They still think Andrew Sullivan counts as some sort of conservative.
That would be the same Andrew Sullivan showing the mindless stupidity of trying to legitimize the utterly loathsome idea of questioning whether or not Sarah Palin's 5th child is actually hers (the loons on the left think it's her oldest daughter's...keep it classy Kossacks!).
First things first, Ross Douthat takes a delightful hammer to Sullivan for acting like such a wanker.
Second, this is what people who are actually conservative think about Sarah Palin:
17,000+ today for the McCain-Palin rally outside of St. Louis, according to a Secret Service magnetometer count provided by the campaign.As one veteran of Missouri politics said, that's the sort of crowd usually seen in October for a president -- not in August for a candidate.
It's also a record-best for McCain.
Yes, yes, it's just about a routine crowd for Obama. But there is perhaps no better indicator of how Palin is helping McCain close the enthusiasm gap than the number of people showing up the past two days in Pennsylvania and Missouri.
Also this, from Jonathan Martin's coverage of her unveiling in Ohio:
I've been covering the GOP presidential race since November of 2006. In those many months -- across many states -- I have never seen a crowd with the energy that I witnessed yesterday at the Erwin Nutter Center in Dayton, Ohio.
Palpable, bursting enthusiasm from Republicans for...an event with John McCain at the head of a GOP ticket.
Our liberal friends are missing the boat.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 31, 2008 08:31 PM | Email ThisWell I find the behaviour of going after a 13 yr old girl to hurt her mother poltically is beyond the pale. I have sent this link, under the subject line DISGUSTING to everyone on my email list. I'm certain it will upset my Uncle in his 70's, outrage my Aunt, offend the Nun and my cousins in their 60's and my nephews in college.
YOU people need to do the same. It is up to us to show America who these lefties are, because they won't find out on their own. We need Kansas and Cleveland and Hershey and Butte and Provo and Clearwater and Reno and Boulder and Sioux City to KNOW what they are electing out of habit!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 31, 2008 08:52 PMI hope they choke on their own venom....
Maybe if they looked into the mirror, they would see a reflection...... Perhaps not....
Posted by: Chris N on August 31, 2008 09:46 PMI dug this up from several years ago, an e-mail you sent to me. You appeared to be taking a principled moral and ethical stand about equality, favoring that over what might make the most legalistic sense.Posted by: pudge on August 31, 2008 09:54 PMBut now you are favoring legalistic sense about whether there might possibly be something to this completely baseless rumor OVER morals and ethics.
I am calling you on your bull, and will keep this in mind the next time you try to convince anyone your interest in gay marriage is based on morals and ethics.
Cheers.
On Oct 29, 2002, at 7:58, Andrewmsullivan@aol.com wrote:
chris
there's a lot to what you say. in principle i think i agree with you. but as a practical matter, civil marriage is not going to disappear, with the m-word and all. my concern is formal civil equality. which is where, i think, we agree, all best
andrew
By this stage he could only be described as a complete tosser.
Posted by: jmcconnell on August 31, 2008 10:09 PMRemember back in January, when they wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html
Politics and Misogyny
If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football.
Little attention is being paid to the toll that misogyny takes on society in general, and women and girls in particular.
Its forms are limitless. Hard-core pornography is a multibillion-dollar business, having spread far beyond the stereotyped raincoat crowd to anyone with a laptop and a password. Crowds of crazed photographers risk life and limb to get shots of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears without their underwear. At New York Jets home games, men regularly gather at Gate D to urge female fans to expose themselves.
What do you bet this guy thinks there is suddenly no more misogyny since Friday, and now it's ok for Biden to make comments about looks instead of debating the issues with a woman...?
Oh, anybody heard the one about Chelsea?
You people are disgusting.
Posted by: generalissimo mussolini on September 1, 2008 12:28 AMYOU, Sir, hit the proverbial nail on the head. Many people, perhaps millions, vote Dimocrat out of habit. Elders are voting for FDR, others for JFK. They need to be shown that these Dims are not your father's Dems.
During the mid-90's, my parents (now passed on) needed only a few days of conservative talk radio to realize they were, in fact, Republicans! And to many elders, this is a horrible thought! The party of Hoover?
The truth is the Dimocrat Party's platform no longer represents working class families. Radical feminism, homosexual marriage, environmental extremism, business-stifling regulation, oppressive taxation and massive welfare programs are not what many people believe they are voting for when they hit the lever or darken the circle.
The problem is many people still get their news from the MSM. More and more are learning the truth, as evidenced by the demise of the New York Times and other "news"papers, as well as network TV "news" programs. We need to wake up a few more million and send the Pelosi socialists packing.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 1, 2008 07:20 AMI truly think the GOP wants America to fail.
