

I can't help but note the "We like Palin" group grows smaller daily. Her favorability rating has been sliding pretty steadily.

She's such a conservative and if she balances out around 50% or so when it's all said and done, that would be amazingly good in this election cycle.

She's such a conservative and if she balances out around 50% or so when it's all said and done, that would be amazingly good in this election cycle.

Last I saw she was in the low 40s. The constant lying cannot be helping her. Though I can't see how the constant lying would help McCain either but he's still competitive. I suppose however if you qualified a candidate based on their ability to tell the truth you'd never vote.

The logic of your deduction is seriously flawed.As a voter I only have two real options. If I want to vote for the most fiscally conservative ticket, with the most resistence to earmarks, it's the McCain-Palin ticket, not the Obama-Biden ticket. If you want to argue that McCain-Palin isn't fiscally conservative enough, and that they won't cut earmarks enough etc., then put up a candidate that is MORE fiscally conservative and will cut back earmarks even more, until then, McCain_Palin IS the fiscally conservative anti-earmark choice in this race.
1) You say you have two options, but you describe only one. This suggests that you are, in fact, not considering a choice at all.

2) Another supporting suggestion of your lack of intention to actually consider a choice is that you demand that we have to provide you with an alternative you like better. You have made up your mind and dictated your terms, and you refuse even to consider whether any other type of candidate has any merit or not. You only want to hear what you want to hear, and you want to dictate how the rest of us will make our pitches to you, only you don't get to to do that.

And anyway, it is not our job to provide you with a candidate that you think is fiscally conservative. We are only responsible to pick the candidate who has the BETTER fiscal policy -- which is not necessarily the most "conservative." And we have done that with Obama. If you don't like him, we don't care. Your refusal to discuss Obama does not change the fact that everything you say about McCain/Palin is false, nor does it change the fact that when you ask us to provide you with a more McCain-ier McCain or a more Palin-esque Palin, you are wasting our time, as you have no intention of adjusting your stance anyway (see item 4, below).

3) You have slogged -- blindly, obviously -- through hundreds of posts showing you precisely how McCain/Palin is NOT a fiscally conservative, anti-earmark ticket. How, taken together, they have carried out rampant, irresponsible spending and snarfing up of earmarks like there's no tomorrow. It has been amply shown to you how they are lying through their teeth when they say otherwise. Most other posters have chosen to pretend that you don't understand this, but I treat you with more respect -- enough respect to believe that you know perfectly well what you are doing. You are lying, and you are doing it as deliberately as they are.

4) Because your entire argument about fiscally conservative tickets is a lie, it would be impossible to show you anyone who you would admit is MORE fiscally conservative than McCain/Palin because you will just keep changing your definition of "fiscally conservative" to make sure it fits no one BUT McCain/Palin. This is exactly what you have been doing with every issue raised in this and every other US election thread for weeks now.

We get it. You're not going to vote for Obama. Seriously, we never thought otherwise. Give it up, B, just walk away -- because there is no way that anyone else is going to fall for your flashing-neon-obvious lies. All you have been doing for weeks now is playing the stereotypical Dishonest Bushevik Clown Doll that your opponents occupy their spare time beating up for laughs, like a pinata, when we have nothing more interesting to do. Your carryings on are so outrageous that I would think you are actually engaging in an extended parody act, except that I don't think even the most accomplished actor could stay in character and improv so many words for so long.

I would tell you to quit this and salvage some little bit of your dignity, but I'm sorry to say you have none left to save. I urge you to just walk away from this, give it a rest, and maybe, in time, someone will be able to respect you again, when this performance is far enough behind you.

Now, I know perfectly well that you are not going to listen to me. There is no reason you should. I just hope you realize that this post is the friendliest that has been written to you since this started. I showed you the exit out of this maze. If you don't walk through it, if you prefer to continue making a fool of yourself and to continue destroying the reptutations of McCain and Palin just by associating with them, then suit yourself. But trust me, you are not helping your cause.

....

One great big personal attack? Really? I think it must be your nap time huh?

OMgoodness you are posting like a school yard bully chanting, honestly, try having a conversation without the personal 'taunts'.

What personal taunts?

Going back over the conversation and summarizing it is a taunt now?

TCT can't 'define' my fiscal conservatism' for me. IF I say Palin is fiscal conservative by doing this and this, and thats what I want her to do in Washington, and TCT says, well she doesn't go even 'further' into fiscal conservatism so she's not good enough, then TCT needs to think going in that direction is the correct direction to go, but he doesn't, he believes the exact opposite.

