Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
I think it is far too early to tell whether we are doing it right or wrong yet. Before the Iraq war, there were predictions of massive anti-American uprisings in the "Arab street". That hasn't happened. There have been no more terrorist incidents in the United States since the Iraq war. All of the terrorists seem to be coming together nicely in one country, Iraq, where we can take strong action against them.
This is such a huge problem that no solution will be immediate. It will take years if not decades to fix the problems. And one of the things terrorists and rogue states are watching is to see whether the U.S. will maintain its resolve, or whether it will cut and run when things get difficult. Showing weakness and wavering right now will not make us safer.
These files were on government-owned, taxpayer-funded computers. Were it not for the fact that Congress exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act, these records would be suject to public review and inspection. Those memos discovered by Miranda which have been publicly released show:
clear efforts by parties to litigation to influence the results of that litigation by controlling when new judges were confirmed (p. 3)
confirmation hearings be scheduled around concerns over how a particular confirmation might affect an election in a particular state (South Carolina - p. 8-9)
racial motivations (to develop a strategy for "dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court nominees" (p. 14)
and exactly how much Democrat Senators are focused on pleasing particular special interest organizations and constituencies
So why shouldn't these memos have been in the public eye to begin with? If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted? No. The same people on the left who want to crucify Miranda here would be screaming about the public's right to know.
And FYI, here is Miranda's attorneys very clear explanation of the law. Anybody on/. who wants to prosecute Miranda for what he did better be really, really careful about what computers he accesses without really explicit permission in the future.
Re:Site is incredibly biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I don't remember that. Would you kindly provide a link to your charge against Hannity?
Also, the charges of a liberal bias in the mainstream media have been well-documented by objective reviewers. Some 34% of journalists in national media identify themselves as "liberal", while only 7% say they are "conserative." The general public self-identifies as 20% liberal, 33% conservative. Do you have any statistics to back up your charges against Fox News?
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Here's the thing. The attacks on the WTC were planned well before George Bush won the election, much less took office. The earlier attack on the WTC took place during the Clinton administration, as did the Cole bombing and numerous embassy bombings around the world.
Frankly, prior to 9/11, George W. Bush was an isolationist, and was dramatically lessening the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East. We tried the "let's be nice" method. It didn't work. It caused worse things to happen to us. So President Bush had little choice other than to change our response.
An internet poll is never accurate...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not accurate for anything other than registering the views of those who choose to participate, at any rate. There is an extreme self-selection bias, for one thing.
And most such polls on hotly-contested issues such as the U.S. presidential race can be quickly overwhelmed and influenced by campaign activists for each side.
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
No, Kerry went to great lengths to avoid mentioning President Bush by name. Almost every convention speech was full of barely-veiled suggestions that he has lied or misled us into the Iraq war.
And it was hardly an accident that Michael Moore was seated next to former President Jimmy Carter. All these things were part of a carefully calculated (but ineffective) attempt by the Democrats to let the nasty heavy lifting of calling Bush a liar be done by surrogates such as Moore and Whoopi Goldberg, or by indirection, so that they could be negative without getting labelled as being negative.
Site is incredibly biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.
You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".
Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.
While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".
How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.
Plus the site is really, really biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".
Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.
While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".
Well, since you're pretty clearly a devoted Marxist, and I'm a pretty devoted capitalist, we're just going to have to continue to disagree on this one. I would suggest to you that the violent protests againts the WTO and the bs some of your fellow travellers pulled in New York at the RNC (such as intentionally making themselves smell like explosive devices to mess up the dogs) are not winning you many sympathizers among the main stream public. Your methods cause most ordinary Americans to not bother listening to your arguments.
At least President Bush discusses the problems facing Social Security and gives the general philosophy behind his solution.
John Kerry doesn't even list Social Security as a national issue.
Whereas the 6-1 decision by the Democrat justices of the Florida Supreme Court was completely unbiased and had nothing to do with partisanship? The 7 justices of Florida who occasionally must go before the public for retention elections were more unbiased than the 7 justices of the United States Supreme Court who serve lifetime appointments?
I say 7 because 7 of the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the orders of the Florida Supreme Court were unconstitutional. The only difference they had with the 5 in the majority was the remedy.
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. 5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. 102.168(8) (2000).
Although Justice Souter thought the case should have been avoided on other grounds and sent back to Florida, he agreed that the remedy ordered at that point by the Florida court was a violation of the equal protection clause:
I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary.