Don't tell me. She will be able to look into her friend Putin's eyes, and get a sense of his soul right? If there weren't so many people suffering in this country, that would have been funny.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 1, 2008 07:38 AMAmerica understands they are entirely frauds and only want to hold onto power by any means, and could not give a sh*t about our nation's future, or standing in the world.
Fake Christians. Fake conservatives. Warmongers. Hypocrites. Crooks. Today's GOP.
Their brightest stars represent only more of the same disastrous greed based policies.
It's over.
You heard it here first.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 1, 2008 07:49 AMA con talking about fairness, or integrity? Ever heard of Ann Coulter? Swift Boat paid liars? Karl Rove? Jerry Faulwell? Pat Roberts? Newt? DeLay? The list is long.....
I remember Pickens offering money to anyone that proved them to be liars, and when they were proven to be liars, he wouldn't pay up.
Why is it most of your party's leaders are either in prison, going to prison, or belong in prison?
I respect Governor Palin. She is probably a fine confused woman. Maybe she will still have time to canoe to the north pole to prove global warming is a myth!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 1, 2008 07:58 AMBest entertainment in an election yet.
Posted by: Handy Randy on September 1, 2008 08:09 AMFor starters, we could talk about the fact that anthropogenic global warming IS NOT a fact. The UN's own IPCC has said so, repeatedly, and have never said the opposite.
But this is typical leftism. Even when science doesn't back them up, even when they cannot prove their case, you're a moron if you don't agree with them.
"....driven the lefties absolutely bat-shit-frothing-at-the-mouth insane...."
And for examples of this, look no further than posts 16, 17, & 18 above.
So keep on babbling, "All Lies", as you're just making it easier for us.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 1, 2008 08:37 AMBut I'm going to be fascinated with how the right spins everything now that we know whose baby belongs to which mother. If she were a liberal, you'd be saying that this was an example of "bad parenting".
Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2008 09:33 AMBut do you think that this fake baby story was a useful plant to soften the blow of the real story?
Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2008 09:37 AMA stark contrast from most liberal families who would abort the child and if not, the dad would be long gone with a dust cloud behind him...the liberal way, cowardly til the end.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 1, 2008 09:53 AMBut on the left, the real definitions are obscured by the political correctness. It's only diversity if they say it is diversity. It's only free speech if it fits within Fairness Doctrine guidelines.
This is the primary reason why I am on the right. The absurdity and unhingedness of the left is simply breathtaking.
And you are damned right that I impressed by a woman like Palin who doesn't fit the leftist stereotypes that an aspiring woman must be a Democrat, etc. That's precisely the appeal that so many will see.
I encourage the left to continue on this tack. It will guarantee us a win in November.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 1, 2008 09:55 AMAt the same time, a Democrat Presidential candidate gets a woman (not his wife) pregnant and denies it. The woman gets support not from the baby's father, but. from a wealthy democrat donor
Looks to me like the moral high ground is still safe..........
Posted by: diamondshards on September 1, 2008 10:06 AMThis Family had to publically announce the pregnancy of their 17 yr old unwed daughter, just to squash a HATE FILLED rumor from the left from getting bigger.
This took alot of GUTS and GRIT !!
Sarah Palin proves once and again that she has the EXPERIENCE (now dealing with teenage pregnancy on a very personal level) to deal with anything those DC Insiders decide to throw her way!!!!
Posted by: Chris N on September 1, 2008 10:12 AMOne is a smarmy sot from Deleware that has been in D.C. since 1972....Hope? Change? Hardly. Barack's training wheels:
Joe Yeltsin....err Biden
and finally, a political reformer from the state of Alaska, Sarah Palin
The question independents have to ask themselves is do you want real change in Washington or not? A relic that has been around the beltway since sarah Palin was 8 years old and needs to get plowed with alcohol before introducing his running mate or a real reformer that has actually made executive decisions in her life?
The choice is clear my friends.
Sorry... I'm not even sure why I asked. As a leftist, what you EXPECT her to do is to have the baby and go on welfare, while living in government housing.
As for that "doing it," doing what, exactly? As giddy as that kind of thing makes the leftist scum infesting us, the fact is that her daughter's poor judgment no more reflects on, or hurts Palin then Cheney's lesbian daughter hurt HIM.
I sincerely, honestly hope that the empty suit/stuffed shirt campaign bring it up... and often. I'm PRAYING then say something about it in the debates.
