Herm, this is difficult. Let me explain. Kerry had this problem where he using the old DLC stratagy of trying to please everyone by not being specific on anything. I guess I could say that in that, he was wrong potentially on just about every issue. Because, he would not take a solid stand on almost everything. It is hard to decern if someone is right or wrong on an issue if they refuse to make it clear where they stand on it.
It is kind of funny, the Democrats have a stratagy for the Presidency that is so similar to the Republican's judicial nomination stratagy: stealth candidates.
I have noticed a rabid leftist movement spring up in the past few years in responce to the rightist one. Both bother me terribly.
However, I would like to point something out. Wasn't Justice Ginsberg nominated by Republican Senator Orin Hatch after blocking Clinton's nominees?...not that I have any love for Clinton or anything. Isn't that why she breezed through? Because, it was a horse trade between Clinton and the Congressional Republican Majority?
Don't even try to strawman me. Either that, or you are ignoring the point of the last sentance in my post. I am not saying there should be censorship. Quite the opposite, I recognize that these people are entitled to express their opinions. The problem is, they appear to be gunning not to express their opinions, but to silence the opinions of others. Cloaking censorship and parading it as constitutionally protected free speech would be laughable if so many people did not believe it was legitimate, at least when it is their "side" doing it.
And, before I even see someone reply with the "two wrongs equal a right" fallacy, let me say I have stood up to "liberal" activist professors myself, and actually ended up with better grades than I should have got in the course based solely on my performance. So, I know for a fact based on personal experience the wishful thinking that claims activist professors are out to get you is a false justification. One asshole does not justify hanging the rest indescriminantly.
Quote: "I can't find anything wrong with... spouting it off in front of hundreds of people." Quote: "everyone's going to start paying royalties for yelling "it's a trap!"" Quote: "that'll stop someone from hitting all the unmoderated quotes they disagree with with "-1, overrated"."
What was that about it all being AOK? Because we all know using out of context and partial quotes would never be used to misconstrue their position, defame them, and/or have them ostrasized, especially people that have a political agenda and are infuriated by opinions they disagree with.
"Disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not a republican. I have never voted republican in a national election. I've also never voted democrat. I think national politics in America is an institution rotten to its core."
Hear, hear!
" 1. Powerful and continuing nationalism - check, but this isn't new to Bush." Agreed, however it has gotten stronger under Bush Jr.
" 2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights - check, and this one makes me sad. Even if the administration was angelic in every other respect, this is an unforgivable fault." Agreed.
" 3. Identifying enemies or scapegoats as a unifying cause - check, but the enemy is real. That's a matter of convenience, I know, but something still has to be done." I agree OBL and his band of bandits are legitimate, and Saddam would have to have been delt with at some point. However, if you notice, those aren't the only sapegoats present. You may have noticed the hatred of the French and the calls to execute "liberals" as traitors for not unquestionably obeying Bush.
" 4. Supremacy of the military - check, I'll give this one, but it's sort of overstated in the flash. As a conservative, I recognize the need for a military." Agreed, however, I smell corruption in the military expenditures. For some reason the performance/budget ratio has dropped drastically over the past several years.
" 5. Rampant sexism - no, not really, although it seems unneeded for fascism anyway." I agree this is fairly weak. There is some merit to it. A push to ban contraceptives and a lack of women in positions of authority come to mind. But, the glass ceiling is largely historical.
Oh, it is needed in facism for this reason: fresh bodies. A facist nation needs soldiers to fight their wars and to police their police states. Therefore, women's rights are erroded in such a way as to facilitate this. IE: baby factories.
" 6. Controlled mass media - again, no. Sure, some media outlets lean the same way as the president. Others don't. It's a pretty good mix, in my opinion. On the other hand, I'm not like most people, which is to say I don't suffer from the disease of wanting to have my opinions parroted back at me. Overall, the media sells what people want to buy." I disagree. The media has shown a tendancy to avoid reporting anything beyond the spin of the two major parties. There is little attempt to find out who, if either, is telling the truth. This can be blamed on several things, including lazyness, budget concerns, profit margins, but also on people that become extremely irate and petty in their actions if their party is critisized, justly or not. The polititians in power are not excluded from this and hold legislation and selective enforcement above the heads of the media companies. Couple that with frivilous legal threats, releasing false information and later quietly revising it, firing people that speak out, etc...
That constitutes a controlled mass media, albeit not completely controlled.