(a) Evidence that TCT believes the "exact opposite" of fiscal conservatism.

(b) If you're using a different definition of fiscal conservatism than other people, you're going to have to expect confusion.

Really, that's the extent of your reading comprehension? I use a method sample to explain the problem with the method and you want to pretend it implies my bigotry? Nice.

No, you implied that your own views were the same as bigotry. I was just wondering if that's really what you meant to do.

Your example doesn't apply - not even close. Why? Because bigotry is a different situation altogether from legitimate disagreements on policy points. Playing to bigotry is, well, playing to bigotry. Being able to see a disagreement on a policy point from the other side is a different subject altogether.

As I pointed out, there would be nothing wrong with me correcting someone who thought that McCain was opposed to embryonic stem cell research. That person might actually be opposed, and that would mean that we have a difference of opinion on policy. But if they said, "I"m voting for McCain because he's opposed to stem cell research," the fact that I'm in favor of it wouldn't somehow make it wrong for me to point out that he is not, in fact, opposed.

Now, I know perfectly well that you are not going to listen to me.

One great big personal attack? Really? I think it must be your nap time huh?

yup.

I just hope you realize that this post is the friendliest that has been written to you since this started.

Nope.

If you don't walk through it, if you prefer to continue making a fool of yourself and to continue destroying the reptutations of McCain and Palin just by associating with them, then suit yourself.

Yup.

Ah well, what's that expression, you can lead a mule to water, etc. etc.?

She's a fantastic choice.

no, she's not. not even solely for the purpose of getting elected. she appears to have personally put florida back in play, for example. and her slight problem with that biblical imperative against lying has actually finally gotten the press pissed off enough to point out that mccain is a fucking liar too (though they still try to leave him out of it and blame just his campaign...). she has seen one of the fastest drops in favorability ratings in, like, ever.

she's not quite at eagleton levels, but she's working on it.

If I want to vote for the most fiscally conservative ticket, with the most resistence to earmarks, it's the McCain-Palin ticket, not the Obama-Biden ticket.

even though mccain's tax proposal results mainly in staggeringly huge amounts of deficit spending at a level beyond even the normal republican administration penchant for it and nobody but mccain is going to even pretend to try to stop earmarks just because mccain wants it?

One great big personal attack? Really? I think it must be your nap time huh?
It's not a personal attack. It's a critique of your arguments, followed by advice.

But yelling "personal attack" inappropriately is one of your more common tactics, so I'm not surprised you reacted that way.

What personal taunts?

Going back over the conversation and summarizing it is a taunt now?
<snip>
Well, to be honest, it has gotten to the point where it is just embarrassing.

yup.



Nope.



Yup.

Ah well, what's that expression, you can lead a mule to water, etc. etc.?
Hey, I made the effort. My conscience is satisfied. :D

It's not a personal attack. It's a critique of your arguments, followed by advice.

But yelling "personal attack" inappropriately is one of your more common tactics, so I'm not surprised you reacted that way.

LOL... Okay then. These tidbits aren't attacks then...

*everything you say about McCain/Palin is false

*You have slogged -- blindly, obviously

*You are lying, and you are doing it as deliberately as they are.

*your flashing-neon-obvious lies

*you have been doing for weeks now is playing the stereotypical Dishonest Bushevik Clown Doll that your opponents occupy their spare time beating up for laughs, like a pinata, when we have nothing more interesting to do. Your carryings on are so outrageous that I would think you are actually engaging in an extended parody act, except that I don't think even the most accomplished actor could stay in character and improv so many words for so long.

*quit this and salvage some little bit of your dignity, but I'm sorry to say you have none left to save.

*maybe, in time, someone will be able to respect you again, when this performance is far enough behind you

*if you prefer to continue making a fool of yourself

*destroying the reptutations of McCain and Palin just by associating with them

LOL... Okay then. These tidbits aren't attacks then.

truth matters. if one doesn't want to be 'attacked' for being a liar, one must stop lying.

What personal taunts?

Going back over the conversation and summarizing it is a taunt now?

When you do so erroneously and without the intent of actual summary, yes, you turned it into taunting...

Your version:
Balderdash71964: I like Palin because she's a fiscal conservative.
Others: Numerous examples Palin's lack of fiscal conservatism.
Balderdash71964: You don't even like fiscal conservatism, why should you care?
TCT: It doesn't really matter what I think on it. I dislike Palin for other reasons. But I know you value it, and Palin isn't fiscally conservative.
Balderdash71964: BIAS! BIAS!!