Yes, that is the relevant section of the Constitution at issue here (which I have myself quoted in several other posts under this article).
Whether consent means 1/2 plus 1 is indeed the relevant issue. Do you accept that if "consent" as used in this clause means 1/2 plus 1, then there is a constitutional issue? It clearly does not mean 2/3, or else there would be no reason to distinguish between the votes required to ratify a treaty and that needed to consent to the appointments. This is really not that difficult to establish. Reference to contemporary (of the Constitutional Convention) procedure manuals and common practices, as well as the practices of the first few Congresses, can shed a great deal of light on what vote requirement was intended by the framers in that provision. I feel quite certain that a quick check will show that a simple majority was all that was required in the early days, which helps shed light on the vote requirement for that clause.
Additionally, you can look at the language for the passage of other legislative instruments, where the requirement for a simple majority is not completely spelled out. Under your interpretation, it would be possible for Congress to raise the requirements for passing any legislation to a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, and prevent future Congresses from revoking that rule by requiring, say, unanimity for changing that particular rule.
This is indeed a constitutional issue, albeit one that is really for the Senate itself to resolve. I would add this point. The justification for the filibuster under the rules is to allow additional debate; to keep the matter open while opponents have the chance to speak against it. But the use the Democrats are making of the "filibuster" here is simply to prevent the vote, permanently. They aren't interested in debate; nobody is unsure of their positions. They simply want to stop the vote, period.
But Senate rules cannot override constitutional requirements. Take the 2/3 majority requirement to override a presidential veto. The Senate rules could not declare that only a simple majority was necessary, nor could they declare that a 4/5 majority was necessary.
You say you want both sides to be more civil with each other and not call the other side evil. Then you blame Republicans who prefer to have tax dollars used to promote abstinence rather than condoms and birth control pills for: "prom queens having their babies in the toilet and leaving them in a dumpster so people won't think they're evil."
I'm not sure that really raises the level of debate very much. Think how liberals felt when President Reagan talked about the true (but not necessarily wide spread) examples of "welfare queens".
And in fact the political system CAN do something about flag burning, abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. In addition to passing constitutional amendments and laws such as the Clinton-supported "Defense of Marriage Act", we can elect Presidents who will appoint new judges who will rule on these issues in favor of democracy and letting the people decide rather than in favor of oligarchy letting the 9 old justices decide. And we can elect Senators who will confirm those new judges. That's what these fights over judicial nominations are all about, trying to change things that the previous judges have taken out of the hands of the electorate.
"by Law" does NOT mean "basically subject to Senate rules". "Law" is pretty well defined in the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2:
Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
The Senate Rules, however, derive from Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
A "Rule" is not a "Law". "Rules" do not have to be submitted to the other house of Congress for concurrence or presented to the President. They are not "Laws" as that term is used in the Constitution.
It's a constitutional question because the constitution says that a simple majority of the Senate has the power to confirm presidential appointments. It's the same constitutional question which would arise if, for example, Congress passed internal rules saying that henceforth only 51%, rather than 2/3, would be required to override a presidential veto. The constitution spells out the voting majority required, and Congress cannot alter that with its internal rules.
Because the supreme court likely cannot or will not, because of separation of powers issues, decide the constitutionality of internal rules like this, it is imperative for the Senate itself to decide such issues. There is no "higher authority" to appeal to.
And for those who say it can't possibly be unconstitutional because it has been in use for so long, I would point out that those same arguments are oftened used by conservatives to try to keep the Supreme Court from overruling laws and practices which have truly been around since the day this country was founded. So look for another argument, folks!
In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically did NOT resolve the state law question (which involved the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to determine the rules, etc. for recounts). Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the recount mechanism ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the federal constitution's equal protection clause.
The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida's basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the "intent of the voter." Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.
Earlier in the opinion, the court lays out the issues presented. Again, none of these involve an interpretation of state law.
The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
In short, Bush v. Gore was entirely a decision that the laws and actions of a state government violated provisions of the federal constitution.
Try this example. The Constitution says that it takes a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto. The Constitution also, as you say, gives both the Senate and the House the power to adopt internal rules of procedure. And generally, those rules are adopted by majority rule. I hope you would agree that neither house of Congress could, by changing their internal rules with a simple majority, reduce the requirement to overrule a presidential veto to a simple majority from the constitutionally-mandated 2/3 majority. The issue with the filibuster is exactly the same, whether a house of Congress, by changing its rules, can fundamentally alter a vote requirement set by the Constitution.
