Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the Dem campaign position will be (1) leave it to the states/DOMA is enough to protect states from recognition of gay marriage elsewhere; (2) no amending the Constitution; and (3) if you press me (Kerry/Edwards) personally as a Christian, I'd say what happens between same sex couples is not marriage in a religious sense, praise Jesus, but there is no reason in the world why there shouldn't be something in our nation, conferred by our states, that gives all the same benefits; what it's called is unimportant, and "marriage" means something in religions. We don't call the issuance of an SSN "baptism."

If you think that's a Clintonian straddle, you're nuts. Bush's position is to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF STATE COURTS TO INTERPRET STATE CONSTITUTIONS. Consider this an unusual favor --- I'm educating you about what the Bush proposes to do. IIAB/CYLL.

Kerry has come out against gay marriage but wouldn't do anything about it. That's the equivalent of "don't ask don't tell" or, in other words, a Clintonian straddle. As policy is it as bad as Bush's? No it's not. But the mere fact that he is against gay marriage, or at least says publicly that he is, is nearly as reprehensible.

Let me ask you something --- how do you feel about the felony murder rule?

The proper question is what do I THINK about the felony murder rule, but I digress. I honestly haven't thought about it in a while, but generally speaking I don't have a problem with it. What are you setting me up for?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
ROTFL. I believe that was my point. You're the one saying Dems are getting their asses kicked in the culture wars. I'm the one saying it's a photo finish.

I am generally opposed to this abbreviation unless (a) the user is actually rolling on the floor et cetera, or (b) heavy irony is involved. Think of the children!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The proper question is what do I THINK about the felony murder rule, but I digress. I honestly haven't thought about it in a while, but generally speaking I don't have a problem with it. What are you setting me up for?

He's going to suggest a parallel between that rule and the sort of responsibility he thinks you have for the reasonably foreseeable actions of the people for whom you vote.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Unfogged defends Riordan (without calling anyone a racist):

You can thank me later for not being an analytic philosopher and writing a two-thousand word post about this. Yes, Dick Riordan told a little girl her name meant "stupid, dirty girl," but he didn't call her that. He did what adults often do when they're joking with children: give them an outlandishly false answer to a question, have them say, "noooooo" (which they seem to rather enjoy), and then take them seriously when they correct you. Given that the girl was asking him if he knew what her name meant, Riordan's answer, which was, "It means stupid, dirty girl," is best understood to say, "Does it mean stupid, dirty girl?

Now, that's not a funny joke, but it is a joke, and Riordan goes on to feign interest in her answer and give her affirmation, etc. etc., and all this before the press jumped on him. Give the guy a break already.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unfogged defends Riordan (without calling anyone a racist):

Kind of consistent with what I was saying (and you were partially agreeing with earlier). He thinks Riordin should get a free pass because he's a RINO. Now I'm not saying Riordin is a racist, and I'd like to see the context before I judge, but you can sure as hell bet that a fairly uncontraversial yet definite conservative, like Bob Dole, would not get a free pass.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's going to suggest a parallel between that rule and the sort of responsibility he thinks you have for the reasonably foreseeable actions of the people for whom you vote.

Right, because those two instances are so, well, parallel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kind of consistent with what I was saying (and you were partially agreeing with earlier). He thinks Riordin should get a free pass because he's a RINO. Now I'm not saying Riordin is a racist, and I'd like to see the context before I judge, but you can sure as hell bet that a fairly uncontraversial yet definite conservative, like Bob Dole, would not get a free pass.

Outside of this board, none of the coverage of this incident that I've seen has had anything to do with race. (What's a RINO?) The consensus is that Riordan is a moron for insulting a little girl. Unfogged is the only place I've seen anyone suggest a credible explanation for what he thought he was doing, and it sounds right to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, because those two instances are so, well, parallel.

Take it up with him. But there is a certain sort of parallel.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Outside of this board, none of the coverage of this incident that I've seen has had anything to do with race. (What's a RINO?) The consensus is that Riordan is a moron for insulting a little girl. Unfogged is the only place I've seen anyone suggest a credible explanation for what he thought he was doing, and it sounds right to me.

RINO - Republican in Name Only. Commonly used to describe such politicians as Olympia Snowe.

The coverage I've seen attempted to make it a racial issue. I think I read it earlier this week on SF Gate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
RINO - Republican in Name Only. Commonly used to describe such politicians as Olympia Snowe.

The coverage I've seen attempted to make it a racial issue. I think I read it earlier this week on SF Gate.

Given that he insulted a white girl, it would take real hostility not befitting the usual media treatment of RINOs you imply to make a racial issue out of it, but -- as Slave showed us earlier -- there certainly are morons out there who could try.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Given that he insulted a white girl, it would take real hostility not befitting the usual media treatment of RINOs you imply to make a racial issue out of it, but -- as Slave showed us earlier -- there certainly are morons out there who could try.

You're right. I never read the follow up coverage, only the initial report

But the organizer, state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, D-Los Angeles, abruptly canceled it after an apparent mix-up over the girl's racial background.

Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"

The girl is white, with blond hair.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, because those two instances are so, well, parallel.

What's your beef with the hypo? California can put you to death for holding up a liquor store where the clerk shoots your accomplice, because by committing the felony you've become responsible for the consequences --- even if you didn't know the clerk had a gun and knew your accomplice was a pussy at heart and wouldn't have pulled the trigger. You thought you would wind up with $400 bucks or so, and that's all you thought you were in for; the law makes you responsible for the other consequences.

I think your view of the fairness of that situation would be informative of your view of one's responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of one's vote. (I'll give you an exception for Newsom --- take credit for what you like.)

Your complaint is that the situations are not equivalent, not that they are not parallel.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The coverage I've seen attempted to make it a racial issue.

Originally posted by sgtclub
You're right. I never read the follow up coverage, only the initial report

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But the organizer, state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, D-Los Angeles, abruptly canceled it after an apparent mix-up over the girl's racial background.

Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"

The girl is white, with blond hair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not the coverage that made it out to be a racial issue. The coverage is of some asshole who tried to make it a racial issue, as slave and Ty noted earlier. Do you regularly attribute words quoted in a newspaper to the newspaper itself? Congrats on graduating from the Ann Coulter school of citation.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It's not the coverage that made it out to be a racial issue. The coverage is of some asshole who tried to make it a racial issue, as slave and Ty noted earlier. Do you regularly attribute words quoted in a newspaper to the newspaper itself? Congrats on graduating from the Ann Coulter school of citation.

The misses not giving it up tonight I see. I'd be grouchy too.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What's your beef with the hypo? California can put you to death for holding up a liquor store where the clerk shoots your accomplice, because by committing the felony you've become responsible for the consequences --- even if you didn't know the clerk had a gun and knew your accomplice was a pussy at heart and wouldn't have pulled the trigger. You thought you would wind up with $400 bucks or so, and that's all you thought you were in for; the law makes you responsible for the other consequences.

I think your view of the fairness of that situation would be informative of your view of one's responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of one's vote. (I'll give you an exception for Newsom --- take credit for what you like.)

Your complaint is that the situations are not equivalent, not that they are not parallel.

Are you really in such a need to argue that it's come to this?

It's fair because of my act was malum en se and, although I may not have forseen the consequences, the consequences of my actions were reasonably forseeable.

I think your hypo suffers from a causation standpoint, among other reasons. If the CA system was in place at the federal level and I voted directly for a Constitutional amendment I may be able to agree with you.

I have said before I do not love Bush. But, like you, I'm not going to throw my vote away.

And, incidentally, I gladly voted for Newsom (a DEM for all of you out there) and even contributed to his campaign.