Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you keep repeating this someday someone may believe you.

If you could come up with an argument under which not allowing gay marriage violates equal protection and/or due process but not allowing polygamy does not violate EP and/or DP, you would say (write) it. But you cannot.

I think at the end of the day, the reason that some people support gay marriage and don't support polygamy is because they see gays as mainstream and the polygamists as people with freaky wierd religious beliefs that they don't want to live in their neighborhoods.

I agree that they have freaky wierd religious beliefs (are there any other kind?) and I don't want polygamists living in my neighborhood (see Utah is good for something). But if no one can explain why under the law gay marriage must be allowed but polygamy can not only not be allowed but subject to criminal penalties (bigamy is a crime in most states), then my predictions are not unfounded.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you could come up with an argument under which not allowing gay marriage violates equal protection and/or due process but not allowing polygamy does not violate EP and/or DP, you would say (write) it. But you cannot.

I think at the end of the day, the reason that some people support gay marriage and don't support polygamy is because they see gays as mainstream and the polygamists as people with freaky wierd religious beliefs that they don't want to live in their neighborhoods.

I agree that they have freaky wierd religious beliefs (are there any other kind?) and I don't want polygamists living in my neighborhood (see Utah is good for something). But if no one can explain why under the law gay marriage must be allowed but polygamy can not only not be allowed but subject to criminal penalties (bigamy is a crime in most states), then my predictions are not unfounded.

If you keep repeating this someday someone may believe you.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you keep repeating this someday someone may believe you.

Your repeating this phrase is the equivalent of dumping all the checkers on the floor when you lose the game.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Your repeating this phrase is the equivalent of dumping all the checkers on the floor when you lose the game.

Please, Not Me, explain to us again why all the Polygamists are going to be running around getting married in Massachusetts. Please! Please!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Please, Not Me, explain to us again why all the Polygamists are going to be running around getting married in Massachusetts. Please! Please!

I don't know if any will leave their enclaves in Utah to try to test the law. And you are right, there aren't many polygamists in MA and I doubt that gay marriage will be made legal in the theocracy known as Utah anytime soon. But if it is made legal in CA, we have our fundamentalist mormons here, too.

Still no explanation from you as to why not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional under EP/DP, yet it is not unconstitutional under EP/DP to not allow polygamy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me

Still no explanation from you as to why not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional under EP/DP, yet it is not unconstitutional under EP/DP to not allow polygamy.

Why do you think this nonsense is convincing simply because you repeat it over and over again?

Keep repeating. Maybe someday, someone else will believe you.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
[Pot calling the kettle black]

No cigar for you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

My god, with that pot and kettle statement you FINALLY seem to get it. Amazing. It's a good thing I started typing more slowly so you'd understand.

[sgtclub]

Not sure if anybody else caught this, but his performance was one of the worst I have ever seen by a publicly elected offical. Just abysmal. He was completely incoherent. Someone needs to give a wake up call to the White House if they don't want the election to be a completel blow out.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure if anybody else caught this, but his performance was one of the worst I have ever seen by a publicly elected offical. Just abysmal. He was completely incoherent. Someone needs to give a wake up call to the White House if they don't want the election to be a completel blow out.

I hate to say it, but that was my impression too. Tim Russert kept throwing charts and accusations and pointed questions at him, and his one-line answers were a.) often poorly worded, phrased, thought-out and b.) more often poorly delivered.

There were a few good core ideas in there, but they got buried in the incoherence. For example, (paraphrasing) "I'm not going to change based on polls", "I'm not talking about Skull and Bones because its a secret society", "sometimes people don't like those people/nations who are doing what needs to be done because they falsely blame the problem-solver as the problem-creator" etc.... But fuck, this guy (and most politicians) should not give unscripted interviews if they hope to come out looking good, unless they completely anticipate the expected questions and answers. The stuff about the budget was the worst part, though the stuff about tax cuts sounded like an excellent defense.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure if anybody else caught this, but his performance was one of the worst I have ever seen by a publicly elected offical. Just abysmal. He was completely incoherent. Someone needs to give a wake up call to the White House if they don't want the election to be a completel blow out.

I missed it. I've looked on the blogosphere for a fair and complete account of the show, but without success. Can anyone point me to one, or describe it more? People I read suggested that Russert was unlikely to be too hard on him for fear of retaliation.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I missed it. I've looked on the blogosphere for a fair and complete account of the show, but without success. Can anyone point me to one, or describe it more? People I read suggested that Russert was unlikely to be too hard on him for fear of retaliation.

The complete transcript of the show is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

aV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

from CNN:

BOCA RATON, Florida (CNN) -- Treasury Secretary John Snow said Sunday that his predecessor, Paul O'Neill, did nothing wrong when he used departmental documents as source material for a book that cast President Bush in an unflattering light.

An investigation showed that some of those documents were classified and should not have been released to O'Neill, Treasury Department sources have told CNN.

"I should make it clear that nothing that former Secretary O'Neill did in any way calls into question the propriety of his actions," Snow said in an interview with CNN at the conclusion of a meeting of G-7 finance ministers.

The investigation by the department's inspector general found that though O'Neill did receive classified material from the department after his resignation, the lapse was the fault of the Treasury Department, not O'Neill, the sources said.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I missed it. I've looked on the blogosphere for a fair and complete account of the show, but without success. Can anyone point me to one, or describe it more? People I read suggested that Russert was unlikely to be too hard on him for fear of retaliation.

You can catch it rerun on CNBC at 7pm PST right after the Dennis Miller show that is on now. It will be rerun yet again on CNBC at 10pm PST.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/Content/...o/Schedule.asp

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Which is the more plausible scenario --- that (1) O'Neill got the documents in a bureaucratic snafu by simply asking for them, because nobody at Treasury really cared about these docs until after the Bush Administration got (ever so slightly) embarrassed by them; or (2) a former cabinet official snuck off with thousands of pages of Top Secret documents, then published their contents in a book and showed them on national TV, hoping that he would never get prosecuted for violating Top Secret confidentiality because the Administration, um, doesn't read tell-all books by disgraced cabinet officials or watch TV?

Well, this WAS Paul, weakening your otherwise very rational point somewhat.

(Never let reason interfere with a joke. Of course he got them from somebody who failed to clean them up.)