I know the leftist bottom feeders at moveon and kos are foaming at the mouth over behavior many of them engage in every day without giving a second thought, but now, perhaps, the left will see the impact of mainstreaming immoral behavior and character.
The very thing that is the hallmark of the scum of the left will be the same thing that will mute the impact of the daughter's pregnancy to nothing. This is, indeed, a prime example of being careful what you ask for.
Posted by: hinton on September 1, 2008 10:25 AMThis too will pass but not before the left makes so much noise that they end up showing the country once again what a bunch of crybabies they really are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 1, 2008 10:28 AMNo, the fools on the right seem to think that they are the exceptions to their own rules. That makes you folks hypocrites.
Cheney's not some kind of monster for having a lesbian daughter... but he's a hypocrite for actively courting the votes of people that think that she's a second-class citizen. Palin isn't a hypocrite for having her last baby... but she's unworthy of being a policymaker if she denies other mothers the same choice. She is a hypocrite, though, if she caters to a crowd that believes that sex before marriage is a sin and abstinence-only education is the only option for kids, when her high school aged daughter is pregnant.
Believe what you like... and for every second-tier Democratic presidential candidate you can bring up to "prove your point", I can certainly provide counterexamples.
Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2008 10:37 AMThe Deleware, D.C. Dinosaur, Drunkard or the Alaskan reformer?
Posted by: Rick D. on September 1, 2008 10:49 AMdemo kid: riiiiiight, the Palins have a plant at the dailykos. What drugs are you smoking?
And now Markos of the DailyKos is trying to tell people that this reflects on her lack of sex education: typical leftist, thinks that education can only happen when government does it. What a cretin.
This was a week before McCain tapped Palin as his veep.
Time after time Democrats get full of themselves and think the whole electorate will swallow their "hope and change" lets screw big corporations and their evil stock market rhetoric. They don't get that most Americans outside of the cities where liberals tend to congregate don't to want to stuff their families into useless little cars, can't bring their crops to market on public transit, and don't want to drive 55.
But they wouldn't know that because most of them wouldn't be caught dead in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or even Eastern Washington.
I think you might want to get the address of Obamas church and listen to his mentor/preacher, and attend services right away.
You will then see how Obama plans on dealing with america's problems.......
G@d dam america......
Posted by: Chris N on September 1, 2008 11:04 AMAFSMP: it's not just the GOP that is contributing to the failure of our government, it is the Democrats as well.
The failure of our government will not be because of national healthcare or another invasion per se, it will be because of the destruction of our currency and the bankrupting of our nation.
All empires end because of financial crises.
I don't care what party you are in, if you perpetuate the idea that the government can solve our problems, be it through invasions of 3rd world coutries or massive entitlement programs, you are contributing the destruction of our government.
The Consitution is a document of limits. It explicitly demarcates the boundaries of the federal government. Article 1, section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress (and no the "general welfare" clause wasn't intended to and does not give Congress unlimited power, see Federalist 41). The 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution clearly state that all other rights vest with the people and the states.
We would be wise to force the federal government back within its Constitutional boundaries before the world financial system does it for us.
There is another, just as important reason to drastically reduce the Federal Government: the expansion of the Federal government has been and is the main cause of the "culture war". Forcing everybody into a single values system under (unconstitutional) federal laws and common-laws (SCOTUS decisions) that regulate social values has divided our nation. Take Roe v. Wade for example, "true conservatives" (dare I say Ron Paul Republicans and Mike Gravel Democrats) are against the decision not out of a desire to outlaw abortion, but out of want to return contentious social issues back to the states where they belong. As long as it remains the final work on the abortion issue, the main channel of our political discourse will always be focused on the extremes of the issue--defending infanticide and completely banning it--simply for the fact that both sides will use fear to further their cause.
Alabamans and Californians, Maineiacs and Texans, Idahoans and Kansans, even Washingtonians and Alaskans are all different people with different values. And that is perfectly OK. That's how it was and is *supposed* to be. The federalist system designed by our forefathers, and embodied in the Constitution, skillfully and wisely preserves the culture and sovereignty of the individual states.
Our perversion of federal power and the erosion of our local identities is eroding our soul as a nation. We're weaker monetarily, socially, militarily, and most of all morally because of it. Freedom and liberty brings tolerance and peace. Totalitarianism brings fear, resentment and violence. We will never earn back the world's respect as long as we continue to pretend we're free.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 11:05 AM#40, "SO MUCH FOR FAMILY VALUES." She just left out the "nyah, nyah, nyah" part.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 1, 2008 11:11 AMWow! You're more naive than I expected! If you don't think that more of this is neatly choreographed by the campaigns than we are led to believe... you're probably not paying attention.