" 7. Obsession with national security - check, but once again, the enemy is real." Again, some of the enemy is real, not all of it. Part of the reason the administration is in such hot water is not that he's spying on Americans, but that it is spying on American simply because they are political threats. If they where going after national security threats, it would have been easily handled with the retroactive FISA warrents.
" 8. Religion and government are intertwined - no, not really. As a devout atheist, I'd probably notice. The President spouting personal religious beliefs does not a religious government make." I have noticed. There are new churches springing up everywhere around here. Thanks to the Department of Faith Based Initiatives, it has become profitable to run a church. It seems especially helpful if said church promotes administration policy. For example: the Justice Sunday trilogy and funneling money to Pat Robertson's organization.
It's funny how some partisans can see and complain about what the "other side" does, but fail to see it when their own "side" does it. They just think, in that case, it's god's honest truth and anyone saying otherwise is trying to censor them.
It's even more entertaining when the partisan fails to realize what they are complaining about is actually a retalitory strike.
"As an amusing side note, I've noticed that professors on both sides of the political spectrum have solidly lined up against these folks. Apparently one thing all professors can agree on is that students and alumni should be a lot more respectful to professors than this group is being."
Of course! What you think all the conservatives and Republicans think in lockstep? They want to believe what they want, not what the current RNC party line propaganda dictates. Hence, the whole point of being a conservative. You know, not changing your tune just because someone else says to. Some people actually hold their nation, their family, and their ideals above their political party.
I fell out with the Republican party because of this. They wanted tax cuts, I wanted to pay down the national debt. You know, so we wouldn't be pissing away a third of the federal budget in interest alone? Basically, so the government could lower taxes later on without driving the government into crushing debt. I got seriously pissed off when I started hearing that either I supported immediate tax cuts or I was a liberal. And to those reading this that are outside of the party or American politics, calling someone a liberal is worse than calling someone a child molester within the Republican groupthink.
Now, I'll be honest, my ideology has shifted somewhat since then, so I can't really call myself a Republican in exile.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This argument hinges on at what point through gestation does a genetic human become a person, and thus covered by the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enumerated in the Declaration of Independance. I could go into specific beliefs and arguments as to when, but this isn't the place and would likely start a flame war anyway.
And anyway, be careful with that statement "I do know that United States consitutional law is not as simple as just reading the constitution and interpreting the words the way you understand them in everyday speech." If you give the unquestioned authority to interpret the law to polititians, they will ultimately interpret it in the way that gives them the most power over you.
Educate Yourself I suggest you take some rugged individualistic responcibility for your own education.
From Article II (the presidency) of the US Constitution, the sections that define presidential authority:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Here are the parts related to Executive Orders: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" . . . "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."
In other words, he can recommend stuff to the legislature for consideration. Make orders to insure the laws are executed faithfully. And order his underlings to accomplish that task.
The only possible strech for this to be a law is if you believe this government is a dictatorship, in which case the legislature and the judiciary are his underlings and he can order them to do what he wants, with the power of the military behind him. Is this what you want?
Sounds like you've figured out that spraying oil on a fire isn't a good way of putting it out. But, now you are advocating the use of rocket fuel instead?!?
"As someone else futher down states, it's only favouriable to some people."
I am saying favorable to the argument's question: "Which of these candidates would be your choice?" I am not saying people find it personally favorable.
"I myself would prefer a outspoken person who lies than someone who always tells the truth."
I would prefer someone who tells the truth over an outspoken lier, because outspoken liers generally tend to be extremely manipulative and malicious. I suppose it's a debate over whether one prefers evil or stupidity.
"Jugding someone as bad because they cheat on there wife or drink too much is stupid, because we all have our faults. Judge me if i kill 11 million people (Hitler) or go to war for no good reason (Bush/Blair [1 million people didn't match to Hyde Park because we agreed with you]), spend the equilent of $26M a day since the birth of Christ on the Military (America), have race attacks against blacks and get away with it (KKK - Ameraica), kill innocent tibetans (China), drive SUV's and over polute (Most of the modern world but particularly america), decide to ignore the people and treat them as third class citezens."
Except the question had nothing to do with judging someone based on their peccadillos. If it where, the Hitler reference would have mentioned things that are univerally considered faults. It would be like me saying which would you rather drink: 1. One of the strongest known solvents on the planet 2. A brown fluid that is shipped as corrosive hazmat or 3. a syrupy fluid with a distinct sweet flavor.
