Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm trying to think of a rational explanation for bringing up Dread Scott in that question. The only thing that I can think of is that someone suggested it as a good example of why constitutional amendments can be a good thing, in case someone asked about the gay marriage amendment and he wanted to show that he knew a few Supreme Court cases.

The thing of it is, Bush could not have been more wrong about the Constitution there.

• Bush: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion; that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

Remember the Thirteenth Amendment? After Dred Scott, the Constitution was amended to forbid slavery. And the Equal Protection Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment, also enacted later. It wasn't Justice Taney's personal opinion that the Constitution allowed slavery -- it was the law of the country for decades.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The thing of it is, Bush could not have been more wrong about the Constitution there.

• Bush: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion; that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

Remember the Thirteenth Amendment? After Dred Scott, the Constitution was amended to forbid slavery. And the Equal Protection Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment, also enacted later. It wasn't Justice Taney's personal opinion that the Constitution allowed slavery -- it was the law of the country for decades.

So, you're saying that, before the Amendment, the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, you're saying that, before the Amendment, the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights?

I'm saying it wasn't Roger Taney's personal opinion -- the sort of judicial activism that we now know that Bush doesn't like.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Containment was working, and the sanctions were part of containment. The sanctions helped keep materiel out of Iraq.

This chronology posted by the UN here (1991-1999) and here (1999 onward) on UN web sites (the earlier chronology including links to actual resolutions) of the zany inspection efforts would actually be a funny read but for the fact that while all this was going on, an estimated 5,000 infants and toddlers were dying PER MONTH in Iraq from sanctions-related causes. It's hard to read of all the obstruction and conclude, "the sanctions were working". A decade is long enough to pussyfoot around.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
This chronology posted by the UN here (1991-1999) and here (1999 onward) on UN web sites (the earlier chronology including links to actual resolutions) of the zany inspection efforts would actually be a funny read but for the fact that while all this was going on, an estimated 5,000 infants and toddlers were dying PER MONTH in Iraq from sanctions-related causes. It's hard to read of all the obstruction and conclude, "the sanctions were working". A decade is long enough to pussyfoot around.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about WMD. Containment allowed a brutal dictator to continue to repress his people. It also didn't cost $200 billion and 20,000 Coalition lives.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
True, but I cut Thurgreed extra slack, because he's black

I thought having a lot of fast-twitch muscle fiber only presented a competitive advantage in the FB posting events. Live and learn.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Penn state senator calls R a "faggot." Let's see the coverage this get's.

I talked to Less and:

1."little or none" is -350
2. "go by the wayside like Jackson and Byrd is -250

http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews...7258250840.xml

I am sure it clearly establishes the liberal media bias that one guy that no one has ever heard of used offensive language to insult another guy that no one has ever heard of but it didn't make the front page of the NY Times.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
OK. I'll have my people check to see if there's a paper with a larger circulation than the WaPo who might want to pick this story up.
I agree, assuming you're looking for high school nerds with fake IDs.

#1. I don't hear a lot of lefties screaming about it. You mention it, and I scream. Perhaps you should email some middle or rightest news sources, because this is the kind of stuff that the Right (and people who have suffered from discrimination at the hands of a government somewhere) care about. I'll organize from the Right and you get the attention of the Left. Deal?

#2. Or if you are looking for any of the 60-70% of adults in this country who register. Like people who are trying to establish credentials. You know, like people who are trying to establish fraudulent credentials. Looky here Officer, me and Mo are registered Republicans. And no, you can't search my trunk for a newclaire bomb. Of course, it would come in handy looking for them-there underage drinkers too. By the way, you know they should be shot, right?

Hello

[sgtclub]

I thought Bush was very good tonight, though at times a bit too agressive. Kerry put in a very good performance, equal to the first debate. No doubt, he is good on his feet. The problem is that he's full of shit. This was a clear move to the middle, which is smart, and may work to sway the uninformed. Overall, I call it a draw or a slight edge to Bush, but I can see how others could call its slightly for Kerry.

What I can't figure out is why Bush continues to allow this to be cast as a defense of Bush's record. That automatically puts him at a disadvantage. If I was advising him, each time a question like this was asked I would use 30 seconds to answer and 1:30 to turn the question on Kerry. His record is NOT strong and should be exposed. For example, when asked about failures on intelligence, I would give the canned answer and then ask why Kerry cut intelligence and failed to show up for X% of senate intelligence meetings.

[SlaveNoMore]

His Eminence, John Cardinal Kerry, on his pro-life Catholic, pro-Roe, anti partial-birth abortion stance:

Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

The Heritage Foundation says that non-defense, non-Sept. 11 funding has increased roughly 11 percent during 2001-2003, up from 7 percent.

