More than likely he gets community service and a nominal fine plus a book deal. That's the general course of events for celebrity causing crimes that don't end up with a dead body (and sometimes with ones that do end up with a dead body). This guy is going to be a cause celebre for a large number of people on the left which will assure he doesn't get the book thrown at him.
Most high schools don't teach civics. But they might be taught some SCOTUS cases in government. And chances are, most of them forget it promptly.
Like I said about not being able to come up with any Supreme Court decisions, it's possible she doesn't have a clue, it's possible she froze and just simply forgot.
As for the importance of being able to recite case law, it's very important for a lawyer, much less important for a governor or President largely because they have a large legal staff to lean on in regards to questions of Constitutionality. Would it be great if she were an expert on the Supreme Court?
Sure, but Palin isn't an experience pick, obviously. I think pertinent questions are: can she lead, does she have integrity, are her political beliefs congruent with yours. Not can she recite x number of SCOTUS cases she agrees or disagrees with. That's pretty far down the list on a VP candidate for me.
The Democrats are not the party of fiscal responsibility. At best they can change their motto to "Less irresponsible than those other bastards, maybe".
Budgets are ultimately dictated by Congress, not by the President. So Clinton deserves no credit for a budget he never advocated since the Republicans went to the wall time and time again to reign in his spending. Bush does deserve considerable blame for our current budget mess, however, as he has advocated a lot of economic policies that are just fucking stupid, like the unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, which despite it's fairly innocuous sounding name adds about $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the Federal ledger over an infinite horizon, which how the private sector has to account for expenses. The government though does it Dumb and Dumber style and writes an IOU and puts it in a suitcase where no one can see it.
I remember some belittling of Kaine on experience.
Kaine would've been a good pick on the surface, potentially helping Obama carry Virginia. His RKBA stance is a bit better than Obama's as well. Probably didn't mesh well with Obama's confiscatory tendencies.
The people in Chicago are apparently great judges of honesty and integrity when it comes to electing their officials. And so is Obama for standing by Daley through all the smears and lies propagated by the evil right wing attack machine.
The Democrats have about a 33% chance at getting a 60 seat veto-proof majority in the Senate. My guess is that if and when this comes to pass they will legislate their way into a permanent majority by basically outlawing dissent. You can see the direction this is heading with talk of bringing back the Fairness doctrine and the Obama campaign's attack on his critics when they go on talk shows and radio shows by threatening to get their FCC licenses revoked for hosting the critics. When they get a little more power, they won't have to just threaten.
Actually, the problem was the trooper was her brother in law and also threatened to kill Palin's father if he helped his daughter (Palin's sister) get a divorce from him. I think his words were something to the effect of "he'll eat a bullet".
By pointing out that Democrats have never restrained themselves when it came to spending.
You know that budget surplus that Obama is talking about that existed under Clinton? That budget was created by a Republican controlled Congress in direct opposition to the budget proposed by Clinton. The Republicans SHUT DOWN government over it.
The problem is, the 1990's Republicans were small government Republicans. The 2000's Republicans turned into a bunch of guys wanting to out-do Democrats by outspending them.
Pretty sad state of affairs, looks like we're going to need lube for both sides.
Did you even watch the interviews? The way I remember, her responses were complete and uninterrupted. Not what I would call "cut and splice" at any rate. The problem was she just didn't have a fucking clue what she was talking about.
Gibson interview most certainly was a cut and splice job.
I don't disagree that the tone of those interviews was a little hostile, but it's pretty excessive to call them "smear pieces." She made herself look like an idiot, because she has no idea what she's talking about
My personal belief is that she froze on some of those questions. She couldn't name any magazines that she read either. Do you really think she doesn't read any magazines?
She couldn't name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with. If you're a governor and you can't recite a list of Supreme Court cases that you dislike, that makes you uninformed and bad at your job.
We will have to agree to disagree. She's not a lawyer by trade, and unless she's been involved in pushing the litigation of a case while Governor, she wouldn't necessarily have any reason to have the in depth knowledge of the inner workings of the SCOTUS. And it's not necessary to be an effective governor since your job is executing the law passed by the legislature.