And I don't think any less of you for having a differing opinion, because you express it rationally and without belittling me personally.
I do agree with you that the government went too far classifying Padilla and the Chicago case (which I have not previously heard of) as enemy combatants in those circumstances. I don't believe that either of those was actually taken to Guantanamo, however. Even the Afghani who was born in my hometown of Baton Rouge was transported out of Guatanamo to the continental U.S. after his U.S. birth was uncovered.
And I doubt that you will accept this as any more convincing than I will accept the ACLU as authoritative concerning the Patriot Act.
Always happy to have a rational conversation about honest disagreements.
Clinton was able to do welfare reform and balance the budget for the same reason that "only Nixon could go to China." No Republican could have successfully passed the type of welfare reform Clinton did, because they wouldn't have been trusted; everything they tried to do would have been denounced as uncaring, unfeeling, and inhuman.
I'm not a big fan of the Christian Coalition myself. But what really chaps me is when those on the unthinking left (not all the left, mind you, just the unthinking ones) use distate for the Christian Coalition to justify bashing all religion and all those who profess religious beliefs and allow those beliefs to occasionally influence their actions in the political spectrum and elsewhere. To me, that's just wrong, rude, and intolerant.
As for abortion, my personal opinion is that the reason it remains such a divisive issue is because it was not resolved in the realm of democracy, but was declared by judicial fiat. At the time of Roe v. Wade, many states had or were in the process of legalizing abortion. There's really no reason to believe that wouldn't have continued. But by telling the people that they had no right to vote and legislate on the subject, it caused a great deal of consternation on the part of those opposed to it. One of the reasons democracy works as a form of goverment is because even when people are unhappy with a particular result, they are more willing to accept it when they had a voice in the process. But the people didn't have a voice in the Court's decision, so they continue to raise heck about it.
I agree that the issues you raised are important, but I don't think by any stretch that all the blame for not addressing them can be laid at the feet of the right. Take health care. Clinton failed miserably at it because: 1) he let a powerful but un-elected and un-fireable person run it; 2) she ran it in complete secrecy; and 3) there is no indication it would have been anything other than a nationalized health system like in Canada or the United Kingdom, which have substantial problems of their own.
I am unhappy with our relations in the world today, but I do not automatically assume those are our fault. If you read carefully, you will see that France did not oppose the Iraq war because it disagreed about the evidence of WMD, or because it disagreed that Saddam was a serious threat to stability. It opposed us because it does not like American power, period. It has its own geopolitical desires for power, its own beliefs in the shape the world should take, and it doesn't want us having such a big role in them. Take that big poll that was announced the other day, the one that showed that the rest of the world wants Kerry over Bush. A very large majority of those foreign people who said they wanted Kerry also said that they generally wanted a WEAKER United States. So they perceive Kerry as someone who will reduce U.S. strength. I'm not for that at this point in history.
I'm with you on IP reform, and I wish the Democrats would adopt a consistent position on the side of sanity. I don't approve at all of Senator Hatch and his over-zealous drive to protect copyrights at all costs. But not all Republicans are with him on that, and the Democrats have not united on a particular alternative approach, either.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the Democrats right now is that they have ENTIRELY conceded any credibility in the foreign policy realm by becoming the anti-war at any cost party. There are good Democrats with strong defense credentials (Joe Lieberman comes to mind, as does former Senator Sam Nunn, even Joe Biden who I don't really like), but the biggest, most visible base of the Democratic Party today are the Hollywood liberals and the anti-war activists.
I do thank you for the opportunity to have a civilized discussion on/. who would have thought it possible?!?
Well, if you go back and check, you'll see that there were designated "free speech zones" back in 1996 at both the DNC and RNC national conventions. And if Bush had anything at all to do with it, why would he allow so many protestors in New York and clamp down on them so hard at the DNC? Also, remember that the reason they started coming about in the 90's was because of the violent anarchist protestors who caused serious disruption to a wide variety of major events, especially global economic summits, during that time period.
I'm just not as worried as you are about a few prisoners in Guatanamo or Iraq feeling humiliated after trying to blow up our troops, not to mention innocent Iraqis.
