He became a 'millionaire' because he wrote a couple memoirs? Huh? So writing a couple memoirs is a 'get rich quick' scheme that we should all engage in, it isn't a way for the politically connected to siphon in some green?? Well, then, I guess we should all write our memoirs.
Well, we could always get rid of our legal system and go back to might makes right. Probably wouldn't work out so well for most of us here on/. though.....
I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.
You aren't wasting your vote but if you live in a battleground state you really ought to consider the broader ramifications. Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now? Do you really think that he would have alienated all of our Allies?
You say your sick of people telling you that you are 'wasting' your vote -- I'm sick of people telling me that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are too beholden to corporate interests but there are differences on extremely important issues.
I've voted third-party myself when both major party candidates suck (as recently as the 2006 NYS Comptroller election) but I really don't think this is one of those times.
Congress and the Senate wield far more power than the President
Umm, can I have some of what you are smoking?
One of the first phrases out of Peloski's mouth was that impeachment was off the table
Please tell me what the point of impeachment would be when we lack the votes in the Senate for a conviction. Or should we really go through another charade with a predefined outcome that divides the nation and distracts us from our problems?
Obama, even if he meant well could never buck the big business party or either of it's right wings
Well, I disagree with you that he could never buck them (POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the World) but that notwithstanding would you rather have a President that agrees with the big business party and spent the last twenty years helping to dismantle the regulatory structure?
This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office
I disagree. We've already made the Executive Branch much more powerful than the Framers intended it to be. Signing statements, refusals to testify, appointments to un-elected Federal agencies that can impose laws (err, "regulations") on the citizenry, warfare without a declaration, international agreements that don't need to be ratified by the Senate, trade agreements that don't need input from Congress, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You really want to make the Executive even more powerful? Are you nuts?
Well, for starters Obama has (from the very beginning -- read Audacity of Hope) decried the deregulation that got us into this financial mess and been in favor of restoring some of the regulations that have been gutted over the last 16 years.
Both candidates have the details of what they intend to do up on their webpages. The only thing you can do is view those details and take their history into account when deciding how much you believe them (i.e: seems odd that McCain recently embraced regulation after spending two decades opposing it). If you are looking for "details" in the stump speeches or television advertisements you are going to be pretty disappointed though.
Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers? Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer)?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.
Umm, Lincoln's suspension was provided for by the Constitution:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
In any case, I'm not a big fan of the "ends justify the means" arguments. FDR might have pulled us out of the depression (though, WW2 was arguably the final catalyst for that) but the same arguments that he used to defend his policies are the ones that the Government is now using to go after medical marijuana patients.
Somehow I don't think the writers of the Constitution envisioned the commerce clause being used to regulate what I can put into my own body....
Too bad Gore was more interested in recounting the votes in the counties that he thought he would do well in instead of recounting them in every county.
Frankly, that's a pretty damning indictment of the Florida state government
Fixed that for you.
the U.S. Supreme Court made all of the votes in Florida meaningless while pretending to protect them
The argument was that each county was applying different standards during the recount, hence it was a violation of equal protection. I don't like the way it turned out either but that argument has a fair amount of merit and even some of the liberal justices agreed.
20 years from now, you might hear the French and Germans complain "these American immigrants are stealing our jobs!"
Why not... they are already whining about the Muslim immigrants. People who think the United States isn't welcoming should take a look at how some of the EU nations treat immigrants.....
Acts of Congress can't overrule SCOTUS rulings of a Constitutional Nature. If SCOTUS says I have a right granted by one or more parts of the Constitution, how exactly does Congress overrule that? If they could I think we'd see a nastier debate on abortion and flag burning (just to name two issues).
The Democrats were the ones leading the charge against her. DailyKos was the first to allege that Sarah Palin is NOT the Mother [dailykos.com] (although they have since removed this story, since it's both libelous and embarrassing to the DailyKos)
Umm, I'm a Democrat and let me just say that Dailykos doesn't speak for me or even a majority of Democrats. Dailykos is populated by hyper-partisan far-left-wing closed minded nutjobs who have more similarities with the hyper-partisan far-right-wingers than they'd care to admit.
and lest you forget what the partisan breakdown of the media is, here's a reminder: bias [mediaresearch.org]
Oh please. There are obviously biased outlets within the media but as a whole the only bias the media has is the one that sells the most copy. They'd be running with the exact same headlines if Obama had picked someone like Palin and you know it....
You're right that the issues, policy vision, and judgment should have been the center of the attacks. They weren't, to the measurable detriment of the Democrats, as reflected in the polls.
