A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
From what I have heard your friend is right on. Hillary has a good shot if the nominee is not McCain or Giuliani.

Every one of these polls also ignores the sexism factor.

No matter what they may say during polls and exit interviews, I have a hard time believing that a lot of male union members (think Teamsters) and other males in the minority community - a decent percentage of the DNC base - will actually pull the lever to elect a woman.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are forgetting there are more Dems than Repubs. Hillary polls really well among Dems, Independents and moderate Republican women. That is a potent combination.

There isn't a fiscal moderate in the 50 states who'll vote for her. And I disagree about her polling well with moderate GOP women. I think a lot of those women hate her.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Every one of these polls also ignores the sexism factor.

No matter what they may say during polls and exit interviews, I have a hard time believing that a lot of male union members (think Teamsters) and other males in the minority community - a decent percentage of the DNC base - will actually pull the lever to elect a woman.

She may poll alright in a vacuum, but when they get her on the road, she's dead. She's mean, uncharismatic and utterly unapproachable. She's also objectively ugly to the extent that she'd be unattractive as a man or woman. Add her planeload of ethics/marriage/confused sexuality/hyperleft feminism baggage to the mix and she's deader than Fred Astaire. The cruel reality of her sex also dictates that she's got to walk a fine line with aggression in debates and speeches. Too much ans she's shrill. Too little and she's weak.

I think we ought to have a woman president. I'd vote for Condi or Christie Todd Whitman. But never Hillary. She's just unpalatable in every regard, and there's no greater reminder of how poor a politician she is than when she's speaking next to her husband. Her every stump s[eech with him would be a reminder of how good shit was way back when... and how low we've fallen since.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Every one of these polls also ignores the sexism factor.

No matter what they may say during polls and exit interviews, I have a hard time believing that a lot of male union members (think Teamsters) and other males in the minority community - a decent percentage of the DNC base - will actually pull the lever to elect a woman.

And she is so hated and feared by our base that we could probably run a moderate guy and still get strong wingnut turnout.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
How come you never answered my question?

"No the question was should California, if it could, put trade restriction on states that don't have as high a minimum wage as California or who don't have a strong worker safety and protection laws?

I am assuming your answer is no.

So then the obvious question is: If you don't think it would benefit California, and the workers in other states with lower minimum wages and less generous labor laws, for California to use trade restrictions to improve the lot of the workers from Southern States and to protect Californians from unfair labor practices, why do you think it is OK for the United States to use trade restrictions to try and improve the lot of foreign workers and to protect American workers from a foreign unlevel playing field?"

I am still waiting for your answer

If I don't care about French policy, why should I care about California policy?

If in some way shape or form Massachusetts could erect trade barriers, I'd think it would be a silly thing for a little old place like us to do. You need a big market to have something worth protecting. We'd just be a bug waiting to be squashed.

But even the big market I'd prefer not to protect. However, there are times when using trade as a tool can be very effective. The boycott against South Africa is an example. Other times when using trade has unintended consquences -- like impoverishing the lives of those it is simultaneously helping. And I don't think buying a whole lot of soccer balls made by kids for slave wages in Pakistan is going to get Pakistan to do anything other than have more kids make soccer balls for slave wages. The invisible hand is usually giving someone the invisible finger.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If I don't care about French policy, why should I care about California policy?

This is just a pathetic excuse to avoid the question

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If in some way shape or form Massachusetts could erect trade barriers, I'd think it would be a silly thing for a little old place like us to do. You need a big market to have something worth protecting. We'd just be a bug waiting to be squashed.

But even the big market I'd prefer not to protect. However, there are times when using trade as a tool can be very effective. The boycott against South Africa is an example.

The trade barriers we put up against the third world are not there to punish the third world. They are there to protect our markets.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Other times when using trade has unintended consquences -- like impoverishing the lives of those it is simultaneously helping.

When has the lowering of trade barriers put up by the US ever harmed anyone outside the US? Or hurt someone outside the US through unintended consquences?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy And I don't think buying a whole lot of soccer balls made by kids for slave wages in Pakistan is going to get Pakistan to do anything other than have more kids make soccer balls for slave wages. The invisible hand is usually giving someone the invisible finger.

