Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I share your derision of all things religious, but the info I've been seeing places nearly as much support for this mystical claptrap on Democrats as on Repubs. Are you sure you can make this your defining issue?

Okay, not enshrining Hebrew Scriptures values in the Constitution is my defining issue. Have any suggestions as to which major party I should support? Think it's a tie?

If there are Democrats out there who are so poorly educated as to what Biblical values are that they support the superficial idea that the Bible is one thing we can call agree on, those Democrats are my enemy, and the enemy of liberty, as much as Bush is.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sorry, but God has a couple of other marriage-related policies that take priority over the unclean things that creep at the bottom of the sea.
[list=1][*]Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one (or more) women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5).
[*]Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
[*]A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21).
[*]Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
[*]Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
[*]If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
[*]If there are no acceptable men in your town, you may get your dad drunk and have sex with him tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. (Gen 19:31-36)[/list=1]

I look forward to seeing the best minds of the GOP come up with tenable Constitutional language enshrining these principles, and I look forward also to Ty's re-write that accomplishes them without the ambiguity that often results when the GOP leadership doesn't want to admit what its real agenda is.

as long as you're rewriting, I had this little thing with the family dog (female!) as an early teen. Could you add a little verse, kind of parallel to the one bite rule maybe, so nunc pro tunc, I can still get to heaven.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
As I said yesterday, it was a slow news day.

I noticed that too. No celebrity deaths to report. Oh. Wait. Wrong thread.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Okay, not enshrining Hebrew Scriptures values in the Constitution is my defining issue. Have any suggestions as to which major party I should support? Think it's a tie?

If there are Democrats out there who are so poorly educated as to what Biblical values are that they support the superficial idea that the Bible is one thing we can call agree on, those Democrats are my enemy, and the enemy of liberty, as much as Bush is.

That was my point. While, yes, the numbers of such believers weight to Repub, it's not a sweep. It's more like 60/40, from what I read.

So, you are redefining your enemy in a drastic way. There are a lot of people who used to sit at your table who now are gonna have to go eat with the jocks.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
That was my point. While, yes, the numbers of such believers weight to Repub, it's not a sweep. It's more like 60/40, from what I read.

So, you are redefining your enemy in a drastic way. There are a lot of people who used to sit at your table who now are gonna have to go eat with the jocks.

Um, Bilmore, if you hadn't previously noticed that my own political philosophy is objectionable to huge swaths of the Dem unwashed, you haven't been paying attention. I'm not a candidate for office in a Dem primary today; I'm a free agent. Like you, I am a proud member of an elite right-thinking group within my party.

Of course, you're pointing to the fact that there are some people on the Dem side of the aisle who are on the wrong side of this issue in order to feel better about being a member of the party that is responsible for the question even being asked. That smacks of rationalization.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
That was my point. While, yes, the numbers of such believers weight to Repub, it's not a sweep. It's more like 60/40, from what I read.

So, you are redefining your enemy in a drastic way. There are a lot of people who used to sit at your table who now are gonna have to go eat with the jocks.

Lev. 11: 7 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you. 8 Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you.

But bacon tastes good.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That smacks of rationalization.

Of course it does

Similarly, yours smacked of overgeneralization.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Trashing Maxine Waters is easy. Let's all do it. I'm not going to defend her as responsible. Charlie Rangel I'm less clear on, but that's like saying that once you've looked into the sun for a while, it's hard to tell how bright a lightbulb is.

Nice line.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Irresponsible? Dunno. If it's Colin Powell's word against Aristide's, I tend to believe Powell, but it's not like this story wouldn't be out there if Waters and Rangel had kept mum. Aristide can talk to other people. I don't think they did any harm, I don't think they were acting for political purposes -- what does that mean in this context, anyway? -- and I don't think what they said did anything to increase the jeopardy to our troops. As I said yesterday, it was a slow news day.

But don't you think it's a far different story if it's "CNN reports that Ariside is claiming X" rather than "CNN reports that members of the Congressional Black Caucus want an investigation"? The answer is that it gives legitimacy to the claim.

And of course they are acting for political purposes, under the theory that any investigation is a good investigation if its subject is a member of the other party.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

On the Bush-won't-follow-through-on-marriage-amendment discussion, an interesting observation:

NY Times

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
If supporters hear that he didn't just flee, but instead was carried away, they may continue the fight in the hopes that he can return. This is directly supported by what I heard on CNN a while ago. (i.e., a supporter saying "if he didn't go voluntarily, then he'll be back!") Plus, it makes us the bad guys to a big crowd of people with Aristide's guns.

Did Aristide have all that many guns? The news coverage before the Marines went in referred to the pro-Aristide police forces as "woefully outgunned and outmanned" so much that I thought it was part of their name.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But don't you think it's a far different story if it's "CNN reports that Ariside is claiming X" rather than "CNN reports that members of the Congressional Black Caucus want an investigation"? The answer is that it gives legitimacy to the claim.

And of course they are acting for political purposes, under the theory that any investigation is a good investigation if its subject is a member of the other party.

It just keeps getting stranger in Haiti. Now Baby Doc Duvalier says he wants to come back.



I suppose this is the Administration's fault too...

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But don't you think it's a far different story if it's "CNN reports
that Ariside is claiming X" rather than "CNN reports that members of the Congressional Black Caucus want an investigation"? The answer is that it gives legitimacy to the claim.

Without further evidence I have no problem accepting the response from Powell and the WH that Aristide resigned (and the more direct GOP congressman who said Aristide had a choice of leaving there on a plane or in a casket and he chose the plane). But I seriously don't understand why the question is unaskable, esp in light of the things we know our government has done to other democratically elected governments over the past several decades, under presidents of both parties.

You seemed far less concerned with the safety of our troops during the "Bring em on" discussion we had awhile back. But I understand that that was a different situation and according to you it was ok because "the troops loved it."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But don't you think it's a far different story if it's "CNN reports that Ariside is claiming X" rather than "CNN reports that members of the Congressional Black Caucus want an investigation"? The answer is that it gives legitimacy to the claim.

Only on a slow news day. No, I really don't think it's far different. I'm not sure which of those stories would be more inflammatory for the Aristide supporters who log on to CNN.com. I have a hard time believing that anyone in Haiti cares what Maxine Waters or Charlie Rangel think.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On the Bush-won't-follow-through-on-marriage-amendment discussion, an interesting observation:

NY Times

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on either Tapped or his own blog, the fact that the President doesn't seem to have any personal problems with gays only makes his endorsement of the FMA more troubling. I can respect those with profound religious beliefs, though I may disagree with those beliefs, or their efforts to make me live by them. But if the President has gay friends, and is willing to sell them out for political gain . . . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Without further evidence I have no problem accepting the response from Powell and the WH that Aristide resigned (and the more direct GOP congressman who said Aristide had a choice of leaving there on a plane or in a casket and he chose the plane). But I seriously don't understand why the question is unaskable, esp in light of the things we know our government has done to other democratically elected governments over the past several decades, under presidents of both parties.

You seemed far less concerned with the safety of our troops during the "Bring em on" discussion we had awhile back. But I understand that that was a different situation and according to you it was ok because "the troops loved it."

It's not that the question is unaskable, it's the way in which it was asked. Call the state department first if you have questions. If after speaking to state you reasonably believe there is a cover up going on, well then feel free to hold your press conference.

The "bring em on" line was troop supportive. If you have any question about this, look at the way in which Kerry is using it. It is a rallying cry.