It's been shown numerous times that you can be dumb as a goddamned board and win elections, so I'll wait until I see a sign of her intelligence to believe it exists.
Sure, but usually those people who win having substantial backing by the powers that be. Palin didn't have that. She was opposed by the bigwigs in her party and by the Democrats.
As a card carrying member of the I dislike leftist politicians club, I have to say Bush got his clock cleaned in the debate against Kerry. He came across as whiny and petulant ("It's a hard job").
Make no mistake about it, Palin is smart. She did bad in one interview, but both the Couric and the Gibson interviews were hostile cut, splice, and smear pieces.
Keep in mind what Palin did to become governor. She defeated the incumbent Republican in the primary, then defeated a popular former Democratic governor during the general election. You don't do this by being some dumb broad who got lucky. And she's gone on to have a very high popularity rating in her home state.
Look up the Community Reinvestment Act and get back to me.
Forcing banks to give loans to sub-prime borrowers at interest rates below their inherent risk level is indicative of a command economy, not a free market.
Looking at your examples, I would agree. But you argue that government intervention was the problem, and then you argue that it was lack of government intervention that caused the problem.
Yeah, kind of funny isn't it?
De-regulation allowed the banks to grow "too big to fail" and to fuzzy the differences between commercial, retail, and investment banks.
Over-regulation with the Community Reinvestment Act and the like forced banks to make loans to sub-prime borrowers at below market risk rates.
Without the CRA, this doesn't happen. Without de-regulation, it doesn't happen either. This was idiocy compounded by more idiocy from a government intervention perspective.
Regarding socialism vs capitalism, the financial markets are heavily regulated due to the existence of central banks and "legal tender". The question is finding the goldilox formula of just enough government regulation. But, the whole "too big to fail" thing has to go, and if financial institutions represent natural monopolies unless otherwise regulated, then we need to regulate them that way failures are containable and small rather than systemic and catastrophic.
What happened in the US financial system was hardly an example of unfettered capitalism. It was government interference run amok, between the too big to fail categorization of banks, the government encouragement of unsound lending practices to sub-prime borrowers, and the dissolution of the regulatory controls that would've kept the sickness from spreading systematically through the system. This was almost entirely a government created mess, with the bankers (but not the free market) being accessories to the crime.
Lets see...Paulson, who did he work for before? Oh yeah, Goldman Sachs. Where did Clinton's SecTreas go after? Oh yeah, Chairman of City. Barney Frank's gay lover? Executive at Fanni Mae. These guys are attached at the hip to government power, in many cases, they are government power. Free market my ass.
It's typically a waste of time to try and refute the rambling ravings of the insane.
Example:
I'm also quite obviously better suited for that than any Republican supporters over the last several decades given that their policies have been geared toward the destruction of those rights.
I don't know what rights you hold near and dear to your heart, but last time I looked, it was Democrats that were waging full scale war on gun rights, free speech rights, the right to religious expression, private property rights.
but there are at least some who aren't running around spouting fascist slogans and screeching their hatred of America. That can't be said about Republicans, as their party doesn't offer anything else.
Last time I checked, there weren't any Republicans running around spouting "fascist" slogans and screeching their hatred of America. That seems to a Democratic thing, with the whole Leni Riefenstahl convention thing they had going along with a candidate that doesn't respect the national anthem ala (or is it allah?) Josh Howard.
As for the invasion of other people's privacy, yours or mine, or any one else's, no, I don't want the government in that business. In fact, I want the government involved in as little as possible. So, you're wrong on that account too. I'm not the one with cognitive dissonance that thinks it's ok to shred someone's life simply because I disagree with them politically like the folks on the left apparently believe.
As another poster stated, Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount.
Additionally, are we including the military votes that the Gore lawyers threw out in "all the votes" that had Gore winning?
Gore and the Democrats weren't interested in counting all the votes, just the ones that would lead to them winning.
And, in any event, Florida law states if the election results cannot be certified by a specific date, then it goes to the Florida legislature...which was Republican controlled. The democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court tried to step in and change election law on the fly, and this is what was shot down by the SCOTUS.
