Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
You are either with us or against us.

The pedophiles? I'm confused. I don't want to be a pedophile.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I haven't known Kerry since I was 15, but I agree with your characterization of him. He stands for nothing but himself. Ty knows that but hates the fact that the Dems are out of power (in all 3 branches of government) so much, that he will cling to obviously forged documents in a pathetic attempt to to discredit GWB to win back power for the Dems. That I can't respect. That is like Gloria Stienem saying it was OK for Clinton to rip Kathleen Wiley's blouse because he gets one free grope. Not to mention completeling ignoring that he raped and punched Wanita Broderick in the face

I have seen nothing but partisanship and hypocrisy from Ty. His behavior qualifies as unpatriotic because he cares more that his party regains power than he cares about the good of the country. It is all about who is in power. That I can't respect.

See bilmore, this post doesn't bother me at all, because I don't really give a rip what Not Me posts at this point. It's not particularly principled or interesting and it's too obviously calculated to elicit a reaction. You, OTOH, I expect more from.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
What if Newman is on the panel? What if God is like Newman????

Argue the facts.

Loudly and piously.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Well she is wrong. They need clothing, too. You can't let people run around naked in this society, even children (except maybe very young children). Clothing is certainly as essential as water. And more so than food. You can go days without food. Most of us would be irreparably psychologically harmed if we had to stand around naked. Hell, when the US military did it to some Iraqis at Abu Gharaib, the fucking Dems on this board called it torture. Yet their proposed first lady sees nothing wrong with it. LOL!!

I think the real point is that Teresa has never experienced hardship in her life and it is easy for her to make flippant comments like that. That is precisely why it is a Marie Antoinette moment. She refers to the middle class as the "common man."

Do you know anyone in these areas of Florida that have been devastated? Do you know how many of them are frail elderly people who have no where to live and don't have the physical capacity to try to dig through rubble to find some clothing? Should they just go naked for awhile?

No, Club, you are wrong. This comment sprung from the mouth of a woman who has no idea what it is like to have hardship in her life. Some one needs to invite her to spend the night at Baltassoc's grandmother's section 8 apartment to give her some perspective.

If you want to chide her for being out of touch, well fine. But this quote, while not befitting a would be first lady, was taken out of context and the thoughts behind it were reasonable.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Atticus, I'd ask you to take responsibility for the position of your candidate, if I could only figure out what his position is.

You can oppose gay marriage and at the same time understand that the Full Faith and Credit clause renders DOMA unconstitutional. As a lawyer, you shouldn't really have any trouble grasping this concept.

If you really need help perhaps you could look to the jurisprudence of Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnqusit, all of whom oppose abortion but are perfectly capable of reognizing the controlling precedential nature of Roe v. Wade.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
You complain that I don't treat you "individually". That I treat all libs here as fungible. That I don't take your viewpoint seriously.

Maybe it's because you all use old, slanted info to make your partisan points. Maybe it's because you all (you, too) rip what's happening in Iraq, based on ignorance. Yes, effin' IGNORANCE.

Within the last week, there have been two car bombings in Baghdad that killed and wounded dozens. The military commander in Baghdad has been quoted as saying he can't guarantee the security of Americans and foreigeners living in the Green Zone. The lengthy passage you post below notes that there are still heavy pockets of resistance throughout Iraq. How is that in any way incinsistent with what I said?

Got any really close rels in Iraq?

Sister's boyfriend has been there for a year. But he isn't in the habit of writing or calling with classified information so I can't really use him as a source for intelligence analysis. How 'bout you?

How's this?

-------------
...

... Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days – especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people’s homes and lives....

.... It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of “cutting our losses” and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war “Away” games are always preferable to “Home” games).

Posted by Captain Ed at September 17, 2004 01:36 PM

-----

But I bet a dollar you don't even make it this far. Read what someone on the ground has to say that knocks down your view? Heavens, no. But, slander the effort for the sake of a doomsdayer? Sure. He's in your party.

I never thought I'd say this, but it IS correct to attack the patriotism of the Dems. You'd rather we lost, just so your party wins. My god, how you guys must hate Bush. I can't imagine hating that much.

Well, Bilmore, what I read in your quoted passage seems again to be consistent with what I said. It's going to be a long, difficult fight if we are going to succeed in Iraq. That's exactly what I have been saying all along. To the extent I have been pessimistic, it is in wondering if we will ever overcome the pockets of resistance to the degree that we will be able to leave.

I'm not slandering the effort. I'm challenging the view that the conflict is ultimately winnable, largely because I don't believe that the American people want to become a colonial power. Empire is expensive. I doubt that the Repblicans will ultimately be willing to pay the price.

You have bought the ridiculous notion that this war will not ultimately lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates, and bigger deficits. You have even bought the asinine assertion that this war can be fought and Bush can cut taxes at the same time.

I'm not opposed to the war, as I've said many times. I'm opposed to Bush, and to naive fools who are willing to forsake members of their own society for the sake of their consumption and expect their children to pay for their war.

I'm opposed to Bush because he's willing to let people who have joined the military because they have no other option fight and die while he cuts the safety net out from under their families to help pay for tax breaks for dentists who buy Hummers.