Look, the $84 timber goof isn't a big deal or core to governing, but a good way to show how Bush uses fuzzy math to support his point. This "misstatement" (Hi Bilmore!) goes to the core of his governance and his so-called conservative ideology.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about WMD.

No. The topic was whether sanctions were "working". I said sanctions had not had their intended effect: to cause Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. Your reply was "Containment was working, and the sanctions were part of containment," to which I say again: the sanctions were not working.

Containment allowed a brutal dictator to continue to repress his people.

Well that's an understated response to my posting that 5,000 infants and toddlers die each month due to sanctions-related causes. Repression indeed. I'm sure glad you concede these atrocities, caused by continued sanctions as well as Saddam's failure to allow sanctions-exempt humanitarian aid into the country, constitute "repression".

Containment allowed...repress his people....[but at least it] didn't cost $200 billion and 20,000 Coalition lives.]

Yeah those sanctions were really great, Ty. And continuing them would have bought us another 15 years of "containment" (or at least "containment more likely than not" since inspectors couldn't fully measure what was happening over there.) Just what we needed - another 15 years of "working sanctions". Another 180 months with 900,000 more dead kids, continued mockery of our inspectors and further encouraging other regimes to develop WMDs since the repercussions aren’t so bad.

Look, apparently you think we should have let this pussyfooting with inspectors/non-compliance with resolutions go on forever, kind of like the parent who continually threatens his child with "do A, B, and C" 'OR ELSE" and then never follows through with the "or else" part. Your candidate’s suggestion that we “bring in allies” instead of “going it alone” may sound nice [to some] on the debate floor but you can’t get blood from a stone or force a country to step up to the plate. Might it be that no matter HOW MUCH “diplomacy” the US President uses, countries like France and Germany aren’t going to be swayed? Might it be that these countries have alterior, unstated financial motives to putting the issue off? That Kerry would be jumping through hoops to sway a country that has no intention of ever being swayed at all – an “ally” like France that is, conveniently, forever in the "stage of ideas" ? That perhaps these “allies” are not, with their current leadership, in fact allies anymore?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Secondly, as bad as the GOP has been on the domestic spending front - and they have been abhorrent - for you to claim that the Dems now "own" fiscal responsibility is not only misleading, but laughable. Kerry tonight claims to be FOR a tax cut AND the expansion of tens of government programs. Please tell me how he and the Dems are for reducing spending?

If we listened to the candidates talk, then Bush would be a small-government conservative who would restore fiscal responsibility while cutting taxes and maintaining compassion to everyone in need, while Kerry would be a big, but not too big, government non-liberal who would avoid raising taxes on too many people while expanding government programs that are necessary and bringing back the surplus.

In other words, I think GGG (or whoever you responded to -- I forgot by now) was suggesting that you look past the talk to the record, by contrasting the records of the Clinton presidency and the Bush (and Reagan?) presidencies for fiscal prudence. It's this record that leads to the conclusion that only the Dems can claim fiscal responsibility over the past 25 years. And no, don't respond by saying "the bubble economy was what killed the deficit," because the bubble of the late 80s sure didn't do that. Clinton killed the deficit through a combination of luck, tax increases, and not spending beyond the government's means.

Kerry cannot conceivably do everything he's promised from a fiscal perspective. Nor can Bush. This is one of the many very sad things about American politics, and the electorate's refusal to accept fiscal reality.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Clinton killed the deficit through a combination of luck, tax increases, and not spending beyond the government's means.

Mostly the Republican controlled and hostile congress forced him to kill the deficit. the past few years show what happens when its all controlled by one side.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If we listened to the candidates talk, then Bush would be a small-government conservative who would restore fiscal responsibility while cutting taxes and maintaining compassion to everyone in need, while Kerry would be a big, but not too big, government non-liberal who would avoid raising taxes on too many people while expanding government programs that are necessary and bringing back the surplus.

In other words, I think GGG (or whoever you responded to -- I forgot by now) was suggesting that you look past the talk to the record, by contrasting the records of the Clinton presidency and the Bush (and Reagan?) presidencies for fiscal prudence. It's this record that leads to the conclusion that only the Dems can claim fiscal responsibility over the past 25 years. And no, don't respond by saying "the bubble economy was what killed the deficit," because the bubble of the late 80s sure didn't do that. Clinton killed the deficit through a combination of luck, tax increases, and not spending beyond the government's means.

Kerry cannot conceivably do everything he's promised from a fiscal perspective. Nor can Bush. This is one of the many very sad things about American politics, and the electorate's refusal to accept fiscal reality.

How can you make this claim when the DEMs controlled Congress for roughly 15 of those 25 years? You can't. The fact is that both parties are out of control on spending, which I can't see stopping as long as the country is so divided, unless there is another extraordinary event, like the Contract.