I fail to see really how the failures of 2000 were "catastrophic" in any sense of the word. Nobody died, the government didn't shut down, and there was a peaceful succession of power.
And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the kind of person who finds a dictionary definition like "socialist: of or pertaining to socialism" to be helpful.
No, but I find it amusing. Especially with folks that want to quibble over whether or not Obama is a socialist when he's a marxist through and through. Every single significant mentor he's had has either been a marxist or a radical from the Saul Alinsky branch of theory (which of course, is marxist). His grandparents, his mother, "Frank", Alice Palmer, Bill Ayers, Michael Phleger, Jeremiah Wright. Basically, ever significant figure that Obama bothers to name in his biography has a red pedigree.
Then how do you explain most of Europe? A pretty socialist bunch by comparison to the US, yet they seem to be getting along a whole hell of a lot better than we are.
Easy to explain. One, your premise is flawed. How, exactly, are they getting along "a whole hell of a lot better than we are"? Per capita GDP? Economic growth rate? Debt to gdp ratio? Life expectacy? Health care?
Secondly, the problem of American governance vs. European governance is a little bit different. The US has a population of over 300 million people, we span an entire continent, and we have a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic population. Most of Europe, in comparison, is small, homogeneous, and provincial in comparison. Something that works for Sweden isn't necessarily going to work or be appropriate for the US.
Thirdly, the socialism experiment is rapidly souring in Europe. In the sense that, it isn't really working long term. Europeans have burned through, in a generation, the surplus that their post-WW2 capitalist parents and grand parents accumulated. And now they are looking at having to import wholesale the next generation of workers to pay for their retirements. Socialism, as practiced by the Europeans, is a ponzi scheme that requires the next generation of suckers to keep paying. Only it doesn't work so well when the next generation is half the size of the current one because no one is having children. And this is without Europe having any significant stressors over the last 50 years. No wars. No famines. No revolutions. No social upheavals. And they still can't keep their heads above water.
In other words, you will make vastly more for 80 hours than for 30. But we're not going to let you starve to death in the street even if you can't work at all.
It's not about the people that can't work, it's about the ones that refuse to (who far outnumber the ones that can't) but still feel entitled to a high standard of living and access to the finer things in life that most people have to work very hard to obtain.
Well, given that it's a choice between everyday people running their own intelligence operations against the worst threat facing America
And, what, pray tell, would that be?
Let me guess, you think it's McCain and Palin. In other words, you are delusional, and from the remainder of your post, probably a little psychopathic as well. And obviously a fair arbiter of what is right and wrong and the perfect person for us to safeguard our rights.
So, Commissar Darby, what did the Revolutionary Council find that was so incriminating and treasonous in Palin's emails....
Nothing.
Call me crazy, but when you start trampling people's rights to privacy to protect your right to privacy, you no longer are the good guy you think you are.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say he doesn't want to vote for a socialist because he's not a socialist and doesn't believe in socialism.
Socialism doesn't work because of the moral hazard issue. The lazy get to profit off of the labor of the hard working. Sure, you lift the bottom up a little relative to everyone else, but the cost is destroying innovation and potential for growth.
If I'm going to make the same if I mail it in and work 30 hours or if I work 80 hours, guess what? I'm mailing it in...
One thing I have to say is that I wish the original person who had cracked the account had actually saved everything onto his hard drive and uploaded it to rapidshare before divulging the information. We had a huge opportunity to get all sorts of juicy info on Palin and it was thrown away by idiots, who only took a couple screenshots to 'prove' anything.
Let me guess though, you are one of those people that think the government shouldn't be reading people's emails? I am too, but then again, I also think if it's wrong for the government, it's wrong for every day people to be running their own intelligence operations also.
Slashdot Mirror
More than likely he gets community service and a nominal fine plus a book deal. That's the general course of events for celebrity causing crimes that don't end up with a dead body (and sometimes with ones that do end up with a dead body). This guy is going to be a cause celebre for a large number of people on the left which will assure he doesn't get the book thrown at him.