Balderdash71964: Palin is opposed to earmarks.
Others: Look at how many earmarks she obtained.
Balderdash71964: OBAMA ASKED FOR MORE!
Others: Well, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Balderdash71964: (quotes by Obama that don't say what Balderdash71964 thinks they do)
Others: Like we said, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Balderdash71964: You just hate Sarah! Hypocrisy! Meanies!

Reality:
Balderdash71964: I like Palin because she's a fiscal conservative.
Others: Numerous examples Palin's lack of extreme fiscal conservatism.
Balderdash71964: You don't even like fiscal conservatism, do you think she should be MORE fiscally conservative?
TCT: It doesn't really matter what I think on it. I dislike Palin for other reasons. But I know you value it, and Palin isn't fiscally conservative.
Balderdash71964: She’s more fiscally conservative than Obama-Biden’s ticket. Of the two choices they are the conservative ones.

BIAS was about an entirely different train of posts… But you didn’t catch that part apparently and instead just tried to mix and match to make your taunting playground tactic non argument…

Balderdash71964: Palin is opposed to earmarks.
Others: Look at how many earmarks she obtained.
Balderdash71964: OBAMA ASKED FOR MORE!
Others: Well, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Balderdash71964: McCain will reduce MORE earmarks than Obama will…
Others: Like we said, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Balderdash71964: No, he’s not, and that’s why he’s not a good option for conservative minded voters.

IPUKED Argument: Sarah was just picked because she's a nimwit Republican abstinence only supporter who couldn't manage to get that message through to her own daughter that engages in divisive partisan politics.

To that I might says something like what yout attributed to me...

Balderdash71964: You just hate Sarah! Hypocrisy! Meanies!

truth matters. if one doesn't want to be 'attacked' for being a liar, one must stop lying.

I think repeatedly calling someone a liar is considered baiting someone on this forum? Yes? Saying that McCain and Palins reputation is harmed by me associating with them is flamebait, no? You have a double standard about when its against me though huh?

I think repeatedly calling someone a liar is considered baiting someone on this forum? Yes? Saying that McCain and Palins reputation is harmed by me associating with them is flamebait, no? You have a double standard about when its against me though huh?

Not you are actually, in point of fact, lying. Something that has been demonstrated.

When you do so erroneously and without the intent of actual summary, yes, you turned it into taunting...

It's funny that you complain about TCT ascribing ulterior motives to you, and then turn around and do the same thing to me.

Here's a hint: You don't have the first clue what my intent was.

Balderdash71964: I like Palin because she's a fiscal conservative.
Others: Numerous examples Palin's lack of extreme fiscal conservatism.

I'm sorry. I forgot that "fiscal conservative" these days just means, "won't raise taxes on the rich no matter how much spending we do".

I guess, from that point of view, the more traditional ideas of fiscal conservatism would look "extreme".

BIAS was about an entirely different train of posts… But you didn’t catch that part apparently and instead just tried to mix and match to make your taunting playground tactic non argument…

Or, just maybe, I got mixed up between two conversations. Sorry about that.

It was actually "TROLL!! TROLL!!"

Balderdash71964: Palin is opposed to earmarks.
Others: Look at how many earmarks she obtained.
Balderdash71964: OBAMA ASKED FOR MORE!
Others: Well, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Balderdash71964: McCain will reduce MORE earmarks than Obama will…
Others: Like we said, Obama isn't running on an anti-earmark ticket, now is he?
Balderdash71964: No, he’s not, and that’s why he’s not a good option for conservative minded voters.

Of course, you never said the last part. Instead, you tried to present evidence that Obama was, indeed, running on an anti-earmark ticket - evidence that was shown to demonstrate that he thinks the earmark process should be reformed. I take it you're dropping that now?

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, you seem to have missed the point. If someone is running on an anti-earmark ticket, they need to actually be anti-earmark. If they are just looking to reduce earmarks a little bit, that's what they should say.

It is dishonest to claim to be anti-earmarks while making ample use of them and, in fact, heading the state with the highest per capita amount of earmarks. That is what was being pointed out.

Now, if you are very anti-earmark, you're right that McCain/Palin might be the better ticket for you. But this isn't because Palin is some sort of bastion of virtue. At best, it's a "lesser evil" choice.

On another note as to Palin's "transparency", what do you think of the recent revelations and events surrounding her email? How "transparent" is someone who uses personal email for government business to avoid possible subpoenas and then, when that email might actually be examined, deletes the account?