Does that mean that this specifically was the case here? Who knows. But I don't think that you can discount the idea out of hand. Both of these operations are far more complex than you or I can see just from news reports.
And now Markos of the DailyKos is trying to tell people that this reflects on her lack of sex education: typical leftist, thinks that education can only happen when government does it. What a cretin.
At the risk of sounding crass, that is exactly true. If people are actually concerned about reducing teen pregnancy, either all parents need to be very up front with sex education, or schools need to provide some information to their students. It's disingenuous for Republicans both to object to abortion, and to withhold support from the policies to keep kids from getting in situations where they might need one.
Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2008 11:20 AMYou made politicians' personal lives a deciding factor in their elections. Now you will fall by the sword you have wielded. Maybe someone out there actually has the wherewithal to draw a lesson from this, and no, it's not "execute a better cover-up".
Posted by: tensor on September 1, 2008 11:23 AMIn the meantime, Biden's drunken appearances are directly related to the duties of VP and whether he's fit for the position.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 1, 2008 11:29 AMWhat is wrong is you or other people's insistence that we adhere to your beliefs. Abusing government to force people to live like you want is called totalitarianism. It is the opposite of liberty. AFSMP, freedom is hard, it means you have to tolerate people who you completely, and utterly disagree with.
That said, I understand your fear though. You're afraid that if McCain and Palin win, that the federal government will drastically shift to the right, and not without cause, there are potentially 3-4 SCOTUS appointments coming up. The political beliefs you hold dear could soon be outlawed, unsupported, and/or overturned at the federal level.
However, I think you're misplacing your ire and energy. You should not be lashing your tongue at Republicans to try to elect Democrats with hope that it will preserve your values system. You should be focusing on reducing the Federal government so that swings in party control at that level have little to no affect on the realities of your daily life. People of both parties should be pushing for that, if for no other reason that to limit the power of the other party.
But, there are some "progressive" leftists who see the all powerful Federal government as the way to force their ideals and to "fix" this country. I warn you though, that blade cuts both ways. We could just as easily wind up with your worst nightmare, a Christian theocracy, just as easily as a "green", "progressive", socialist government. It all depends on who's ahead after the final round of free elections. If things continue as they are, at some point, we will have one last round of free elections before plunging into Mexican style one-party rule propped up with perpetually rigged elections.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 11:34 AMPalin has been entirely honest, her daughter is keeping the child and apparently marrying the father. Much ado about nothing.
The left and its media is going to shriek about "family values". My guess a media attack on Palin over this will backfire.
Of course it's really about the hatred leftists have for Christianity. There are other religions that as a routine practice arranged marriages and are stridently anti-abortion. But leftists are careful not to bring that subject up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 1, 2008 11:40 AMYour dichotomy is false. We liberals would have the government teach real sex-education, not Christian-fundie lies about abstinence. We would oppose terrorism with effective, legal means, not illegal wars and wiretaps. We would strengthen our country via better veterans' benefits, not payments to mercenaries like Blackwater.
"There's nothing wrong about having a personal belief in creationism, abstinence-only education, and preventing the destruction of unborn babies."
But there is something very, very un-American with using the force of big government to ram those beliefs down our throats. Especially if the government officials doing this repressive work never enforce these same policies on themselves or their own families.
Posted by: tensor on September 1, 2008 11:46 AMIf whack jobs from other religions start passing laws in the United States to take away people's freedoms to impose their morality on us, then we'll bring it up. Until then, I think we'll just focus on the groups that are the most likely threats to freedom in this country.
Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2008 12:48 PMNo, you are a useful idiot. It was a perverted act out of anger by the progressives (from the Huff Post) with no principles, who don't care about the truth - as long as the desired result is obtained and keep throwing mud.
I don't want laws passed to outlaw abortions any more than I want laws passed for Universal Health Care...
I said: "What is wrong is you or other people's insistence that we adhere to your beliefs. Abusing government to force people to live like you want is called totalitarianism. It is the opposite of liberty. AFSMP, freedom is hard, it means you have to tolerate people who you completely, and utterly disagree with."
You said: "But there is something very, very un-American with using the force of big government to ram those beliefs down our throats."
I completely agree with you on half of your point. I is un-American to use the force of big government to create an unconstitutional national healthcare system. It is un-American to force "card check". It is un-American to force creationism teaching. It is un-American to force abstinence-only sex education.
The other half that I disagree with you on is the fact that you first stated that "We liberals would have the government teach real sex-education, not Christian-fundie lies about abstinence."