Overtime laws have not been revoked, just modified and simplified a bit. Before these changes, some poor schmuck making $18,000 a year could have been stuck doing unpaid overtime if the corporate powers-that-be could find a way to classify him as a managerial employee. Now the rule is simpler, and says that if you make less than a certain amount, you get overtime, regardless of your job description.
I'm not nearly as opposed to unions as many Republicans, but you do understand that there's an economic reason that many jobs are going oversees, don't you? Part of that reason is the relatively high wages in the United States compared to the rest of the world. If companies can't modify the wages here to lower costs, they will, whether you like it or not, simply ship jobs elsewhere, to a place they can pay wages which are a LOT lower.
Depends on how you define "protestor". Protestors who block the public streets, attack police, purposefully coat themselves with scents which will cause explosive dogs to alert, these are not legitimate protestors exercising their right "peaceably to assemble".
And on the caption of the woman being comforted, it says there was concern because her daughter was going into labor back in Austin while she was in jail. Well, if she was that concerned about her daughter in Austin, what was she doing in New York City to begin with?
As for the "Free Speech Zones", those were in front of the Democratic Convention, in the Democratic-controlled city of Boston, practically the home town of Senator John Kerry. I didn't see such limited zones in front of the Republican convention in New York City, which has a Republican mayor and a Republican governor. Kind of shoots down your tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
I don't accept your premise that Republicans are "dead set" against civil liberties. The left keeps shouting that, but the actual evidence of it is in very short supply (evidence that the law is substantively that different than it was before the Patriot Act). There are legitimate differences of opinion over details, but that doesn't mean that all those who support the Patriot Act, for example, are against civil liberties.
There is a difference between asserting that Saddam provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda operatives (it is pretty undisputed, I believe, that they harbored at least one, although there is some debate as to whether that guy was in a part of Iraq controlled by Saddam or not), and asserting that Iraq helped Al Qaeda with 9/11. Please provide even a single link to any statement by the president or senior administration officials accusing Saddam of having helped with 9/11 itself.
As for civil liberties, I'm just not concerned about the people in Guantanamo, who were detained on a BATTLEFIELD. That doesn't mean that they forfeit all rights as human beings, but it does mean that all the procedural niceties like access to a lawyer don't need to apply right away. And for the Patriot Act (which has nothing at all to do with Guantanamo), please identify which provisions, exactly, you believe allow new things to be done by the FBI without judicial oversight? Almost all of the most controversial provisions of that Act do nothing more than extend what the FBI could do in, say, anti-Mafia investigations to terrorism investigations. So again, I don't accept your premise that the Patriot Act has done what you say.
As for the bigger picture, you and I just disagree on our evaluation of the threats we face and the likely reaction of different parts of the world to different actions by our country. That's fine, we're both entitled to our opinions. There are no magic balls out there to predict the future. I see the world the way I described, so that's why I'm voting for President Bush. You see it differently, so you certainly should vote for somebody else.
Congress and public opinion did. Had he succeeded in getting Congress to pass the law, though, it would have all been quite constitutional. Bad idea, but constitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is far too early to tell whether we are doing it right or wrong yet. Before the Iraq war, there were predictions of massive anti-American uprisings in the "Arab street". That hasn't happened. There have been no more terrorist incidents in the United States since the Iraq war. All of the terrorists seem to be coming together nicely in one country, Iraq, where we can take strong action against them.
This is such a huge problem that no solution will be immediate. It will take years if not decades to fix the problems. And one of the things terrorists and rogue states are watching is to see whether the U.S. will maintain its resolve, or whether it will cut and run when things get difficult. Showing weakness and wavering right now will not make us safer.
- clear efforts by parties to litigation to influence the results of that litigation by controlling when new judges were confirmed (p. 3)
- confirmation hearings be scheduled around concerns over how a particular confirmation might affect an election in a particular state (South Carolina - p. 8-9)
- racial motivations (to develop a strategy for "dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court nominees" (p. 14)
- and exactly how much Democrat Senators are focused on pleasing particular special interest organizations and constituencies
So why shouldn't these memos have been in the public eye to begin with? If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted? No. The same people on the left who want to crucify Miranda here would be screaming about the public's right to know.And FYI, here is Miranda's attorneys very clear explanation of the law. Anybody on
Actually, I don't remember that. Would you kindly provide a link to your charge against Hannity?
Also, the charges of a liberal bias in the mainstream media have been well-documented by objective reviewers. Some 34% of journalists in national media identify themselves as "liberal", while only 7% say they are "conserative." The general public self-identifies as 20% liberal, 33% conservative. Do you have any statistics to back up your charges against Fox News?