I think that's only half the story. A lot of the polling seems to be driven by Palin-mania and the convention bump more than anything else. It's slowly trending back towards the pre-convention baselines where it will likely remain until the debates. Barring unforeseen events (terrorist attack/Osama gets captured/etc) the debates will likely be the last thing that moves the polls much in either direction.
And you will then get leaders who can't get candid advice from their staffers, who will instead pander to the dumb public, rather than telling their bosses what they need to hear. And you'll get bad governors and bad government.
I agree. There should be some element of Executive Privilege. Wouldn't you also agree though that the Executive shouldn't be using a third-party e-mail address for official Government business?
There are many substantive policy issues upon which one could attack Palin, instead she was attacked personally and her family was made the center of attention
And why are you blaming this on the Democrats? Obama isn't the one who dragged her family onto the public stage -- that was the media looking to sell copy. Obama condemned it as I recall.
The big threat the democrats keep speculating about is how inexperienced Palin will be if she is called up to the presidency, schizophrenically trying to ignore that by voting for Obama they're guaranteeing someone with an inexcusable dearth of experience will be the president
Have you watched the two of them speak? I'm not so worried about "experience" -- it's a bullshit argument to be making (Lincoln was one of our least experienced Presidents.... how'd he work out?). I am worried about judgment -- and anybody that talks so casually about war with Russia scares the hell out of me.
But now, everyone is sort of conditioned into accepting miranda and the right to a public attorney, so by the time older Republicans were -finally- in a position to overturn it
Given that Miranda was a SCOTUS ruling how exactly would the Republicans "overturn" it, short of a Constitutional Amendment?
Why the hell can a phone company get away with that (charging you for unauthorized calls)? My credit card has given me protection against unauthorized charges as long as credit cards have been around....
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, he was raised in Hawaii, by his white grandmother, who was a Bank Officer. That isn't close at all to 'the black experience' in growing up.
Yeah, sounds more like the American experience to me. The horror!
He became a 'millionaire' because he wrote a couple memoirs? Huh? So writing a couple memoirs is a 'get rich quick' scheme that we should all engage in, it isn't a way for the politically connected to siphon in some green?? Well, then, I guess we should all write our memoirs.
So now we hate authors too?
No, but they are still lawyers.
Well, we could always get rid of our legal system and go back to might makes right. Probably wouldn't work out so well for most of us here on /. though.....
I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.
You aren't wasting your vote but if you live in a battleground state you really ought to consider the broader ramifications. Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now? Do you really think that he would have alienated all of our Allies?
You say your sick of people telling you that you are 'wasting' your vote -- I'm sick of people telling me that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are too beholden to corporate interests but there are differences on extremely important issues.
I've voted third-party myself when both major party candidates suck (as recently as the 2006 NYS Comptroller election) but I really don't think this is one of those times.
It's rather pink of you to take sides in the charade
It's rather pink of you to call our democratic process a charade.
Congress and the Senate wield far more power than the President
Umm, can I have some of what you are smoking?
One of the first phrases out of Peloski's mouth was that impeachment was off the table
Please tell me what the point of impeachment would be when we lack the votes in the Senate for a conviction. Or should we really go through another charade with a predefined outcome that divides the nation and distracts us from our problems?
Obama, even if he meant well could never buck the big business party or either of it's right wings
Well, I disagree with you that he could never buck them (POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the World) but that notwithstanding would you rather have a President that agrees with the big business party and spent the last twenty years helping to dismantle the regulatory structure?
This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office
I disagree. We've already made the Executive Branch much more powerful than the Framers intended it to be. Signing statements, refusals to testify, appointments to un-elected Federal agencies that can impose laws (err, "regulations") on the citizenry, warfare without a declaration, international agreements that don't need to be ratified by the Senate, trade agreements that don't need input from Congress, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You really want to make the Executive even more powerful? Are you nuts?
Change what exactly? Details please
Well, for starters Obama has (from the very beginning -- read Audacity of Hope) decried the deregulation that got us into this financial mess and been in favor of restoring some of the regulations that have been gutted over the last 16 years.
Both candidates have the details of what they intend to do up on their webpages. The only thing you can do is view those details and take their history into account when deciding how much you believe them (i.e: seems odd that McCain recently embraced regulation after spending two decades opposing it). If you are looking for "details" in the stump speeches or television advertisements you are going to be pretty disappointed though.
Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from the employees of large corporations than John McCain.
Fixed that for you.
Obama is just another lawyer
Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers? Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer)?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.
OMG! Green leafy vegetables! How did it come to this? How can someone who eats rabbit food be this close to the White House?
Umm, Lincoln's suspension was provided for by the Constitution:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
In any case, I'm not a big fan of the "ends justify the means" arguments. FDR might have pulled us out of the depression (though, WW2 was arguably the final catalyst for that) but the same arguments that he used to defend his policies are the ones that the Government is now using to go after medical marijuana patients.