Most high schools don't teach civics. But they might be taught some SCOTUS cases in government. And chances are, most of them forget it promptly.
Like I said about not being able to come up with any Supreme Court decisions, it's possible she doesn't have a clue, it's possible she froze and just simply forgot.
As for the importance of being able to recite case law, it's very important for a lawyer, much less important for a governor or President largely because they have a large legal staff to lean on in regards to questions of Constitutionality. Would it be great if she were an expert on the Supreme Court?
Sure, but Palin isn't an experience pick, obviously. I think pertinent questions are: can she lead, does she have integrity, are her political beliefs congruent with yours. Not can she recite x number of SCOTUS cases she agrees or disagrees with. That's pretty far down the list on a VP candidate for me.
The Democrats are not the party of fiscal responsibility. At best they can change their motto to "Less irresponsible than those other bastards, maybe".
Budgets are ultimately dictated by Congress, not by the President. So Clinton deserves no credit for a budget he never advocated since the Republicans went to the wall time and time again to reign in his spending. Bush does deserve considerable blame for our current budget mess, however, as he has advocated a lot of economic policies that are just fucking stupid, like the unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, which despite it's fairly innocuous sounding name adds about $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the Federal ledger over an infinite horizon, which how the private sector has to account for expenses. The government though does it Dumb and Dumber style and writes an IOU and puts it in a suitcase where no one can see it.
I remember some belittling of Kaine on experience.
Kaine would've been a good pick on the surface, potentially helping Obama carry Virginia. His RKBA stance is a bit better than Obama's as well. Probably didn't mesh well with Obama's confiscatory tendencies.
A few points.
It's not abuse of power to fire someone that serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Secondly, the trooper in question was making threats of killing Palin's father.
There's a reason why neither Wooten nor Monegan have sued for wrongful termination.
The people in Chicago are apparently great judges of honesty and integrity when it comes to electing their officials. And so is Obama for standing by Daley through all the smears and lies propagated by the evil right wing attack machine.
Wait until the Democrats get in.
The Democrats have about a 33% chance at getting a 60 seat veto-proof majority in the Senate. My guess is that if and when this comes to pass they will legislate their way into a permanent majority by basically outlawing dissent. You can see the direction this is heading with talk of bringing back the Fairness doctrine and the Obama campaign's attack on his critics when they go on talk shows and radio shows by threatening to get their FCC licenses revoked for hosting the critics. When they get a little more power, they won't have to just threaten.
Actually, the problem was the trooper was her brother in law and also threatened to kill Palin's father if he helped his daughter (Palin's sister) get a divorce from him. I think his words were something to the effect of "he'll eat a bullet".
By pointing out that Democrats have never restrained themselves when it came to spending.
You know that budget surplus that Obama is talking about that existed under Clinton? That budget was created by a Republican controlled Congress in direct opposition to the budget proposed by Clinton. The Republicans SHUT DOWN government over it.
The problem is, the 1990's Republicans were small government Republicans. The 2000's Republicans turned into a bunch of guys wanting to out-do Democrats by outspending them.
Pretty sad state of affairs, looks like we're going to need lube for both sides.
Did you even watch the interviews? The way I remember, her responses were complete and uninterrupted. Not what I would call "cut and splice" at any rate. The problem was she just didn't have a fucking clue what she was talking about.
Gibson interview most certainly was a cut and splice job.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
Leftist...you know, someone that advocates left-wing economic and social policy.
The only person that wouldn't see Kerry as a leftist would be a maoist or a leninist. Good for you for outing yourself.
I don't disagree that the tone of those interviews was a little hostile, but it's pretty excessive to call them "smear pieces." She made herself look like an idiot, because she has no idea what she's talking about
My personal belief is that she froze on some of those questions. She couldn't name any magazines that she read either. Do you really think she doesn't read any magazines?
She couldn't name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with. If you're a governor and you can't recite a list of Supreme Court cases that you dislike, that makes you uninformed and bad at your job.