IPUKED Argument: Sarah was just picked because she's a nimwit Republican abstinence only supporter who couldn't manage to get that message through to her own daughter that engages in divisive partisan politics.
Haha. Try again. Without willfully stating untruths please.

Boy have you got that backwards. Have you noticed how much we like Palin? It INCREASES our confidence in McCain making good selections. Now from your point of view, if you were hoping for more liberal picks from McCain, then I can understand how you are disappointed, but then, people with that outlook weren't going to vote for McCain anyway.
you might like palin, i understand that. but she is not qualified for the job. no matter how much you like her she is not ready to take over from john mccain if he wins the election and dies in office. she may be a good choice if all he wants to do is get elected, she is a terrible choice for vp.

and if he cares so little about the country to choose such an unprepared candidate for the 2nd most important office in the country, why would you believe that he cares any more about who he puts on the supreme court.

EDIT

i was not expecting mccain to pick a liberal candidate. i was expecting him to pick a person who is ready to take over the oval office on day one.

The logic of your deduction is seriously flawed.

As a voter I only have two real options. If I want to vote for the most fiscally conservative ticket, with the most resistence to earmarks, it's the McCain-Palin ticket, not the Obama-Biden ticket. If you want to argue that McCain-Palin isn't fiscally conservative enough, and that they won't cut earmarks enough etc., then put up a candidate that is MORE fiscally conservative and will cut back earmarks even more, until then, McCain_Palin IS the fiscally conservative anti-earmark choice in this race.

Fiscal conservatism is NOT just about spending less.

The candidate that first pushed an accountability clause in this election - was Obama. The candidate that first asked for earmark reform - was Obama.

More importantly, perhaps - the Republican Party has said that THEY will not allow McCain/Palin to push the hardcore earmark policies they've been TRYING to push. McCain WON"T cut earmarks completely. Palin WON'T cut earmarks completely - because their OWN party has said they won't let it happen.

Fiscal conservatism is about more than pure dollar reduction. It's about putting money in the RIGHT places, and about making the process accountable.

And, in both those counts, the Democrat candidates are more fiscally conservative in this race.

Yep the McCain campaign is on to win because they've taken the only thing that Obama had - a public image of being A Guy Who Changes stuff. A real, real shame, but from watching Fox in the UK, they are pushing her as a reformer and all that pish. Due to the fact that 95% (at least) of old people in the US a) vote and b) watch Fox News, Palin is going to win the Republicans the white house.
Palin... Ain't she forcing her daughter into a unwanted marriage because she got knocked up at seven-teen? OBAMA-BIDEN 08!

Palin... Ain't she forcing her daughter into a unwanted marriage because she got knocked up at seven-teen? OBAMA-BIDEN 08!
No idea how much force is involved and whether the daughter doesn't want to marry.

Palin... Ain't she forcing her daughter into a unwanted marriage because she got knocked up at seven-teen? OBAMA-BIDEN 08!

That is complete and utter conjecture. You have no idea what Palin's daughter's private situation is. For all you know, she might want to get married. And your suggestion she was "knocked up" is just unnecessarily derogatory. I'm ashamed that an apparent fellow Obama supporter would be so presumptive and crude.

Palin... Ain't she forcing her daughter into a unwanted marriage because she got knocked up at seven-teen? OBAMA-BIDEN 08!

What are there Obama bots now?

...
EDIT

i was not expecting mccain to pick a liberal candidate. i was expecting him to pick a person who is ready to take over the oval office on day one.

That sounds an awful lot like what Hillary Clinton used to say about why we shouldn't vote for Obama.

Develop any new arguments lately or are you just recycling?

That sounds an awful lot like what Hillary Clinton used to say about why we shouldn't vote for Obama.

Develop any new arguments lately or are you just recycling?

Arguments can only be used once?

You might want to tell the McCampaign to stop recycling Bush's Greatest Hits, then. Seriously... 'Flip-flopping' again?

That sounds an awful lot like what Hillary Clinton used to say about why we shouldn't vote for Obama.

Develop any new arguments lately or are you just recycling?
you do like to muddy the water.

mrs clinton's criticism of mr obama has nothing to do with whether or not mrs palin is qualified for vp or whether or not mr mccain has shown horrifyingly bad judgement on a decision that was his alone to make...just as nominations to the supreme court are his alone to make.

you do like to muddy the water.

mrs clinton's criticism of mr obama has nothing to do with whether or not mrs palin is qualified for vp or whether or not mr mccain has shown horrifyingly bad judgement on a decision that was his alone to make...just as nominations to the supreme court are his alone to make.