1. Water 2. Cola 3. Antifreeze
And while minor faults are not something that should decide if a person is fit to lead, it can indicate if a person is predisposed to commiting more egregious acts. While a little recreational drug use in the past may not be a problem, a blow monkey coked out of his/her mind with his/her finger over the big red button is not exactly a good thing.
"Bah, i could go on, i could go on and counter these arguments." What arguments? That a misleading argument can cause people to make poor choices? Or, that picking attributes shared by 2 things can be used to fool people into thinking those 2 things are equivilant?
"I can see both points of few, it's just a perfer the side where everyone gets a chance." And I don't? Methinks that because I have a different opinion, you think I am deviod of compassion.
"In fact i with both sides would get along and bring their ideas together in a sensible way and make some progress" Sadly this is becomeing more and more unlikely in the US as people become more radicalized. One side effect of being emotionally stressed all the time is that people will think of reasons to justify their feelings rather than feeling a certain way because of what they think. The problem is that you end up with people arguing over justifications when they are basing their decisions on their emotions rather than the arguments they use. This is why with some people you can argue all day with them, and even if you tear apart all their arguments and show them undeniable levels of proof from unimpeachable sources they will still stand steadfast to their position; they can even become more convinced that their position is the correct one because of the anger, frustration, and spite the arguing engenders in them. Aww, here I go off in a tangent...
And if you make an off the cuff remark the president or the NSA doesn't like, illegal or not, what do you think is going to happen? If they don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights, they don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights. Free speach can go fuck itself, then.
What happens if that woman you tried to pick up has a daddy or ex in the NSA and you piss them off? You wouldn't know you where being an asshole to a covert op, because they are covert. But, they damn sure would know you. You may not have a file unless you did something, but they can still pull records from elsewhere.
And regardless, the recent rash of stories kind of hints at all you need to do "wrong" in order to get their attention is to criticise our pint sized "dear leader" with an inferiority complex a little too often.
I would like to point out that it looks like the one about the "Little Red Book" student looks like it was probably a hoax by the student. I tried submiting it to/., but you all know how that goes.
It's not a matter of a book by it's cover. It's a matter of brainwashing.
Candidate A and B only have unfavorable facts stated about them.
Candidate C only has favorable facts (spun hard, none the less) stated about them.
C is the only positive value, and most people don't have time to do critical analysis of an argument; therefore C is the obvious resultant answer.
I would also like to add that implied link between Churchill and Bush is also a form of brainwashing. A la subliminal message and an appeal to emotion(sub. wishful thinking). I probably would not have caught on to it had the "Bush is Churchill" talking points not already made their rounds.
Something tells me this is how the creationists will handle this:
When confronted with something that works and is complex: "See, proof of Intelligent Design!"
When confronted with something obviously "designed" badly: "We can't comprehend the will of 'the designer.'"...or: "It's because of the (insert group they hate) are angering 'the designer!'" (usually for desasters, plagues, cancer, birth defects, etc...)
Not exactly what I expected, I must say. I expected something along the lines of failing to call the conservative British party the Torries....or perhaps something along the lines of an appeal to emotion. Well, my point was to reflect an argument to highlight logical fallacies and stereotypes in the argument by flipping it to appear from "the other side" with the same structure. My point was to give you a chance to analyze your own argument in a critical light, rather than trying to further it. I've basically resorted to this because coming across a person with a political opinion that is still rational is hard to come by these days.
The statement I took issue with: "The term liberal has been corrupted by those who support big government in a financial sense and small government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of government.... and the USA where people declare themselves as liberals where they believe in more government."
While the current employment situation in the United States isn't exactly stellar, even if all the unemployed people where Democrats, they would not make up the majority of the party. As for beneficiaries of the government, be careful with this, if someone drives on a public road they can be considered "beneficiaries of the government." And again, if you mean all people who's income is primarily from government subsidies, they still would not make up the majority of the party. As for Democrats and big government, one of the rallying cries from the Democrats in the past few years has been that the government is too big and intrusive. Perhaps you are taking issue with what parts of the government should be how big and what they should be intrusive about?
As for the Labour Party and Blair, well, to be honest, I don't know alot about British politics. My impression of them is that they are similar to the "New Democrat" (neoliberal) component of the Democrat party in the United States, while the British Liberal Democrats are more of the liberal component of the United States Democrats (and perhaps some of the United States 3rd parties). My impression of the Torries is that they are a rather spread spectrum of components of "that side" for lack of a better term; while the American Republicans tend to have an enforced party line.