We will have to agree to disagree. She's not a lawyer by trade, and unless she's been involved in pushing the litigation of a case while Governor, she wouldn't necessarily have any reason to have the in depth knowledge of the inner workings of the SCOTUS. And it's not necessary to be an effective governor since your job is executing the law passed by the legislature.
It's been shown numerous times that you can be dumb as a goddamned board and win elections, so I'll wait until I see a sign of her intelligence to believe it exists.
Sure, but usually those people who win having substantial backing by the powers that be. Palin didn't have that. She was opposed by the bigwigs in her party and by the Democrats.
As a card carrying member of the I dislike leftist politicians club, I have to say Bush got his clock cleaned in the debate against Kerry. He came across as whiny and petulant ("It's a hard job").
Make no mistake about it, Palin is smart. She did bad in one interview, but both the Couric and the Gibson interviews were hostile cut, splice, and smear pieces.
Keep in mind what Palin did to become governor. She defeated the incumbent Republican in the primary, then defeated a popular former Democratic governor during the general election. You don't do this by being some dumb broad who got lucky. And she's gone on to have a very high popularity rating in her home state.
Why does the first thing that comes to mind after reading just this headline, make me think of that one episode on Star Trek Voyager
Because you are a nerd.
Look up the Community Reinvestment Act and get back to me.
Forcing banks to give loans to sub-prime borrowers at interest rates below their inherent risk level is indicative of a command economy, not a free market.
Looking at your examples, I would agree. But you argue that government intervention was the problem, and then you argue that it was lack of government intervention that caused the problem.
Yeah, kind of funny isn't it?
De-regulation allowed the banks to grow "too big to fail" and to fuzzy the differences between commercial, retail, and investment banks.
Over-regulation with the Community Reinvestment Act and the like forced banks to make loans to sub-prime borrowers at below market risk rates.
Without the CRA, this doesn't happen. Without de-regulation, it doesn't happen either. This was idiocy compounded by more idiocy from a government intervention perspective.
Regarding socialism vs capitalism, the financial markets are heavily regulated due to the existence of central banks and "legal tender". The question is finding the goldilox formula of just enough government regulation. But, the whole "too big to fail" thing has to go, and if financial institutions represent natural monopolies unless otherwise regulated, then we need to regulate them that way failures are containable and small rather than systemic and catastrophic.
What happened in the US financial system was hardly an example of unfettered capitalism. It was government interference run amok, between the too big to fail categorization of banks, the government encouragement of unsound lending practices to sub-prime borrowers, and the dissolution of the regulatory controls that would've kept the sickness from spreading systematically through the system. This was almost entirely a government created mess, with the bankers (but not the free market) being accessories to the crime.
Lets see...Paulson, who did he work for before? Oh yeah, Goldman Sachs. Where did Clinton's SecTreas go after? Oh yeah, Chairman of City. Barney Frank's gay lover? Executive at Fanni Mae. These guys are attached at the hip to government power, in many cases, they are government power. Free market my ass.
It's typically a waste of time to try and refute the rambling ravings of the insane.
Example:
I'm also quite obviously better suited for that than any Republican supporters over the last several decades given that their policies have been geared toward the destruction of those rights.
I don't know what rights you hold near and dear to your heart, but last time I looked, it was Democrats that were waging full scale war on gun rights, free speech rights, the right to religious expression, private property rights.
but there are at least some who aren't running around spouting fascist slogans and screeching their hatred of America. That can't be said about Republicans, as their party doesn't offer anything else.
Last time I checked, there weren't any Republicans running around spouting "fascist" slogans and screeching their hatred of America. That seems to a Democratic thing, with the whole Leni Riefenstahl convention thing they had going along with a candidate that doesn't respect the national anthem ala (or is it allah?) Josh Howard.
As for the invasion of other people's privacy, yours or mine, or any one else's, no, I don't want the government in that business. In fact, I want the government involved in as little as possible. So, you're wrong on that account too. I'm not the one with cognitive dissonance that thinks it's ok to shred someone's life simply because I disagree with them politically like the folks on the left apparently believe.
As another poster stated, Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount.
Additionally, are we including the military votes that the Gore lawyers threw out in "all the votes" that had Gore winning?