Somehow I don't think the writers of the Constitution envisioned the commerce clause being used to regulate what I can put into my own body....
Recounting all the votes had Gore winning.
Too bad Gore was more interested in recounting the votes in the counties that he thought he would do well in instead of recounting them in every county.
Frankly, that's a pretty damning indictment of the Florida state government
Fixed that for you.
the U.S. Supreme Court made all of the votes in Florida meaningless while pretending to protect them
The argument was that each county was applying different standards during the recount, hence it was a violation of equal protection. I don't like the way it turned out either but that argument has a fair amount of merit and even some of the liberal justices agreed.
And that write-in isn't worth a warm bucket of piss if the candidate missed the deadline to file his slate of electors with the state.
Remember you aren't voting for McCain or Obama -- you are voting for electors.
You know that most different metrics of re-counting FL have Bush winning, right?
(And I'm the Democrat saying this....)
20 years from now, you might hear the French and Germans complain "these American immigrants are stealing our jobs!"
Why not... they are already whining about the Muslim immigrants. People who think the United States isn't welcoming should take a look at how some of the EU nations treat immigrants.....
Stupid, stupid supreme court justices.
Eh, FDR basically held a gun to their heads back in the day.
FDR is one of my heroes but I think that's one of the darkest moments of his presidency.
Act of Congress
Acts of Congress can't overrule SCOTUS rulings of a Constitutional Nature. If SCOTUS says I have a right granted by one or more parts of the Constitution, how exactly does Congress overrule that? If they could I think we'd see a nastier debate on abortion and flag burning (just to name two issues).
The Democrats were the ones leading the charge against her. DailyKos was the first to allege that Sarah Palin is NOT the Mother [dailykos.com] (although they have since removed this story, since it's both libelous and embarrassing to the DailyKos)
Umm, I'm a Democrat and let me just say that Dailykos doesn't speak for me or even a majority of Democrats. Dailykos is populated by hyper-partisan far-left-wing closed minded nutjobs who have more similarities with the hyper-partisan far-right-wingers than they'd care to admit.
and lest you forget what the partisan breakdown of the media is, here's a reminder: bias [mediaresearch.org]
Oh please. There are obviously biased outlets within the media but as a whole the only bias the media has is the one that sells the most copy. They'd be running with the exact same headlines if Obama had picked someone like Palin and you know it....
You're right that the issues, policy vision, and judgment should have been the center of the attacks. They weren't, to the measurable detriment of the Democrats, as reflected in the polls.
I think that's only half the story. A lot of the polling seems to be driven by Palin-mania and the convention bump more than anything else. It's slowly trending back towards the pre-convention baselines where it will likely remain until the debates. Barring unforeseen events (terrorist attack/Osama gets captured/etc) the debates will likely be the last thing that moves the polls much in either direction.
And you will then get leaders who can't get candid advice from their staffers, who will instead pander to the dumb public, rather than telling their bosses what they need to hear. And you'll get bad governors and bad government.
I agree. There should be some element of Executive Privilege. Wouldn't you also agree though that the Executive shouldn't be using a third-party e-mail address for official Government business?
There are many substantive policy issues upon which one could attack Palin, instead she was attacked personally and her family was made the center of attention
And why are you blaming this on the Democrats? Obama isn't the one who dragged her family onto the public stage -- that was the media looking to sell copy. Obama condemned it as I recall.
The big threat the democrats keep speculating about is how inexperienced Palin will be if she is called up to the presidency, schizophrenically trying to ignore that by voting for Obama they're guaranteeing someone with an inexcusable dearth of experience will be the president
Have you watched the two of them speak? I'm not so worried about "experience" -- it's a bullshit argument to be making (Lincoln was one of our least experienced Presidents.... how'd he work out?). I am worried about judgment -- and anybody that talks so casually about war with Russia scares the hell out of me.
But now, everyone is sort of conditioned into accepting miranda and the right to a public attorney, so by the time older Republicans were -finally- in a position to overturn it
Given that Miranda was a SCOTUS ruling how exactly would the Republicans "overturn" it, short of a Constitutional Amendment?
or that another got re-elected despite having $200,000 in his freezer
Umm, can you really blame him? I mean, have you seen what's going on with the markets lately? ;)
Why the hell can a phone company get away with that (charging you for unauthorized calls)? My credit card has given me protection against unauthorized charges as long as credit cards have been around....
Except the cost of such material
Exactly. The cost of the material. The cost to build a studio, buy transmitting equipment and obtain that FCC license.
The GP seemed to be implying that RIAA gets royalties on such broadcasting equipment. Is that actually the case or not?
They want to make royalties not just on the content but also the the broadcasting hardware