Obama frightens the Left???
 

"Progressive" sounds much nicer than the "Anti-Israel Socialist Party"

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Giving credit where credit is due, this last quip was amusing.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

I did give you props. You shut me up with the comment, which is about as good as the props come from my end. That's like a grand slam with two runners on each base.

Obama frightens the Left???
 

Putting that slanted definition aside, can anyone articulate for me a comprehensive "Progressive" platform? I hear so many people use the term, but nobody ever defines it. The term itself suggests a never ending movement, but to what end? If we took "progressive" policies as far as they can go, where exactly would they go? Is it ultimately socialism? I honestly don't know what all these waterheads throwing the term around on television are talking about. "Conservative" is a little easier to understand since Buckley pretty well defined it, so I understand one of the battling ideologies, but a concrete definition of it's opponent's aims and goals and planks seems to elude me.

Obama frightens the Left???
 

I would have to say that the Republican Party did it best in 1928, when they promised a vote for Hoover would lead to "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."

Can't get much more progressive than that, can you?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Not usually, but this Board isn't real life.

I say it rarely, always in person (and with a smile to signal that I know what it sounds like).

S_A_M

Obama frightens the Left???
 

That makes me like him even more.

S_A_M

Obama frightens the Left???
 

It also makes me all the more curious why he's has taken the opposite side of almost all of these issues in the Senate.

And sex, drugs and rock and roll.
 

Peace, love and understanding.

And sex, drugs and rock and roll.
 

Unless you are a Republican. See, e.g., article above.

And sex, drugs and rock and roll.
 

I don't see what's so funny about Peace, Love and Understanding.

And sex, drugs and rock and roll.
 

It's the Catholic in you. Let it go.

Obama frightens the Left???
 

If you look into some of his endorsements in Illinois state and Chicago/Cook local races, you'll see that there's a lot of apparent go along to get along in the man.

I'm curious why you are so negative about a dem who is openly negative about the lefty nuts in the party.

The New Odds Are Out!
 

to win the Primaries:

SEN. MCCAIN (AZ) 33 38 +163
RUDY GIULIANI 21 26 +284
GOV. HUCKABEE (AR) 17 22 +354
MITT ROMNEY 10 14 +614
REP. RON PAUL (TX) 3 6 +1566
FRED THOMPSON 2 5 +1900

SEN. CLINTON (NY) 47 52 -108
SEN. OBAMA (IL) 46 51 -104
AL GORE 1 4 +2400
JOHN EDWARDS 1 4 +2400

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Got me thinking that the Emancipation Proclamation was one hell of a regulatory taking. Puts Kelo v. City of New London into a new light -- freeing the slaves was just a taking for private benefit, when it comes down to it. Vote Paul for market-based freedom!

Obama frightens the Left???
 

Uncanny valley hypothesis?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

It had been so long that I was hoping you had forgotten how.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Obama worries the lefties, who think he's too interested in appealing to independents and Republicans.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

when i look back on all the posts I regret from the past, I realize this was my nadir.

Two reasons.

First, Hank had never posted a "Byrd in the klan" pic; we all knew it was Penske, but Hank's persuasive arguing could only be dealt with by such cheap deflection techniques. We all lacked the intellectual firepower to deal with him straight up.

Second, clearly GGG was the one resorting to trollish behavior, yet I'm forced to read myself attacking Hank, that beloved poster that newbers started calling Papa about 2012. Why did my younger self lack the integrity to attack the one who deserved the attack?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Responding to this post would make me schizophrenic, wouldn't it?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

none of my business really, but at some point the two psyches will mind meld, I mean if this is all true, and at that point the two of you should pretty much agree. i take it we're not there yet?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

I'm pretty certain that I'll never hit 50, so this whole exercise presents interesting questions.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

"Obama the Candidate" - is rather appealing, in a WJeffClinton-without-the-sleaze way.

The problem is that "Obama the Candidate" is currently nothing more than a projection; a possible myth; a PR dream.

"Obama the Senator" - the one with the actual voting record- the actual word and deed - is the guy that worries me.

The Left is worried he'll actually become Obama the Candidate. I'm pretty confident he'll remain Obama the Senator.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

This is good stuff.

In all honesty, you should teach law school. Drive the fucking kids nutz with this stuff.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Maybe because the slave owners were all enemy combatants, they didn't have rights?

Somebody had a lot of fun coming up with this headline.

New Title
 

You are right. Freeing the slaves was for "public use." (Or disuse.) And, as much as you may dislike the idea, it was a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment as property was legally defined and accepted at the time.

Kelo is an abortion on the "public use" debate, but at least it affirmed that governments (and the morons who make up their city councils) have to pay just compensation for a taking, even as minimally described the Supes, and they should consider that fact and consequences when they act. See, e.g., http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNFETSC0H.DTL

New Title
 

Except when you cut through all the hooplah, the HMB case wasn't about eminent domain. It was really only an inverse condemnation claim, no different than if the city's storm sewers flooded your rumpus room. The only difference is that this particular rumpus room was worth $36.7MM, and that when you tried to pump the water out in order to save the foosball table, the California Coastal Commission tut-tutted and said that red-legged frogs had moved into your shag carpeting, so no dice, your rumpus room is now "habitat," and not in a good 1970s way.