I'm assuming that by "the government" you mean the Federal government. If so, THAT is as much of an abuse of Federal power as banning abortion would be. Considering that the Federal government has no Consitutional power to do any of that.
The part about fighting terrorism and veterans benefits is however a Constitutional power of the Federal government. BTW, suspending the writ of habeas corpus is too.
Tensor, it is anti-liberty to take the position of "I'd have the Federal government implement my social policy ideas because they're better". No matter where you land on the political spectrum, I will fight you politically every step of the way if you take that position.
All social issues were intended to be dealt with at the state level because they are closer to the people and are much more vulnerable to torch and pitch fork voter riots.
Albamans and Californians are different people with different values. So are Vermontans and Oregonians, Kansans and Alaskans, Floridians and Georgians. Allowing the Federal government to try to force us into a single set of social values through unconstitutional federal laws or federal common laws (SCOTUS decisions) is what has caused the "culture war". People on both sides are scared to death that the other side will force them to live by their social standards.
As long as we have a bloated federal government, we will continue to have such venomous political discourse which will eventually lead to totalitarianism and violence.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 02:04 PMIt all stems from a Federal government that is too large, and all of you are afraid of the other side of taking control over the Federal government and imposing their morality on you.
demo kid pointed out that "If whack jobs from other religions start passing laws in the United States to take away people's freedoms to impose their morality on us, then we'll bring it up."
But demo kid, assuming you support abortion rights, Roe v. Wade was an abuse of Federal power that forced your morality, the pro-abortion morality, onto the people who see abortion as a violent act. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion, it would put the issue back into states hands where it belongs.
The Constitution puts social issues firmly in the hands of the States for a reason. I personally know my city councilman, mayor, and state representatives. If they're fucking, I'll go to their house, knock the door, and politely let them know how I feel. If they continue, I'll run against them or volunteer for the campaign of their opponent.
demo kid, image if Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow and your state representative was pushing for and complete ban on all abortions in your state. Wouldn't you want to have a word with them? You could actually do that. They readily appear at local farmers markets, county fairs, etc. I guarantee you that they live a short drive or bus ride away. You could have a personal affect on the way your state decides to regulate abortion. You could contribute to creating your own sphere of social values and nobody from any other state could force you to live otherwise.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 02:29 PMSomebody get Biden another scotch...
I'll bet he isn't drinking Yukon Jack this week.
Posted by: Handy Randy on September 1, 2008 02:32 PMThat's garbage. You could just as easily say that individual states could pass anti-miscegenation laws under that same logic. There is a need to ensure that there are certain rights and liberties protected at the national level, that matter of national concern that cross state boundaries are addressed, and that there is a sufficient safety net present regardless of where you live.
@64: The dude doesn't drink. (And I'd like to see what condition you'd be in after a grueling campaign schedule.) Bad try with starting an Internet rumor.
And again, an example of frickin' hypocrisy... never quite saw anyone object at the times when it seemed like Bush was drunk. ("Choking on a pretzel", anyone?)
Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2008 06:42 PMWow! You're more naive than I expected! If you don't think that more of this is neatly choreographed by the campaigns than we are led to believe... you're probably not paying attention.
Yawn. Calling someone naive is not a substitute for argument or evidence.
Does that mean that this specifically was the case here? Who knows. But I don't think that you can discount the idea out of hand.
I can, and I do.
If evidence to the contrary arises, I will reconsider.
At the risk of sounding crass, that is exactly true.
If you mean that this pregnancy is the result of her lack of sex education, then you're lying, as Markos is. We know you are lying, because we know that you and Markos know that you and Markos have not the faintest idea what sort of sex education she received.
If you mean government has to do it, then you are either lying, by your own admission: you admit it doesn't have to be the government, that parents can do it.
It's disingenuous for Republicans both to object to abortion, and to withhold support from the policies to keep kids from getting in situations where they might need one.
That's like saying, "it's disingenuous to object to murder, and then withhold support for policies that might lead to people needing to murder, like not giving people enough free cocaine." Yes, what I wrote sounds like nonsense, because it is just like what you wrote.
demo kid, though, I do agree that abortion is properly a federal decision. We cannot have the Bill of Rights apply to "the people of the United States" and then not have the federal government decide what is, and is not, a person.
Duffman:
I simply meant that MSM would destroy her now in the eyes of the public.
Not remotely. Indeed, this will just make her seem like more of a real person who has to deal with the same problems as everyone else, every day, and does so with grace and humility.
tensor:
We liberals would have the government teach real sex-education
Yeah, pretty damned despicable. I love this slogan: "Keep the government out of my bedroom! But put it in my KIDS' bedroom!" It's one of the sickest things I've ever heard.
not Christian-fundie lies about abstinence
Ummmmmmmm. It's a "lie" that you can be abstinent? Or it's a "lie" that abstinence will protect you from becoming pregnant or getting sexually transmitted diseases?