I wouldn't have chosen to go into Iraq before we actually met our commitment to Afghanistan. I wouldn't have picked an easy public relations victory to detract from the fact that I was unable to find and capture a one-legged man who needs dialysis. I sure as hell wouldn't have chosen to expand our military commitments if I was politically obligated to rape the middle class and the poor to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

But I also wouldn't leave a bigger mess in Iraq than I found when I got there. I'm committed to creating a stable political climate in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm willing, if a bit pissed off, about having to pay higher taxes to pay for it.

I'm not willing to re-elect the dilettante who foolishly got into this mess in the first place, and I'm not willing to vote for that same idiot if he's going to continue offering payoffs to his cronies while more jobs are lost and more people go hungry at home.

You're not a patriot. You're just paranoid, greedy and deluded.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You can oppose gay marriage and at the same time understand that the Full Faith and Credit clause renders DOMA unconstitutional. As a lawyer, you shouldn't really have any trouble grasping this concept.

If you really need help perhaps you could look to the jurisprudence of Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnqusit, all of whom oppose abortion but are perfectly capable of reognizing the controlling precedential nature of Roe v. Wade.

Please, you are not that dense. His statements to the advocate went beyond DOMA. He said basically said it is a mean spirited attack on gays. Although he did not say "I favor gay marriage," given his audience, that was the impression he wanted to leave.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You can oppose gay marriage and at the same time understand that the Full Faith and Credit clause renders DOMA unconstitutional. As a lawyer, you shouldn't really have any trouble grasping this concept.

As a lawyer, you should understand what it is that the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to. First and foremost, it doesn't apply to the Federal Government, just the states. A big part of DOMA is that the Feds don't have to recognize gay marriage sanctioned by any states. That part is undeniably constitutional.

Second, historically, courts have not found that the FFCC extends to marriages in other states that offend the public policy of a state. Perhaps that seems like the wrong interpretation to you, but this is how the case law interpreting that clause stands today. I don't believe that the USSC has ever ruled on it, but lower courts have. I wouldn't be so sure that the USSC will take your point of view regarding the FFCC should the issue ever come before the court. There are more than a few legal scholars who disagree with your position.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...etestimony.pdf

The attorney general of MI disagrees with you, too:

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op10236.htm

And MI is a blue state as I recall.

[Skeks in the city]

Peggy Noonan, circa 2001 after Dan Rather spoke at a Demo event, on how Dan Rather is a lefty Demo. WSJ editorial

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please, you are not that dense.

Some parts of him are pretty dense, but some others are jiggily.

[Not Me]

I don't know if I am for abolishing it, but what about mandating (through constitutional amendment) that the states had to award electoral votes like Nebraska does - winner of the popular vote on a state-wide basis gets 2 electoral votes and then winner of popular vote in each congressional district gets that electoral vote. That seems like a better system than an all-or-none system based on the state-wide popular vote totals.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm stuck here with the question of, what is patriotism? I think the answer is, wishing for a good outcome for our country. I understand that winning wars is the easy answer to this - but I also understand that the eventual alignment of the rest of the world can also be good, or bad, for our country. So, I'm left with the idea that "patriotism" means, necessarily, agreeing with my views as to how to accomplish all of that.

Is that really what patriotism is? Agreeing with you? Or even, for that matter, agreeing with the Republican Party?

Whatever happened to democracy, Bilmore? What about the ability to dissent? Does your worldview no longer allow for a loyal opposition?

I'll give you a chance to rethink this and restate what you meant before I go further, because I suspect this isn't really what you meant to say.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please, you are not that dense. His statements to the advocate went beyond DOMA. He said basically said it is a mean spirited attack on gays. Although he did not say "I favor gay marriage," given his audience, that was the impression he wanted to leave.

It was a mean spirited attack on gays. Give me one good reason with which you personally agree that justifies the introduction and passage of DOMA.

You still haven't responded to my post, which made his actual position abundantly clear. You're afraid gay people think Kerry favors some kind of federal approval of gay marriage? Then you're nuts. In my experience, gay people are marginally smarter than straights with similar backgrounds and education, probably because they spent their entire adolescence thinking more and harder about more difficult things that the rest of us do. As a result, very few of them are dumb enough to think that such a thing is possible. They will vote en masse for Kerry because he's the candidate who won't actively try to stab them in the back. Okay, poor choice of words. Some will vote for Nader, but Kerry can't get those people by promising them federal gay marriage.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Peggy Noonan, circa 2001 after Dan Rather spoke at a Demo event, on how Dan Rather is a lefty Demo. WSJ editorial

I remember reading that at the time, but it was just as enjoyable this time around.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please, you are not that dense. His statements to the advocate went beyond DOMA. He said basically said it is a mean spirited attack on gays. Although he did not say "I favor gay marriage," given his audience, that was the impression he wanted to leave.

DOMA was a mean-spirited attack on gays. It's also, in my view, unconstitutional. What,are you saying, that Kerry was obligated to say, "Oh, by the by, I'm opposed to gay marriage?"

Have you lost the ability to recognize that it's possible, sometimes even desirbale, to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same time? Is everything now a litmus test?