"I refrain from using terms like "right wing" because it fails to describe anything."
I agree, and try to follow. However, engaging in somewhat intelligent discussion with people seems to require it, otherwise I am forced to explain my personal definitions and elaborations to people I talk to. "Left wing," "right wing," "liberal," "conservative," etc are amorphous in the United States and mean different things to different people.
As for Libertarians, while I like the party and agree with most of the platform that I know about, I have spotted an undercurrent, of believe it or not, authoritarianism in some "members." Humor me. There is a form of authoritarianism that basically says that there are no rules so as long as one doesn't cross the rulers or the party line. The rulers can do anything they want to the ruled. The Oceania government in 1984 comes to mind. I have run across and argued with some of these people. They do exsist; and typically fancy themselves to be a member of "The Party" that gives them rights over others and they have the rightous obligation to enforce the party line, as they see it, on others. Typically they are primarily Republican voters that vote Libertarian as a way of punishing the Republicans for not being malicious enough, though. And yet, they believe they are Libertarians because they feel they are entitled to do what they want to others without interference.
Thankfully, I haven't seen this in the party leadership, although I do know of one pundit that expouses these views. Yeah, I know, everyone has their nuts.
Originally, conservatives (including those in the UK) believed in liberty in both economic and social terms.
The term conservative has been corrupted by those who support a supplicant government in a financial sense and authoritarian government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of weathy parents and government subsidies. This is true in the UK where the Conservatives are basically right-wing, and the USA where people declare themselves as conservatives where they believe in more government.
Many people who declare themselves as conservatives are basically fascists.
If you hear the term "libertarian", it's because they have been cowed into believing the word liberal is evil, even though they are in its original sense.
Supposedly some of it includes rape, including that of children held captive. One of the videos includes a 15 year old boy being raped by one of the employees according to a reporter that claims to have seen it. Good God, I hope that it's not true.
I know that's not what you want to read, but you asked.
That would be why these would be put on offramps where the traffic has to slow down anyway. In that case, they would actually be reducing wear on the brakes of the passing cars, thus saving the drivers money. The only flaw to that is that there may be added wear on the suspension. This could also be used in conjunction with a traffic light at the end of the ramp as a replacement for the light's traffic sensor.
For the lazy, basically it says: 1. Florida voters voted on more than one type of media (ballots, punch cards, etc.) 2. These have different rates of errors. 3. Therefore (re)counting the votes violates the equal protection clause. further... 4. There is no constitutional right to vote, states decide electors. 5. Therefore the original decision for electors by the Secretary of State of Florida stands.
And, yes, read the constitution, there is no right to vote. States decide electors by the methods they themselves choose. If there is an election, the voters are entitled to constitutional protections.
I wasn't listening today, but this has happened before and Air America did specifically mention it was a parliamentary manuver. It would surprise me if they went suddenly stupid. But, yes, cross reference your stuff. One of the hosts specifically tells you to look stuff up on your own to verify what she says.
I wouldn't celebrate it. This is only half of one house of Congress holding it up. The House of Representatives and Whitehouse are both pushing hard for it. The Supreme Court is somewhat of an unknown, but is increasingly becoming more favorable for the Administration. Even with that doubt, remember they, not the voters, decided Bush was the winner in 2000. They sometimes disagree, but are bascially in the administration's pocket.
I also wouldn't be surprised if it went through anyway. All the administration has to do is get their brownnosers in Congress to slip it a budget bill that can't be fillibustered. Even if the vote would have been nay in a direct up or down vote, there have been instances of fraudulent voice votes, illegally closed debates and committies (To the attack dogs: I mean house and senate rules illegal), and votes held open for hours until someone is blackmailed...err...I mean bribed...err...I mean coerced...err I mean convinced enough to switch their vote the other way.
I'd assume he means the self rightous, hellfire-and-brimstone voice commonly used by the TV evangelists. He may be painting with a broad brush, but I honestly don't know since I haven't actually paid attention to which sect TV evangelists tend to subscribe to.
Slashdot Mirror
Herm, this is difficult. Let me explain. Kerry had this problem where he using the old DLC stratagy of trying to please everyone by not being specific on anything. I guess I could say that in that, he was wrong potentially on just about every issue. Because, he would not take a solid stand on almost everything. It is hard to decern if someone is right or wrong on an issue if they refuse to make it clear where they stand on it.