We would oppose terrorism with effective, legal means, not illegal wars and wiretaps.
There was no illegal war, in fact. And the wiretaps were done under your liberal godfather Bill Clinton, so you undermine that argument entirely.
We would strengthen our country via better veterans' benefits, not payments to mercenaries like Blackwater.
Um. Those are two completely unrelated things. You know that, right?
But there is something very, very un-American with using the force of big government to ram those beliefs down our throats.
Right, un-American to ram OUR beliefs down anyone's throats, but perfectly American to use the force of government to ram YOUR beliefs down everyone's throats. Do you actually read what you write?
Especially if the government officials doing this repressive work never enforce these same policies on themselves or their own families.
Ah yes, the insane liberal mantra that the greatest sin of all is the sin of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if you have sex with a page, as long as you don't try to hide the fact that you're a pedophile! So Gerry Studds good, and Mark Foley bad!
Conservatives tend to think that while hypocrisy is bad, it is not even worth mentioning when there's other actual failings in people's actions to worry about.
I doubt McCain can dump her, but perhaps she will bow out by citing the need to protect her pregnant daughter.
Posted by: Anon on September 1, 2008 08:43 PMIt's none of my business if they're fucking...although I should hope they are at least once in a while ;-)
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 09:35 PM"There was no illegal war, in fact. And the wiretaps were done under your liberal godfather Bill Clinton, so you undermine that argument entirely."
Um, in fact there is. Only congress has the right to declare war. Any act of aggression with our military is an act of war and without declaration of war by our congress, it technically is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Just because Bill Clinton did it doesn't mean that George Bush could or should. They were both wrong. The Consitution and is *extremely* clear on this. Amendment IV states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Any wiretapping without a warrant, issued by a judge, based on probable cause for a specific time and place, is unconstitutional and *illegal*.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 09:46 PMdemo kid, you said, "That's garbage. You could just as easily say that individual states could pass anti-miscegenation laws under that same logic."
Ok, so let's pick this apart shall we. Anti-miscegenation laws, like all segregation, poll tax and general "jim crow" laws are unconstitutional because they directly violate both the due process principle and equal protection principles embodied in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution and backed up by the SCOTUS Loving v. Virginia decision.
Roe v. Wade however was justified under the made up "right of privacy". The fourth amendment only protects against unwarranted searches and seizures, the fifth and fourteenth just say you have to be treated equal in the eyes of the law. The Constitution does not establish a "right of privacy". Besides, it is a *much* stronger argument that the equal protection clause in fourteenth amendment, section 1 protects the life of the unborn by preventing the federal government or the states from passing laws that allow their lives to be terminated.
Since the Constitution is not perfectly clear on this social issue, it should be left to the states to decide. That's the only way we'll get a compromise that will make the most people happy. Sure a handful of states will outright ban all abortions (e.g. North Dakota, Alabama, Utah) and just as many that will completely legalize it (e.g. California, New York, Oregon) but the most will strike some compromise that the majority of us can live with such as legalizing abortion for 1st term pregnancies and pregnancies resulting from incest, rape, or pregnancies that would otherwise be medically risky for the mother.
demo kid, as a liberal, I don't know why you wouldn't want this. Roe v. Wade has utterly destroyed the Democratic party since it's decision. It forces liberals to defend all types of abortions, even abortions such as partial birth abortions that most people find to be abhorrent. Having a liberal stand up and say, "we should be able to pull the baby out breathing and crying and then drown it in a bucket" just hurts the liberal cause.
To be fair, there are some crazy positions "Republicans" take that I wish they wouldn't because it just hurts the conservative cause (e.g. Creationism, abstinence-only, etc). But, that's only bad when combined with the liberal position against school choice and voucher programs. If we had vouchers, then the far-right Christians can screw up their kids by sending them to Madrasas and the far-left can condition their kids into Marxists in their own "alternative" schools while the rest of us send our kids to the schools with teachers that actually have to be good to keep their jobs.
Liberty frees the majority from the tyranny of the extreme-left and right that dominates our political policies these days.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 10:20 PMThe idea that the state has established a licensing system for a religious practice is completely unconstitutional. However the state does have a regulatory interest in the civil assets and liabilities of two people entering into a life partnership. In my perfect world, the state would provide a simple civil contract that binds people to a legal framework for sharing monetary, tax and property assets and liabilities as well as provides for power of attorney, child custody, and inheritance rights. That way, the state regulates what it has a legitimate interest in and leaves the rest up to religious freedom.
