Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,610 Responses
- ukit0
I think Ron Paul's message definitely has a future. I am right there with him when it comes to civil liberties and the overreach in foreign policy. But, you have to admit, the fact that he didn't run in the GE shows that he personally was more interested in keeping his job in Congress than in taking the opportunity to talk about some of those issues on the national stage. It was when someone started to run against him in the primary that he stopped campaigning and diverted his attention back to his Congressional race. Then we have Bob Barr, who is a libertarian in name only....when in Congress, he voted for the Patriot Act, Iraq War, and pretty much everything he now claims to oppose.
Ultimately, I guess I'm even more of a cynic than you third party folks. Running the most powerful bureacracy in the world is an inherently corrupting process, if you want to focus on the negative side of it. I don't see the motives of people like Paul and Barr as being necessarily more "pure" than those of Obama or McCain...they are just doing the same shit, to coin a phrase, from a smaller platform.
- tommyo0
all you care about is feminine hygiene
- tommyo0
Ron Paul ran until there was no way that the delegate count would allow him to run any further actually.
And yeah dude, Barr...yeah...not even going to type about that fool. I hope Paul runs as a Libertarian in 2012. He might even swing enough influence to kill the 2012 Olympic logo! Paul as a Libertarian in the next one could be huge.
- acescence0
hello preferential/rank voting, instant runoff? would solve all of our two party problems. will never happen though, because your choice is a carefully crafted illusion. THERE IS NO CHOICE
- TheBlueOne0
Ah, the abortion issue. Here's my take. I am more or less pro-choice intemperment. I get the arguments made by the pro-life people. They have points. Some good.
But quite honestly,I'm a national interest kinda guy when it comes to national voting and if legalized abortion went away tomorrow it wouldn't, IMHO, change much.Someone above made the argument above that then it woudl fall to states, which is probably true...
The deeper issue here with this issue is one of the key defining differences in Constitutional law - which is this- Is there an inherent Right to Privacy in the Constitution. Roe Vs Wade hinges on this exact point. Roe V Wade is important not because of the abortion issue but rather bc of the legallogic used to justify it. RvW stands on the issue that there is indeed a Right to Privacy implicit in the Constitution. That is the current law of the land.
Liberal and moderate justices tend to believe that Privacy is in the constitution - the "COnstitution is a living document" kind of thinking. The right wing "original text" guys do not (Think Scalia, Roberts, etc..). If RvW gets overturned, not only does that take abortion off the federal table of issues, but it challenges everyones Right to Privacy. Just stop and think about that one,especially in the context of what the US government just did under the guise of keeping us "safe from terrists". Many other cases have been ruled in many courts basedon what is and isnot said to be includedunder this implficit Right to Privacy. It all gets challengable then.
Oddly enough,and in this issue Scalia always cracks me up bc he is the height of rightwing hypocrisy - these guys all claim to be "strict constitutionalists",in other words if it's not explicitly written in the Constitution then it doesn't exist in the legal framework. However, Judicial Review by the Supreme Court is definitely NOT in the Constitution. It came into existence in 1803 in Marburry V Madison. Someone called Scalia on this once at a talk at a law school and he started laughing and said to the effect "Oh yeah, that stuff came later,but it's so good that we keep it." It's the absolute height of dishonesty and lack of intellectual rigor and integrity - but I always expect that from these rightwing reactionaries. "Yeah we get to say what is and is not law in this country based only on what this document says, however this document definitely does say we do not have the power to do exactly that, but fuck it, we'll do it anyway. Because we're dicks like that."
- colin_s0
my view on the abortion issue is pretty similar to my view on privacy, speech, and expression: the less government control on the fundamentals of choice, the better.
government oversight of policy is what a government is for. but having a bunch of lawmakers decide on women's rights (most of the lawmakers being men, especially), seems like a pretty wide gap in logic.
then again, it feels like a stretch that it's okay for warrantless wiretaps to be placed on the general public because someone out there might maybe be related somewhat to a potential terrorist.
mother fuckers.
- also i'm sort of glad that this issue took so long to come up, because usually it's 1st on the other side.colin_s
- half of aborted children are female, where are women's rights then ?mikotondria3
- GeorgesII0
a quick reminder
- Kidswift0
Just as apt today as it was then - sniff sniff we need you back Hicks
- ********0
what's intertesting is that Republicans are taking a sophisticated tack by claiming there really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, they both are corrupt, ineffectual in important ways, etc. In fact, they are the same.