It is kind of funny, the Democrats have a stratagy for the Presidency that is so similar to the Republican's judicial nomination stratagy: stealth candidates.
I would like to add the insistance that the other "side" has no ideas for solutions, while ignoring said solutions, tends to agravate this outcome.
I have noticed a rabid leftist movement spring up in the past few years in responce to the rightist one. Both bother me terribly.
...not that I have any love for Clinton or anything. Isn't that why she breezed through? Because, it was a horse trade between Clinton and the Congressional Republican Majority?
However, I would like to point something out. Wasn't Justice Ginsberg nominated by Republican Senator Orin Hatch after blocking Clinton's nominees?
Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
Don't even try to strawman me. Either that, or you are ignoring the point of the last sentance in my post. I am not saying there should be censorship. Quite the opposite, I recognize that these people are entitled to express their opinions. The problem is, they appear to be gunning not to express their opinions, but to silence the opinions of others. Cloaking censorship and parading it as constitutionally protected free speech would be laughable if so many people did not believe it was legitimate, at least when it is their "side" doing it.
And, before I even see someone reply with the "two wrongs equal a right" fallacy, let me say I have stood up to "liberal" activist professors myself, and actually ended up with better grades than I should have got in the course based solely on my performance. So, I know for a fact based on personal experience the wishful thinking that claims activist professors are out to get you is a false justification. One asshole does not justify hanging the rest indescriminantly.
Quote: "I can't find anything wrong with ... spouting it off in front of hundreds of people."
Quote: "everyone's going to start paying royalties for yelling "it's a trap!""
Quote: "that'll stop someone from hitting all the unmoderated quotes they disagree with with "-1, overrated"."
What was that about it all being AOK? Because we all know using out of context and partial quotes would never be used to misconstrue their position, defame them, and/or have them ostrasized, especially people that have a political agenda and are infuriated by opinions they disagree with.
"Disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not a republican. I have never voted republican in a national election. I've also never voted democrat. I think national politics in America is an institution rotten to its core."
Hear, hear!
" 1. Powerful and continuing nationalism - check, but this isn't new to Bush."
Agreed, however it has gotten stronger under Bush Jr.
" 2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights - check, and this one makes me sad. Even if the administration was angelic in every other respect, this is an unforgivable fault."
Agreed.
" 3. Identifying enemies or scapegoats as a unifying cause - check, but the enemy is real. That's a matter of convenience, I know, but something still has to be done."
I agree OBL and his band of bandits are legitimate, and Saddam would have to have been delt with at some point. However, if you notice, those aren't the only sapegoats present. You may have noticed the hatred of the French and the calls to execute "liberals" as traitors for not unquestionably obeying Bush.
" 4. Supremacy of the military - check, I'll give this one, but it's sort of overstated in the flash. As a conservative, I recognize the need for a military."
Agreed, however, I smell corruption in the military expenditures. For some reason the performance/budget ratio has dropped drastically over the past several years.
" 5. Rampant sexism - no, not really, although it seems unneeded for fascism anyway."
I agree this is fairly weak. There is some merit to it. A push to ban contraceptives and a lack of women in positions of authority come to mind. But, the glass ceiling is largely historical.
Oh, it is needed in facism for this reason: fresh bodies. A facist nation needs soldiers to fight their wars and to police their police states. Therefore, women's rights are erroded in such a way as to facilitate this. IE: baby factories.
" 6. Controlled mass media - again, no. Sure, some media outlets lean the same way as the president. Others don't. It's a pretty good mix, in my opinion. On the other hand, I'm not like most people, which is to say I don't suffer from the disease of wanting to have my opinions parroted back at me. Overall, the media sells what people want to buy."
I disagree. The media has shown a tendancy to avoid reporting anything beyond the spin of the two major parties. There is little attempt to find out who, if either, is telling the truth. This can be blamed on several things, including lazyness, budget concerns, profit margins, but also on people that become extremely irate and petty in their actions if their party is critisized, justly or not. The polititians in power are not excluded from this and hold legislation and selective enforcement above the heads of the media companies. Couple that with frivilous legal threats, releasing false information and later quietly revising it, firing people that speak out, etc...
That constitutes a controlled mass media, albeit not completely controlled.
" 7. Obsession with national security - check, but once again, the enemy is real."