In retrospect, the analogy wound up more tortured than I'd planned, but still.

8/10! And I didn't actually recognize anyone.

New Title
 

omission / commission. To use your tortured analogy, it is as if they knew the storm sewers were going to flood my rumpus room and went out and poked holes in the dykes. heh, heh, heh.

New Title
 

At the moment I tend to think Judge Walker got it right, but I think it's a stretch to go even further and say HMB created the wetlands intentionally. Even the property owner was surprised by their appearance, and you would assume he'd be paying attention to such things.

Minor point, but the wisdom about never attributing to malice etc. goes double for municipal DPWs.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

They're really stupid enough to see the difference between a sales pitch and his actual voting record? Or are they so ideological they can't abide getting the best Dem candidate into office by bullshitting Independent and moderate Republican swing voters?

My guess is the rabid left is most upset by Obama not because they think he'll be a centrist if elected, but because his election would prove the country is trending centrist. The Jesus crazies on the Right have always known they were a minority and would only get their views into the political debate by manipulating the political system. These idiot Lefties really believe there's a left-leaning "progressive" majority in the country. They actually think the country is turning quasi-socialist.

Peripherally related rant here:

The funniest thing about these soft socialists is that if they get enacted their current marquis issue, universal health care, it will draw the brightest line between haves and have nots in the history of the country. All the best talent in medicine will follow the market forces and service the people who can afford it.

In theory, I agree with universal health care, as a moral issue, but another more important moral issue - allowing docs to have freedom to practice where they want and control their economic destinies - trumps it. What is the Left going to do? Force docs to work for government money? Tell the insurers they can't offer insurance packages to those who can afford it to stop the insurers, well-off consumers and profit-oriented docs from developing a whole different tier of health care service which would suck up all the best talent in medicine? In the realm of services, particularly something like health care, collectivist = substandard. What the govt gives at C+ quality the private sector always delivers at an A level.*

And who will John Edwards sue? There isn't any universal health care coming without some sort of tort immunity or govt-backed slush fund which would pay out severely statutorily capped awards. And Uncle Sam's a bitch to litigate against. He gets extra time to answer complaints and motions and he has all those pesky sovereign immunity defenses.

*With the exception of Halliburton and Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama frightens the Left???
 

Because it's likely a ruse.

M.I.A. Moron
 

Clicking through a few articles on Malkin's site - I can across this gem from last week:

LOL

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

do any of you have any idea what actually happened in Ontario? for awhile people with bucks could hire better care THEN the governement outlawed it.

yes, once there is universal care they can say you can't pay for better care. Then the guy in Windsor having a heart attack will die, not unlike we'll be doing here.

but I'm sure the dems can blog cite stuff that says I'm stupid.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Couple of points, then a question:

1. Canada's ban on private health insurance and fee for service medicine has since been ruled unconsitutional for obvious reasons.

2. For the same or similar reasons (I'm not a Canadian constitutional law scholar, but I'll make a wild assumption there), the US could never outlaw private fee for service care or private health insurance.*

3. Given the reality of #2, how is universal health care supposed to succeed in the face of so many market forces subverting its intent? Is the assumption good docs would run to big hospitals awash in more federal money? Is the govt supposed to be a much more willing payer than the insurance companies who pay nickles on the dollar to the hospitals? I'm honestly confused about how this universal health care system would do much more than bring substandard care to a shitload of people and push those with means into a fee for service or private insurance environment at a nice discount (insurers could probably service an economically well off risk pool at advantageous rates since the poor tend to have the most health crises and chronic illnesses).

*I think under the McCarran or McCann Ferguson Act or something like that states are the ultimate regulators of insurance so the Feds trying to grab the reins there would be a real mess.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

The MacCarran Ferrguson Act (I could be wrong about the spelling, but you know what I mean) is federal legislation. If the Congress decides to adopt universal health care coverage, and they decide to nationalize the health care system (which are two things that are not necessarily tied together), then presumably they would repeal the insurance act and bring health insurance within the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Of course, this is a vast oversimplification. There are also collateral issues like federalism and the 11th Amendment and state control over other types of insurance. But this, I think, should answer your basic question.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Having had a pretty terrifying up close and personal experience with the state of the Canadian health care system over the holidays, I think you are absolutely spot-on here. Everyone should be covered, but doctors fees shouldn't be capped, or else there's no incentive for doctors to service areas of the country other than large urban centers.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Ha. Not surprised I got my ass handed to me in the one case tried re: McCarran. Kinda helps if you can spell the legislation. Why did I quit law again?

Anyway, I hear you on the Federalism issues, but what about #3? How does our natl health system not become a second class health system without the outlawing of private insurance or fee for service care, which I think we can all agree is an impossible scenario since that would violate the Constitution?