This sophistry avoids accountability and responsibility very neatly by exploiting the malaise and distrust in government created by 8 years of republican misrule. The problem you see, is not how you are governed, but that you are governed.- governed = tax********
- They've done this for over a decade now.TheBlueOne
- governed = tax
- ********0
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Bailouts will do that and two wars, three hurricanes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro…
- ********0
Failure in short is success
- ********0
BENNETT: ...I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this... [I]t cuts both [ways]—you know. One of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is... that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well-
CALLER: -Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either,... But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
- TheBlueOne0
I'm just really pissed off - the stock market is rallying because the federal government is going to bail out all these free market jackholes with billions of tax payer dollars. The Bush Years - The No Accountability Years. So fucking hilarious that these guys who preach the morality of personal responsibility and dictate free markets have neither. I wish I could travel ahead a hundred years and read a history book about how fucking full of fail this decade will be remembered for.
- Amentommyo
- *pours tommyo a glass of single malt, neatTheBlueOne
- A friend blogged...jjoeth6
- "Well done, Wall Street. It's pretty clever how you've managed to socialize risk but privatize profit."jjoeth6
- It's like watching a losing football team celebrate cause they're still getting paid. It's pathetic.TheBlueOne
- I think this really has been a decade of greed, mostly in the last 6 years too. CEO's, Enron, Wall Street, Mortgage Ind.tommyo
- Oil. It's like they all went after their no-no piggy banks at the exact same time. No responsibility to the public. Very sad.tommyo
- jjoeth60
Sorry for the slow response to the libertarian/3rd party topic I brought up. Busy morning.
In response to tommyo, I agree with most of what you're saying about what's fucked up about the 2 party system. But, I'll use your comparison here...
"Imagine working on a project for a client that has two contacts that you have to deal with and they don't like each others ideas, but the guy who can round up enough people in the office to choose his idea wins."
Does adding a third contact person make that project go any smoother? Probably not.
- its not just 2 guys but two guys with 12 personalities all talking at the same time about one wallet.********
- its not just 2 guys but two guys with 12 personalities all talking at the same time about one wallet.
- robotron3k0
WTFFFFFF...! Haaaahaaahaaaaaa!!!!
- "They don't flag the molecules..." WTF?
TheBlueOne - good lord... i can't stand listening to her.kona
- I like how they cut that video right after the reporter looked as though she was going to explain what Palin said...tommyo
- Would it of made a difference?TheBlueOne
- Maybe what she said was more of an industry term? Why else would she say the molecule thing? She did seem flustered.tommyo
- Maybe not. But I just love when videos are edited without the rest of the story.tommyo
- I'm not standing up for her at all. In this clip she sounds like a 9 year old who put on dads work clothes.tommyo
- "They don't flag the molecules..." WTF?
- tommyo0
I think what I was getting at is the Us vs Them mentality makes them HAVE to dislike each others ideas. Obviously, the only way to make that scenario work is to have one contact. So it just seems to make sense that if you install a system that makes them work with each other and not have them diametrically opposed from day one, then maybe they can view problems and solutions with purity and not fisticuffs with violent party majority rule.
Dunno. I think the actor that played Cliff from Cheers wrote a book on third party dynamics. I should buy that.
- of course, some ideas are stupid that's a possibility.********
- of course, some ideas are stupid that's a possibility.
- TheBlueOne0
Since the other thread will get nuked, I just had to post this here:
- looks like stained glass7point34
- I think you guys are overreactingtommyo
- This is the greatest illustration of all timeukit
- awesome
sofakingbanned
- TheBlueOne0
Top 10 Reasons for McCain to Attack Spain
10) 1992 Summer Games: WORST. OLYMPICS. EVER.
9) Tapas.
8) Spanish Government banned illegal downloads of Cindy’s favorite album, Global House Diva, Volume 2: Live in Ibiza.
7) Immigrants flooding Texas and New Mexico. Can’t they manage their own border?
6) I WAS A POW I'LL ATTACK WHO I WANT. INCOMING!
5) "Compañero de Cuarto de Papa," the Spanish version of Daddy’s Roommate, rocketed to #4 on Spanish Amazon.
4) Sarah Palin saw it from the window of her plane to Kuwait and she just didn’t like what she saw.
3) “You rhyme the name of your country with my last name I’ll f--- you up.”
2) Pesky rule requiring America to defend the territorial integrity of fellow NATO allies elitist, sexist.
1) That trollop Penelope Cruz.
- jjoeth60
Since most of us designers are probably more responsive to pictures than numbers, you gotta love a well-made chart...
Tax Plans