Here's the thing. The attacks on the WTC were planned well before George Bush won the election, much less took office. The earlier attack on the WTC took place during the Clinton administration, as did the Cole bombing and numerous embassy bombings around the world.
Frankly, prior to 9/11, George W. Bush was an isolationist, and was dramatically lessening the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East. We tried the "let's be nice" method. It didn't work. It caused worse things to happen to us. So President Bush had little choice other than to change our response.
Not accurate for anything other than registering the views of those who choose to participate, at any rate. There is an extreme self-selection bias, for one thing.
And most such polls on hotly-contested issues such as the U.S. presidential race can be quickly overwhelmed and influenced by campaign activists for each side.
No, Kerry went to great lengths to avoid mentioning President Bush by name. Almost every convention speech was full of barely-veiled suggestions that he has lied or misled us into the Iraq war.
And it was hardly an accident that Michael Moore was seated next to former President Jimmy Carter. All these things were part of a carefully calculated (but ineffective) attempt by the Democrats to let the nasty heavy lifting of calling Bush a liar be done by surrogates such as Moore and Whoopi Goldberg, or by indirection, so that they could be negative without getting labelled as being negative.
Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.
You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".
Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".
How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.
Read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".
Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.
While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".
Well, since you're pretty clearly a devoted Marxist, and I'm a pretty devoted capitalist, we're just going to have to continue to disagree on this one. I would suggest to you that the violent protests againts the WTO and the bs some of your fellow travellers pulled in New York at the RNC (such as intentionally making themselves smell like explosive devices to mess up the dogs) are not winning you many sympathizers among the main stream public. Your methods cause most ordinary Americans to not bother listening to your arguments.
At least President Bush discusses the problems facing Social Security and gives the general philosophy behind his solution. John Kerry doesn't even list Social Security as a national issue.
I say 7 because 7 of the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the orders of the Florida Supreme Court were unconstitutional. The only difference they had with the 5 in the majority was the remedy. Although Justice Souter thought the case should have been avoided on other grounds and sent back to Florida, he agreed that the remedy ordered at that point by the Florida court was a violation of the equal protection clause:
Yes, that is the relevant section of the Constitution at issue here (which I have myself quoted in several other posts under this article).
Whether consent means 1/2 plus 1 is indeed the relevant issue. Do you accept that if "consent" as used in this clause means 1/2 plus 1, then there is a constitutional issue? It clearly does not mean 2/3, or else there would be no reason to distinguish between the votes required to ratify a treaty and that needed to consent to the appointments. This is really not that difficult to establish. Reference to contemporary (of the Constitutional Convention) procedure manuals and common practices, as well as the practices of the first few Congresses, can shed a great deal of light on what vote requirement was intended by the framers in that provision. I feel quite certain that a quick check will show that a simple majority was all that was required in the early days, which helps shed light on the vote requirement for that clause.
Additionally, you can look at the language for the passage of other legislative instruments, where the requirement for a simple majority is not completely spelled out. Under your interpretation, it would be possible for Congress to raise the requirements for passing any legislation to a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, and prevent future Congresses from revoking that rule by requiring, say, unanimity for changing that particular rule.
This is indeed a constitutional issue, albeit one that is really for the Senate itself to resolve. I would add this point. The justification for the filibuster under the rules is to allow additional debate; to keep the matter open while opponents have the chance to speak against it. But the use the Democrats are making of the "filibuster" here is simply to prevent the vote, permanently. They aren't interested in debate; nobody is unsure of their positions. They simply want to stop the vote, period.
But Senate rules cannot override constitutional requirements. Take the 2/3 majority requirement to override a presidential veto. The Senate rules could not declare that only a simple majority was necessary, nor could they declare that a 4/5 majority was necessary.
You say you want both sides to be more civil with each other and not call the other side evil. Then you blame Republicans who prefer to have tax dollars used to promote abstinence rather than condoms and birth control pills for: "prom queens having their babies in the toilet and leaving them in a dumpster so people won't think they're evil."
I'm not sure that really raises the level of debate very much. Think how liberals felt when President Reagan talked about the true (but not necessarily wide spread) examples of "welfare queens".