Again, some of the enemy is real, not all of it. Part of the reason the administration is in such hot water is not that he's spying on Americans, but that it is spying on American simply because they are political threats. If they where going after national security threats, it would have been easily handled with the retroactive FISA warrents.
" 8. Religion and government are intertwined - no, not really. As a devout atheist, I'd probably notice. The President spouting personal religious beliefs does not a religious government make."
I have noticed. There are new churches springing up everywhere around here. Thanks to the Department of Faith Based Initiatives, it has become profitable to run a church. It seems especially helpful if said church promotes administration policy. For example: the Justice Sunday trilogy and funneling money to Pat Robertson's organization.
The constant i
It's funny how some partisans can see and complain about what the "other side" does, but fail to see it when their own "side" does it. They just think, in that case, it's god's honest truth and anyone saying otherwise is trying to censor them.
It's even more entertaining when the partisan fails to realize what they are complaining about is actually a retalitory strike.
Just an observation.
"As an amusing side note, I've noticed that professors on both sides of the political spectrum have solidly lined up against these folks. Apparently one thing all professors can agree on is that students and alumni should be a lot more respectful to professors than this group is being."
Of course! What you think all the conservatives and Republicans think in lockstep? They want to believe what they want, not what the current RNC party line propaganda dictates. Hence, the whole point of being a conservative. You know, not changing your tune just because someone else says to. Some people actually hold their nation, their family, and their ideals above their political party.
I fell out with the Republican party because of this. They wanted tax cuts, I wanted to pay down the national debt. You know, so we wouldn't be pissing away a third of the federal budget in interest alone? Basically, so the government could lower taxes later on without driving the government into crushing debt. I got seriously pissed off when I started hearing that either I supported immediate tax cuts or I was a liberal. And to those reading this that are outside of the party or American politics, calling someone a liberal is worse than calling someone a child molester within the Republican groupthink.
Now, I'll be honest, my ideology has shifted somewhat since then, so I can't really call myself a Republican in exile.
If I remember correctly, the "right to abortion" via the privacy argument has it's roots in Amendment IV in the Bill of Rights:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This argument hinges on at what point through gestation does a genetic human become a person, and thus covered by the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enumerated in the Declaration of Independance. I could go into specific beliefs and arguments as to when, but this isn't the place and would likely start a flame war anyway.
And anyway, be careful with that statement "I do know that United States consitutional law is not as simple as just reading the constitution and interpreting the words the way you understand them in everyday speech." If you give the unquestioned authority to interpret the law to polititians, they will ultimately interpret it in the way that gives them the most power over you.
From Article II (the presidency) of the US Constitution, the sections that define presidential authority:
Here are the parts related to Executive Orders:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" . . . "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."
In other words, he can recommend stuff to the legislature for consideration. Make orders to insure the laws are executed faithfully. And order his underlings to accomplish that task.
The only possible strech for this to be a law is if you believe this government is a dictatorship, in which case the legislature and the judiciary are his underlings and he can order them to do what he wants, with the power of the military behind him. Is this what you want?
"I" ... "promote McAfee."
Sounds like you've figured out that spraying oil on a fire isn't a good way of putting it out. But, now you are advocating the use of rocket fuel instead?!?
np. I've done it, too. Merry Christmas.
Why do you think I mentioned it? Or do you just not understand the meaning of the word "hoax"?
"As someone else futher down states, it's only favouriable to some people."
I am saying favorable to the argument's question: "Which of these candidates would be your choice?" I am not saying people find it personally favorable.
"I myself would prefer a outspoken person who lies than someone who always tells the truth."
I would prefer someone who tells the truth over an outspoken lier, because outspoken liers generally tend to be extremely manipulative and malicious. I suppose it's a debate over whether one prefers evil or stupidity.
"Jugding someone as bad because they cheat on there wife or drink too much is stupid, because we all have our faults. Judge me if i kill 11 million people (Hitler) or go to war for no good reason (Bush/Blair [1 million people didn't match to Hyde Park because we agreed with you]), spend the equilent of $26M a day since the birth of Christ on the Military (America), have race attacks against blacks and get away with it (KKK - Ameraica), kill innocent tibetans (China), drive SUV's and over polute (Most of the modern world but particularly america), decide to ignore the people and treat them as third class citezens."
Except the question had nothing to do with judging someone based on their peccadillos. If it where, the Hitler reference would have mentioned things that are univerally considered faults. It would be like me saying which would you rather drink: 1. One of the strongest known solvents on the planet 2. A brown fluid that is shipped as corrosive hazmat or 3. a syrupy fluid with a distinct sweet flavor.