Gore and the Democrats weren't interested in counting all the votes, just the ones that would lead to them winning.
And, in any event, Florida law states if the election results cannot be certified by a specific date, then it goes to the Florida legislature...which was Republican controlled. The democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court tried to step in and change election law on the fly, and this is what was shot down by the SCOTUS.
I fail to see really how the failures of 2000 were "catastrophic" in any sense of the word. Nobody died, the government didn't shut down, and there was a peaceful succession of power.
And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the kind of person who finds a dictionary definition like "socialist: of or pertaining to socialism" to be helpful.
No, but I find it amusing. Especially with folks that want to quibble over whether or not Obama is a socialist when he's a marxist through and through. Every single significant mentor he's had has either been a marxist or a radical from the Saul Alinsky branch of theory (which of course, is marxist). His grandparents, his mother, "Frank", Alice Palmer, Bill Ayers, Michael Phleger, Jeremiah Wright. Basically, ever significant figure that Obama bothers to name in his biography has a red pedigree.
Then how do you explain most of Europe? A pretty socialist bunch by comparison to the US, yet they seem to be getting along a whole hell of a lot better than we are.
Easy to explain. One, your premise is flawed. How, exactly, are they getting along "a whole hell of a lot better than we are"? Per capita GDP? Economic growth rate? Debt to gdp ratio? Life expectacy? Health care?
Secondly, the problem of American governance vs. European governance is a little bit different. The US has a population of over 300 million people, we span an entire continent, and we have a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic population. Most of Europe, in comparison, is small, homogeneous, and provincial in comparison. Something that works for Sweden isn't necessarily going to work or be appropriate for the US.
Thirdly, the socialism experiment is rapidly souring in Europe. In the sense that, it isn't really working long term. Europeans have burned through, in a generation, the surplus that their post-WW2 capitalist parents and grand parents accumulated. And now they are looking at having to import wholesale the next generation of workers to pay for their retirements. Socialism, as practiced by the Europeans, is a ponzi scheme that requires the next generation of suckers to keep paying. Only it doesn't work so well when the next generation is half the size of the current one because no one is having children. And this is without Europe having any significant stressors over the last 50 years. No wars. No famines. No revolutions. No social upheavals. And they still can't keep their heads above water.
In other words, you will make vastly more for 80 hours than for 30. But we're not going to let you starve to death in the street even if you can't work at all.
It's not about the people that can't work, it's about the ones that refuse to (who far outnumber the ones that can't) but still feel entitled to a high standard of living and access to the finer things in life that most people have to work very hard to obtain.
You really should re-read your last post. You come across as a stark-raving mad semi-incoherent lunatic.
Well, given that it's a choice between everyday people running their own intelligence operations against the worst threat facing America
And, what, pray tell, would that be?
Let me guess, you think it's McCain and Palin. In other words, you are delusional, and from the remainder of your post, probably a little psychopathic as well. And obviously a fair arbiter of what is right and wrong and the perfect person for us to safeguard our rights.
So, Commissar Darby, what did the Revolutionary Council find that was so incriminating and treasonous in Palin's emails. ...
Nothing.
Call me crazy, but when you start trampling people's rights to privacy to protect your right to privacy, you no longer are the good guy you think you are.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say he doesn't want to vote for a socialist because he's not a socialist and doesn't believe in socialism.
Socialism doesn't work because of the moral hazard issue. The lazy get to profit off of the labor of the hard working. Sure, you lift the bottom up a little relative to everyone else, but the cost is destroying innovation and potential for growth.
If I'm going to make the same if I mail it in and work 30 hours or if I work 80 hours, guess what? I'm mailing it in...
One thing I have to say is that I wish the original person who had cracked the account had actually saved everything onto his hard drive and uploaded it to rapidshare before divulging the information. We had a huge opportunity to get all sorts of juicy info on Palin and it was thrown away by idiots, who only took a couple screenshots to 'prove' anything.
Let me guess though, you are one of those people that think the government shouldn't be reading people's emails? I am too, but then again, I also think if it's wrong for the government, it's wrong for every day people to be running their own intelligence operations also.