These kids are taking the jobs because without the jobs they would have no money and their families would starve. You put up a barrier and their family starves. How is that helping?

Child labor exists in countrys that are extremely poor. If they get wealthier they will have less child labour, and access to our markets helps them get wealthier. The best way to insure that the kids keep getting low wages or keep starving is to close our markets to their country.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Child labor exists in countrys that are extremely poor. If they get wealthier they will have less child labour, and access to our markets helps them get wealthier. The best way to insure that the kids keep getting low wages or keep starving is to close our markets to their country.

Is the issue with child labor that it's children? Or that it's labor at very low rates? Because plenty of farms in the United States, which formed a principal part of our economy for the first 150 years of the U.S.' existence, were farmed by children.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is the issue with child labor that it's children? Or that it's labor at very low rates? Because plenty of farms in the United States, which formed a principal part of our economy for the first 150 years of the U.S.' existence, were farmed by children.

You have my proxy for all discussions with Spanky.

I'm ready for a break.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You have my proxy for all discussions with Spanky.

I'm ready for a break.

Spanky, you're right!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is the issue with child labor that it's children? Or that it's labor at very low rates? Because plenty of farms in the United States, which formed a principal part of our economy for the first 150 years of the U.S.' existence, were farmed by children.

As I read it, Spank is concerned child labor could reduce his dating pool.

[Gattigap]

The GOP Front-Runner, Theology Wing: Mitt Romney.

• Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: “I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.” McCain also said, “I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.”
  
  Romney seized on the remarks.
  
  “That’s his position, and in my opinion, it’s disingenuous,” he said. “Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.”

It's not disingenuous, you drooling idiot.

Last I checked, you were an actual governor of a state, which means you likely had at least a surface understanding of what the concept of federalism means, and it's almost inconceivable that you don't know that marriage laws are a creature of the state, not the federal, government. I know you have to pander to the evangelical voters in your party, but it's embarassing to watch this display. If you ever choose to speak admiringly of the Reagan wing of the Republican party, I hope you remember moments like these when you sacrificed Reagan's professed federalist principles upon the altar of your moral authoritarianism, and that your audience buries you in a mountain of thrown bibles.

Gattigap

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Last I checked, you were an actual governor of a state, which means you likely had at least a surface understanding of what the concept of federalism means, and it's almost inconceivable that you don't know that marriage laws are a creature of the state, not the federal, government.

Particularly assjack, given he's pushing to have a vote in the Mass. legislature to get rid of gay marriage there.

I wonder how many years of D majorities in Congress are required to get the R's to turn back to "states rights".

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Particularly assjack, given he's pushing to have a vote in the Mass. legislature to get rid of gay marriage there.

I wonder how many years of D majorities in Congress are required to get the R's to turn back to "states rights".

The Rs gave up federalism when they pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act, lo these many years ago. I think Clinton signed it, too. Marriage was one of the only* things left pretty much solely to the states, too.

*I don't know this for a fact, but it seems like it's right. Maybe what system of water rights are used? And/or some other real estate-type crap?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The Rs gave up federalism when they pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act, lo these many years ago. I think Clinton signed it, too. Marriage was one of the only* things left pretty much solely to the states, too.

*I don't know this for a fact, but it seems like it's right. Maybe what system of water rights are used? And/or some other real estate-type crap?

DOMA went only to recognition of marriage under federal law. But they gave up federalism when they obtained a majority in Congress, such that the rhetorical argument of leaving it to the states was no longer necessary to defend against D efforts to federalize law.

Your fact is wrong. For example, violence against women is left to the states. By solely, do you mean to omit things like most criminal law, tort law, contract law, property law, much health and safety regulation, etc.?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The Rs gave up federalism when they pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act, lo these many years ago. I think Clinton signed it, too. Marriage was one of the only* things left pretty much solely to the states, too.

*I don't know this for a fact, but it seems like it's right. Maybe what system of water rights are used? And/or some other real estate-type crap?

*sniff* The regulation of sex toys is left to the states.