1. Water 2. Cola 3. Antifreeze
And while minor faults are not something that should decide if a person is fit to lead, it can indicate if a person is predisposed to commiting more egregious acts. While a little recreational drug use in the past may not be a problem, a blow monkey coked out of his/her mind with his/her finger over the big red button is not exactly a good thing.
"Bah, i could go on, i could go on and counter these arguments."
What arguments? That a misleading argument can cause people to make poor choices? Or, that picking attributes shared by 2 things can be used to fool people into thinking those 2 things are equivilant?
"I can see both points of few, it's just a perfer the side where everyone gets a chance."
And I don't? Methinks that because I have a different opinion, you think I am deviod of compassion.
"In fact i with both sides would get along and bring their ideas together in a sensible way and make some progress"
Sadly this is becomeing more and more unlikely in the US as people become more radicalized. One side effect of being emotionally stressed all the time is that people will think of reasons to justify their feelings rather than feeling a certain way because of what they think. The problem is that you end up with people arguing over justifications when they are basing their decisions on their emotions rather than the arguments they use. This is why with some people you can argue all day with them, and even if you tear apart all their arguments and show them undeniable levels of proof from unimpeachable sources they will still stand steadfast to their position; they can even become more convinced that their position is the correct one because of the anger, frustration, and spite the arguing engenders in them. Aww, here I go off in a tangent...
And if you make an off the cuff remark the president or the NSA doesn't like, illegal or not, what do you think is going to happen? If they don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights, they don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights. Free speach can go fuck itself, then.
/., but you all know how that goes.
What happens if that woman you tried to pick up has a daddy or ex in the NSA and you piss them off? You wouldn't know you where being an asshole to a covert op, because they are covert. But, they damn sure would know you. You may not have a file unless you did something, but they can still pull records from elsewhere.
And regardless, the recent rash of stories kind of hints at all you need to do "wrong" in order to get their attention is to criticise our pint sized "dear leader" with an inferiority complex a little too often.
I would like to point out that it looks like the one about the "Little Red Book" student looks like it was probably a hoax by the student. I tried submiting it to
It's not a matter of a book by it's cover. It's a matter of brainwashing.
Candidate A and B only have unfavorable facts stated about them.
Candidate C only has favorable facts (spun hard, none the less) stated about them.
C is the only positive value, and most people don't have time to do critical analysis of an argument; therefore C is the obvious resultant answer.
I would also like to add that implied link between Churchill and Bush is also a form of brainwashing. A la subliminal message and an appeal to emotion(sub. wishful thinking). I probably would not have caught on to it had the "Bush is Churchill" talking points not already made their rounds.
Speaking of which, I found this interesting:
...or: "It's because of the (insert group they hate) are angering 'the designer!'" (usually for desasters, plagues, cancer, birth defects, etc...)
Incompetent Design
Something tells me this is how the creationists will handle this:
When confronted with something that works and is complex:
"See, proof of Intelligent Design!"
When confronted with something obviously "designed" badly:
"We can't comprehend the will of 'the designer.'"
Not exactly what I expected, I must say. I expected something along the lines of failing to call the conservative British party the Torries. ...or perhaps something along the lines of an appeal to emotion. Well, my point was to reflect an argument to highlight logical fallacies and stereotypes in the argument by flipping it to appear from "the other side" with the same structure. My point was to give you a chance to analyze your own argument in a critical light, rather than trying to further it. I've basically resorted to this because coming across a person with a political opinion that is still rational is hard to come by these days.
... and the USA where people declare themselves as liberals where they believe in more government."
The statement I took issue with:
"The term liberal has been corrupted by those who support big government in a financial sense and small government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of government.
While the current employment situation in the United States isn't exactly stellar, even if all the unemployed people where Democrats, they would not make up the majority of the party. As for beneficiaries of the government, be careful with this, if someone drives on a public road they can be considered "beneficiaries of the government." And again, if you mean all people who's income is primarily from government subsidies, they still would not make up the majority of the party. As for Democrats and big government, one of the rallying cries from the Democrats in the past few years has been that the government is too big and intrusive. Perhaps you are taking issue with what parts of the government should be how big and what they should be intrusive about?