I just like the idea that an argument can only be used once.

"Well, YES, he is a racist fascist fuckwit, but that argument's been used already..."

I just like the idea that an argument can only be used once.

"Well, YES, he is a racist fascist fuckwit, but that argument's been used already..."
it is an odd point to make.

if mrs clinton was right that mr obama is not particularly well qualified for president then how much more correct is the same observation about mrs palin's qualification to be one heart beat away from it?

I just like the idea that an argument can only be used once.

"Well, YES, he is a racist fascist fuckwit, but that argument's been used already..."Yeah, if some people prove incapable of understanding it the first time, there's nothing wrong with repeating something for their benefit.

it is an odd point to make.

if mrs clinton was right that mr obama is not particularly well qualified for president then how much more correct is the same observation about mrs palin's qualification to be one heart beat away from it?

Actually, the really odd thing is that Baldy was jumping all over TCT earlier, because he (apparently) believes you're not allowed to use evidence from the 'other side' to support your own arguments.

Indeed, he accused TCT of trolling because he was questioning Sarah Palin's dedication to the 'fiscal conservatism' cause.

So - what does it mean when Baldy trots out Hillary Clinton as a reference point?

Fiscal conservatism is NOT just about spending less.

The candidate that first pushed an accountability clause in this election - was Obama. The candidate that first asked for earmark reform - was Obama.

More importantly, perhaps - the Republican Party has said that THEY will not allow McCain/Palin to push the hardcore earmark policies they've been TRYING to push. McCain WON"T cut earmarks completely. Palin WON'T cut earmarks completely - because their OWN party has said they won't let it happen.

Fiscal conservatism is about more than pure dollar reduction. It's about putting money in the RIGHT places, and about making the process accountable.

And, in both those counts, the Democrat candidates are more fiscally conservative in this race.

Not to mention the idea of actually paying for what you spend. Whatever happened to that little part of fiscal conservatism?

Oh yeah, Republicans dropped it and some Democrats (like Obama) took it over.

Of course, you never said the last part. Instead, you tried to present evidence that Obama was, indeed, running on an anti-earmark ticket - evidence that was shown to demonstrate that he thinks the earmark process should be reformed. I take it you're dropping that now?

Are you sure you're not thinking of someone beside me? I'm not recalling the conversation you seem to be recalling...

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, you seem to have missed the point. If someone is running on an anti-earmark ticket, they need to actually be anti-earmark. If they are just looking to reduce earmarks a little bit, that's what they should say.

McCain says it a lot. He says he's going to stop all earmarks, it's hard to believe he can actually do it, but its no harder than believing that Obama is going to both end fighting in Iraq and increase fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan without increasing the war effort, but meh, believe what you want.

It is dishonest to claim to be anti-earmarks while making ample use of them and, in fact, heading the state with the highest per capita amount of earmarks. That is what was being pointed out. Nothing dishonest about it. She HAS reduces the amount of earmarks in state, and she's told her state that they need to learn how to stop depending on earmarks. Your expectation that an entire state can go over night cold turkey is disingenuous.

Now, if you are very anti-earmark, you're right that McCain/Palin might be the better ticket for you.

Exactly correct, thank you.

On another note as to Palin's "transparency", what do you think of the recent revelations and events surrounding her email? How "transparent" is someone who uses personal email for government business to avoid possible subpoenas and then, when that email might actually be examined, deletes the account?

How transparent is the Governor who fulfilled her campaign promise to put her state budget online for everyone to see and she did it? Pretty transparent. You 'assume' guilt for the Yahoo nonsense. You assume she did it to hide something, but if you're aware that high security networks, like banking and government networks, require wired system access to their computers than you are also aware that high security networks are insufficient for travel and convenience via wireless and/or wifi. Using both types of systems is not an indicator of shady or criminal activity.

Arguments can only be used once?

You might want to tell the McCampaign to stop recycling Bush's Greatest Hits, then. Seriously... 'Flip-flopping' again?

So you're saying its still a good argument to point out that Obama has no executive experience to speak of and when its pointed out he points at how big his campaign is? :tongue:

Not to mention the idea of actually paying for what you spend. Whatever happened to that little part of fiscal conservatism?

Oh yeah, Republicans dropped it and some Democrats (like Obama) took it over.

What's fiscally irresponsible about tripling the national debt?