And in fact the political system CAN do something about flag burning, abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. In addition to passing constitutional amendments and laws such as the Clinton-supported "Defense of Marriage Act", we can elect Presidents who will appoint new judges who will rule on these issues in favor of democracy and letting the people decide rather than in favor of oligarchy letting the 9 old justices decide. And we can elect Senators who will confirm those new judges. That's what these fights over judicial nominations are all about, trying to change things that the previous judges have taken out of the hands of the electorate.
It's a constitutional question because the constitution says that a simple majority of the Senate has the power to confirm presidential appointments. It's the same constitutional question which would arise if, for example, Congress passed internal rules saying that henceforth only 51%, rather than 2/3, would be required to override a presidential veto. The constitution spells out the voting majority required, and Congress cannot alter that with its internal rules.
Because the supreme court likely cannot or will not, because of separation of powers issues, decide the constitutionality of internal rules like this, it is imperative for the Senate itself to decide such issues. There is no "higher authority" to appeal to.
And for those who say it can't possibly be unconstitutional because it has been in use for so long, I would point out that those same arguments are oftened used by conservatives to try to keep the Supreme Court from overruling laws and practices which have truly been around since the day this country was founded. So look for another argument, folks!
Try this example. The Constitution says that it takes a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto. The Constitution also, as you say, gives both the Senate and the House the power to adopt internal rules of procedure. And generally, those rules are adopted by majority rule. I hope you would agree that neither house of Congress could, by changing their internal rules with a simple majority, reduce the requirement to overrule a presidential veto to a simple majority from the constitutionally-mandated 2/3 majority. The issue with the filibuster is exactly the same, whether a house of Congress, by changing its rules, can fundamentally alter a vote requirement set by the Constitution.
And I don't think any less of you for having a differing opinion, because you express it rationally and without belittling me personally.
I do agree with you that the government went too far classifying Padilla and the Chicago case (which I have not previously heard of) as enemy combatants in those circumstances. I don't believe that either of those was actually taken to Guantanamo, however. Even the Afghani who was born in my hometown of Baton Rouge was transported out of Guatanamo to the continental U.S. after his U.S. birth was uncovered.
And I doubt that you will accept this as any more convincing than I will accept the ACLU as authoritative concerning the Patriot Act.
Always happy to have a rational conversation about honest disagreements.
/. who would have thought it possible?!?
Clinton was able to do welfare reform and balance the budget for the same reason that "only Nixon could go to China." No Republican could have successfully passed the type of welfare reform Clinton did, because they wouldn't have been trusted; everything they tried to do would have been denounced as uncaring, unfeeling, and inhuman.
I'm not a big fan of the Christian Coalition myself. But what really chaps me is when those on the unthinking left (not all the left, mind you, just the unthinking ones) use distate for the Christian Coalition to justify bashing all religion and all those who profess religious beliefs and allow those beliefs to occasionally influence their actions in the political spectrum and elsewhere. To me, that's just wrong, rude, and intolerant.
As for abortion, my personal opinion is that the reason it remains such a divisive issue is because it was not resolved in the realm of democracy, but was declared by judicial fiat. At the time of Roe v. Wade, many states had or were in the process of legalizing abortion. There's really no reason to believe that wouldn't have continued. But by telling the people that they had no right to vote and legislate on the subject, it caused a great deal of consternation on the part of those opposed to it. One of the reasons democracy works as a form of goverment is because even when people are unhappy with a particular result, they are more willing to accept it when they had a voice in the process. But the people didn't have a voice in the Court's decision, so they continue to raise heck about it.
I agree that the issues you raised are important, but I don't think by any stretch that all the blame for not addressing them can be laid at the feet of the right. Take health care. Clinton failed miserably at it because: 1) he let a powerful but un-elected and un-fireable person run it; 2) she ran it in complete secrecy; and 3) there is no indication it would have been anything other than a nationalized health system like in Canada or the United Kingdom, which have substantial problems of their own.
I am unhappy with our relations in the world today, but I do not automatically assume those are our fault. If you read carefully, you will see that France did not oppose the Iraq war because it disagreed about the evidence of WMD, or because it disagreed that Saddam was a serious threat to stability. It opposed us because it does not like American power, period. It has its own geopolitical desires for power, its own beliefs in the shape the world should take, and it doesn't want us having such a big role in them. Take that big poll that was announced the other day, the one that showed that the rest of the world wants Kerry over Bush. A very large majority of those foreign people who said they wanted Kerry also said that they generally wanted a WEAKER United States. So they perceive Kerry as someone who will reduce U.S. strength. I'm not for that at this point in history.