Marriage is something you do in church. The state has no business regulating it. If you disagree with me, then ask yourself why the state doesn't tax churches. Or why doesn't the state regulate the ordaining of religious leaders? It is because they are religious functions just like marriage.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 10:41 PMUm, in fact there is.
No, there neither was, nor is, an illegal war.
Only congress has the right to declare war.
Correct. And war was not declared.
Any act of aggression with our military is an act of war
You may call it an "act of war," but calling it that does not mean that war has been declared. If you think so, you're wrong. I defy you to show anywhere in our law that backs this claim up.
In fact, our history clearly shows the opposite. Our very first war after the Revolution was "The Undeclared War" with France. Both sides used aggression with their navies. It was not considered by either side that they were actually at war, and thank goodness: we would have been crippled politically and financially by an actual declared war with France.
War declarations are political acts entirely separate from military acts. You can have either one without the other.
You are claiming a widely held myth, but there is no truth to it. I have many, many times asked people -- mostly Paul supporters -- to give me a shred of evidence that says that we must have a war declaration before using the military aggressively, or that such use is a de facto declaration of war. No one has ever done so.
You're wrong.
Just because Bill Clinton did it doesn't mean that George Bush could or should.
I agree. However, I was responding to the claim that "liberals don't do that." I was not saying it was right, only that Democrats DO do it. Context matters!
Though technically not in a document establishing laws, this statement is a founding principle of our republic. We should not criticize Sarah Palin for being inspired by our own Declaration of Independence.
Posted by: blindman on September 1, 2008 11:26 PMUnfortunately, those arguments hold no water whatsoever. They were perfectly Constitutional and authorized by Congress. The "quasi-war" with France started on July 9th, 1798 when Congress passed a resolution granting reprisal by the U.S. Navy against French privateers who had been attacking American shipping during the prior months. That is a Constitutionally granted power of Congress (see Article 1, Section 8). The same happened with the Barbary Pirates after several captures of American vessels led to the enslavement of Americans.
The Constitution is a document of limits that enumerates an exhaustive list of powers explicitly granted to our federal government. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the President the power to engage our country into a military conflict. It only requires that the President take an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It does not require the President order the military directly into a conflict to defend the Constitution.
The only mention of military engagement power is in Article 1, Section 8 where it states that "The Congress shall have the Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" No war can be waged except for that which is explicitly granted by the constitution. The only war powers granted by the constitution are in Article 1, Section 8.
Pudge, you and I disagree on the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution. The intent of the founding fathers documented in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, plus the record from the drafting sessions, plus the very words of the Constitution itself, plainly describe the document as an exhaustive list of enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The federal government has no powers other than those explicitly listed in the Constitution.
The last clause of Article 1, Section 8 supports this view. So does the ninth and tenth amendments. So does Federalist 41 and the record from debates over the executive powers and congressional powers at the Constitutional convention.
Posted by: blindman on September 2, 2008 12:07 AMYou're right about the fact that Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps by executive order, just like Bush did after 9/11. There is one key detail that makes all the difference:
with Clinton's executive order, they had to show probable cause to a FISA court, which follows the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of the Constitution being an arguably unconstitutional "executive order" and all. But, under Bush's executive order, the judicial oversight requirement was removed, which should have been stricken down under Amendment IV arguments.
it's getting late so my arguments are getting fuzzy, to make it perfectly clear though, you said, "War declarations are political acts entirely separate from military acts. You can have either one without the other."
You may have a declaration without hostilities but you cannot have legal hostilities without a declaration of war or a congressional letter of marque and/or reprisal. Hostilities between the US Navy and France did not begin until Congress authorized reprisals in 1798.
Posted by: blindman on September 2, 2008 12:32 AMIt is not a lie. ACORN are Marxists. They are fundamentally anti-capitalist, and push to have government take from everyone else to give to poor people.
blindman: They were perfectly Constitutional and authorized by Congress.
First, you said there needed to be a declaration of war. You are admitting to me that there was not. I cannot imagine how you think this helps your case.
Second, Iraq was authorized by Congress, just like those conflicts.
Nowhere does the Constitution grant the President the power to engage our country into a military conflict.
And Bush did not do so on his own. Congress approved it.
Pudge, you and I disagree on the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution.
I am obviously correct: nowhere does it say a declaration of war is required. And you seem to agree with me that you were wrong and I am right, that a declaration of war is not required.