As for the Labour Party and Blair, well, to be honest, I don't know alot about British politics. My impression of them is that they are similar to the "New Democrat" (neoliberal) component of the Democrat party in the United States, while the British Liberal Democrats are more of the liberal component of the United States Democrats (and perhaps some of the United States 3rd parties). My impression of the Torries is that they are a rather spread spectrum of components of "that side" for lack of a better term; while the American Republicans tend to have an enforced party line.
"I refrain from using terms like "right wing" because it fails to describe anything."
I agree, and try to follow. However, engaging in somewhat intelligent discussion with people seems to require it, otherwise I am forced to explain my personal definitions and elaborations to people I talk to. "Left wing," "right wing," "liberal," "conservative," etc are amorphous in the United States and mean different things to different people.
As for Libertarians, while I like the party and agree with most of the platform that I know about, I have spotted an undercurrent, of believe it or not, authoritarianism in some "members." Humor me. There is a form of authoritarianism that basically says that there are no rules so as long as one doesn't cross the rulers or the party line. The rulers can do anything they want to the ruled. The Oceania government in 1984 comes to mind. I have run across and argued with some of these people. They do exsist; and typically fancy themselves to be a member of "The Party" that gives them rights over others and they have the rightous obligation to enforce the party line, as they see it, on others. Typically they are primarily Republican voters that vote Libertarian as a way of punishing the Republicans for not being malicious enough, though. And yet, they believe they are Libertarians because they feel they are entitled to do what they want to others without interference.
Thankfully, I haven't seen this in the party leadership, although I do know of one pundit that expouses these views. Yeah, I know, everyone has their nuts.
Originally, conservatives (including those in the UK) believed in liberty in both economic and social terms.
The term conservative has been corrupted by those who support a supplicant government in a financial sense and authoritarian government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of weathy parents and government subsidies. This is true in the UK where the Conservatives are basically right-wing, and the USA where people declare themselves as conservatives where they believe in more government.
Many people who declare themselves as conservatives are basically fascists.
If you hear the term "libertarian", it's because they have been cowed into believing the word liberal is evil, even though they are in its original sense.
"So how bad is it?"
Supposedly some of it includes rape, including that of children held captive. One of the videos includes a 15 year old boy being raped by one of the employees according to a reporter that claims to have seen it. Good God, I hope that it's not true.
I know that's not what you want to read, but you asked.
That would be why these would be put on offramps where the traffic has to slow down anyway. In that case, they would actually be reducing wear on the brakes of the passing cars, thus saving the drivers money. The only flaw to that is that there may be added wear on the suspension. This could also be used in conjunction with a traffic light at the end of the ramp as a replacement for the light's traffic sensor.
It helps to know what you are talking about.
For the lazy, basically it says:
1. Florida voters voted on more than one type of media (ballots, punch cards, etc.)
2. These have different rates of errors.
3. Therefore (re)counting the votes violates the equal protection clause.
further...
4. There is no constitutional right to vote, states decide electors.
5. Therefore the original decision for electors by the Secretary of State of Florida stands.
And, yes, read the constitution, there is no right to vote. States decide electors by the methods they themselves choose. If there is an election, the voters are entitled to constitutional protections.
I wasn't listening today, but this has happened before and Air America did specifically mention it was a parliamentary manuver. It would surprise me if they went suddenly stupid. But, yes, cross reference your stuff. One of the hosts specifically tells you to look stuff up on your own to verify what she says.
I wouldn't celebrate it. This is only half of one house of Congress holding it up. The House of Representatives and Whitehouse are both pushing hard for it. The Supreme Court is somewhat of an unknown, but is increasingly becoming more favorable for the Administration. Even with that doubt, remember they, not the voters, decided Bush was the winner in 2000. They sometimes disagree, but are bascially in the administration's pocket.
I also wouldn't be surprised if it went through anyway. All the administration has to do is get their brownnosers in Congress to slip it a budget bill that can't be fillibustered. Even if the vote would have been nay in a direct up or down vote, there have been instances of fraudulent voice votes, illegally closed debates and committies (To the attack dogs: I mean house and senate rules illegal), and votes held open for hours until someone is blackmailed...err...I mean bribed...err...I mean coerced...err I mean convinced enough to switch their vote the other way.
"ps: WTF's a "baptist voice"?"
I'd assume he means the self rightous, hellfire-and-brimstone voice commonly used by the TV evangelists. He may be painting with a broad brush, but I honestly don't know since I haven't actually paid attention to which sect TV evangelists tend to subscribe to.
Then again, I could be totally wrong.