I'm with you on IP reform, and I wish the Democrats would adopt a consistent position on the side of sanity. I don't approve at all of Senator Hatch and his over-zealous drive to protect copyrights at all costs. But not all Republicans are with him on that, and the Democrats have not united on a particular alternative approach, either.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the Democrats right now is that they have ENTIRELY conceded any credibility in the foreign policy realm by becoming the anti-war at any cost party. There are good Democrats with strong defense credentials (Joe Lieberman comes to mind, as does former Senator Sam Nunn, even Joe Biden who I don't really like), but the biggest, most visible base of the Democratic Party today are the Hollywood liberals and the anti-war activists.
I do thank you for the opportunity to have a civilized discussion on
Well, if you go back and check, you'll see that there were designated "free speech zones" back in 1996 at both the DNC and RNC national conventions. And if Bush had anything at all to do with it, why would he allow so many protestors in New York and clamp down on them so hard at the DNC? Also, remember that the reason they started coming about in the 90's was because of the violent anarchist protestors who caused serious disruption to a wide variety of major events, especially global economic summits, during that time period.
I'm just not as worried as you are about a few prisoners in Guatanamo or Iraq feeling humiliated after trying to blow up our troops, not to mention innocent Iraqis.
Overtime laws have not been revoked, just modified and simplified a bit. Before these changes, some poor schmuck making $18,000 a year could have been stuck doing unpaid overtime if the corporate powers-that-be could find a way to classify him as a managerial employee. Now the rule is simpler, and says that if you make less than a certain amount, you get overtime, regardless of your job description.
I'm not nearly as opposed to unions as many Republicans, but you do understand that there's an economic reason that many jobs are going oversees, don't you? Part of that reason is the relatively high wages in the United States compared to the rest of the world. If companies can't modify the wages here to lower costs, they will, whether you like it or not, simply ship jobs elsewhere, to a place they can pay wages which are a LOT lower.
Depends on how you define "protestor". Protestors who block the public streets, attack police, purposefully coat themselves with scents which will cause explosive dogs to alert, these are not legitimate protestors exercising their right "peaceably to assemble".
And on the caption of the woman being comforted, it says there was concern because her daughter was going into labor back in Austin while she was in jail. Well, if she was that concerned about her daughter in Austin, what was she doing in New York City to begin with?
As for the "Free Speech Zones", those were in front of the Democratic Convention, in the Democratic-controlled city of Boston, practically the home town of Senator John Kerry. I didn't see such limited zones in front of the Republican convention in New York City, which has a Republican mayor and a Republican governor. Kind of shoots down your tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
I don't accept your premise that Republicans are "dead set" against civil liberties. The left keeps shouting that, but the actual evidence of it is in very short supply (evidence that the law is substantively that different than it was before the Patriot Act). There are legitimate differences of opinion over details, but that doesn't mean that all those who support the Patriot Act, for example, are against civil liberties.
There is a difference between asserting that Saddam provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda operatives (it is pretty undisputed, I believe, that they harbored at least one, although there is some debate as to whether that guy was in a part of Iraq controlled by Saddam or not), and asserting that Iraq helped Al Qaeda with 9/11. Please provide even a single link to any statement by the president or senior administration officials accusing Saddam of having helped with 9/11 itself.
As for civil liberties, I'm just not concerned about the people in Guantanamo, who were detained on a BATTLEFIELD. That doesn't mean that they forfeit all rights as human beings, but it does mean that all the procedural niceties like access to a lawyer don't need to apply right away. And for the Patriot Act (which has nothing at all to do with Guantanamo), please identify which provisions, exactly, you believe allow new things to be done by the FBI without judicial oversight? Almost all of the most controversial provisions of that Act do nothing more than extend what the FBI could do in, say, anti-Mafia investigations to terrorism investigations. So again, I don't accept your premise that the Patriot Act has done what you say.
As for the bigger picture, you and I just disagree on our evaluation of the threats we face and the likely reaction of different parts of the world to different actions by our country. That's fine, we're both entitled to our opinions. There are no magic balls out there to predict the future. I see the world the way I described, so that's why I'm voting for President Bush. You see it differently, so you certainly should vote for somebody else.
Congress and public opinion did. Had he succeeded in getting Congress to pass the law, though, it would have all been quite constitutional. Bad idea, but constitutional.