You may have a declaration without hostilities but you cannot have legal hostilities without a declaration of war or a congressional letter of marque and/or reprisal. Hostilities between the US Navy and France did not begin until Congress authorized reprisals in 1798.
First, you're now changing the goalposts. You said a declaration of war was required, now you say it is not.
Second, no letter of marque or reprisal was granted. Those do not apply to the President, but to private citizens. However, if you like to think of those as applying to the President and having been granted in 1798, then fine: then the same thing was granted in 2002.
So you have completely undercut your own arguments that a. declarations of war are required and b. the Iraq war was illegal, because you seem to think that what Congress did in 1798 was legal, and what Congress did in 1798 was the same as what it did in 2002.
If I had to spend time smiling and nodding to to the left, I'd have to be loaded.
Posted by: Dan on September 2, 2008 09:06 AMPudge states ACORN are marxists. This is a false statement that Pudge makes knowingly. Pudge, you have no basis for this radical-right wing propoganda. You may not like the goals of the organization, but that doesn't make them "marxists." I have argued this other places with others here that throw out political terms to slander someone without understanding the meaning. For example, many equate Obama to being a socialist. This is a falsehood. If you look up what a socialist actually is, then you would understand. Likewise, Pudge, if you look up what a marxist is you would understand your lie. It would be like me calling you a white-supremist. To associate someone with a political philosophy, they need to ascribe to that philosophy, as I assume you don't subscribe to the white-supremist philosophy, so too, ACORN has nothing to do with ascribing to marxist (political) philosophy. If you want to make that association, then you might as well call Jesus a marxist, for his Sermon on the Mount. You might as well call the Jewish people marxist, for the Leviticus Law calls for the Year of Jubilee, where debts are forgiven and land is given back to its original owner.
As to you stance on Congress and war, you are proving to be very Clintonian in your definition. I didn't realize you were such a fan of Bill (depends what the meaning of is is) Clinton.
Posted by: tc on September 2, 2008 11:39 AMPudge states ACORN are marxists. This is a false statement that Pudge makes knowingly.
It's not false. It's true.
For example, many equate Obama to being a socialist. This is a falsehood.
No, it's not. He absolutely is a socialist.
If you look up what a socialist actually is, then you would understand.
False. You apparently don't know what a socialist is. Obviously, it's someone who believes in socialism, so let's ask Frederic Bastiat what socialism is, shall we?
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.
Likewise, Pudge, if you look up what a marxist is you would understand your lie. It would be like me calling you a white-supremist.
No, it would not be like that at all. ACORN actually IS Marxist ... and even if you disagree, they share most of the same core goals: anti-capitalist, pro-organized labor, pro-income redistribution, and so on. I share not a single core goal with White Supremacy. So no, your analogy is nonsensical.
To associate someone with a political philosophy, they need to ascribe to that philosophy
Exactly. ACORN is Marxist, and Obama is a socialist.
ACORN has nothing to do with ascribing to marxist (political) philosophy
Yes, they do. Exploitation of workers? Check. Alienation? Check. Class consciousness? Check.
If you want to make that association, then you might as well call Jesus a marxist, for his Sermon on the Mount.
tc, you obviously have never read the Sermon on the Mount, since nothing in there is remotely Marxist.
What gutter and what insults, tc? I didn't make Obama's VP nominee get into a drunken stupor and have him start singing "the villages" tune or liquor him up before his appearance with the Obama's on the other video. That was all Joe Biden's doing. Why shoot the messenger?
Instead of navel-gazing on Ms.Palin's family matters, you should be concerned with whether or not the DNC ticket's #2 is self medicating at night.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 2, 2008 02:26 PMI haven't looked at the details of the hiring/firing thing in Alaska, but that's fair game. It's part of her record, and it was vetted on McCain's part. So was the pregnancy for that matter. The garbage about McCain's vetting process by the left is just that, garbage.
Posted by: Palouse on September 2, 2008 03:34 PMSen. McCain and Rush Limbaugh both made "jokes" about Ms. Chelsea Clinton's looks. McCain's sterling, compassionately conservative "humor" even included a swipe at her parentage. (She was a teenager at that time -- maybe they were annoyed at her lack of child?)
Now we see what an "abstinence-only" education gets your child: a shotgun wedding and and a baby she cannot financially support. What's it like, knowing that Bill and Hillary practiced family values better than your politicians can?
Posted by: tensor on September 2, 2008 10:49 PMFirst, two wrongs don't make a right.
Second, you're lying. You have absolutely no basis on which to say what sort of sex education Bristol received.
Third: when did Bill Clinton have better family values? When he was getting a blowjob by an intern in the Oval Office? Are you just trolling, or are you really that self-deluded?