So you're saying its still a good argument to point out that Obama has no executive experience to speak of and when its pointed out he points at how big his campaign is? :tongue:

If it's a good argument, it's a good argument.

The problem is - if it's a good argument about Obama, it's twice as good an argument about (the even less experienced) Palin.

Of course, since none of the people running has ever been president... 'experience' isn't THAT good an argument.

So you're saying its still a good argument to point out that Obama has no executive experience to speak of and when its pointed out he points at how big his campaign is? :tongue:
duh

of course its a legitimate point.

the question is about how important that particular sort of experience is and how it stacks up against the other guy's experience in the same arena.

you do like to muddy the water.

mrs clinton's criticism of mr obama has nothing to do with whether or not mrs palin is qualified for vp or whether or not mr mccain has shown horrifyingly bad judgement on a decision that was his alone to make...just as nominations to the supreme court are his alone to make.

Every elected Governor is qualified to be President. Pretending otherwise is partisan politics. Bill Clinton comes to mind, they said the same thing about him before he was elected, said he wasn't qualified yadda yadda yadda. I suspect that you didn't say that about him then though.

She qualified enough. We can see her record, we know what she stands for and what she wants to do and we know what McCain wants to do and what he stands for.

duh

of course its a legitimate point.

the question is about how important that particular sort of experience is and how it stacks up against the other guy's experience in the same arena.

Well there you go then, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden do combined.

If it's a good argument, it's a good argument.

The problem is - if it's a good argument about Obama, it's twice as good an argument about (the even less experienced) Palin.

Of course, since none of the people running has ever been president... 'experience' isn't THAT good an argument.

How is she 'less' experienced, in actual governing?

For all you know, she might want to get married.
I think if they wanted to be married, they already would be.
And your suggestion she was "knocked up" is just unnecessarily derogatory.
It's not a "suggestion", it's a plain statement of fact, if crudely phrased.

Well there you go then, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden do combined.

What exactly is "executive experience" and why is it relevant? Can you show with historical examples why such experience makes for a better president?

Also, how much of this "executive experience" does McCain have?

How is she 'less' experienced, in actual governing?

Because being President isn't just about sitting in a hicktown, it's about working with the rest of the government... which Palin has basically yet to meet.

That sounds an awful lot like what Hillary Clinton used to say about why we shouldn't vote for Obama.

yeah, only it was a fucking joke when clinton used it, dependent entirely on attributing imaginary experience to her and denying legitimate things to him. whereas palin's experience is the joke in this case.

What exactly is "executive experience" and why is it relevant? Can you show with historical examples why such experience makes for a better president?

Also, how much of this "executive experience" does McCain have?

Executive experience means experience leading people. And by leading I mean robbing.

Every elected Governor is qualified to be President. Pretending otherwise is partisan politics. Bill Clinton comes to mind, they said the same thing about him before he was elected, said he wasn't qualified yadda yadda yadda. I suspect that you didn't say that about him then though.

She qualified enough. We can see her record, we know what she stands for and what she wants to do and we know what McCain wants to do and what he stands for.
when a person has chosen to run for president, we can believe that they have thought about national politics, where they stand on all the pertinent issues, and how they would deal with current and past problems.

when a person is chosen for vp nominee without ever having run for any kind of national office and has had the job of governor for less than 2 years we cannot be so confident. this lack of confidence is re-inforced by nonsense like pretending that having been on the alaska oil regulartory board is a qualification for national security issues, sharing a maritime border with russia as foreign policy experience, and taking federal money for pork barrel projects and putting unqualified friends into top state offices qualfies as reform.

I think if they wanted to be married, they already would be.

It's not a "suggestion", it's a plain statement of fact, if crudely phrased.

1. I repeat. No one truly knows the complete facts behind this private matter. I have a couple of friends who want to marry. Are they married? No. They're waiting for 3/4 years until she's finished university.

2. True, if by "knocked up" you mean "got pregnant" yes. However, the phrase has negative connotations that I have an issue with. We don't know, and likely never will, know the full extent of the facts surrounding this private affair, so if we're going to bring it into the debate, then let's stick with what we know for sure, and not pointlessly conjecture for the sake of partisanship.

Also, all this recent talk of fiscal conservatism reminds me of this:

http://ohmygov.com/blogs/whats-so-funny/FiscalConservative.gif

Well there you go then, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden do combined.
that does not qualify her for running the US government though.

How is she 'less' experienced, in actual governing?

she is worse than 'less'. her experience demonstrates her fundamental unfitness. the more people find out, the less there is to like.